"A case study on reinforced earthen walls in outer ring road Hyderabad"

R. Sathish Kumar, Associate professor, National Institute of Construction Management and

Research, Hyderabad

For construction of approaches to flyovers and Road Over Bridges, Reinforced earth technology has almost
completely replaced conventional retaining structures. Geogrid Reinforced earth wall retaining structures
have gained wide acceptance in India as a technically proven and cost effective alternative to conventional
concrete retaining wall. The ongoing and planned initiatives of central and state governments for improving
the road infrastructures in the country are likely to give a major boost for the demand for Geogrid reinforced
wall systems. Geosynthetics have become well established construction material for geotechnical and
environmental applications in most parts of the world. Results from recent research and from monitoring of
instrumented structures throughout the years have led to new design methods for different applications of
geosynthetics. The geosynthetic reinforced soil has emerged in the last few decades as a technically
attractive and cost effective solution to many geotechnical problems. This concept was used for the
construction of vertical wall in the Outer Ring Road of Hyderabad in the stretches from Patancheru
Mallampet from Km 23.700 to 35.000 with segmental blocks as the facing elements.

So a research work was carried out to study about the material required for the construction of reinforced
earth wall and its specifications and also the construction methodology adopted. A cost and time
comparison study was also carried out between reinforced earthen wall and conventional retaining wall,
and it was found that the cost for the construction of reinforced earthen walls was approximately 20% less
than the cost of conventional retaining wall. From the time comparison study it was observed that the time
required for construction of reinforced earthen walls was more when compared to the construction of
retaining walls. But if the wall height is more the reinforced earth walls can be preferred in the context of
their stability, and also in its capacity to reduce the future settlement of pavement by controlling the erosion
of soil fill with the help of geotextile placed between the soil fill and drainage aggregate.
Introduction
A retaining structure is used for maintaining the ground surface at different elevations on either side of it.
Geo grid reinforced earth technology has almost completely replaced conventional retaining structures with
the help of geosynthetics. Over the years, these products have helped designers and contractors to solve
several types of engineering problems where the use of conventional construction materials would be
restricted or considerably more expensive. There are a significant number of geosynthetic types and
geosynthetic applications in geotechnical and environmental engineering. Common types of geosynthetics
used for soil reinforcement include geotextiles (particularly woven geotextiles), geogrids and geocells. The
combination of improved materials and design methods has made possible engineers to face challenges
and to build structures under conditions that would be unthinkable in the past
Literature review
R.D. Nalawade and D.R. Nalawade (2008) in their paper "Stability and Cost Aspects of Geogrid Reinforced
Earth Wall of Flyover" made an attempt to compute the cost and stability aspects of the reinforced earthen
walls In this paper methodological design of retaining wall structure using geogrid for flyover near
Agriculture College, Pune is tackled through external, internal, wedge and seismic stability. Finally design
by metallic strips and reinforced cement concrete cantilever retaining wall was carried out and the cost
comparison was made which shows Geogrid RE wall reduces the cost and time required for construction.
 7.1. Concrete segmental block: Figure 1

Seiichi Onodera et al (2001) in their paper "Long-term durability of geogrids laid in Reinforced soil wall"
made a study on two types of 5m high geogrid reinforced soil walls (gradient V:H=1:0.1) with two kinds of
wall facing (wrapping type and L-shaped concrete block type). Trial soil walls were constructed in 1990 with
an 8m high vertical reinforced soil wall with concrete block wall facing and in 1995 a 4.5m high reinforced
soil wall (gradient V:H=1:0.5) with a steel mesh frame as its wall facing trial soil walls were constructed.
From the beginning of the construction stage, wall displacement or strain of the geogrid, the earth pressure,
etc. were measured for a long period of time. In 2002, when the first walls were about 12 years old and the
second walls were about 7 years old, parts of the four kinds of geogrids that were used as the reinforcement
of the embankment and as the wall facing were sampled and underwent tensile tests to study their long-
term durability. They were also immersed in various chemicals for a long period time then underwent tensile
test to study their chemical degradation. The results confirmed that the geogrids buried in the soil for 12
years or for 7 years retained their original tensile strength.

Xiao-jing Feng et al (2008) in their paper "The Influence of Facing Stiffness on the Performance of Geogrid
Reinforced Retaining Walls" stated that as pointed out by various researchers, consideration of the
influence of the facing type on reinforcement loads was lacking in current limit equilibrium-based design
methods for the internal stability design of geosynthetic reinforced soil walls. Also the displacement of walls
and the strain of reinforcement are also related to the facing type. This paper reported the results of the
three instrumented model walls. The walls were nominally identical except one wall was constructed with a
rigid concrete block face, the other with a hinge joint wood face, and another with a flexible wrapped face.
The displacement of wall face added with the increase of the stiffness of wall face under the same
surcharge. The strain of the reinforcement was influenced by the facing stiffness, while the relation between
them also effected by the loading type, backfill type etc. Under the strip load , the reinforcement strain in
stiff-face wall was higher. The ductile of the wall failure was reduced with the increasing of facing stiffness.

Peter Janopaul et al (1991) in their paper "Retaining Wall Construction And Block Therefor" stated that in
general, a block and retaining wall formed by a number of such blocks are interconnected between courses
by a plurality of Z shaped anchored elements having an upper and lower body part of substantially
rectangular cross-section. The offset of one course of blocks relative to the course beneath will be a
predetermined by a fixed amount determined by the offset of the body parts of the interlocking Z-shaped
anchor elements. A tie-back arrangement includes means for attaching a sheet of geosynthetic material to
the embedded end of a block so as to leave the open cells within and those formed between the blocks
unobstructed from the above and available for filling with pea gravel or other drainage fill material.
 7.2. Geo grid: Figure 2 7.3. Geo textile: Figure 3

Ennio M. Palmeira et al (2008) in their paper "Advances in Geo synthetics Materials and Applications for
Soil Reinforcement and Environmental Protection Works" explained about the usage of geo synthetics
materials in construction elements. Geosynthetics have been increasingly used in geotechnical and
environmental engineering for the last 4 decades. Over the years, these products have helped designers
and contractors to solve several types of engineering problems where the use of conventional construction
materials would be restricted or considerably more expensive. There are a significant number of
geosynthetic types and geosynthetic applications in geotechnical and environmental engineering. Common
types of geosynthetics used for soil reinforcement include geotextiles (particularly woven geotextiles),
geogrids and geocells.

Dwight A Beranak, P.E. (2002) in their paper "Use of Geogrids in Pavement Construction" focused how
Engineers are continually faced with maintaining and developing pavement infrastructure with limited
financial resources. Traditional pavement design and construction practices require high-quality materials
for fulfillment of construction standards. In many areas of the world, quality materials are unavailable or in
short supply. Due to these constraints, engineers are often forced to seek alternative designs using
substandard materials, commercial construction aids, and innovative design practices. One category of
commercial construction aids was geosynthetics. Geosynthetics include a large variety of products
composed of polymers and are designed to enhance geotechnical and transportation projects.
Geosynthetics perform at least one of five functions: separation, reinforcement, filtration, drainage, and
containment. One category of geosynthetics in particular, geogrids, has gained increasing acceptance in
road construction. Extensive research programs have been conducted by the U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center (ERDC) and non-military agencies to develop design and construction
guidance for the inclusion of geogrids in pavement systems.

Ragui F. Wilson-Fahmy et al (1994) in their paper "Experimental Behavior of Polymeric Geogrids in

Pullout" stated that the increasing use of polymeric geogrids in reinforced soil walls and steep slopes
warrants special attention to all details including their anchorage behavior. Because of the open structural
nature of geogrids, their performance was different from other sheet-like reinforcing materials such as
metallic strips and geotextiles. They derive their anchorage capacity through both friction and bearing
resistances. This paper focused on the structural behavior of geogrids under a pullout loading condition.
An experimental investigation was conducted using three different geogrids tested at three different lengths.
The load-displacement response at different locations along the geogrid was monitored during pullout. The
experimental results were compared with predictions using a previously published finite-element model
simulating soil-geogrid interaction and taking into account the deformation of the geogrid structure. Tension
in the geogrid, as well as friction and bearing components of resistance, were presented in relation to
geogrid length, pullout load magnitude, and distance from the clamped end of the geogrid. The results
emphasize the fact that the success of a geogrid in fulfilling its anchorage role is directly related to its
structural composition and material specific characteristics.

Han Yong Jeon et al (2002) in their paper "Assessment of long-term performances of polyester geogrids
by accelerated creep test "viewed that Geogrids are widely used as the reinforcement materials in
geotechnical and civil engineering fields. In this study, accelerated-creep tests at elevated temperatures to
predict longer-term creep behavior of polyester fabric geogrids were examined using the timetemperature
superposition principle. Creep tests were generally performed to calculate the partial factor of safety during
the service time of polyester geogrids and two types of geogrids, having different design strengths ranging
from 8 to 15 t/m, were used in this study. The creep tests were carried out at various temperatures and
loading levels of 40, 50, and 60% of short-term design strengths. Also, the creep tests were made at
temperatures between 20 and 50C to take into consideration the real environmental conditions of geogrids.
The results indicated the applicability of the conventional procedures in prediction of longer time creep
strain and material dependency of creep strains.

7.4 Foundation and levelling pad: Figure 4

P. Bataille et al (2004) et al in their paper "Mechanical properties and permeability of polypropylene and
poly (ethylene terephthalate) mixtures" studied that the synthetic membranes currently used for soil
stabilization and road construction that are mainly made of polypropylene and of polyesters. This paper
reported on the mechanical properties and the permeability of mixtures of polypropylene (PP) and
polyethylene terephthalate (PET). The elastic modulus of the mixture was at a minimum for a 50/50 mixture.
For the other compositions, the moduli gave a positive deviation as compared with the additivity equation
results. This was probably due to the fact that pure PET has a fragile behavior at the temperature at which
the mechanical tests were run. This 50/50 composition corresponds to the domain where a phase inversion
occurs. The yield stress increased, however, indicating that we had a better adhesion and that the
copolymer seems to have a certain emulsifier effect, increasing the quality of the dispersion.

Table -1 Specifications of Geo grid material

Polymer High strength polymers yarns
Coating Black PVC
GX GX GX
Property Test methods Unit GX40 GX60 GX100
80 130 160

Ultimate tensile strength(MD) KN/m 40 60 80 100 130 160

Ultimate tensile strength(TD) KN/m 40 30 30 30 30 30
ASTM
Elongation at break(MD) % <11% <11% <11% <11% <11% <11%
D4595
Creep reduced strength 120
KN/m 27 41 55 68 89 110
years

Long term design

21 34 46 58 75 92
strength(LTSD)
-

Roll width m 5 5 5 5 5 5
Roll length m 50 50 50 50 50 50

J. Engrg. Mech. (2004) in his paper "Analyzing Dynamic Behavior of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil
Retaining Walls" stated that an advanced generalized plasticity soil model and bounding surface
geosynthetic model, in conjunction with a dynamic finite element procedure, were used to analyze the
behavior of geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls. The construction behavior of a full-scale wall was
first analyzed followed by a series of five shaking table tests conducted in a centrifuge. The parameters for
the sandy backfill soils were calibrated through the results of monotonic and cyclic triaxial tests. The wall
facing deformations, strains in the geogrid reinforcement layers, lateral earth pressures acting at the facing
blocks, and vertical stresses at the foundation were presented. In the centrifugal shaking table tests, the
response of the walls subject to 20 cycles of sinusoidal wave having a frequency of 2 Hz and of acceleration
amplitude of 0.2g were compared with the results of analysis. The acceleration in the backfill, strain in the
geogrid layers, and facing deformation were computed and compared to the test results. The results of
analysis for both static and dynamic tests compared reasonably well with the experimental results.

7.5. Compaction of soil, Blocks Erection and Drainage material filling: Figure 5

Table -2 Specifications of Geo textile material

Property Test method MARV Value
Mass per unit area ASTM D 5261 155 g/ sq.m
Thickness 2k Pa ASTM D 5199 1.5mm
Grab tensile strength md ASTM D 4632 690 N
Elongation at break md 75 %
Wide width tensile strength. (ave) ASTM D 4595 11.5 kN/m
Elongation at break. md ASTM D 4595 75%
CBR Puncture strength ISO 12236 1750
Apparent opening size (095) ASTM D 4751 0.25 mm
Rod Puncture strength ASTM D 4833 310 N
Permittivity ASTM D 4491 2.71/s
Case Study
Study area

Construction of Eight lane Access Controlled Expressway as Outer Ring Road to Hyderabad City in the
State of Andhra Pradesh, India in the stretches from Patancheru Shamirpet from km.23.700 to km.61.700
(Northern Arc) Package-I from Km 23.700 to Km 35.000 Patancheru-Mallampet.
Study area details
Site Information
 The area in which the works are located is mostly plain to rolling terrain. The Project area is located
between 170 11/ 39// - 170 36/ 27.13// N latitude and 780 14/ 15// - 780 41/ 21// E longitude.
General Climatic Conditions

The variation in temperature in this region is between 100 C and 460 C.

The annual rainfall in the area is in the range of 790 mm to 1000 mm.

Seismic Zone

The works are located in seismic zone II as defined in IRC-6-2000

Materials and their specifications Geo grids (Ref fig-2)

Geogrids used as soil reinforcement were GX polyester geogrids of style GX 40/40, GX 60/30, GX 80/30,
GX 100/30, GX130/30, and GX 160/50 with the following specifications.
Precast segmental blocks (Ref fig-1&fig 7)

The facing elements used at the site were segmental blocks having a mass of approximately 35 kg as
shown in fig 1.
These blocks are of length 450mm on the front side and 280mm on the back side.
The height of each block was 300mm.
These blocks were manufactured by cold pressing process in automatic block making machine ensuring
consistent quality, accuracy of dimensions and good finish with cement concrete of 35MPa after 28 days
curing.
The blocks were cured for a sufficient length of time as approved by the engineer using potable water.
Sufficient care was taken to ensure that blocks are not damaged during handling, storage and
transportation.
Units were acceptable for placement in the structure if the strength at 7 days or before exceeds 75% of the
28 days requirement.

3.3 Drainage aggregate (Ref fig -5)

The drainage materials were cleaned crushed stone or gravel with particle size in the range of 9.5-
19.1mm and % fines <5% or a suitable material.

Drainage pipe

The drainage collection pipes were perforated or slotted PVC or HDPE of 150mm diameter.

Geotextile (Ref fig-3)

The geotextiles used as filter for the granular drainage bay were meeting the requirements of MORTH
specifications for Road and Bridge works, Clause 702.2.3.The geotextile used were meeting the following
minimum requirements in terms of minimum average roll values.
Construction methodology
Excavation and Foundation preparation

The site was excavated to the lines, width and grades as shown in the approved construction drawings
The trench for the leveling pad was excavated to the correct depth and width.
In the reinforced soil zone the ground was excavated to a depth of 200mm (minimum) below the first layer
of geogrid reinforcement.
 Any unsuitable soils if present were removed and replaced by compacted fill, Similarly pits, depressions
etc. were filled by compacted fill of approved quality.

Foundation leveling pad (Ref fig -4 &fig-6)

The centerline for the leveling pad was marked on the bottom of the trench ensuring required setback to
accommodate the facing batter as shown on the construction drawings and the side forms are fixed for the
leveling pad.
The leveling pad consists of a plain cement concrete strip footing of 600 mm width and 200 mm thickness.
Concrete used for leveling pad was with a minimum grade of M 15 and the maximum size of aggregates
was limited to 20 mm.
Concrete was poured and compacted using needle vibrators, and screed to the correct level and finished
using wooden floats to flat and smooth finish.
The leveling pad was casted with a level tolerance of a 5mm and the surface finished using a smooth wood
float.
The leveling pad was cured for a minimum period of 48 hours before erection of segmental units is
commenced.

Placement of first course of segmental blocks (Ref fig-4)

The first course of segmental block was placed to the correct line as marked on the leveling pad.
A thin layer of stiff cement mortar was provided on top of leveling pad, to ensure accurate placing of leveling
blocks.
The next extremely important step was to place the first course of blocks to the correct line and level.
Drainage aggregates were then placed and lightly compacted to fill openings between segmental units.
Soil fill was placed and compacted behind the segmental units and drainage material is in filled up to the
height of the block.

Placement of first layer of geo grid reinforcement (Ref fig-4)

After ensuring the drainage infill between the blocks or slightly above the top of the segmental unit, the
debris was cleaned off from the top of the segmental units.
Position geogrid of the required type and length as shown on drawings (fig) with the longitudinal direction
perpendicular to wall face.
Adjacent roll of geogrid was placed such that they are butting each other.
Next course of segmental unit was placed in a running bond configuration.
Segmental unit was moved forward to engage shear key and ensuring proper alignment and set back of
the segmental units.
Geogrid was pulled tight using uniform tension, hold or stake to maintain tension throughout the fill
placement process.
Drainage infill and soil fill was placed on the openings between segmental units and then the fill and
drainage in-fill is compacted.

PCC

Height Width Length Thickness Quantity Cost (Rs) Total cost(Rs)

4 6.250 20 0.450 56.250 2150.000 120937.500

5 7.813 20 0.563 87.891 2150.000 188964.844

6 9.375 20 0.675 126.563 2150.000 272109.375

7 10.938 20 0.788 172.266 2150.000 370371.094

8 12.500 20 0.900 225.000 2150.000 483750.000

Raft
Height of wall Width(m) Length(m) Thickness(m) Quantity(cum) Cost(Rs) Total cost(Rs)
4 6.250 20 0.150 18.750 2600.000 48750.000
5 7.813 20 0.150 23.438 2600.000 60937.500
6 9.375 20 0.150 28.125 2600.000 73125.000
7 10.938 20 0.150 32.813 2600.000 85312.500
8 12.500 20 0.150 37.500 2600.000 97500.000

Wall
Height of wall(m) Length(m) Average thickness(m) Quantity(Rs) Cost(Rs) Total cost(Rs)
4 20 0.475 38.000 3900.000 148200.000
5 20 0.594 59.375 3900.000 231562.500
6 20 0.713 85.500 3900.000 333450.000
7 20 0.831 116.375 3900.000 453862.500
8 20 0.950 152.000 3900.000 592800.000

Steel
Height of wall(m) Steel required(ton) Cost/ton(Rs) TOTAL COST(Rs)
4 9.150 41500 379725.000
5 11.438 41500 474656.250
6 13.725 41500 569587.500
7 16.013 41500 664518.750
8 18.300 41500 759450.000

Total cost of retaining wall

Height of Length of Cost of concrete (Rs) Steel cost Total cost
wall(m) wall(m) PCC RAFT WALL (Rs) (Rs)
4 20 48750.000 120937.500 148200.000 379725.000 697612.500
5 20 60937.500 188964.844 231562.500 474656.250 529121.094
6 20 73125.000 272109.375 333450.000 569587.500 1248271.875
7 20 85312.500 370371.094 453862.500 664518.750 1574064.844
8 20 97500.000 483750.000 592800.000 759450.000 1933500.000

Reinforced earth wall

Height of wall(m) Length(m) Area in Sqm Blocks/Sqm Total blocks

4 20 80 11.11 888.800
 5 20 100 11.11 1111.000

6 20 120 11.11 1333.200

7 20 140 11.11 1555.400

8 20 160 11.11 1777.600

Cost of segmental block cost is Rs150. including drainage material. Erection of RE wall includes
cost of geogrid, geotextile, aggregate labour and equipment cost

Cost of Total block Area in Erection Total erection Cost of RE

Height
block(Rs) cost(Rs) Sqm cost/Sqm cost wall
4 150 133320.000 80 1928 154240 287560.000
5 150 166650.000 100 1928 192800 359450.000
6 150 199980.000 120 1928 231360 431340.000
7 150 233310.000 140 2014 281960 515270.000
8 150 266640.000 160 2185 349600 616240.000
Placement of subsequent courses of segmental blocks and geogrid (Ref fig-5, fig
8 & fig 9)

Segmental blocks were placed in a running bond configuration. (fig 4.2)

Proper care must be taken to clean the top surface of the blocks with a stiff brush or broom to remove any
fill, drainage aggregate etc., before placing the subsequent course of blocks.
At each level, blocks were properly aligned and pushed forward to engage the shear key to ensure proper
set back.
Drainage aggregate was placed and lightly compacted to fill openings between segmental units.
After 3 layers of segmental blocks the second layer of geo grid was laid and this continuous for the entire
wall section

Compaction of fill (Ref fig -5)

Reinforced fill

The reinforced fill selected is a granular fill with the following properties.

Peak effective angle of shearing resistance was 320

% fines (passing 75 micron sieve) was 15%
The dry density of the compacted fill was meeting the minimum requirements as per IS 2720(part 8)

Procedure

The deposition, spreading, leveling and compaction of the fill were carried out in a direction parallel to the
facing.
No plant or equipment with a weight exceeding 1500 kg was allowed to operate within 1.5m from the facing.
Construction equipment was allowed to move directly over the geogrid, ensuring that there is a minimum
soil cover of 100 mm over the strips.
Abrupt stopping, turning etc. of the equipment was avoided to minimize misalignment of geogrids.
 Care was taken during the deposition, spreading, leveling and compaction of the fill to avoid damage,
disturbance or misalignment of segmental blocks, geotextile filter and geogrid reinforcement.
Fill placed near the facing was ensured, that no voids exist directly below the geogrid reinforcement.
Fill was placed and compacted in lifts. Thickness of lift was consistent.

Equipment used for compaction

Compaction of the fill was carried out using appropriate equipment, which will not induce excessive loads
on the facing and at the same time achieves the required compaction. Towards this the following
equipments were recommended for different zones:

Within 300 mm of the facing, the fill/drainage material was compacted by a light-weight plate compactor or
by hand tamping.
Beyond 300 mm and within 1.5 m from the facing the fill was compacted using a walk behind vibratory roller
or plate compactor with a total weight less than 1500 kg.
Beyond a distance of 1.5 m from the facing, the fill was compacted using appropriate rollers of 8-10 MT
weight.
Movement of compaction equipment was in a direction parallel to the wall face, starting near the face and
gradually moving away from the wall face.

Placement of drainage system (Ref fig-5)

Drainage material was placed to the minimum finished thickness

Vertical layers of drainage layer material were brought up at the same rate as the adjoining fill material.
Geotextile filter was provided behind the drainage bay and is wrapped back into the fill with a minimum
wrap length of 200 mm.
Perforated collection pipe wrapped with geotextile filter is installed at the location as shown on the drawings.
Discharge exits are provided at required interval

Height (m) Length (m) Retaining wall cost(Rs) RE wall cost(Rs)

4 20 697612.500 287560.000
5 20 529121.094 359450.000
6 20 1248271.875 431340.000
7 20 1574064.844 515270.000
8 20 1933500.000 616240.000
Coping beam
On the topmost segmental unit, erect form work and cast coping beam to get the required longitudinal
profile of the wall.
Cost analysis of conventional retaining wall and reinforced earth walls
The cost analysis was done between a conventional retaining wall and reinforced earth wall for a wall of
height different heights from 4m to 8m for a length of 20m.

Conventional retaining wall

PCC cost per cum Rs.2600/- (Cost includes cost of M15concrete. labour and shuttering)

Raft cost per cum Rs.2150/- Wall cost per cum Rs.3900/-

Steel binding cost per metric ton Rs.3500/- (Cost of labour, cutting and binding)

Steel cost per metric ton Rs.41500/-

 Conclusion

1. Materials used for construction of reinforced earthen walls were geogrids, geotextile, drainage aggregate,
drainage pipe, and segmental blocks. For the construction of reinforced earthen walls there is no need of
deep foundations (pcc, reinforcement, raft,).It involves the process like casting of foundation leveling pad,
erection of facing units, placement and compaction of soil fill to the first layer of reinforcement, placement
of the first layer of geogrid reinforcements, placement of next and subsequent lifts of soil fill, erection of
subsequent rows of facing units and reinforcements, coping.
2. The cost for the construction of reinforced earthen walls is nearly 20%of the cost of retaining wall. The time
required for construction of reinforced earthen walls was found more when compared to the construction of
retaining walls. We can construct a retaining wall of height 1.2m in a day, and the entire process like
(deshutteing, reinforcement binding, shuttering for additional height) takes 3-4 days, where as for the
reinforced earthen wall, the construction is done in layers, and each layer of 200mm was filled and
compacted up to 98% MDD, so on an average it takes a week days for 0.6 m height. So we can conclude
that, the retaining wall can be preferred if the height of the wall is less than 4m, and if the height is more
than 4m reinforced earthen walls can be preferred due to their stability, and also due to its capacity to
reduce the future settlement of pavement by controlling the erosion of soil fill with the help of geotextile
placed between the soil fill and drainage aggregate.
3. The workers/ labor required for the construction of retaining wall was found more when compared to
reinforced earthern wall, 7-9 workers are required for the construction of retaining wall, where as for the
construction of reinforced earthen wall, the blocks are casted by the machine and only 2 or 3 workers are
required for the placing and finishing of blocks

Referances

R.D. Nalawade and D.R. Nalawade (2008): "Stability and Cost Aspects of Geogrid Reinforced Earth Wall
of Flyover"
Seiichi Onodera et al (2001): "Long-term durability of geogrids laid in Reinforced soil wall"
Xiao-jing Feng et al (2008): "The Influence of Facing Stiffness on the Performance of Geogrid Reinforced
Retaining Walls"
Peter Janopaul et al (1991): "Retaining Wall Construction And Block There for"
Ennio M. Palmeira et al (2008): "Advances in Geo synthetics Materials and Applications for Soil
Reinforcement and Environmental Protection Works"
Dwight A Beranak P.E. (2002): "Use of Geogrids In Pavement Construction"
Ragui F. Wilson-Fahmy et al (1994): "Experimental Behavior of Polymeric Geogrids in Pullout"
Han Yong Jeon et al (2002): "Assessment of long-term performances of polyester geogrids by
accelerated creep test"
J. Engrg. Mech. (2004): "Analyzing Dynamic Behavior of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls"
"Design and Construction of reinforced earthen wall"- GEOSOL ASSOCIATES.