'uor+cu+ser

ro
Aplorlueprjuoc rol suosDer puo poued Ll+r^A uor+ozruoDlo oLlI Luoll
eql q+r/!\ q3o++o esDolo 'clltrldlslu ro lvllNlctjNol sr stseql oul ll
re++ol

6002

utSwl^oN 6t : etoc

uost^utdns Jo twvN
uost^uldns Jo tunlvN9ls

* : slloN

6002utwl^oN6t:o+oc
('oH ruoassvd

/'oN crmrru)

tunrvNcts

-jU\^{
: Aq

pelJuetr

'e6uoqcxe crLUopDOo ro1 srseq+ oq+ setdoc e)oLU o11q6u eLl+ soq luotqrl eqt '0
lo
'Aluo L.l3loeset lo esodlnd
eq+

rol serdoc e)oL!

o1 lqOu eLi+ soq ors,{opo61 r6o;ou1e1 r+rsre^run 1o Arotqrl

'otsAo;oy'1 16o1ou1e1 rlrsrelrun 1o Apedord eql sr srseq+

: smollol so lqOu eq+ se^resor orsAo;o61

eq1

'Z

eL.lI 't

rOoloulel rlrsre^run 1oq1 pe6pelmou)3o

(1xe111n1) ssecco uedo

eurluo so peqsrlqnd eq o1 srsaql Luu 1oq1 eerOo

SSt3f,V NldO

*(euop so/v\ q3roesor oleLl/v\ uorlosruo6ro eql

{q perlrceds so uor+orlrolur pe+culser suroluo3) Oll3lulslU

lorrgJo

eL,l+

*lz16L +f,v +orf,os

repun uor+ouro1ur lor+uep[uoo suroluo]) tVtfNlOtf nOO
: so peurssol3 sr srseq+ slql loL.ll

T=

1rc3;lftffi,:

uorsses

orolf,ep

rrurepocv

'l'lVt'A HIUVI OIf,UOJNIlU JO NOlIlnUISNOS

uoJ tNtllctnc Notr31lts v Jo tNtwHst]8vlsl tHr

E9t[;nih.fTiti

el+11

quq lo e+oc
eurou lln] s,roLl+nv

UIHVI IVW NI8 IMOUVN OHOW

lHetu^do3 cNV utdvd ISlfoud tlvnovueuloNn / slslHr lo No|lvuv]f,]c

vts^vlvw r9o]oN)ll lllsul^r N n

tlolt'pu!d)9t:6t

zsd

6002 requro^oN

(VI^IVHOI^I INIHVUfl CVI^trVHOI^I

6I

'JCI 'IAId

E}ECI

Josr^Jedns Jo orreN
ernleuSrg

,,(lueureEeuetr

tr

uoqcrulsuo3) ecuercs Jo JolseINJo eer8ep eqtJo pre^\ eq]

roJ lusruelnbor eqlgo

lueqlgpg

ur.,Q11enb pue adocsSo Ilrrel ur alunbepu st

goder

pelord srql uorurdo r(ru ur puu gode.r lceford srql q8norql per eleq I lq] erlcep L,

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SELECTION GUIDELINE FOR

CONSTRUCTION OF REINFORCED EARTH WALL

MOHD NAROWI BIN MAT TAHIR

A project report is submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirement s for the award of the degree of
Master of Science (Construction Management)

Faculty of Civil Engineering

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

NOVEMBER 2009

6002 roquls^oN

UIHVJ JYI{ NITI LI\.OUYN OHOW

6I

ffiry
'eer8ep duego omtprpuec

elec
erusN
ernlu8rs

penltuqns flluarmcuoc lou sl pu

eer8ep due ro3 peldecce ueeq lou seq uode.r lcelord srrf,l 'secueJeJoJ orltr ut po]rc ss

ldecxe qcreoseJ umo dru Jo llnsoJ eql sl ,JIo/4

awppmD uou)aps

lo

tfing pacnluray lo

uo17tn4suo3

tol

Tuawqslqvtsg aqJ,, pelt4tue godar lcaford sqt ]eqt er?lcep I

iii

DEDICATION

For my family, who offered me unconditional love and support throughout the
completion of this project report. To them I give all my love for supporting me all the
way.

Che Radziah bt Yaacub

Nursyafiqah
Nurul Ain
Nurul Anis
Muhammad Firdaus

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank to my supervisor, Assoc. Prof. Dr Mohamad Ibrahim Mohamad

whom, as project report supervisor, had given me professional advise, guidance and
continuous support until completion of this project.

I would to express my heartiest appreciation to Mr Wong Fook Kan from Perunding

Juruwas Sdn Bhd for his advice and knowledge.

My special thanks go to my family for continuously supporting me to finish up this

project report

ABSTRACT

Currently, reinforced earth wall technology is widely used all over the world and the
domination of conventional retaining wall is slowly decreased especially for high
wall. The application of this technology includes normal retaining walls, bridge
abutments, slope rehabilitation, embankments wall on soft ground and working
platform. In Malaysia, there are numbers of reinforced earth structures. Most of them
have different geometrical shapes but almost has similar advantages. The technology
is very important for civil engineering works. The aim of this study is to identify and
establish the information related to reinforced earth wall system in Malaysia. The
methodology used to achieve the objectives involved data collection through
literature review, questionnaire surveys and interviews with the professionals who
directly involved in this field. The findings show that the most common reinforced
earth wall systems are RE WALLTM and Nehemiah Wall. Besides that, the
advantages and disadvantages of common system are also derived from the study.
Apart from that this study is also produced a basic selection guideline for the
construction of reinforced earth wall. Result of survey disclosed are important for
young engineers who intend to enhance their knowledge in retained soil technology.
Finally, reinforced earth wall system is considered cost-effective, energy efficiency
and environmental friendly. These qualities generate balance in social, economy and
environment. The reinforced earth wall system is suitable to use in any types of space
condition.

vi

ABSTRAK

Ketika ini, teknologi tembok tanah bertetulang digunakan secara meluas di seluruh
dunia dan menyebabkan penggunaan tembok penahan konvensional semakin
berkurangan terutama untuk tembok yang tinggi. Penggunaan teknologi ini termasuk
sebagai tembok penahan biasa, jambatan, kestabilan cerun, tembok untuk jalanraya
di kawasan tanah lembut dan sebagai platfom kerja. Di Malaysia terdapat beberapa
struktur tembok ini yang mana berbeza dari segi bentuk geometrinya sahaja tetapi
mempunyai fungsi dan kelebihan yang hampir sama. Teknologi ini amat penting
kepada kerja-kerja kejuruteraan awam. Tujuan kajian ini adalah untuk mencari dan
memperkukuhkan data-data yang berkaitan dengan tembok tana h bertetulang di
Malaysia. Kaedah yang digunakan untuk mencapai tujuan ini adalah pengumpulan
data melalui kajian ke atas tulisan yang terdahulu, pengagihan borang soal selidik
dan temuduga dengan professional yang memiliki pengalaman luas dalam bidang
yang berkaitan. Hasil dari penyelidikan ini didapati bahawa RE WallTM dan
Nehemiah Wall merupakan struktur yang kerap digunapakai oleh klien. Di samping
itu, kelebihan dan kekurangan teknologi ini juga telah diperincikan hasil daripada
kajian ini. Kajian ini juga telah menghasilkan satu panduan asas pemilihan lokasi
bagi pembinaan tembok tanah bertetulang. Keputusan kajian ini penting kepada
jurutera muda yang bercadang untuk menambah ilmu pengetahuan dalam bidang
teknologi tembok penahan tanah bertetulang. Ak hir sekali, tembok tanah bertetulang
adalah berbaloi dari segi kos, kurang penggunaan tenaga dan mesra persekitaran.
Kualiti-kualiti ini mewujudkan keseimbangan dari segi sosial, ekonomi dan
persekitaran. Sistem tembok tanah bertetulang juga adalah sesuai diaplikasikan di
semua keadaan kawasan.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER

TITLE

PAGE

DECLARATION

ii

DEDICATION

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

iv

ABSTRACT

ABSTRAK

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

LIST OF TABLES

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

xiii

LIST OF APPENDICES

xv

INTRODUCTION OF STUDY

1.1

Introduction

1.2

Problem Statement

1.3

The Aim and Objectives

1.4

Scope and Limitation of Study

1.5

Brief Research Methodology

EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURE

2.1

Introduction

viii

2.2

Type of Earth Retaining Structures.

2.2.1

Gravity Walls

2.2.1.1

Masonry wall

2.2.1.2

Gabion wall

2.2.1.3

Crib wall system

2.2.1.4

Reinforced concrete wall

2.2.2

2.2.3

2.3

2.4

In-Situ or Embedded Walls

10

2.2.2.1

Sheet pile wall

10

2.2.2.2

Braced or propped wall

10

2.2.2.3

Contiguous and secant pile wall

11

2.2.2.4

Diaphragm wall

11

Reinforced / Anchored Earth

12

2.2.3.1

Soil nailing

12

2.2.3.2

Reinforced soil wall

13

2.2.3.3

Ground anchors

14

The Common Reinforced Earth Walls in Malaysia

15

2.3.1

RE WALLTM

15

2.3.2

Websol Wall

16

2.3.3

Nehemiah Reinforced Earth Wall

17

2.3.4

Pati Reinforced Earth Wall

18

2.3.5

AnchorSOL Wall

18

2.3.6

ARE Wall

18

2.3.7

Key-Stone System

19

Advantages of Reinforced Earth Wall

19

2.4.1

Economical

19

2.4.2

Aesthetic Appearance

21

2.4.3

Long Term Durability

22

2.4.4

Structural Flexibility

24

2.4.5

Area of Application

26

2.4.6

Environmental Friendly

26

2.4.7

Sustainability Concepts

27

ix

2.5

The Disadvantages of Reinforced Earth Wall

28

2.5.1

Standard Limitation

28

2.5.2

Material Requirements

29

2.5.3

Verticality

30

2.5.4

Future Activity

31

2.5.5

Uncertainty in Alignment

32

2.5.6

Maintenance

33

SUITABILITY EVALUATION OF REINFORCED

34

EARTH WALL
3.1

Introduction

34

3.2

Pre-Decision Evaluation Studies

34

3.2.1

Reinforced

Earth

Wall

Feasibilities

35

Assessment
3.2.2

Determination of Requirement

36

3.3

Decision Point

37

3.4

Suitability Process for the Reinforced Earth Wall

39

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

39

4.1

Introduction

39

4.2

Literature Review

39

4.3

Approach of Data Collection

40

4.4

Questionnaire Survey

40

4.5

Preparation of Questionnaire Survey

41

4.6

Distribution of Questionnaire Survey Forms

43

4.7

Interviews

43

4.8

Selection of Respondents for Questionnaire Surveys

44

4.9

Selection of Respondents for Face to Face Interview

44

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

45

5.1

45

Introduction

5.2

Analysis of Data from Questionnaire survey

45

5.2.1

Respondents Background

46

5.2.2

Respondents Experience

46

5.2.3

The number of Completed Project

47

5.2.5

Type of Project Involved Reinforced Earth

47

Wall
5.2.5

Rate of Response

48

5.2.6

The Result of Questionnaires Based on

48

Average Index
5.3

Data Collection from Interview

53

5.3.1

53

Content Analysis

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

59

6.1

Introduction

59

6.2

Common Reinforced Earth Wall in Malaysia

59

6.2.1

Data from Literature Review

60

6.2.2

Data from Interviews

61

6.3

6.4

The Advantages of common system

62

6.3.1

Economical

62

6.3.2

Aesthetic Appearance

62

6.3.3

Long Term Durability

63

6.3.4

Structural Flexibility

64

6.3.5

Area of Application

64

6.3.6

Environmental Friendly

65

6.3.7

Sustainability Concepts

66

The Disadvantages of common system

67

6.4.1

Standard Limitation

67

6.4.2

Material Requirement

68

6.4.3

Verticality

68

6.4.4

Future Activity

69

6.4.5

Uncertainty in Horizontal Alignment

69

xi

6.4.6
6.5

Maintenance

The Establishment of a Basic Selection Guideline

70
70

for Client to Select an Appropriate System for

Their Project Needs

6.5.1

Profile Grade Change Cut Condition

71

6.5.2

Profile Grade Change Cut/Fill Condition

71

6.5.3

Profile Grade Change Fill Condition

72

CONCLUSIONS

73

7.1

Introduction

73

7.2

Limitations of the research

73

7.3

Common Reinforced Earth Wall in Malaysia

74

7.4

The Advantages and Disadvantages of the

75

Common System
7.5

To Establish a Basic Selection Guideline for

76

Client to Select an Appropriate Retaining System

for Their Project Needs.
7.6

Recommendations for future study

79

7.7

Conclusions

79

REFERENCES

80

APPENDICES

82 - 93

A-E

xii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO

TITLE

PAGE

2.1

Allowable Sacrificial Thickness

23

2.2

Metal Loss Rate

30

2.3

Electrochemical Requirement

30

5.1

Composition of respondents by their position in their

46

organization
5.2

Respondents experience in reinforced earth wall projects

47

5.3

Respondents completed projects

47

5.4

Respondents involvement based on type of projects

48

5.5

Contractors responses and Average Indices on The

50

advantages of common reinforced earth wall system

5.6

Contractors responses and Average Indices on The

52

disadvantages of common reinforced earth wall system

5.7

Result of interviews common reinforced earth wall

55

system
5.8

Result of interview The suitability evaluation of

reinforced earth retaining structure

56

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURES NO

TITLE

PAGE

1.1

Brief Research Methodology Flow Chart

2.1

Type of Gravity Walls

2.2

Cribwall System

2.3

Type of Reinforced Concrete Wall

2.4

Sheet Pile Wall

10

2.5

Diaphragm/Slurry Wall

11

2.6

General View of Soil Nail

13

2.7

Type of Frictional Anchored Reinforcement System

14

2.8

Components of Deadman Anchored System

14

2.9

The Application of Ground Anchor

15

2.10

In Place Casting Materials

21

2.11

Shape of Precast Facing Panels

21

2.12

Basic Surface Finishes of Reinforced Earth Wall

22

2.13

The Effect of Reinforcement in Soil

24

2.14

Allowable Bearing Capacity vs JKR Value

25

2.15

The Effect of Settlement

25

2.16

Type of Bridge Abutment

26

2.17

Initial sizing of Reinforced Soil Wall Base

28

2.18

The Effect of Scouring

31

2.19

The Position of Extra Reinforcement

32

2.20

Tree Grows in Between Facing Panel Gap

33

3.1

RE wall Design with Soil Nailing

36

xiv

6.1

Market Sharing of Reinforced Earth Wall (1990-2000)

60

6.2

Market Sharing of Reinforced Earth Wall (2001-2008)

61

7.1

Advantages of Reinforced Earth Wall

76

7.2

Disadvantages of Reinforced Earth Wall

76

7.3

Basic Selection Guideline Chart

78

xv

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIC

TITLE

PAGE

A/1

Introduction to Questionnaire Survey

82

A/2

Professional background

83

A/3

Professional background, contd

84

B/1

Questionnaire Survey The advantages of most

85

common system
B/2

Questionnaire Survey The advantages of most

86

common system, contd

B/3

Questionnaire Survey The disadvantages of most

87

common system
B/4

Questionnaire Survey The disadvantages of most

88

common system, contd

C/1

Structured Interview The Common reinforced earth

89

Retaining System
D/1

Structured Interview The Suitability Evaluation for

90

Retaining Wall Structure

E/1

Reinforced Earth Wall system A Part of Completed

91

Projects
E/2

Reinforced Earth Wall system A Part of Completed

92

Projects, contd
E/3

Reinforced Earth Wall system A Part of Completed

Projects, contd

93

CHAPTER

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Introduction

Reinforced earth wall is very significant in construction industry especially

in infrastructure projects. Currently, there has been a rapid increase in the usage of
reinforced earth structures especially in Malaysia. As a result, reinforced earth is
now one of the fastest developing fields in Civil Engineering. The generic name for
reinforced earth wall is known as Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) wall.

The main function of building retaining wall is to retain the soil from
collapse. It will be applied when two different level of ground profile meet or to
avoid more cutting earth or the toe of the slope encroach to other people land.

Lee (2006) reported that the first reinforced earth wall was constructed in
Malaysia in 1982 that belong to Johor Bharu Golf Club. The area was about 160
square meters. It was the earliest reinforced earth wall in Malaysia was built using
metallic reinforcement (Chiu, et al. 1997). The wall known as RE WALLTM, design
and supply by Reinforced Earth Management System (REMS) and consider as
international system.

2
At the moment, in Malaysia, we have another four local system whereby the
shape of walls were created or modified by Malaysia engineers. The said reinforced
earth wall systems are Nehemiah Anchored Earth wall, Anchored-Reinforced Earth
Wall, AnchorSol Reinforced Earth and TechWall. All the systems use deadman
anchorage system. Each system has their preferred client or contractor and sometime
they are reluctant to change to another system unless solely related to the financial
factor. Another international system which is use frictional anchorage are Websol
Wall system and Key Stone System whereby they use Paraweb and Geogrid as
reinforcement respectively.

A study by Tan (2002) concluded that RE Wall (cruciform shape) and

Nehemiah Wall (hexagonal shape) are considered the most common or popular
reinforced earth wall in Malaysia since their high proportion in the market.
Nevertheless, the presence of the other systems cannot be ignored as long as their
performance and reliability is technically proved and their design complies with the
standard as outlined in BS 8006 (1995). Each wall, either common or uncommon
systems have almost similar advantages and disadvantages. It might be different in
connection between concrete facing panel-reinforcement and backfilling properties
requirement.
The common advantages of construct reinforced earth wall for infrastructure
projects are cost savings. According to Basudhar (2006), cost savings from 15% to
50% over the conventional concrete retaining wall depending on wall height and
load condition. Nehemiah (2008), reported that cost saving for his system can be as
much as 30% depending on height of wall and subsoil condition. In addition,
installation time that lead to cost saving is also reduced up to 50% faster than
required time. The popular disadvantage of reinforced earth wall is not economical
for height below four meter (Chan, 2000). According to BS 8006 (1995), the
minimum length of reinforcement must be 70% of height or three meter (0.7H or
3m) for embankment wall and 60% of height add two meter (0.6H + 2m) for
abutment wall. This limitation is reflected to the reinforcement cost for wall less
than four meters height.

3
Furthermore, the applicability of reinforced earth wall depends on the status
of profile change in grade. It is important to determine and confirm the type of
retaining wall system based on profile before decided to select and construct
reinforced earth wall. This means to avoid any an uneconomical and unsuitable
system to be used and may influence the financial forecast.

1.2

Problem Statement

Lack information of reinforced earth wall in construction projects that relate

to the issues below:
i.

All type of common reinforced earth walls that presents in Malaysia based
on their popularity and market sharing.

ii.

The overall advantages and disadvantages of using reinforced earth wall.

iii. The most suitable profile condition to construct reinforced earth wall.

This research will clarify and conclude the situation to make all people who
involve in construction industry aware about the present reinforced earth walls in
our local market and at the end they must be able to select the optimum system for
their project needs.

1.3

The Aim and Objectives

Aim of the study is to establish the information related to reinforced earth

wall in Malaysia.

The objectives of this study are as follow:

i.

To identify the common reinforced earth wall structures in Malaysia

ii.

To evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the common system.

iii.

To establish a basic selection guideline for client to select an appropriate

retaining system for their project needs.

1.4

Scope and Limitation of Study

The scope of study for this research is summarized as follow:

i.

Focus on the reinforced earth structure operate in Malaysia either local or

international systems.

ii.

Limited to the system that use frictional anchorage system and dead-man
anchorage system. The systems use pre-cast concrete facing panel and
suitable for urban area.

iii.

Three Profile Change Grades have been employed for non cost evaluation.
The profiles are cut condition, cut/fill condition and fill condition. The
interviewees were asked based on their experience or knowledge to make
decision on the suitability sys tem for that change.

1.5

Brief Research Methodology

The flowchart indicate the flow of research works that have been conducted
and present in Figure 1.1

5
Flow Chart of Brief Research Methodology
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Lack of information in overall study of reinforced earth wall system related to type of
wall, advantages and disadvantage and suitable place to construct it.

1.
2.
3.

OBJECTIVES
To identify the common reinforced earth wall system in Malaysia.
To evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of common system.
To establish a selection guideline for client to select an appropriate system for
their project needs.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Refer to previous study, articles, journals, papers and
standard manuals

DATA COLLECTION
Questionnaire survey and interview with related parties

DATA ANALYSIS
Analyzed questionnaire result and content analysis

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

Figure 1.1: Brief Research Methodology Flow Chart

CHAPTER

EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURE

2.1

Introduction

The main function of retaining wall is to retain the soil in order to control
erosion especially for hilly ground. The other function of retaining wall is to
minimize the cutting of the original ground and to maximize land use. This section is
to provide the data regarding reinforced earth retaining structure in detail that related
to the objectives and including selected conventional retaining wall.

2.2

Type of Earth Retaining Structure

In many construction operations, it is necessary to alter the ground-surface

profile in such a way as to produce vertical or near vertical faces (Whitlow, 2001).
Sometimes these new profiles may be capable of self support but in other instances a
lateral retaining structure will be required to provide support. In stability analysis,

7
both the nature of the wall and the supported material are important, it may
contribute the effect the wall may move or yield after construction.

If a retaining wall structure is caused to move towards the soil being

supported, the horizontal pressure in the soil will increase, this is then referred to as
passive pressures. If the wall moves away from the supported soil, the horizontal soil
pressures decrease and is referred to then as active pressures. If the wall structure is
rigid and does not yield, the horizontal soil pressures is said to be at-rest pressures.

The type of earth retaining structure is divided into three broad groups which
is externally stabilized system (Gravity walls and In-Situ or Embedded Walls) and
internally stabilized system (Reinforced Soil Walls and In-Situ Reinforcement)

2.2.1

Gravity Walls

2.2.1.1 Masonry wall

It is mass concrete, brickwork or stonework. The strength of the wall

material is generally much greater than that of the underlying soil. The base is
usually formed in mass concrete and will typically have a breadth of one-third to
one-half of the wall height. The stability of this wall and other gravity walls depend
on their mass and size. The example of the masonry wall is shown in Figure 2.1.

8
2.2.1.2 Gabion wall

Gabions are rectangular baskets made from galvanized steel mesh or woven
strip, or plastic mesh (originally wickerwork) and filled with stone rubble or
cobbles, to provide free-draining wall units. The example of gabion wall is shown in
Figure 2.1.

(a) Rubble wall (Masonry wall)

(b) Gabion wall

Figure 2.1: Type of Gravity Walls

2.2.1.3 Crib wall system

It is formed with interlocking precast concrete unit, stretchers run parallel to

the wall face and header are laid perpendicular to the wall face. The space formed by
the cribs is filled with free-draining material, such as sand or quarry products. The
example of the crib wall system is shown in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: Cribwall system

9
2.2.1.4 Reinforced concrete wall (Cantilever RC wall)

Reinforced concrete cantilever walls are the commonest modern form of

gravity wall, either L-shaped or an inverted T-shaped cross-section in formed to
produce a vertical cantilever slab, simple cantilevers, some utilizing the weight of
backfill on the heel portion on the slab helps keep wall stable. It is suitable for walls
up to 6m in height (Whitlow, 2001). For greater height, counterfort wall or
buttressed wall can be used. In RC wall system, to improve sliding resistance as well
as to increase passive force, a downward-projecting key is often incorporated into
the base. The types of RC gravity wall are shown in Figure 2.3.

Counterfort wall is basically a reinforced concrete gravity walls with tension

stiffeners (counterforts) connecting the back of wall slab and the base, so that the
bending and shearing stresses are reduced. Counterfort is used for high wall or
where high lateral pressures will occur or where the backfill is heavily surcharged.

Buttressed wall is similar concept with counterfort wall except the stiffeners
(counterfort) are place infront of the wall and act as compression braces, used for
very tall wall but are not as common. The example of counterfort and buttressed
walls are shown in Figure 2.3.

(a) Cantilever RC Wall

(b) Counterfort/Buttressed Wall

Figure 2.3: Type of Reinforced Concrete wall

10
2.2.2

In-Situ or Embedded wall

2.2.2.1 Sheet Pile Wall

It is flexible structures used particularly for temporary works in harbour

structure and in poor ground. The types of material are timber, pre-cast concrete and
steel. Timber is suitable for temporary works and braced sheet for cantilever walls
up to 3m high. Pre-cast concrete is used for permanent structures but quite heavy.
Steel is widely used, especially for cantilever and tied-back walls, variety of crosssections, strong buckling capacity and reusable in temporary works.

Cantilever walls are economical for height up to 4m (Whitlow, 2001).

Anchored or tie-back walls are used for a wide range of applications in different
soils. Figure 2.4 shows Sheet Pile Wall.

Figure 2.4: Sheet Pile Wall

2.2.2.2 Braced or propped wall

Props, braces, shores or struts are placed in front of the wall. These materials
will reduce the lateral deflection and bending moment and embedment may not be
required. In trenches, struts and wales are used. In wide excavation, framed shores or
raking shores are used.

11
2.2.2.3 Contiguous and Secant bored-pile wall

Contiguous bored-pile wall is formed from a single or double rows of piles

installed in contact with each other, alternate piles are first drilled and placed. A
casing guide is then used to drill alternate pile holes.

Secant bored-pile wall is formed from bored piles, usually about 1m

diameter. Piles are drilled in a row at closer spacing then the pile diameter and the
concrete placed. While the concrete is still quite weak (after 2/3 days), the
intermediate holes are drilled along a parallel but slightly offset, line so that these
holes cut into the first piles.

2.2.2.4 Diaphragm wall

The wall as shown in Figure 2.5, is constructed in a narrow excavated trench

which is temporarily supported by bentonite slurry, the reinforcement caged is
lowered into the trench and the concrete placed through a tremie, thus displacing
slurry. This method is used in difficult ground where driving sheet piles would be
troublesome or high water level or restricted area.

Figure 2.5: Diaphragm/Slurry Wall

12
2.2.3

Reinforced / Anchored earth

Anchored earth systems have developed from a combination of the

techniques used in reinforced soil and soil anchoring. The wall material may be the
in situ rock or soil into which reinforcement is inserted (soil nail or ground anchor),
or reinforcement may be laid between rolls layers as the fill soil or sand is placed
and compacted (reinforced earth wall).

2.2.3.1 Soil Nailing

It is an in situ soil reinforcement method in which steel bars or angles or

other metallic elements are driven in or grouted in drilled holes but not pre-stressed.
They are typically 3-5m long and at spacing of 0.5-2m. The facing is simply a layer
of shortcrete, purposely apply to retain the soil. It is primarily used for temporary
works but suitable for some permanent structures with non-corrodible nails.

Working from the top downward, a mass of reinforced soil is gradually built
up. In order to keep the soil from caving in between the bars, some sort of facing
needs to be installed. This is generally made with some shotcrete reinforced by a
welded wire mesh. This facing can be vertical, battered to a wide variety of angles,
or made up of a series of benches. The passive bars are often referred to as "nails"
and the soil reinforcing technique is known as "soil nailing." Figure 2.6 shows the
general view of soil nailing.

13

(a) Cross Section

(b) Soil Nailing with Shotcrete

Figure 2.6: General view of Soil Nailing

2.2.3.2 Reinforced Soil wall

According to Schlosser (1990), the concept of reinforced earth was

introduced by Henri Vidal in France. The story goes that in the late of 1960s, this
French Engineer was vacationing at the beach and like a true engineer became more
engrossed with the sand than with the scenery. Vidal observed putting horizontal
layers oh pine needles in a pile of sand made it more tolerant to vertical loading.
Thoughtful of observation is a key to invention and he designed a system consisting
of layers of sand separated by flat, horizontal strips of steel. The reinforcement strip s
are attached to facing panel to build a retaining wall.

In the 1970s, the use of steel mesh or grid as reinforcement was introduced
(Wrigley, 1990). Currently, the high tensile galvanized steel bar with mass concrete
anchor block and geo-synthetic material are widely used as reinforcement materials.
In the early 1980s, the name of reinforced earth was known as Mechanically
Stabilized Earth and become general name for all type of reinforced earth wall
structures.

14
The design concept of reinforced earth wall is divided into two categories
which are based on frictional anchored system as in Figure 2.7 and dead-man
anchored system as in Figure 2.8.

a) Frictional Anchored system

(a) Metallic Strip

(b) Polymeric Paraweb (c) Geogrid

Figure 2.7: Type of Frictional Anchored Reinforcement System

b) Dead-man Anchore d system

(a) General Arrangement

(b) Anchor Lug

(c) Anchor Block

Figure 2.8: Components of Dead- man Anchored System

2.2.3.3 Ground anchors

A ground anchor functions as load carrying element, consisting essentially of

a steel tendon inserted into suitable ground formation in almost any direction. As
structures devices, anchors are usually attached to ground supports at their head. The
anchor tendon is installed in special boreholes in a wide variety of soil or rock. The

15
tendon is formed of rods, crimped bars or expanding strip element. It is also used
as tie-backs for sheet-pile walls, tunnels and mine works. Figure 2.9 shows the
application of ground anchor.

Figure 2.9: The Application of Ground Anchor

2.3

The Common Reinforced Earth Wall in Malaysia

The introduction of reinforced earth wall in Malaysia has decreased the

domination of conventional wall system since 1982. The common type of reinforced
earth wall in Malaysia is divided into six. All the systems are registered with
Reinforced Soil Wall Specialist Contractor and Construction Industry Development
Board (CIDB).

2.3.1

RE WALLTM

Reinforced Earth Management Services Sdn Bhd (REMS) is established in

1978, and is a subsidiary company of Reinforced Earth (SEA) Ptd Ltd, which in turn

16
is part of the international group called Groupe TAl headquartered in Paris.
Groupe TAI has its core business centered in the design and supply of Reinforced
Earth retaining walls systems. In 1998, Groupe TAl was acquired by the Freyssinet
Group, thus making REMS a member company of the Freyssinet Group. Another
reinforced earth wall under Freyssinet is Websol Wall.

The wall is cruciform shaped (Figure 2.9), was introduced in Malaysia in

1982. In the last 27 years, REMS had been has successfully constructed more than
1,200,000 m2 of Reinforced Earth retaining walls in more than 400 projects in
Malaysia. REMS product has been renowned as RE WALLTM and categorized as
first generation system.

The stability of this wall is derived from the frictional reaction between
granular material and the grooved surface of reinforcement element. Thus every line
of grooved surface produces passive resistance to the forward movement of
reinforcement. REMS uses metallic strip as reinforcement and it is imported from
Portugal.

2.3.2

Websol Wall

Websol wall was introduced in Malaysia in 1990. It belongs to Freyssinet

Group of Companies. Websol Wall, the patented product was in Malaysia until 2000
and had successfully installed more than 135,000 m2. The T shaped Websol wall
are considered as first generation reinforced earth system in line with Henri Vidal
idea and used high tenacity polyester fibres, the synthetic material called as
Paraweb-2S as reinforcement element. The reinforcement was imported from
Britain. It is light and easy to handle during installation. However, the stability
concept is almost similar to REMS wall but this wall was more flexible than REMS
wall and certain tight guideline has to follow during installation.

17
2.3.3

Nehemiah Wall

Nehemiah Wall is local engineering product, was introduced in 1993. Since

that it has been constructed for more than 700,000 meter square throughout Malaysia
(www.nehemiah.com) and now it penetrates to the international market. Nehemiah
Wall with hexagonal shape (Figure 2.11) is type of reinforced soil system based on
Anchored Earth concept where by the mode of stress transfer from the backfill to
the reinforcement is by passive resistance in addition to friction. This System is
reinforced by galvanized steel bars and anchored by precast concrete blocks. The
facing is vertical consisting of modular hexagonal shaped concrete panels
interlocked together. The system consists of three major components namely the
facing, the reinforcing bars and anchor blocks.

The facing panels are hexagonal shaped and are made of precast concrete
(grade 30). They are interlock with dowels bars with tolerance for horizontal
movements. The horizontal joints between the panels are inserted with compressible
material to allow for vertical movement. As such the facing is flexible and can
tolerate large differential settlement.

The reinforcing bars are made of carbon steel rods in compliance with BS
8006 (1995), Code of practice for Strengthened/reinforced soils and other fills. The
bars are hot-dipped galvanized to prevent corrosion. The advantage of using round
bars instead of strips is that it is more durable against corrosion in view of the
reduced surface area exposed. The bars are connected to the facing panels by nuts
with the threaded end coated with epoxy.

The anchor blocks are discrete precast concrete blocks which act as deadmen. A hole is preformed in the centre of the block to enable the reinforcing bar to
pass through thereby connected with nut and washer. The advantage of using anchor
blocks is that it enhanced the pull out resistance of the reinforcing bar. As a result,
the use of cohesive frictional material as backfill is possible since the system does
not rely so much on friction for the stress transfer.

18
2.3.4

Pati Reinforced Earth Wall

The system has been created in year 2001, uses similar method with
Nehemiah Wall anchored system. It was registered as S and Z shaped but wellknown as TechWall. Since that, it has been constructed more than 160,000 m2 all
over Malaysia. The size of concrete facing panel is 1.60m by 1.50m. Figure 2.11
shows Pati reinforced earth wall as Te chWall.

2.3.5

AnchorSol Wall

The system has been created in year 1996, uses dead- man system, similar
method with Nehemiah Wall and TechWall. It was registered as inverted T shaped
as shown in Figure 2.11 and also known as FlexSoil Wall. So far, it has been
constructed more than 80,000 m2 all over Malaysia. The size of concrete facing
panel is 1.50m by 1.50m.

2.3.6

Anchored-Reinforced Earth Wall

The system has been created in year 2001, uses the similar method with
Nehemiah Wall and TechWall but the different is only at the connection between
reinforcement and concrete facing panel. The connection is called as KC buckle
and adjustable in all direction to suit the site condition. It was registered as T
shaped but smaller than Websol Wall. So far, it has been constructed more than
70,000 m2 all over Malaysia. The size of concrete facing panel is 1.50m by 1.50m

19
2.3.7

Key-Stone System

The system is from overseas and was introduced in Malaysia in year 1996.
The products can be used for a wide variety of applications from flower beds and
borders, to the large hills and slopes. It is different from the above reinforced earth
structure. Keystone offers both gravity wall which is relies on its mass to resist the
earth pressure and reinforced soil wall for taller and critical wall. Keystone uses
geosynthetic materials as reinforcement. Geogrid are made from high density
polyolefins of high tenacity woven polyester yams. Keystone consists three types of
components which is Standard unit (8x18x21.5), Compac unit (8x18x12) and
cap unit (4x1810.5).

2.4

Advantages of Reinforced Earth Wall

The advantages of reinforced earth wall are divided into seven factors. Each
factor is explained based on it sub-support factors.

2.4.1

Economical

Reinforced earth wall can be constructed to any height. Irrespective of the

height, the panel thickness and reinforcement details in concrete facing panels are
still the same. Basically, the thickness of facing panel is in range of 140mm to
230mm with grade 30 concrete and theoretically, this thickness is save to cater
lateral pressure. The techniques used in the construction of reinforced earth wall

20
remain the same regardless oh heights. On the other hand, the detailing for
conventional walls varies substantially with the height, as the design changes from a
cantilever wall to counterfort wall.

The reinforcement in concrete facing panels is BRC either Type A (200mm

bar spacing) or Type B (100mm bar spacing). The number of additional
reinforcement bar is also less compare to conventional retaining wall. Figure 2.10
shows in place casting materials. This detail is used for any height of wall unless the
designer put extra effort to provide more confident based products.

The installation of segmental system is faster than conventional system and it

does not require specialize labor or equipment. This is the reason why most of the
construction company currently moves to prefabricated construction system
renowned as integrated building system (IBS). The construction or installation time
can be accurately predicted as a result reduces construction time lead to further cost
saving. For reinforced earth wall with 2.40m2 concrete facing panels, the installation
is 40m2 per team per day including pulling reinforcement, spread and compact
backfilling (source: Anchored-Reinforced Earth Wall Sdn Bhd).

In the construction of highways, the construction time is directly related to

the cost of construction. Speedy construction helps to cut down machinery costs and
overheads. Reinforced Earth designs are optimized to ensure maximum cost
effectiveness. Its simple and repetitive construction technique simplifies control and
management, and helps to minimize wastage and pilferage on site. In normal
circumstances, applying reinforced earth as a retaining structure can save cost up to
30% (Nehemiah, 2008).

21
300mm
Addidtional
steel bar

BRC A7
Figure 2.10: In Place Casting Materials

2.4.2

Aesthetic Appearance

Precast Reinforced Earth panels can be easily modified to allow for specific
architecture finishes. Combinations of geometrical shapes (such as ribbed,
embossed, logo) and concrete textures (such as plain, rock finishes) provide for
infinite possibilities in the finished product. Figure 2.11 and Figure 2.12 shows the
variety of panel shape and surface finishes respectively.

(a) Nehemiah Wall

(b) RE WALL TM

(c) Websol/ARE Wall

(d) AnchorSol Wall

(e) TechWall

(f) KeyStone System

Figure 2.11: Shape of Precast Facing Panel

22

(a) Plain Finish

(b) Embossed Finish

(c) Shimada (ribbed) Finish

(d) The Owner Needs.

Figure 2.12: Basic Surface Finishes of Reinforced Earth Wall

2.4.3

Long Term Durability

According to BS 8006 (1995), Reinforced earth walls can be designed based

on sacrificial thickness of reinforcement which is for galvanized steel bar and
metallic strip, the design service life is up to 120 years but so far no information to
prove this theory technically since the first significant structures were constructed in
Europe in 1967. (Anderson, 2005). Therefore, the implication of post-construction
damage should be considered in design analysis. Examples of post-construction
damage are accidental loadings such as vehicle impact, slitting of geotextile or
geogrid by vandals, fire and flooding.

Highway operators are often required to take responsibility for the highway
for the duration of their operation, which sometimes exceeds 30 years. Nevertheless,
reinforced earth wall is criticized on its durability as the potential corrosion of
metallic reinforcements, which are the most important structural elements in the
system, is quite difficult to detect underground. To enhance the durability of the
system, first reinforcement are galvanized and second, select fill materials with nonaggressive characteristic, to safeguard unpredictable corrosion attack and third

23
sacrificial factor for corrosion comply with Table 7, BS 8006 as shown in Table
2.1 below.

Reinforced Earth wall is capable of supporting large loading, and is most

suitable for use in bridge abutment construction. This is caused by reaction elements
between reinforcement and soil backfill to form a strong reinforced soil mass. In
abutment where the bridge loading are structurally supported on piles, reinforced
Earth wall and embankment are used as a working platform to support the loading
and dead loads during the casting of the cross beams or bank seats or launching of
bridge girders. Figure 2.13 shows the effect of reinforcement in soil. The settlement
of reinforced soil is much lesser than unreinforced soil.

Table 2.1: Allowable Sacrificial Thickness

Source: BS 8006 (1995), Table 7, Page 22

Furthermore, the properties of granular backfill, normally sand, provide good

draining system for water to flow. The behaviors of granular back fill reduce
hydrostatic pressure in side the reinforced earth structure that causes the failure of

24
wall due to the water. At the same time, least number of weep holes may require
to allow water to seek the direction compare to conventional wall system.

(a) unreinforced soil

(b) Reinforced soil

Figure 2.13: The effect of Reinforcement in Soil

Source: BS 8006 (1995), Figure 2, Page 19

2.4.4

Structural Flexibility

The modular nature of reinforced earth wall and the reinforced granular
backfill allows for significant differential movement along the wall. The ability of
reinforced earth wall to withstand extreme settlement is a well-recognized benefit of
this construction technology. Bastick (1985) reported that reinforced earth structures
have accommodated total settlements of nearly 3 feet (1000mm), as well as
differential settlements greater than 1 foot (300mm) in 100 feet (3000mm) (1%),
without loss of structural function and without showing facing panel distress.

The bearing capacity for reinforced earth wall is uniform at the base of wall,
not like conventional system, the bearing at toe is higher than heel. As a result
reinforced earth wall requires lesser foundation treatment at the base and suitable for
relatively poor soil condition. Based on JKR probes manual for reinforced concrete
foundation, the bearing capacity for reinforced earth structure is 50% less than
conventional wall system. It means that for 400kPa is only require 70 blows per feet.
Figure 2.14 shows allowable bearing capacity vs JKR value.

25

Figure 2.14: Allowable Bearing Capacity vs JKR Value

Source: UEM Builders Sdn Bhd

Since the wall is flexible, it is well-suited for applications in region of high

seismic. Frankenberger (1996) reported that twenty one of reinforced earth walls and
two reinforced earth abutments experienced the 6.7 Richter magnitude Northridge
earthquake in 1994, in the densely populated San Fernando Valley 20 miles
northwest of Los Angeles. Building, bridges and freeways all suffered several
damage, yet all reinforced earth structure performed extremely well, with only
superficial damage to a few facing panels of one wall.

Figure 2.15 clearly shows that the concrete facing panel still can withstand
even though the base of wall has already sank and the gap may be more than
300mm. Reinforced earth retaining wall has a tremendous design concepts to face
this type of problem.

Figure 2.15: The Effect of Settlement

26
2.4.5

Area of Application

Reinforced earth structure is most recommended for bridge abutment project.

There are two type of bridge abutment as shown in Figure 2.16 while using
reinforced earth wall as an embankment wall. In a true abutment, the bridge beams
are supported on a spread footing bearing directly on the reinforced earth wall
structure. (Figure 2.1). This technique eliminates the using of pile to support bridge
seat and the bump at the end of the bridge as a result it is more cost effective than
mixed abutment. True abutment should be considered for most bridges especially if
constructed on compressible foundation soils.

Another advantage is most activity takes place behind the wall. Reinforced
Earth is constructed from the rear side or erect from behind and requires very little
working area in front of the wall. This minimizes traffic disruption, and allows for
uninterrupted construction.

(a) True Abutment

(b) Mixed Abutment

Figure 2.16: Type of Bridge Abutment

2.4.6

Environmental Friendly

In many construction projects it becomes norm to cut the trees and earth to
form formation level to accommodate super structures. This process is actually

27
destroys our valued environment and expose it to more erosion especially during
monsoon season. The main purpose of constructing reinforced earth wall is to reduce
cutting trees and earths and increase land use, more area can be used for building. As
a result the modification on original ground profile can be minimized.

In terms of environmental impact, reinforced earth wall are more pleasing,

especially the sites are close proximity to the residential buildings and the
construction of reinforced earth walls mainly involve backfilling and compaction
which generate minimal noise.

2.4.7

Sustainability Concepts

Recycling is one of sustainability concepts. In producing concrete facing

panels, steel moulds are widely used by all reinforced earth wall suppliers. Most of
them uses 1000 times for mould depreciation purposely for casting of concrete
panels. The concepts may reduce the using of environmental source to produce
formworks which has been used in conventional wall system since long time ago.

The other sustainability concepts used in reinforced earth wall is energy

efficient. Reinforced earth structure is regarded as energy efficient because the
quantities of structural elements (facing panel and reinforcement) are less and
construction activities involve the use of compactors and excavators. (Lam, 2004).

28
2.5

Disadvantages of reinforced earth wall

The disadvantages of reinforced earth wall are divided into six factors. The
factors are Standard Limitation, Material Requirements, Verticality, Future Activity,
Uncertainty in Alignment and Maintenance.

2.5.1

Standard Limitation

Basically, reinforced earth wall apply minimum base width is 70% of total
height. This length is noted in BS 8006 (1995), without considering trapezoidal
design. For trapezoidal design, the length of reinforcement material for the first top
50% of height is 70% of total height, and 55% and 40% of height respectively.
Compare to other system especially reinforced concrete wall, the base of reinforced
concrete wall can be adjusted at site as such one third of base length to be placed at
in front of wall therefore the excavation of original ground at the back of wall would
be minimized. Figure 2.17 shows the initial sizing of reinforced earth wall base.

(a) Partial he ight wall

(b) Bridge Abutment

(c) Trapezoidal Wall

Figure 2.17: Initial sizing of reinforced earth wall base (BS 8006, 1995)

29
The design requirement as stated in BS 8006 (1995) become redline to the
application of reinforced earth wall for lower height of wall unless the aesthetical
appearance is more important for the client.

2.5.2

Material Requirements.

The service life of a reinforced earth structure is defined as the period of time
during which the tensile stress in the soil reinforcement will be less than or equal to
the allowable stress for the reinforcement materials (Anderson, 2005). The primary
factor for determining service life of a reinforced earth structure is corrosion of the
reinforcement materials which is for a metallic or galvanized reinforcement
materials is closely related to backfill electrochemical properties.

Research on buried galvanized steel conducted by Terre Armee

Internationale and FHWA confirms that metal loss rate (Table 2.2) used in the
design of reinforced earth structures are conservative for steel soil reinforcement
galvanized with 600m per square meter of zinc and buried in backfill meeting the
electrochemical requirement in Table 2.3.

It is necessary to maintain the reinforcement in an allowable stress condition

at the end of the service life, the loss rate in Table 2.2 determine the sacrificial
thickness of steel which must be allowed on each surface exposed to corrosion and
to produce the design cross section. The designer must aware and state in their
design analysis purposely to predict the behavior of reinforced earth wall in future.

30
Table 2.2: Metal Loss Rate (AMSE, 2005)

Table 2.3: Electrochemical Requirements (AMSE, 2005)

While the requirement as shown in Table 2.3, makes extra task to the clients
to identify the reliable sources before send it for testing. At the same time, currently
it is quite difficult to get and fulfill the requirement at the lower price. By the way, it
may reflect to the actual project schedule.

Another important requirement is the application of high extensible materials

as reinforcement. Example of high extensible material is Paraweb, the maximum
elongation of this material can achieve 11%. Therefore, according to the designer
who used Paraweb before, 50% of it strength should be reduced to consider for creep
and construction damage. As a result, the cost of reinforced earth wall uses this
material become higher than other materials.

2.5.3

Verticality

The verticality is basically attributed workmanship. Poor workmanship and

backfilling not fulfill the requirement make the reinforced earth wall installed at

31
unsatisfied level. The application of high extensible reinforcement may face the
verticality problem if the contractor ignores some trial-and-error task. This task
require only for high extensible material and to ensure the wall is within the
allowable verticality tolerance is provides trench before lay reinforcement material.
The weight of backfill material pushes undulating reinforcement to the trench during
compaction as a result reduces elongation in reinforcement that caused verticality
problem.

2.5.4

Future Activity

Principally, reinforced earth wall block is full with reinforcements with close
distance each other make it impossible to provide access after construction. Any
underground utilities must be pre-determined during design stage. This is to ensure
that a necessary solution can be proposed like reinforcement attach to reinforced
concrete manhole, require unusual reinforcement length. Another activity that
contributes to the instability of reinforced earth wall system is excavation in front of
wall especially around one meter to face of wall. The owner has to ensure that
within one meter, any excavation is prohibited. Minimum requirement for
embedment is H/20 (BS 8006, 1995) for uniform ground level. Figure 2.18 shows
the effect of scouring and erosion near leveling pad.

(a) Effect of Scouring

Figure 2.18: The Effect of Scouring.

(b) Effect of Expose Leveling Pad

32
2.5.5

Uncertainty in Alignment

All reinforced earth wall systems have no problem to construct in straight

alignment but certain system faces problem to provide good curved wall when the
curvature radius is smaller than requirement. The ability of wall to curve is depends
on their overlapping size. For examples, if panel-to-panel overlapping is 600mm,
thus the edge of panel will protrude at a curve radius of 90m and if 200mm
overlapping, the panel can be constructed to a radius as low as 30m.

Another uncertainty is acute angle. According to installation practice, to

ensure the service of reinforcement is in optimum level, it must be tied
perpendicular to concrete facing panels. Reinforcement is allowed to twist within 15
degree to the perpendicular line. If within this angle, the required reinforcement
length is still can be accommodated thus extra reinforcement must be used to
connect panel to panel. Figure 2.19 shows the position of extra reinforcement that
connects panel to panel at acute angle.

Figure 2.19: The Position of Extra Reinforcement

Source: AASHTO (2002).

33
2.5.6

Maintenance

Principally, inside reinforced soil block is fully utilized with reinforcement

elements either metallic strip or hot dipped galvanized steel bar or geogrid. The
elements are sandwiched between granular fill in successive layer have been
designed based on their appropriate loads applied during analysis; the load can not
be added after construction otherwise the reinforcement would locally fail due to the
additional load. Therefore the presence of any deep root trees are definitely
increased the stress and deformation to reinforcement material. The additional stress
in reinforcement; at the end, reduce the design life of the reinforcement and
generally the whole retaining system may fail before achieve the predicted life span.

Figure 2.20: Tree grows in between facing panel gap.

Maintenance for reinforced earth wall is not required to carry out

periodically. In many journals regarding reinforced earth wall, the authors are
always mention that the system can be blend with the surrounding by the whole
system covered with the greenery plant. Nevertheless in some cases as shown in
Figure 2.20, this type of plant must be removed before the concrete facing panel
cracks and cause another major effect due to it. The owner should have sound
engineering awareness to make the system serves in normal circumstances.

CHAPTER

SUITABILITY EVALUATION OF REINFORCED EARTH WALL

3.1

Introduction

The chapter describes the suitability evaluation of reinforced earth (RE) wall
with regard to the profile condition. The profiles condition consists such as cut
condition, cut/fill condition and fill condition. The suitable reinforced earth (RE)
wall will be evaluated based on an actual ground circumstances. The evaluation
process includes pre-decision studies, decision making and designing the system.

3.2

Pre-decision Evaluation Studies

The pre-decision evaluation studies consist of three task addressing

feasibility and suitability of a reinforced earth wall system for a given project. The
tasks are:

35

Feasibility assessment of RE wall construction.

Evaluation of requirement such as geometry of wall.

Feasibility design of RE wall system.

3.2.1

Reinforced earth wall feasibility Assessment

The first task is to evaluate the feasibility of retaining wall construction for
the proposed project. Selection of the most appropriate wall type for a given location
in a project can have significant effects on the project cost, schedule and
constructability. If reinforced earth wall to be considered as a potential retaining
wall structure, the factor should be taken into consideration include:

Economical sources of backfilling material available for RE wall

construction

Space constraints at the project location are such that construction or a re

wall provides an economic advantage over a reinforced or un-reinforced
slope.

Foundation conditions are suitable to support reinforced earth structure or

special measures for foundation improvement can be reasonably and
economical applied.

After examining the above factors, a conceptual design for RE wall structure
should be completed and sufficient in detail. The study includes developing the
performance criteria for the structure such as surcharge loads, design heights,
settlement tolerances, foundation bearing capacity, required toe embedment depth
and other as outlined in Elias et al. (2001).

36
3.2.2

Determination of Requirement

If the space constraints dictate that construction of RE wall will impact

traffic, several options should be considered before implementing other support
system like shoring the excavation especially for cut area. The options include
temporary road closures, road diversion or lowering of the road grade to facilitate
RE wall construction.

If the RE wall construction is deemed viable but space constraints at the

project location as such that the RE wall excavation cannot be made at an
appropriate slope angle, a preliminary estimate to propose another system like soil
nailing should be made. Another alternative system is shoring wall whereby the
excavated slope is being shored before the construction of RE wall. This method is
to facilitate construction of RE wall with relatively short reinforcement length.
Figure 3.1 shows the alternative design for RE wall at cut/fill area. The purpose of
soil nailing or shoring wall at the back of RE wall is to minimize excavation that
allows shorter reinforcement with minor lateral forces.

RE wall

Figure 3.1: RE wall Design with Soil Nailing Wall (Elias et al, 2001)

37
3.3

Decision Point

The decision will not only be based on the relative cost and speed of
construction, but may incorporate other considerations such as aesthetics and
compatibility with other project construction or structures. Another consideration are
soil condition either conducive to soil nailing or sheet piling and profile change
grade.

3.4

Suitability Process for The Reinforced Earth Wall

The situation where reinforced earth wall was generally constructed has been
identified and divided into 3 categories which are cut condition, cut/fill condition
and fill condition. Once a difference in grade has been identified as part of the
design process, the decision must be made to construct a slope (reinforced or
unreinforced) or a retaining wall. If adequate space exists, construction of a slope
should first be considered. With regards to the wall selection, the following general
criteria require consideration as above mentioned.

First consideration is whether the wall will be built in cut, cut/fill or fill. Fill
type walls may be constructed in cut situation but for all type of cut walls is not true
to construct in fill situation. Example of cut wall is soil nailing. However the
construction of fill walls in cuts situation requires additional excavation behind the
face of the wall depending on space available for excavation. To ensure the
additional slope excavation in cut situation is stable during pre-construction of fill
wall, may requires shoring wall as shown in Figure 3.1. However, a more
appropriate cut type wall should first be considered before combine amongst two of
them.

38
Cut/fill situation involves placing fill on the upper portion of a slope and cut
in the lower portion of the slope. Construction of reinforced earth wall requires that
adequate space is available for excavation. If space is not constraint on top of the
slope, therefore it is recommended to use trapezo idal design of RE wall as shown in
Figure 2.17 in Chapter 2. The excavation for this design could be minimized and
less disturbance on the stability of original slope profile. When the space is limited
on top, like the road cannot be closed or diverted, thus temporary systems are
required to hold the slope during the construction of retaining walls. If the wall is
low, may be economical to construct tie-back wall or sheet piling wall.

Fill wall construction is on either level or sloping ground. For level ground
situations, construction of reinforced earth wall is generally economical. RE walls
on slopes require an excavated bench for construction. Excavation of the bench is
accomplished either through construction of a temporary slope or a shoring wall
(shoring wall such as soil nailing, tie-back wall or sheet pile wall). If this situation
requires permanent shoring and RE wall, so this type of wall combination renowned
as shoring mechanically stabilized earth wall or SMSE wall (AASHTO, 2002). As a
result, allows shorter RE wall reinforcement and reduce excavation quantity.

CHAPTER

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the methodology adopted in

completing this study. The methodologies adopted include the literature review on
the performance of reinforced earth wall in Malaysian and all over the world. A
questionnaire survey is also created for distribution to the target groups. Every
methodologies used are described in detail.

4.2

Literature Review

Literature review was carried out to collect data to support the understanding
of the study. Information are generated and extracted from general sources such as
books, e-books, articles, journals, papers and conference proceedings, which are
related to reinforced earth wall system or projects. The published technical journals

40
were collected from International Geotechnical Conference and others. The thesis
was also retrieved from Sultanah Zanariah Library (PSZ), UTM.

4.3

Approach of Data Collection

There are various types of research design and methods available to be

adopted for study purpose. The methods are classified into qualitative and
quantitative methods.

Qualitative research explores attitudes, behaviour and experiences through

interview have been conducted on the selective target groups. This method is
purposely conducted to get an in-depth opinion from the participant s.

Quantitative research generates data in the form of numbers through the use
of selective survey research, usually includes physical and statistical controls to
allow the testing of hypothesis. However the qualitative data collected had been
analyzed using quantitative method such as frequency analysis.

4.4

Questionnaire Survey

The second stage in methodology is collecting premier data. The premier data
is a recent data required in the study. Questionnaire survey were distributed to the
selective construction firms or contractor who directly involved in the design and
construction of the reinforced earth wall. This is some kind of objective way in
collecting data, and is relevant because it is directly involved the relevant parties.

41
However, not every single data could be collected through questionnaire
survey. Additional information such as personal view and comments about the
common reinforced earth wall and the suitability condition to construct it may be
difficult to be collected in the questionnaire. In view to the constraint in
questionnaire survey, the interview will be implemented. Based on the interview the
normal practice used by the experienced consultant and contractors in answering the
question will be identified.

4.5

Preparation of Questionnaire Survey

The complete set of questionnaire survey forms have been prepared for every
selective respondent for the purpose of collecting data. The preparation of the said
forms, shall be based on the issues raised in literature review study. The objective
questions comprised of the survey on the advantages and disadvantages of using
reinforced earth wall as retaining structure.

The questions are prepared, based on 3 important parts as follows:

Part A Background of the respondent / professional

This part will highlight on the background, position and respondents
experience in reinforced earth wall projects.

Part B Respondents view on issues related to the reinforced earth

wall.

Part C Find out the most popular factor that relate to each
advantages and disadvantages.

42
To elicit the extent of contribution of factors, the survey respondents were
asked to rate against the five-point scale. The responses to the questionnaire is based
on Average Index (AI) scale of five ordinal measures which is from one (1) to five
(5) according to the level of contributing factors attributed to the questions as shown
in Figure 4.1. The formula used to calculate Average Index (Odeh and Batainneh,
2001) is as follow:
Average Index = (aX), whereby X = n/N

a = Measurement for scale 1 to 5.

N = Total respondent.
n = Number of responding indices.

Scale of 1 to 5

Increasing degree of contribution

Figure 4.1 Five scale measures of Average Index.

The Average Index (AI) measurement represents the following scale :

5 = Highly contributing
4 = High contributing
3 = Medium contributing
2 = Low contributing
1 = Least contributing

Responses to the questionnaire were then analyzed. The analysis included

ranking the factors in terms of degree of contribution.

43
The computation of the Average Index (AI) this formula will yield the value
of AI ranging from 1 to 5. The values 1 represent the lowest strength and the value 5
representing the maximum strength.

4.6

Distribution of Questionnaire Survey Forms

There are two (2) methods applied in the distribution of questionnaire survey.
The methods are through internet and surrendered by hand by the researcher.

Even though there are various methods in practiced, the researcher found that
the methods applied is the practical way and sufficient to meet the study objective
and the constraint to complete the whole study.

4.7

Interviews

The information gathered in questionnaire survey forms are sufficient for

issue related to the advantages and disadvantages of reinforced earth wall. The main
purpose of the interview is to identify common reinforced earth wall and suitability
evaluation based on profile change grade. The interviews were been conducted with
selective contractors and consultants who involved directly in the construction of
reinforced earth wall system.

44
4.8

Selection of Respondents for Questionnaire Survey

Respondents from questionnaire survey comprised of professionals in

construction firms with experience in retaining wall structure. The group comprised
of various background inclusive of Engineers and Senior Managers. Their difference
experience and exposure in various types of retaining wall structures have
contributed to various scenarios in answering the questionnaire survey.

4.9

Selection of Respondents for Face to Face Interview

In face to face interviews the respondents have been asked about their
opinion with regard to the common reinforced earth wall in Malaysia and the
suitability evaluation on using reinforced earth as retaining structure based on profile
change grade. The interviewees have been responded to the structured interview
question with reference to their real experience while working in retaining wall
projects. Thus has supported the data collection of this study.

CHAPTER

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

5.1

Introduction

This chapter analyses the data collected from the questionnaires and
interviews. The method used is discussed in Chapter 4.

5.2

Analysis of Data from Questionnaire Survey

Based on the structured questionnaire, the respondents were asked to rate the
degree of contribution on the advantages and disadvantages listed in the literature
review. Furthermore the respondents were also requested to add any other factors
that related to reinforced earth retaining system.

The literature review were group into three categories, the common
reinforced earth retaining system in Malaysia, The advantages and disadvantages of

46
most common reinforced earth system and the suitability evaluation of reinforced
earth wall.

5.2.1

Respondents Background

There are 18 responses received from the contractors and consultant, four
(22%) of them are from top management, seven (39%) are project managers, while
five (28%) are project engineers and four are Site Supervisors (11%). Thus Table 5.1
shows the composition of respondent s position.

Table 5.1: Composition of respondents in their organisation.

Profession/Position

Respondents

Director/ General Manager

Project Manager/Const. Manager/Manager

Project Engineer

Site Supervisor

5.2.2

Respondents Experience

The respondents have different levels of working experience in reinforced

earth retaining projects. Proportions of the respondents in terms of number of years
of involvement are tabulated in Table 5.2. Based on the tabulation, it is indicated that
majority are having more than ten years of experience. The details are as follows:

47
Table 5.2: Respondent s experience in Reinforced Earth wall projects
Experience

Respondents

Less than 4 years

4 to 7 years

7 to 10 years

More than 10 years

5.2.3

The number of completed projects

The respondents have different number of completed project in reinforced

earth retaining projects. Proportions of the respondents in terms of number of project
are tabulated in Table 5.3. Based on the tabulation, it is indicated that majority are
having more than sixteen completed projects. The details are as follows:

Table 5.3: Respondents completed projects

Number of Project

Respondents

Less than 5 projects

5 to 10 projects

10 to 15 projects

15 to 20 projects

More than 20 projects

14

5.2.4

Type of projects involved reinforced earth wall

In order to ensure that the data are gathered from different application of
reinforced earth wall, the proportion of respondents are tabulated based on type of
Projects that involve reinforced earth wall in their project.

48
Table 5.4 : Respondents involvement based on type of projects
Type of projects

Respondents

Bridge Abutments

Land Development

Railway

Retaining Wall

5.2.5

Rate of Response

Forty questionnaires survey has been distributed which are twenty of it

through e- mail, ten by hand and another ten was by fax). The total eighteen numbers
or 45% of distributed questionnaire survey had been received from the respondents.

5.2.6

The result of questionnaires Based on Average Index

The advantages of reinforced earth wall is divided into seven factors, known
as Economical, Aesthetic appearance, Long term durability, Structural flexibility,
Area of application, Environmental friendly and Sustainability concepts. Each item is
ranked separately to determine the most important factor that relate to each
advantages.

While the disadvantages of reinforced earth wall is divided into six

categories, known as Standard limitation, Material requirement, Verticality, Future

49
Activity, Uncertainty of horizontal alignment and Maintenance. Each item is also
ranked separately to determine the most critical factor that relate to each
disadvantages. Those advantages and disadvantages identified are not related to
technical matters. Results of questionnaires for the advantages and disadvantages of
reinforced earth wall are tabulated in Table 5.5 and Table 5.6 respectively.

50
Table 5.5 : The advantages of common reinforced earth retaining system.
Factor/ Description

Frequency Analysis (FA)

AI

Economical
Reduction on volume of concrete since
the thickness of precast panel is
uniform for any height.
Reduction on rebar cost caused by
BRC uses as reinforcement in precast
panels.
The installation can be done at a much
faster
rate,
therefore
reduce
construction time would lead to further
cost saving.
Aesthetic Appearance
The quality and appearance of panels
can be controlled at casting yard and
structured according to client needs
respectively.
Precast panels can be easily modified
to allow specific architectural finishes
provide for infinite possibilities in the
finished product.
Long term durability
Reinforced earth can be designed to 50
years and more. All factors are
considered in the design therefore the
design life can be theoretically
predicted
The reinforced earth wall is able to
carry high load capacity. The
increasing load application is not
much affected to the performance of
the system.
The properties of granular material
allow water to flow through as a result
reduces hydrostatic pressure and the
probability of wall to fail due to water.
Structural Flexibility
The flexibility of reinforced soil mass
produces uniform bearing pressure at
the base, resulting in lower design
bearing pressure, hence requiring
lesser foundation treatment at the base
The nature of precast panel and the
reinforced granular backfill allows for
significant
differential
movement
along the wall.

Rank

Total
Disagree

Total
Agree

3.33

61%

39%

12

4.61

1%

99%

10

4.33

1%

99%

14

4.22

0%

100%

3.67

44%

56%

12

3.89

22%

88%

12

3.78

27%

73%

11

4.05

16%

84%

10

3.89

27%

73%

10

4.55

16%

84%

1=Least contribution 2=Low contribution 3=Medium contribution

4=High contribution 5=Highly contribution

51
Table 5.5 : The advantages of common reinforced earth retaining system (Contd).

Frequency Analysis (FA)

Factor / Description
1
Area of Application
Reinforced earth system is most
recommended for bridge project
especially bridge abutment.
Reinforced earth wall system require
minimum foundation treatment and
suitable for relatively poor soil
condition.
Very little working area in front of the
wall; most activity take place behind
the wall, as a result minimize traffic
disruption and allows uninterrupted of
construction.
Environmental Friendly
This technology applies less cutting
trees and earths, reduce polluting to
the river as well as causing flash flood.
The using of geo-synthetic materials
as reinforcement can be sustained for
many years lay underground; it has
resistance to biological effects and no
side effect in the soil.
Sustainability Concepts
Recycle is one of sustainability
concepts, other than moulds, panels
and other accessories can also be
recycled and reinstalled to other places
and to help minimize wastage on site.
The construction of reinforced earth
wall mainly involves backfilling and
compaction generate minimal noise

AI

Rank

Total
Disagree

Total
Agree

11

4.61

0%

100%

3.33

61%

39%

13

4.72

0%

100%

13

3.05

83%

17%

14

4.11

5%

95%

10

4.55

0%

100%

13

3.83

22%

78%

1=Least contribution 2=Low contribution 3=Medium contribution

4=High contribution 5=Highly contribution

52
Table 5.6 : The disadvantages of common reinforced earth retaining system.

Factor / Description

Standard Limitation
Reinforced earth wall requires large
base to accommodate reinforcement
length compare to conventional wall.
Reinforced earth wall is not
economical to build for height less
than four meters due to the minimum
reinforcement length stipulated in
BS8006.
Material Requirements
The using of galvanized steel bar and
metallic strip as reinforcement
requires that backfill meet minimum
electrochemical
requirement
for
corrosion protection.
Allowable load for high extensible
reinforcement materials must be
reduced to consider material factors
such as creep and construction
damage.
Verticality
The using of high extensible
reinforcement
may
face
the
verticality
problem
after
the
installation of reinforced earth wall.
For geo-synthetic reinforcement may
require a trench before laying it to
ensure that the verticality is within
the tolerance.
Future Activity
Reinforced earth wall is strictly not
appropriate for location where it may
be necessary to gain future access to
the underground utilities.
Any location subject to scouring in
the future must be avoided unless an
appropriate solution has been carried
out.
Uncertainty in Alignment
The installation of precast panels is
quite difficult to get a good curve
when the curvature radius is too
small.
If the wall is being installed at acute
corner place, the extra reinforcement
is requires to protect panel
movement.

Frequency Analysis (FA)

AI

Rank

Total
Disagree

Total
Agree

10

3.00

78%

22%

13

3.83

22%

78%

11

4.28

5%

95%

3.50

50%

50%

3.61

50%

50%

3.39

61%

39%

12

3.39

5%

95%

4.17

16%

84%

10

4.00

22%

78%

4.39

5%

95%

1=Least contribution 2=Low contribution 3=Medium contribution

4=High contribution 5=Highly contribution

53
Table 5.6 : The disadvantages reinforced earth retaining system (Contd)
Factor / Description

Maintenance
Maintenance must be done
periodically to remove any trees
grow up in between the panels
(interlocking part) that might affect
the wall and scenery in the future.
Any deep root trees are not
allowed to plant within reinforced
soil area. It may contribute to the
failure of reinforcement to perform
as norm.

Frequency Analysis (FA)

AI

Rank

Total
Disagree

Total
Agree

12

3.83

22%

78%

4.44

5%

95%

1=Least contribution 2=Low contribution 3=Medium contribution

4=High contribution 5=Highly contribution

5.3

Data collection from Interviews

The whole method to obtain information for objective one and three is based
on interview as well as sketch was also distributed to help respondents to figure out
on what the questions want. The parties involved in getting information for these
objectives are different but the group number is similar. The panels are also consisted
of two (2) groups from Consultants and Contractors. There are two (2) consultants
and three (3) from Contractors taking part in this interview. They are all expert in
infrastructure works as well as slope stabilization works.

5.3.1

Content Analysis

Most of the answer given by the interviewees is almost the same. Even
though it has no ranking to the interview analysis like in questionnaire survey, but

54
the similarity of answer to the same questions are considered as achieving the
objective of the questions.

The questions asked are related to the identification of common reinforced

earth wall structure used in Malaysia and the suitability of reinforced earth wall
application based on profile change grade as explained during interviewing. For the
suitability of reinforced earth wall application, they were asked based on the sketch
which is contains three condition of profile change grade. The conditions are cut,
cut/fill and fill. The interviewees have recommended the most economical retaining
wall system and alternatives retaining wall system for each condition. The results of
interviews are tabulated in table 5.7 and table 5.8

55

Table 5.7: Result of Interviews Common Reinforced Earth Retaining System

Questions

Interviewee A

Interviewee B

Interviewee C

Interviewee D

Interviewee E

General Manager
Unison Plus Sdn.Bhd
More than 10 years

Operation Manager
CHG Engineering Sdn
Bhd
More than 10 years

Engineering Manager
IJM Sdn Bhd
More than 10 years

Project Manager
UEM Builders
Bhd
8 years

What is the most

common reinforced earth
wall
system
in
Malaysia?

- Cruciform shape was

built many places in
Malaysia.
- world wide system

- REMS wall the first

system in Malaysia is
normally leading the
market but dont forget
of local hexagonal
wall.

- Now days, Nehemiah

wall is common for
every
project
especially the project
under JKR. May be in
five years time, it will
be leading the market.

What are the factors

make the above systems
become
popular
in
Malaysia?

- Pioneer system in
Malaysia since 1980s
- comes from overseas
and client confident on
their team.

- It is the cheapest
system in Malaysia.
Their effort is always
deliver and complete
on time.

- I understand that
Nehemiah
wall
is
aggressively trying to
put their product in
line with RE wall
- So, RE wall and
Nehemiah wall are
common in Malaysia.
- may be they offer a
good price or the client
see their system is
simple.

What are the other

reinforced
earth
retaining system that
frequently used?

- Hexagonal shape is
getting popular at the
moment.
- Local product.
- Other system like SZ
shape, T shape and
inverted T shape.

- They offer more than

three
architectural
finishes to ensure their
client satisfactory.
- Big reinforced earth
company
Many
local
companies are doing
retaining wall at the
moment and sometime
duplicate international
shape.
- Local products are
like hexagonal shape,
T shape and inverted T
shape.

In the early 90s, only

two
common
reinforced soil walls
in Malaysia which is
RE wall and Websol
wall but now these two
walls is under the same
group, Freyssinet Int
- may be their good
service but basically
the price is main factor
for client to select.

- of course hexagonal
wall. Other than that
SZ wall, ARE wall,
AnchorSol wall
- All depend on how
aggressive they are in
promoting
their
system.

- In Malaysia , we
have another local re
wall like ARE wall,
Pati wall, AnchorSol
and Key-stone is also
included

- we can find many

type of wall like Pati
wall, AnchorSol, ARE
wall, mass wall, strong
wall and modular keystone

Sdn

Director
Nik Jai Associates Sdn
Bhd
More than 10 years

56

Table 5.8 : Result of Interviews The Suitability Evaluation for Reinforced Earth Retaining Structure
Questions
1) Profile Change
Grade :CUT
(Limited condition)
What is the most
economical and suitable
retaining
for
this
condition?

What
is
the
recommended
alternative
system
applicable
for
this
condition?
Is there any suitable
system
other
than
retaining wall?

Interviewee A
General Manager
Mega Geoproducts and
Services Sdn Bhd
More than 10 years
- Soil Nailing with
guniting

- tie back wall

- Crib wall with 70
degree inclination, to
prevent cut surface
erosion.
- no

Interviewee B
Director
Nik Jai Associates
More than 10 years

Interviewee C

Interviewee D

Interviewee E

Director
Juruwas Consultant
More than 15 years

General Manager
REM System Sdn Bhd
More than 10years

Operation Manager
CHG Eng Sdn Bhd
More than 10 years

- Figure 1 and figure 2

is recommended to use
soil nail. It is the
cheapest
for
this
condition.

- limited space like

figure 1, tie-back wall
is suitable but if scared
about land slide during
construction,
soil
nailing is most reliable
for both situation.

- Both for figure 1

and 2, the most
economical system is
soil nailing.

Figure 2:
- soil nailing, slope can
be cut steeper
- Tie-back wall
- RE wall with
trapezoidal base design
- Crib wall

- Drilled shaft and tieback wall

- crib wall, less
excavation

- Tie-back wall
- RC wall

- RC wall can be built

up to five meter
- Tie back wall

- reinforced slope

- no

- reinforced slope

- no idea

Figure 1:
- RC wall with
inverted key base if the
wall is not so high.
- Soil nailing still the
most economical.

57

Table 5.8 : Result of Interviews The Suitability Evaluation for Reinforced Earth Retaining Structure (continue)
Questions
2) Profile Change
Grade :
CUT/FILL
(Limited Condition)

Interviewee A
General Manager
Mega Geoproducts and
Services Sdn Bhd
More than 10 years

What is the most

economical
and
suitable retaining for
this condition?

- RC wall with
inverted key base for
lower wall.
- For high wall,
definitely RE wall

What
is
the
recommended
alternative
system
applicable for this
condition?

- Sheet pile with

ground anchor
- Cantilever RC wall

Is there any suitable

system other than
retaining wall?

- no

Interviewee B

Interviewee C

Interviewee D

Interviewee E

Director
Nik Jai Associates
More than 10 years

Director
Juruwas Consultant
More than 15 years

General Manager
REM System Sdn Bhd
More than 10years

Operation Manager
CHG Eng. Sdn Bhd
More than 150 years

- MSE wall with

staggered design for
reinforcement
- can be normal design
but the traffic must be
temporarily diverted.
- RC wall and crib wall

- Use trapezoidal
design of MSE wall

- Staggered design of
MSE wall to reduce
excavation volume.

- RE wall with
varies reinforcement
length to minimize
of cutting original
profile

- RC wall
- sheet piling, can be
done with minor
excavation but soil
condition must be
verified for road
widening on top.
- Crib wall but the
traffic must be at
least 3m away from
the
edge
of
component.
- reinforced slope

- RC wall but depend

on height of profile
- For higher wall, tie back
wall
is
recommended.

- Conventional RC
wall with inverted
key base.
- sheet piling

- reinforced slope

- no

- no idea

58

Table 5.8 : Result of Interviews The Suitability Evaluation for Reinforced Earth Retaining Structure (continue)
Questions

Interviewee A

Interviewee B

Interviewee C

Interviewee D

Interviewee E

General Manager
Mega Geoproducts and
Services Sdn Bhd
More than 10 years

Director
Nik Jai Associates
More than 10 years

Director
Juruwas Consultant
More than 15 years

General Manager
REM System Sdn Bhd
More than 10years

Operation Manager
CHG Eng Sdn Bhd
More than 10 years

What is the most

economical
and
suitable retaining for
this condition?

- For limited area,

MSE
wall
is
economical to build
and for wall lower than
4m, RC wall is
recommended.
- For unlimited area,
earth slope is normally
use.

- based on Figure 4,
MSE wall is the most
economical
system
especially for limited
area.
- For unlimited area,
earth slope is the best
and cheapest.

- For any fill condition,

I prefer to construct
MSE wall because it
use
the
fastest
installation
method
without
interrupting
traffic.

What
is
the
recommended
alternative
system
applicable for this
condition?
Is there any suitable
system other than
retaining wall?

- Sheet pile is also

suitable but need to
confirm the condition
of soil.

- RC wall is ok but the

height must be limit.

Figure 4:
- Unlimited fill area,
MSE wall system is
the most economical
and
easiest
to
construct.
Figure 5,
- MSE wall with
trapezoidal design
can be used or crib
wall.
- Earth slope is
practically used for
unlimited area.
- RC wall

Figure 4:
- Lower wall use
RC wall
- Higher than 4 is
economically
to
build
RE
wall
especially for bridge
abutment.
Figure 5:
- RE wall with
stepped design.
- For unlimited area,
I prefer to use earth
Slope
- Depend on high,
lower wall better use
RC wall.

3) Profile Change
Grade :
FILL
(limited condition)

- no

- no

- no

other
wall
is
conventional cantilever
wall

- not required

- no idea

CHAPTER

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

6.1

Introduction

This chapter presents the analysis and discussion of the data collected from
responses of questionnaires and interviews. Analysis to see the highest contribution
factors to the application of reinforced earth wall.

6.2

The most common reinforced earth wall structure

The identification of most common reinforced earth wall has been determined
using two methods which are collecting from historical data and interview with
related parties. The historical data is based on market sharing since 1990 to 2008,
thus the total number of project and installed quantity are rely referred.

60
6.2.1

Data from literature review

Based on Figure 6.1 and Figure 6.2, the historical data of erected reinforced
earth wall structure started 1990 to 2008 shows that the proportion of retaining wall
market based on types of wall used in Malaysia. REMS, the company who design
and supply reinforced earth wall with cruciform shape or commercially known as RE
WALLT M, is in the first ranked in term of market proportion in Malaysia. Since 1980,
they have installed more than one million meter square reinforced earth wall
structure throughout Malaysia. It was leading the market for the first ten year from
1980 to 1990 without competitors. Literature review has revealed that after 1990,
many reinforced earth wall shape were created or came to Malaysia market. The
local system that designed by Malaysian engineers like Nehemiah Wall (hexagonal
shape), TechWall (SZ shape), ARE Wall (T shape) and AnchorSOL Wall (inverted
T shape) are widely used. As mentioned in literature review, all local system uses
dead-man anchorage method.

The overall proportion of share market is RE WALL (40%), Nehemiah Wall

(39%), TechWall (10%), ARE Wall (4%), AnchorSOL (4%) and Key-Stone system
(3%) and others (1%).

PROPORTION OF REINFORCED EARTH WALL (1990-2000)

Websol Wall
18%

Nehemiah Wall
6%

AnchorSOL Wall
2%

Key-Stone
1%
Others
1%

RE Wall
Websol Wall
Nehemiah Wall
AnchorSOL Wall
Key-Stone
Others

RE Wall
72%

Figure 6.1: Market Sharing of Reinforced Earth Wall for 1990 to 2000
(Source : ARE Wall Sdn Bhd, 2002)

61
PROPORTION OF REINFORCED EARTH WALL (2001-2009)

TechWall
10%

AnchorSOL Wall
4%

ARE Wall
4%

Key-Stone
2%
Others
1%
RE Wall
Websol Wall
Nehemiah Wall
AnchorSOL Wall
TechWall
RE Wall
40%

Nehemiah Wall
39%

ARE Wall
Key-Stone
Others

Websol Wall
0%

Figure 6.2: Market Sharing of Reinforced Earth Wall (2001-2008)

(Source: Pati Sdn Bhd, 2009)

6.2.2

Data from interviews

The most popular reinforced earth wall system choose by the interviewee is
RE Wall (60%) and followed by Nehemiah Wall (40%). Currently, these two wall
systems are become very common and familiar to the client and consultant. The price
per square meter is fundamental issue for them before tendering reinforced earth
project. The other common system are Pati Wall, ARE Wall, and AnchorSOL Wall.
In term of market sharing, it may very small compared to the top two but the existing
of them make Malaysia reinforced earth wall market more competitive and variety.

62
6.3

The Advantages of Common Reinforced Earth Wall System

6.3.1

Economical

The highest rank in Average Index (AI) is reduction on steel bar cost caused
by BRC has been used in precast facing panel. The performance of BRC is almost
similar to the normal steel bar. In precast concrete panel, two number of steel bar
apply purposely to support anchor lug internally. 99% of respondents agreed with
this factor that lead to the cost saving of using reinforced earth wall structure.

The second factor that lead cost saving is the installation can be done as such
faster rate, therefore reduce construction time. 99% of respondent agreed with the
factor lead cost saving. The bigger the size of pre-cast concrete panel, the faster the
installation time consume. The installation speed is also depend on the number of
team involve in construction which is every team can install in range of thirty to fifty
meter square per day in normal weather and on level ground condition.

The lowest ranked in Average Index is reduction on volume of concrete since

the thickness of facing panel is uniform for any height. 61% of respondents disagreed
on this factor because of the lateral pressure acting on wall is gradually increased
according to the increasing of height. Nehemiah wall is using varies thickness from
140mm to 220mm for their panel. This vary thickness is to reduce the possibility of
panel crack especially at bottom part of wall.

6.3.2

Aesthetic Appearance

The highest rank in Average Index is the quality of facing panels and
appearance can be controlled at casting yard. 100% of respondents agreed with this

63
factor. The client like Jabatan Kerja Raya (JKR) and Lembaga Lebuhraya
Malaysia (LLM) normally require their logo stamp on precast panel in every project
under them. This logo must be prefabricated and installed at site at certain position to
show that the project belongs to them. REMS wall offer many appearances on their
panel to fulfil client needs.

The second rank is precast panel can be easily modified to allow specific
architectural finishes. The mould base form is fixed and the supplier reluctant to
change their base form finishes. 56% of respondents agreed with the factor. In
normal business deal, during the tender interview, the supplier try to convince the
client to accept their product finishes.

6.3.3

Long Term Durability

The highest rank in AI is the properties of granular material allow water to

flow as a result reduces hydrostatic pressure. In conventional reinforced concrete
wall, weep holes play a main role to reduce hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The
retaining wall can collapse due to excessive increase of lateral pressure behind a wall
even at low height if not properly designed.

The second ranked in AI is reinforced earth can be designed to fifty years and
more because of all factors are considered in the design calculation. Basically, during
the stability analysis stage of reinforced earth wall, all material factors are considered
but many reinforced earth wall failure were not caused by material factors but due to
external factor like global failure especially on slope condition.

The third ranked in AI is the reinforced earth wall is able to carry high load
capacity. The increasing on load is not affected to the performance of the system.
73% of respondents agreed with the statement the ability of reinforced earth wall to

64
carry high load but the load increase will affect the performance of the system.
Generally reinforced earth is resilient to normal impact loadings such as vehicle
impact. During the stability analysis, the designer has to ensure that every layer of
reinforcement utilize their strength associated with the load applied. If the load
increased after the installation of wall and was not considered in the design earlier,
this will become a nightmare to the client.

6.3.4

Structural Flexibility

The highest rank in AI is the nature of precast panels and the reinforced
granular backfill allows for significant differential movement along the wall which is
84% of respondents agreed on that. The segmental facing panels are able to react
individually to cater movement assisted by granular material that lay directly on firm
formation level.

The second ranked is 73% of respondents agreed on the flexibility of

reinforced soil mass produces uniform bearing pressure at the base, resulting in lower
design pressure. The properties of granular material whereby have direct contact to
the base which is formed by selected earth, release pressures to produce low bearing
capacity for reinforced earth wall.

6.3.5

Area of Application

The highest rank in Average Index is very little working area in front of the
wall and most of the activity takes place behind the wall. All respondent agreed that

65
this is the speciality of reinforced earth wall that uses erect from behind method
in installation process. The process would interrupt the construction due to traffic
congestion except at the beginning of installation require minor preparation to lay
levelling pad and the first row of panel need strut to support before connect to
reinforcement..

The second ranked is reinforced earth wall is most recommended for bridge
project especially bridge abutment thus all respondents agreed on the application of
reinforced earth wall. Thus, the bridge designer could eliminate pile for abutment to
allow the structural sit directly on reinforced backfill.

The lowest rank is reinforced earth wall require minimum foundation

treatment and relatively suitable for poor soil condition. 61% of respondents
disagreed and they have clarified that the designer has to follow JKR probe
requirement for RE wall and RC wall graph. The foundation must be treated
according to the requirement.
.

6.3.6

Environmental Friendly

The highest rank in Average Index is the uses of geosynthetic materials as

reinforcement can be sustained for many year lay underground. Geosynthetics is a
generic term that is used to describe a variety of synthetic materials that are
manufactured for use with soil or other materials used in public works projects.
Geotextiles and geogrid are amongst geosynthetics materials that frequently used in
reinforced earth structure. It is not bio-degradation materials, does not effect to water
and soil and corrosion free.
The second ranked in Average Index is 3.05, which the technology applies
less cutting trees and earths, reduces polluting to the river as well as causing flash

66
flood. To form a formation level, it is necessary to cut and fill especially on
sloping ground but by using reinforced earth structures, formation level can be
remained high with minimum fill area thus reduce the probability of soil wash away
to the river that cause flash flood.

6.3.7

Sustainability Concepts

The highest rank in Average Index is 4.55 which recycle is one of the
sustainability concepts. Most of the steel mould is designed for thousand times use
for casting and other than panels, accessories can also be recycled and therefore to
help in reduction of site wastages. The reuse of same material when necessary will
reduce the energy to produce new components. As a result keep our natural resources
protected.

The second ranked in Average Index is 3.83 which the installation process
involves only backfilling and compaction. This process generates very minimal noise
at site. The installation process is simple and fast, no major concreting, no skilled
labour and sometime precast levelling pad is also be used and definitely the noise
generate from the activity is far below the minimum no ise level as stated in FMA
1967.

67
6.4

The Disadvantages of Common Reinforced Earth Wall System

The disadvantages of reinforced earth wall are divided into six factors but it is
inadequate to represent all related to reinforced earth wall. This discussion is
complies with the limitation as stated in Chapter 1.

6.4.1

Standard Limitation

The highest ranking in Average Index (AI) is reinforced earth wall is not
economical for the height less than 4 meter due to the minimum requirement
stipulated in BS 8006 (1995). In BS 8006, it is very strict; the minimum length of
reinforcement for embankment wall is 3 meter regardless of height. If the designer
disobeys the limitation, anything happen, the designer must bear the cost.

The second ranked in Average Index is reinforced earth wall requires large
base to accommodate reinforcement length compare to conventional wall system. In
Malaysia, the standard in construction is mostly follows British Standard. The base
of reinforced earth wall must be designed 70% of total height otherwise the system
may face overturning failure but compare to conventional RC wall system, the base
of wall can be suit at site either L shape wall or inverted T shape.

68
6.4.2

Material Requirement

The highest ranking in Average Index (AI) is the using of galvanized steel bar
and metallic strip as reinforcement requires that backfill meet minimum
electrochemical requirement for corrosion protection. It is quite difficult to get that
backfill meet minimum requirement in addition, the cost may expensive than normal
selected earth fill. The contractor has to spend at least one week time to prepare and
send the sample for testing and get the result. This may delay the actual project
schedule.

The second ranking in AI is allowable load for high extensible reinforcement

materials must be reduced to consider materials factors. The high extensible
reinforcement is applicable for embankment wall whereby the system is not
supporting the building or bridge structural and some movement are theoretically
allowed. During the analysis stage, allowable load for reinforcement material should
be reduced until 50%.

6.4.3

Verticality

The highest ranking in this category it is the using of high extensible

reinforcement may face the verticality problem after the installation of reinforced
earth wall. Some material like Paraweb polymeric fibre has 11% of strain at
breaking load, relatively higher elongation makes verticality control is a trial-anderror task. The paraweb was used in Websol wall system.

The second ranking is for geosynthetic reinforcement may require a trench

before laying it to ensure that verticality is within the tolerance. The function of
trench, one of the trial-and-error tasks is to ensure that the facing panel do not move

69
forward after construction. By the way, the weight of fill material is pushing the
undulating reinforcement into the trench makes it elongates during compaction.

6.4.4

Future Activity

The highest ranking in this category is any location subject to scouring in the
future must be avoided unless an appropriate solution has been carried out. The
facing panel sit on 350mm width mass concrete pad footing and the embedment is
depend on the height of wall basically 300mm minimum, this situation make
backfilling material would highly expose to scour if any activity in front of wall
disregard the condition.

The second ranked in AI, reinforced earth wall is strictly not appropriate for
location where it may be necessary to gain future access to the under ground utilities.
The underground utility must be highlighted before construction of any reinforced
earth structure. Normally the designer would come out with a special reinforcement
design whereby the reinforcement may connect to the reinforced concrete main hole
if the main hole is bigger than horizontal reinforcement spacing.

6.4.5

Uncertainty in Alignment

The highest ranking in this category is if the wall is installed at acute corner
place the extra reinforcement is required to protect panel movement. According to
installation manual, reinforcement must be placed perpendicular to the facing panels
and the maximum angle that the reinforcement can be twisted is within 15 degree

70
from the perpendicular line. If the space is not enough to accommodate the
required reinforcement length, the extra reinforcement must be utilized to connect
facing panel to facing panel purposely to ensure that the facing panel is not moving
due to the acute angle.

The second ranked in AI is the installation of precast panel is quite difficult to

get a good curve when the curvature radius is too small. The ability for curved wall is
depended on the panel- to-panel overlapping. Thus overlapping plays a main role to
design smaller radius of curved wall.

6.4.6

Maintena nce

The highest ranking in AI for this category is any deep root trees are not
allowed to plant within reinforced soil area. 95% of respondents agreed that the deep
root tree may contribute to the failure of reinforcement to perform as norm. The
stress and deformation of reinforcement increased while the root is pushing forward
precast concrete panels.

The second ranked in AI is maintenance must be periodically done to remove

any trees grow up in the between the panel that might affect the wall and scenery in
the future. 78% of respondents agreed that facing panel must keep clean from trees or
bushes at all time.

6.5

The establishment of a basic selection guideline for client to select an

appropriate retaining system for their project needs

71
6.5.1

Profile grade change - Cut condition

The highest ranked for both figure is on soil nailing, all interviewees agreed
that soil nailing is the most suitable and economical system for cut condition. The
construction method of soil nailing from top to bottom do not interrupt the existing
structure or traffic as shown in figure 1 and figure 2. The interviewees have also
clarified that reinforced concrete wall with inverted key base is also suitable for low
profile condition.

For the alternative system, 80% of interviewees agreed with the use of tieback wall as alternative retaining wall structure. The other alternative structure is
cribwall whereas 60% of interviewees agreed with the selection of it.

6.5.2

Profile grade change Cut/fill condition

The highest ranking for this condition is reinforced earth wall with
trapezoidal design, the design of reinforcement is varies from top to bottom and
comply with the standard limitation as stipulated in BS 8006 (1995). The purpose of
this design is to reduce excavation of original earth slope that may disturb the
stability of the slope as well as traffic on top of slope. All interviewees agreed that
the trapezoidal design of reinforced earth wall is the most economical method to be
applied. For the alternative system, 100% of interviewee ranked on reinforced
concrete wall with inverted key base and the other wall system is crib wall whereby
40% of interviewees ranked on it.

Among three of the above, crib wall is system applying less cutting of
original ground but the vehicle s are recommended to move three meter away and can
not be running directly on the component and 40% of interviewees have justified to

72
select sheet pile for this condition. The condition of soil must be clarified before
deciding to use sheet pile.

6.5.3

Profile grade change Fill condition

The highest ranked is the interviewees have selected reinforced earth (RE)
wall or mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall system for both fill condition.
100% of interviewee agreed the economical system to be used in fill condition is
MSE or RE wall system. The interviewees have clarified that the system is suitable
for limited or unlimited area. The second rank for the most economical system is RC
wall. 40% of interviewees agreed that reinforced concrete wall system is suitable for
lower wall in this condition.

The alternative retaining system for this condition is RC wall and 40% of
interviewee agreed with the limitation of height. All interviewees have decided that
earth slope is the most economical technique to build for unlimited area.

CHAPTER

CONCLUSIONS

7.1

Introduction

This chapter will conclude the study and summarizes the achievement of this
study. This chapter will give recommendations for future study. Overall the
objectives of this study, as stipulated in Chapter 1 had been successfully achieved.

7.2

Limitations of the Research

Besides successfully achieved the study objective as stated in Chapter 1, this

study has been conducted within certain limitation due to unavoidable reasons that
beyond author capabilities dur ing the study.

Amongst the limitations are as follows:

74
i.

The limited research time has limited author to obtain more respondents to
access the issues highlighted in the study. Limitation of this research includes
the results obtained from a small numbers of respondents. This study only
obtained 18 participants for questionnaire survey and 5 interviewees to
confirm the issues. To get comprehensive analysis the re should be more
participants from various experienced professional background especially for
objective three.

ii.

Difficult in meeting interviewees because they are reluctant to expose their

product information especially that related to list of in hand projects and cost.
This case happens when they know the author is also come from the similar
field with them.

iii.

The problems on the data given by respondents in this study. Even though
most of the respondents are professional, however their answer might be
influenced by other technically proved factors.

7.3

Common Reinforced Earth Walls in Malaysia

Two methods have been used to seek this objective which is based on
historical data and interview. The historical data from year 2001 to 2008 as shown in
Figure 2 concluded that RE wall (40%) and Nehemiah Wall (39%) is the most
common reinforced earth wall in Malaysia. However, the presents of other reinforced
earth wall system such as TechWall (10%), AnchorSOL Wall (4%), ARE Wall (4%),
Key-Stone (2%) and others (1%) can not be presumed as ineffective system but as
long as they use the same method with the common system, should give them a
chance to serve.

75
According to the result of interview in Table 3, 60% of interviewees have
justified that RE Wall is the most common system in Malaysia, they concluded based
on many places especially highway projects used RE Wall and currently they are
leading the market. The second retaining wall system is Nehemiah Wall (40%). At
the same time, the interviewees have mentioned that they have experienced having
business with other system and some places used to select other than RE Wall and
Nehemiah Wall. Both methods summarized that RE Wall and Nehemiah Wall are the
most common reinforced earth wall system in Malaysia.

7.4

The Advantages and Disadvantages of the Common System

The second objective of this stud y is to identify challenges with regard to

safety compliance and cross-cultural management.

The result represents the advantages and disadvantages of reinforced earth

wall as summarized in objective 1. According to the result shows in Figure 7.1, the
respondents focus more on factor such as economical, structural flexibility, area of
application and sustainability system when decided to apply reinforced earth wall.
Average AI for these factors is above 4.00 which are more important among others
advantages. All respondents may use these factors to measure the advantages of
construct reinforced earth wall system and leads to pursue with decision making.
According to the experienced clients, most of them look for economical factor and
area of application to justify their retaining wall needs.

Whilst Figure 7.2 shows the disadvantages of reinforced earth wall, standard
limitation and verticality are not a critical contribution factor to the disadvantages of
the system. Most of respondents were not agreed to these factors influence the
application of reinforced earth wall. The highest contribution in disadvantages is

76
uncertainty in horizontal alignment and second is maintenance may cause the
problem to the wall.

Advantage Factors vs Average AI

Advantage Factors

Economical

4.09

Aesthetic Appearance

3.95

Long Term Durability

3.91

Structural Flexibility

4.22

Area of Application

4.22

Environmental Friendly

3.58

Sustainability System

4.19
3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.2

4.4

Average AI

Figure 7.1: Advantages of Reinforced Earth Wall

Disadvantages Factors vs Average AI

Disadvantage Factors

Standard Limitation

3.5

Material Requirement

3.89

Verticality

3.5

Future Activity

3.78

Uncertainty in Alignment

4.14

Maintenance

4.11
3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.2

Average AI

Figure 7.2: Disadvantages of Reinforced Earth Wall

7.5

To establish a basic selection guideline for client to select an appropriate

retaining system for their project needs .

77
This objective is divided into 3 categories such as Cut condition, Cut/fill
condition and Fill condition. The discussion is also divided into three categories.

Cut Condition

In the case, economical is measured based on the structure will be built with
minor change on original design profile to accommodate the wall and the system is
faster and stable. According to the result, most interviewees have justified that soil
nailing with shotcrete is the most economical system to apply for this condition. The
system is suitable for both situation either traffic constraint on top or at toe of the
slope. Furthermore, the slope can cut steeper and create more space especially for
road widening at toe of the slope. This method reduce excavation quantity whereby
may disturb the overall stability of the structure on top such as bridge abutment.
Other interviewee agreed with the application of reinforced concrete wall with
inverted key base and tie-back wall.

To conclude, the most economical system for both situation traffic at toe and
traffic on top of the slope is soil nailing. The alternative system is tie back wall, RC
wall and cribwall.

Cut/fill Condition

This condition requires placing fill on the upper portion and cut in the lower
portion. For high wall, the construction of reinforced earth wall requires adequate
space for reinforcement as well as increase volume of excavation. To overcome the
problem reinforced earth wall with trapezoidal width design must be used. It is mean

78
that reinforcement is varies in length. For alternative system, permanent sheet pile
with anchor and RC wall is recommended.

Fill Condition

Reinforced earth wall system is recommended and economical to use for fill
condition especially for propose flyover in urban area. It advantages is comply with
the construction principal which are cost, time, quality and environmental. For urban
area, whereby space is limited and time to complete is important to avoid traffic
congestion, reinforced earth wall can effort to fulfill the tight requirement. The
installation concept erect from behind is not interrupt traffic. The alternative
system is RC wall especially for lower wall. The summary of objective 3 is shown on
Figure 7.3.
Identify Profile Change
Grade

Limited Space

Retaining Wall

Cut

Cut/Fill

Traffic at toe

Traffic/structure
on top

Soil Nailing1

Soil Nailing1

RC Wall2

Tie-Back wall2

- Crib Wall
- RE Wall

Reinforced slope

RE Wall1
RC Wall2

Fill

Access
limitation

Steep
slope/terrain

RE wall1

RE wall1

RE wall1

Sheet Pile2

RC wall2

- RC Wall
- Crib Wall

Figure 7.3: Basic Selection Guideline Chart

Notes:
1. Most economical
2. Alternative system

79
7.6

Recommendations for Future Study

From the literature review and results of this study, the author recommends
further study of the following aspects:

i.

Extensive study on advantages and disadvantages in all aspects including

technical, cost, time, quality and sustainability concepts of reinforced earth
wall or Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall.

ii.

To study the possibility of using earth fill as backfill material for reinforced
earth wall as alternative to granular fill.

iii.

To study in detail on suitability of reinforced earth wall system and other

systems including cost and technical performance for each profile.

7.6

Conclusion

Overall of this study has achieved the objectives. The advantages and
disadvantages of common reinforced earth retaining wall have been discussed in
detail. The suitability evaluation for the construction of retaining wall has also been
discussed even though the results achieved were not considering many factors such
as technical analysis and cost breakdown but at least the idea to propose where to
construct reinforced earth wall has been identified.

80

REFERENCES

AASHTO (2002), American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials. Standard Specification for Highway Bridges. 17th edition.

Bastick, M (1985). Behavior of Reinforced Earth Abutments Summary of the

Research Results Terre Armee Internationale, internal report R37, June 1985.

BS 8006 (1995). Code of Practice for Strengthened/reinforced Soils and other fills.
British Standard Institution, London. Pg. 67.

Chiu, H.K, Wong, A.K.W, and Lee, C.H, (1997). Reinforced Earth Walls in
Malaysia, Proceedings Ninth Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference,
Bangkok, Thailand.

Nehemiah (2008). Nehemiah wall to go for listing when time is right. Bernama,
Nov. 06, 2008.

Elias V, Christopher B.R. and Berg R.R. (2001). MSE wall and Reinforced Soil
Slope, Design and Construction Guidelines Report no. FHWA-NH1-00-43,
Federal Highway Administration, March. 394 pp.

Frankerberger, P.C. (1996). Reinforced Earth Walls Withstand Northridge

Earthquake International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement, Fukuoka,
Kyushu, Japan, November 1996.

81
Schlosser, F (1990), Theory and Design Related to The Performance of
Reinforced Soil Structure. Proceeding of the International Reinforced Soil
Conference organized by The British Geotechnical Society, Glasgow, 10-12 Sept
1990.

Lee, C.H. (2006), Segmental Reinforced Soil Wall for Putrajaya Project. Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia.

Lam, L.C. (2004), Reinforced Earth Walls-sustainable retaining wall structures along
Castle Peak Road, Highway Department Newsletter, Hong Kong.

Wrigley, N. E. (1990), The Failure Mode of Tensar high Density Polyethylene

Geogrids. Proceeding of the International Reinforced Soil Conference organized
by The British Geotechnical Society, Glasgow, 10-12 Sept 1990.

Anderson, P. L, (2005), Increased Use of MSE Abutments, The Reinforced Earth

Company, North Reading. August 2005.

Basudhar, P.K. (2006). Cost Optimization of Reinforced Earth Wall. Indian

Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur, India.

Chan, S.F. (2000) Reinforced Soil Structure using Geogrids. Asian Geosynthetics
Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Tan, K.C. (2002). Anchored-Reinforced Earth Wall Sdn Bhd: Marketing Strategy,
Petaling Jaya, Selangor. Sept 2002.
Whitlow, R (2001). Basic Soil Mechanics 4th Edition, Prentice Hall, Pearson
Education Limited. 2001. pg 273.

82
APPENDIC A/1
Questionnaire Survey - Introduction

This research is aimed to establish the information related to reinforced earth

wall in Malaysia. It will mainly focus on the following objectives:
q

To identify the common reinforced earth wall structures in Malaysia

To evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the common system

To establish a basic selection guideline for client to select an appropriate

retaining system for their project needs.

The questionnaire survey will be conducted, with cooperation reinforced earth

suppliers as well as selected contractors or installers who currently performing their
jobs in this field. In view to the above, the standard questionnaire has been prepared
to fulfil the objectives of this study.

The finding, questionnaire and recommendations will be made based on the

analysis of the data.

The questionnaire divided into two parts, Part A (Professional Background) and Part
B (Respondents view on economical, aesthetic appearance, durability, flexibility and
sustainability).

83
APPENDIC A/2
Professional Background

1. Respondents background

Name
:..
Qualification
:..
Position
:..
Company name
:..
Registration class
:.
Telephone no.
:..
Fax
:..
Company chop
:.

84
APPENDIC A/3
Professional Background contd
2. Years of experienced in reinforced earth wall projects?
Less than 4 years

7 to 10 years

4 to 7 years

More than 10 years

3. Total number of project completed?

Less than 5 projects

15 to 20 projects

5 to 10 projects

More than 20 projects

10 to 15 projects
What is the total quantity ....................................
(if possible, please attach the detail of completed project)

4. Type of projects related to reinforced earth wall?

Road Embankment
Bridge Abutment
Land Development
Others (Please stated)
..

Retaining Wall
Railway

.
85

APPENDIC B/1
Questionnaire Survey
The advantages of common reinforced earth retaining system

1st Economical.
(a)

Reduction on volume of concrete since the

thickness of precast panel is uniform for any
height.

(b)

Reduction on rebar cost caused by BRC uses

as reinforcement in precast panels .

(c)

The installation can be done at a much faster

rate, therefore reduce construction time
would lead to further cost saving.

2nd Aesthetic Appearance.

(a)

The quality and appearance of panels can be

controlled at casting yard and structured
according to client needs respectively.

(b)

Precast panels can be easily modified to

allow specific architectural finishes provide
for infinite possibilities in the finished
product.

3rd Long Term Durability.

(a)

Reinforced earth can be designed to 50 years

and more. All factors are considered in the
design therefore the design life can be
theoretically predicted.

(b)

The reinforced earth wall is able to carry

high load capacity. The increasing load
application is not much affected to the
performance of the system.

(c)

The properties of granular material allow

water to flow through as a result reduces
hydrostatic pressure and the probability of
wall to fail due to water.

5th Structural Flexibility

(a)

The flexibility of reinforced soil mass

produces uniform bearing pressure at the
base, resulting in lower design bearing
pressure, hence requiring lesser foundation
treatment at the base.

Strongly
disagree

disagree

neutral

agree

Strongly
agree

.
86

APPENDIC B/2
Questionnaire Survey
The advantages of common reinforced earth retaining system contd

5th Structural Flexibility

(b)

The nature of precast panel and the

reinforced granular backfill allows for
significant differential movement along the
wall.

6th Area of Application

(a)

Reinforced
earth
system
is
most
recommended for bridge project especially
bridge abutment.

(b)

Reinforced earth wall system require

minimum foundation treatment and suitable
for relatively poor soil condition.

(c)

Very little working area in front of the wall;

most activity take place behind the wall, as a
result minimize traffic disruption and allows
uninterrupted of construction.

7th Environmental Friendly

(a)

This technology applies less cutting trees and

earths, reduce polluting to the river as well as
causing flash flood.

(b)

The using of geosynthetic materials as

reinforcement can be sustained for many
years lay underground; it has resistance to
biological effects and no side effect in the
soil.

8th Sustainability Concepts

(a)

Recycle is one of sustainability concepts,

other than moulds, panels and other
accessories can also be recycled and
reinstalled to other places and to help
minimize wastage on site

(b)

The construction of reinforced earth wall

mainly involves backfilling and compaction
generate minimal noise

Strongly
disagree

disagree

neutral

agree

Strongly
agree

.
87

APPENDIC B/3
Questionnaire Survey
The disadvantages of common reinforced earth retaining systems contd

1st Standard Limitation

(a)

Reinforced earth wall requires large base to

accommodate reinforcement length compare
to conventional wall.

(b)

Reinforced earth wall is not economical to

build for height less than four meters due to
the
minimum
reinforcement
length
stipulated in BS8006.

2nd Material Requirements

(a)

The using of galvanized steel bar and

metallic strip as reinforcement requires that
backfill meet minimum electrochemical
requirement for corrosion protection.

(b)

Allowable load for high extensible

reinforcement materials must be reduced to
consider material factors such as creep and
construction damage

3rd Verticality
(a)

The using of high extensible reinforcement

may face the verticality problem after the
installation of reinforced earth wall.

(b)

For geo-synthetic reinforcement may require

a trench before laying it to ensure the that
verticality is within the tolerance.

4th Future Activity

(a)

Reinforced earth wall is strictly not

appropriate for location where it may be
necessary to gain future access to the
underground utilities.

(b)

Any location subject to scouring in the

future must be avoided unless an appropriate
solution has been carried out.

Strongly
disagree

disagree

neutral

agree

Strongly
agree

.
88

APPENDIC B/4
Questionnaire Survey
The disadvantages of common reinforced earth retaining systems contd

5th Uncertainty in Alignment

(a)

The installation of precast panels is quite

difficult to get a good curve when the
curvature radius is too small.

(b)

If the wall is being installed at acute corner

place, the extra reinforcement is requires to
protect panel movement.

6th Maintenance
(a)

Maintenance must be done periodically to

remove any trees grow up in between the
panels (interlocking part) that might affect
the wall and scenery in the future.

(b)

Any deep root trees are not allowed to plant

within reinforced soil area. It may contribute
to the failure of reinforcement to perform as
norm.

Strongly
disagree

disagree

neutral

agree

Strongly
agree

89
APPENDIC C/1
Interview The Common Reinforced Earth Retaining System

1.

Based on your experience in construction industry, what is the most common

reinforced earth wall system in Malaysia?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

2.

What are the factors make the above system become popular in Malaysia?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

3.

What are the other reinforced earth retaining systems that frequently used?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

90
APPENDIC D/1
Interview The Suitability Evaluation for Retaining Wall Structure
LIMITED SPACE
(1) What is the most economical (2) What is the
and suitable retaining system for recommended alternative
this condition?
system applicable for this
condition?

PROFILE CHANGE GRADE

1) Cut Condition

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 2

Figure 1

FIGURE SHOWN FOR REFERRENCE ONLY

Figure 3

2) Cut/Fill Condition

3) Fill Condition

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 5

Figure 4

Figure 3

(3) Is there any

suitable system other
than retaining wall?

91
APPENDIC E/1
Reinforced Earth Wall System A Part of Completed Projects

1) The Store Sg. Buloh A

2) The Store Sg. Buloh B

3) Jln Subang-Sg. Buloh

4) Comuter Sg. Buloh

5) Jln Hospital, Sg. Buloh

6) Jln Hospital, Sg. Buloh

7) Damansara Damai, K.L 8) Sri Damansara, Kepong 9) Taman Sri Gombak A

10) Taman Sri Gombak B 11) MRRII-Taman Melati

13) Jln Air Panas, K.L

Ulu Kelang

14) Jalan Klang Gate,

Ulu Kelang

12) MRRII-Wangsa Maju

15) Jalan Genting KlangUniversiti TAR

92
APPENDIC E/2
Reinforced Earth Wall System A Part of Completed Projects (contd)

16) Key-Stone, Taman

Melawati, Ulu Kelang.

17) Keramat Hill View

Keramat-MRRII

18) Pandan Indah Int,

Pandan, MRRII.

19) Desa Tasik,

Kuala Lumpur

20) Ramp to Pandan Indah 21)Taman Dato Senu,

Sentul, Kuala Lumpur.

22) Jln Gombak to DUKE 23) Besraya, Serdang

Kuala Lumpur.
Lama.

24) Besraya Near Tol,

Mines A, Sg. Besi

25) Besraya Near Tol

Mines B, Sg. Besi.

27) Taman Salak South,

Kuala Lumpur.

26) Besraya, Kuchai Int.

Kuala Lumpur.

93
APPENDIC E/3
Reinforced Earth Wall System A Part of Completed Projects (contd)

28) Jln Istana Jln Sg.

Besi, Kuala Lumpur.

29) Jln Klang Lama-NPE

Kuala Lumpur.

30) Pantai Dalam-NPE

Kuala Lumpur.

31) RTM-NPE,
Kuala Lumpur.

32) NPE-BR13,
Kuala Lumpur.

33) NPE-BR12, Kuchai,

Kuala Lumpur.

34) Jln Duta-Jln Kuching

Kuala Lumpur.

35) Plus Highway near

Sri Damansara, K.L

36) Plus-R&R Sg. Buloh

Selangor.

37) Kesas-Proton, S.Alam 38) Kesas-Kinrara,

Selangor.
Kuala Lumpur.

39) Kesas-Bkt Jalil,

Kuala Lumpur.