Reinforced Soil Structures

Author: Minimol Korulla

Date: 31-01-2024
List of Contents

FLOW OF THE PRESENTATION

▪ Introduction of Reinforced Soil Structure

▪ Components of RS Structure
▪ Different types of RS Structure & facia systems
▪ Specifications of Structural fill & Backfill materials as
per MoRTH Section 3100
▪ Reinforcement properties
▪ Case Studies
▪ Summary & Conclusions

2
Reinforced Soil
• Reinforced soil is a combination of soil and linear reinforcing
strips that are capable of bearing large tensile stresses.

• The reinforcement provided by these strips enable the mass to

resist the tension in a way which the earth alone could not. The
source of this resistance to tension is the internal friction of soil,
because the stresses that are created within the mass are
transferred from soil to the reinforcement strips by friction.
Reinforced Soil Retaining Structures

Reinforced Soil Retaining Structures are Reinforced Soil abutment

• Reinforced soil wall

• Reinforced soil abutment

• Reinforced soil slope

Reinforced soil structures with slope face angles steeper

than 70° are categorized as reinforced soil walls and those
with slope face angle less than 70° are considered as
reinforced soil slopes.

Reinforced Soil Wall Reinforced Soil Slope

4 Strettamente confidenziale
 COMPONENTS OF RS
STRUCTURE

5
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION OF REINFORCED SOIL WALL

Crash barrier Friction Slab

Pavement

Facing Panel Structural Fill Backfill

Drainage Composite
Reinforcement
Embedment
Depth Transverse Drainage Pipe

Levelling Pad
Foundation Soil

6
 All components conform to
2. Proposed solutions & advantages – Reinforced soil structure national and international codes

Geogrid Vegetated fascia

Geogrid as primary reinforcement

Gabion fascia

Drainage composite
Toe erosion
protection
Transverse and
longitudinal
Geotextile
drainage pipes
SYSTEM COMPONENTS

8
FACIA PANEL DETAILS

Standard T-Panel
Height 1.6 m
Top width 2120 mm
Bottom Width 1830 mm
Thickness 160 to180mm
Min. Grade Concrete M35

9
Components of Reinforced Soil Structures- Facia Elements

Components of Reinforced soil walls - Facing or Facia Elements

Soft Facia Flexible Facia units

(Wrap around system &
(Semi elliptical steel units, Steel welded /woven
Bagged Facing Units) wire mesh units, Gabion facing units)
Reinforcement: Geogrid
Reinforcement: Steel mesh or Geogrid

10 Strettamente confidenziale
Components of Reinforced Soil Structures- Facia Elements

Components of Reinforced soil walls - Facing or Facia Elements

Concrete Facia
Modular blocks Concrete Panels
Reinforcement: Steel ladder or
Geogrid Reinforcement: Geogrid, Polymeric Strips &
Steel Strips

11 Strettamente confidenziale
Components of Reinforced Soil Structures- Reinforcement

Components of Reinforced soil slope - Reinforcing Elements

• Metallic in the form of strips • Mats of metal • Synthetic reinforcement

(aluminum alloy strip, copper (steel grids, woven and (PET, HDPE, PVA, PP) reinforcement
strip, carbon steel strip, welded steel wire meshes) in the form of grid or strip or strap or
galvanised steel strip, stainless combination of metallic or
steel strip, ladder) synthetic

Metallic mesh reinforcement

12 Strettamente confidenziale
Reinforced Soil Structure Components

Chimney Drain/ Drainage Composite Filter Media

Drainage bay shall be provided as shown Drainage composite is made with

in the drawings. The width of the three-dimensional composite by
drainage bay shall be 600 mm behind the Thermo-bonding a draining core
Non Woven geotextile is a Polyster needle
facing element with two filtering UV stabilized
punched geotextiles as per MORTH Type – III
polypropelene nonwoven
geotextiles
& Type – I Geotextiles

▪ References: ▪ References:
▪ Chimney Drain : MoRTH Section 2504.2.2 ▪ Filter Media: MoRTH Section 700
▪ Drainage Composite IRC 34, MoRTH 700, IRC SP 59

13 Strettamente confidenziale
 Structural fill or Reinforced fill Specifications for Reinforced
Soil Structures from MoRTH Section 3100

Gradation Sieve Size Percent Passing

75mm 100
0.425mm 0-60
0.075mm <15
Plasticity Index (%) ≤6
Angle of internal friction (degree) ≥30

• Advisable to use granular fill material with fines (% passing 75 micron) less than 15%.
• The design of reinforced soil structure also depends on characteristics of retained fill material as well.
• Flyash or any other mechanically stabilized soil can also be used as fill material.
Reinforced Soil Structure Components - Reinforcement

High Strength Geogrid

The manufacturer of geogrids shall fulfill the following
requirements as per MoRTH Section 3100:

a) Shall have ISO (ISO-9001) or CE Certification for manufacturing

process and quality control

b) The product shall have certification for use as soil reinforcing

material from an agency accredited for certifying geosynthetic
reinforcement products
High strength geogrid as main
reinforcement
Double twisted wire mesh
(secondary reinforcement) c) The manufacturer shall provide test reports from an independent
laboratory with valid accreditation, for all the tests needed to
establish all the reduction factors listed below
RFCR - Reduction factor for creep
RFID - Reduction factor for installation damage
Green Facia RFW - Reduction factor for weathering
RFCH - Reduction factor for chemical/ environmental effects

*Reference: Ministry of Road Transport & Highway Standards (MoRTH)-Section 3100

15 Strettamente confidenziale
DRAINAGE ARRANGEMENT

Planning of a complete drainage work , designing , detailing and implementing at site – Fundamental to ensure safety .

Corrugated flexible steel

pipes shall be inserted
through the woven facia

1. Chimney Drain
2. Toe Drain
3. Long Drain at top
4. Long drain at bottom
2.Reinforced soil wall - Design

Step-1 Establish Geometric, Loading, and

Performance requirements for design

Geometric and loading requirements Performance requirements

• Slope Geometry- H, θ • External stability and settlement
• External (surcharge) loads: q, Δq, Am (refer • Sliding: F.S. ≥ 1.3
MORTH-Annexure to Section 3100) • Deep seated (overall stability): F.S. ≥ 1.3
• Project Specifications (MORTH/IRC specifications • Local bearing failure (lateral squeeze): F.S. ≥ 1.3
based on project)
• Dynamic loading: F.S. ≥ 1.1
• Traffic Barrier (refer MORTH-Annexure to Section
3100) • Settlement-post construction magnitude and time rate
based on project requirements
• Compound failure: F.S. ≥ 1.3
• Internal slope stability: F.S. ≥ 1.3

*Note: H=Slope Height, θ= Slope angle, q=Surcharge, Δq=temporary live load, Am = Design Seismic Acceleration

17 Strettamente confidenziale
2.Reinforced soil wall-Design

Step-1 Establish Geometric, Loading, and

Performance requirements for design

18 Strettamente confidenziale
2.Reinforced soil wall-Design

Step 2. Determine the engineering

properties of the in-situ soils

• The foundation and retained soil (i.e., soil beneath and behind reinforced zone) profiles.
• For failure repair, identify location of previous failure surface and cause of failure.
• Strength parameters for each soil layer of the retained soil and the foundation soil:
• Total / undrained soil strength parameters: cu and Φu, or effective /drained soil strength
parameters: c´ and Φ´ for each soil layer.
• γwet and γdry
• Consolidation parameters (Cc, Cr, cv and σ´p).
• Location of the groundwater table dw, and piezometric surfaces.

*Note: cu, Φu , c´, Φ´ = Strength parameters for each soil layer; γwet and γdry = Uni weight for each soil layer; Cc, Cr, cv and σ´p = Consolidation
parameters for each soil layer; dw,= Depth to ground water table in slope

19 Strettamente confidenziale
2.Reinforced soil wall-Design

Step 3. Determine the properties of

reinforced fill

• Gradation and plasticity index

• Compaction Results
• Compacted lift thickness
• cu and Φu, or c´ and Φ´ for each soil layer.
• Electro chemical properties of reinforced fill
- For geosynthetic reinforcement: pH
- For steel reinforcement: pH, resistivity, chlorides, sulfates, and organic content

*Note: cu, Φu , c´, Φ´ = Strength parameters for each soil layer;

20 Strettamente confidenziale
. Reinforced soil Wall-Method of Analysis

• Ultimate Limit State: external and internal stability

• Serviceability Limit State: settlement and deformations

• Partial Factors approach: Loads Factors (Load Combinations), Material Factors and Interaction Factors

*Reference: BS 8006 Part-1 2010

2.Reinforced soil slope-Failure modes

Failure modes

• Internal, where the failure plane passes through the reinforcing elements.

• External, where the failure surface passes behind and underneath the reinforced zone.

• Compound, where the failure surface passes behind and through the reinforced soil zone.

22 Strettamente confidenziale *Reference: BS 8006 Part-1 2010

2.Reinforced soil slope-Failure modes

External failure modes

a) b) c)

a. Reinforced Soil Wall

b. Sliding failure
d) c. Tilting failure
d. Bearing failure
e) e. Slip failure

23 Strettamente confidenziale *Reference: BS 8006 Part-1 2010

2.Reinforced soil slope-Failure modes
Internal failure modes

Pull-out
v

Failure Surface/Envelope

Rupture/Tear P
t

45-/2

• Pull-out failure occur because of insufficient adherence.

• Rupture failure occurs when Reinforcement reaches ultimate state.

24 Strettamente confidenziale *Reference: BS 8006 Part-1 2010
2. Reinforced soil Wall-Load Combinations

• Load Combination A: will govern the reinforcement tension and the bearing capacity
• Load Combination B: will govern the reinforcement pull-out, sliding along the base and overturning
• Load Combination C: will govern the Serviceability Limit States (settlement and admissible post contraction
deformations)

*Reference: BS 8006 Part-1 2010

2. Reinforced soil wall-Design Procedure

*Note: BS 8006 Part-1 2010

26 * Note: Similarly, for reinforced soil slopes design also, refer BS 8006 Part-1 2010 Standard.
 CASE STUDIES

27
Completed Reinforced Soil Wall Photographs from Projects

Multai-Chhindwara-Saonar section of NH69A Flyover at Panjagutta Junction

28
Flyover at KNR-Maduai
Completed Reinforced Soil Wall

29
Kiratpur – 4 laning project on hill road

The objective of this project is

• To improve the existing highway by carrying out widening
• To reduce the travel time

Client Project consultant EPC Contractor

30
. Case studies – Kiratpur Ner Chowk

Location – Kiratpur
Max. height – 28m
Fascia – Gabion & Vegetated
Gabions for lower heights
Geogrid as primary reinforcement
Construction 2015-16 CH 146+960
Construction by Maccaferri

Project features:
1) New alignment
2) Complex terrain
3) Use of locally available excavated
material
4) High retaining walls
5) Various chainages
6) Land constraints
7) Challenging working conditions
8) Heavy rainfall

Valley side reinforced soil structure (TMS+GTM fascia) after construction

 Valley side Gabion wall during construction
. Case studies – Kiratpur Ner Chowk

Valley side reinforced soil structure (Vegetated fascia) after construction

CH 135+700

CH 146+460
. Case studies – Kiratpur Ner Chowk

Reinforced soil structure (Vegetated fascia) after construction

Reinforced soil structure with culvert

CH 142+300 CH 145+600
 CONSTRUCTION OF A REINFORCED SOIL STRUCTURE
IN LATERITIC SOIL - A CASE STUDY OF THE
EXPANSION OF THE RUNWAY AT MANGALORE (INDIA)
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

CLIENT PROJECT CONSULTANT

EPC CONTRACTOR

TECHNOLOGY PARTNER

34
INTRODUCTION: Mangalore airport - A table-top runway

• Project Location: Bajpe, Mangalore city, Karnataka, India

• Earth retention wall system for runway extension CLIENT
• Max. Height: 40 to 50 m
• Length: 115 m
• Loads: Aircraft Dynamic loading, Seismic Zone III

PROJECT CONSULTANT

EPC CONTRACTOR

TECHNOLOGY PARTNER

35
SITE LOCATIONS

Location - 17 m High
Existing reinforced reinforced soil block
concrete wall –
4.5 m high
Location:
13 m High
reinforced
Location -13 m High reinforced soil block
soil block

36
PROJECT REQUIREMENT & CHALLENGES

Challenges Project requirements

Technical Considerations
• Red lateritic soil - most
• In situ fill material
dominant soil type in the area
Texture of soil varies from - fine to • Foundation soil type
coarse • Strong drainage network to dissipate the surface
• Large fluctuations in the water table runoff and pore water pressure in
across the year - average annual rainfall the fill
of the district is 3789.9 mm • Seismic action
• Due to continuous seafloor spreading, region is Financial Considerations
subjected to moderate seismicity from
time to time - categorized under seismic zone III • High speed of construction
Environmental Considerations
• Support vegetation
• Less carbon footprint emission
Social Considerations
• Support from local people

37
INITIALLY APPROVED SCHEME Earth Retention System to ensure stability of runway side slopes

FEATURES:

• Total slope height – 40 to 50 m

• Flexible free draining
reinforced soil walls – at top &
bottom of the slope
• 3 m wide berms –
between the two RS walls
• Synthetic erosion control mat and
bioengineering measures – to
protect the slope surface between
two reinforced walls
• Drainage measures –
✓ Chimney drain behind RS walls
✓ longitudinal and transverse
perforated PVC pipes wrapped
with non-woven geotextile
(spacing of 12m in horizontal
38 direction
Challenges during construction

Issues noticed at site after the bottom block is constructed

• Development of cracks in the backfill of the bottom reinforced soil structure after the 1st bottom block is finished.
• The structure was designed for strength criteria and not designed for serviceability criteria (tension cracks & deformation).
• Subsurface flows are not being taken seriously
Forensic analysis

• The reinforced soil structure stability analysis was performed again in Slide software to check the stability requirements.
• From the analysis, it was found that the primary reinforcement length needs to be increased from
• 10 m to 24 m (max.) at top tier for 17 m high reinforced soil structure and
• 10 m to 20 m (max.) at top tier for 13 m high reinforced soil structure.
• Also, additional geogrid layers were provided in the fill slope between two reinforced soil structures due to the huge amount of fill material involved and to
meet the FoS requirement globally and locally.

Static Case – without

Static Case – with Geogrids Geogrids layers in the free
layers in the free slope slope between two RS
between two RS structures structures
 Revised Scheme post Forensic Analysis

Revised Scheme adopted:

• Primary reinforcement length increased from
• 10 m to 24 m (max.) at top tier for 17 m high
reinforced soil structure and
• 10 m to 20 m (max.) at top tier for 13 m high
reinforced soil structure.

• Additional geogrid layers were provided in the fill

slope between two reinforced soil structures.

• The filled-up slope between the two reinforced soil

structures was protected with stone pitching with
vegetation in the voids left by stone pitching.

• The whole system was secured with shorter nails of

1.5 m long and 2 m c/c spacing in horizontal &
vertical directions to hold the pitching from erosion.

40
Construction Photographs
Construction Photographs

42
. Case studies – Uttarakhand MORTH Packages (Helang)

Project challenges (common for UK packages)

Hill Side Solution
➢ Landslide zone
➢ Road to be kept open to traffic during Valley Side
Retention
construction
➢ Road widening (12m width) + geometric
improvement
➢ Very less space availability
Gabion Toe Wall
➢ Difficult weather conditions
➢ High seismic zone (V) near MCT Initial site condition
Location – Helang
Max. height of retention structure – 12m
Fascia – Gabion + Vegetated
Geogrid as primary reinforcement
Scope – Hill side protection, valley side
retention, riverbank protection
Construction year – 2018-19
Height of protection works
Construction by Maccaferri
• Hill Side – Approx. 20 m
• Valley Side – Approx. 100 m
. Case studies – Uttarakhand MORTH Packages (Helang)

Hill Side Protection Top view of the Helang location with solution scheme
Simple drapery system Top view of the Helang location

Debris flow barrier

Valley Side retention & Erosion
control
Reinforced soil structure with
Green and stone facia

Bio engineering measures

Riverside protection

Launching apron and

Gabion toe wall
. Case studies – Uttarakhand MORTH Packages (Helang)

Reinforced soil structure – after construction

. Case studies – Uttarakhand MORTH Packages (Helang)

Valley side retention (Before) Valley side retention – after construction

Toe protection after

During construction construction
. Case studies – Uttarakhand MORTH Packages (Birahi)
Hill Side Solution
Location – Birahi
Max. Retention height – 28m Valley Side
Initial site condition
Fascia – Gabion + Vegetated Retention

Geogrid as primary
reinforcement
Scope – Hill side protection,
valley side retention
Construction year – 2018-19
Construction - Maccaferri

Height of protection works

• Hill Side – Approx. 45 m
• Valley Side – Approx. 28 m

Initial site condition

. Case studies – Uttarakhand MORTH Packages (Birahi)

Initial site condition

HILL SIDE

VALLEY SIDE During construction

Reinforced soil retaining wall after construction Hill side protection works few months after
construction
CASE STUDIES – UTTARAKHAND PACKAGES

Overview - few months after construction

 Hill Side Solution

. Case studies – Uttarakhand MORTH Packages (Maithana)

Valley Side Retention

Location – Maithana
Max. Retention height of RSS – 10m
Fascia – Gabion Initial site condition
Geogrid as primary reinforcement
Scope - Hill side protection/Valley Gabion Toe Wall
side road retention/
Valley side slope protection
Construction year – 2018-19
Construction - Maccaferri

Height of protection works

• Hill Side – Approx. 40 m
• Valley Side – Approx. 100 m
 After construction (with greening
measures !)
. Case studies – Uttarakhand MORTH Packages (Maithana)

Complete overview

Hill slope protection

Gabion Toe wall

Gabion cascade
Paramesh – Terramesh fascia

Erosion protection
Hill side protection measures
Chute drain

Intermediate gabion walls

Riverbank protection – Gabion wall

. Proposed solutions & advantages – Toe protection

Erosion protection works at toe of retaining structures

a) Revet mattress / bio engineering measures
✓ Very important to protect against toe erosion and subsequent stability problems
✓ Bioengineering measures can be in form of DT mesh + coir mat/3D erosion control mat + Hydroseeding/live-staking
✓ Simple and easy to construct
KTFT, Nepal (2019) Helang, Uttarakhand (2019)

Toe protection with mattress Toe protection with DT

mesh+coir mat+hydroseeding
Conclusion

Experience from the presented case histories and many others, show that hybrid
reinforced soil structures are apt for
▪ higher loading,
▪ poor ground conditions
▪ difficult climatic conditions
▪ Structures subjected to dynamic forces
▪ Considerable potential for cost effectiveness that can be exploited in high
reinforced soil structures, as the height of structures crosses certain limit.

53
Thank you