A Summer Internship Report on

REVIEW ON EFFECT OF BACKFILL ON STABILITY OF

EARTH RETAINING WALLS
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of
BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY
in
CIVIL ENGINEERING

Submitted by
M. SRI HARI PRASAD 15121A0150
RAVI TEJA N 15121A0162

Under the Esteemed Guidance of

Internal Supervisor
Dr. O. ESWARA REDDY, Ph.D.
Professor and BOS Chairman, Dept. of Civil Engineering

External Supervisor
Dr. NEELIMA SATYAM
Discipline of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Indore

Department of Civil Engineering

SREE VIDYANIKETHAN ENGINEERING COLLEGE
(AUTONOMOUS)
(Affiliated To JNTUA, Ananthapuramu, Approved by AICTE, New Delhi, Accredited by NBA and NAAC 'A')
Sree Sainath Nagar, A. Rangampet, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh – 517102

i
 SREE VIDYANIKETHAN ENGINEERING COLLEGE
(AUTONOMOUS)
(Affiliated To JNTUA, Ananthapuramu, Approved by AICTE, New Delhi, Accredited by NBA andNAAC 'A')
Sree Sainath Nagar, A. Rangampet, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh – 517102

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Certificate
This is to certify that the internship report entitled

REVIEW ON EFFECT OF BACKFILL ON STABILITY OF

EARTH RETAINING WALLS
is the bonafide work done and submitted by

M. SRI HARI PRASAD 15121A0150

RAVI TEJA N 15121A0162

in the Department of Civil Engineering, Sree Vidyanikethan Engineering College A.Rangampet,

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree of Bachelor of Technology
in Civil Engineering during the academic year 2018-2019.

Internal Supervisor External Supervisor

Dr. O. Eswara Reddy Dr. Neelima Satyam
Professor and BOS Chairman Associate Professor
Discipline of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology
Indore.

Head of the Department

Dr. M. V. Subba Reddy
Assistant Professor

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Successful completion of any project work during internship cannot be done without proper

guidance and encouragement of many people, this acknowledgement transcends the reality.

Hence, we express our deep sense of gratitude to all those who have directly or indirectly helped

in completion of this seminar report.

Literally, it gives us an immense pleasure to express our gratitude to our external supervisor

Dr. Neelima Satyam, Professor of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Indore,

Indore for her esteemed guidance and able supervision during internship.

We are deeply indebted to our internal supervisor Dr. O. ESWARA REDDY, Professor and BOS

Chairman, Department of Civil Engineering for his valuable guidance, constant encouragement

and constructive criticism throughout the course of internship. We are really fortunate to

associate ourselves with such an advising and helping guide in every possible way, at all stages.

We would like to express our sincere thanks to Dr. M. V. SUBBA REDDY, Assistant Professor

and Head, Department of Civil Engineering for his support during the internship.

We profusely thank Dr. P. C. KRISHNAMACHARY, Principal, SVEC for his continuous

support and encouragement. We are pleased to express heartfelt thanks to our Faculty of Civil

Engineering for their moral support and good wishes.

We would like to express our sincere thanks to all the research scholars and staff of Civil

Engineering Discipline of Indian Institute of Technology Indore for their cooperation and support

to complete our internship.

Finally, I would thank my parents and my team members.

M. SRI HARI PRASAD 15121A0150

RAVI TEJA N 15121A0162

ABSTRACT

iii
Material that will fill in between retained earth and retaining wall is termed as “Back Fill”.

Backfill material may be coarse grained soil, fine grained soil, rock, shale, marginal materials or

any other commercial by-products. It is very important to know that the impact of backfill on

stability of retaining walls. Backfill material plays major role in the stability of retaining wall.

The material that will be used as backfill should posses sufficient permeability, shear strength,

unit weight and other engineering properties to stabilize the retaining wall. In this study, effect of

different backfill materials on stability of retaining wall was studied. Current theories,

experimental investigations and numerical findings for the stability of retaining walls subject to

dynamic excitations are reviewed. Brief description of different backfill materials, experimental

and numerical methods of stability analyses are introduced and compared from the literature

review.

iv
 CONTENTS

TOPIC Pg. No.

Certificate i

Acknowledgement ii

Abstract iii

Contents iv

EFFECT OF BACKFILL ON STABILITY OF EARTH RETAINING WALLS

Introduction 1-4

1. Effect of Clayey Soils as Backfill on Stability of Retaining Walls

1.1 Results 6

1.1.1 Effect of wall’s movement 6

1.1.2 Effects due to unloading 7

2 .Effect of Soil and Bedrock Conditions Below Retaining Walls on Wall

Behaviour 8

2.1 Parameters of modeling 9

2.2 Assumptions 10

2.3 Modeling of finite elements 10

2.4 Test results 11

2.4.1 Effect of bed rock depth 12

2.4.2 Effect of bed rock slope 12

2.4.3 Effect of soil type 13

2.4.4 Effect of wall height 13

v
 ANALYSIS FOR ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS AS BACKFILL OF

RETAINING WALLS TO INCREASE STABILITY

Introduction 14

3. Use of Shredded Tyres as Light Weight Backfill Material for Earth Retaining

Structures

3.1 Composition and characteristics of shredded tires 16

3.2 Engineering Properties of shredded tires 16

3.2.1 Sieve analysis for Gradation 17

3.2.2 Unit Weight testing 17

3.2.3 Constant Head permeability 18

3.2.4 Direct Shear Test 18

3.3 Graphs drawn parameters 18

3.4 Results 18

3.5 Design 19

3.6 Economic Analysis 19

3.7 Observations 20

4.Design and Analysis of Retaining Wall Backfilled with Shredded Tire

And Subjected to Dynamic Loading

4.1 Shredded Tire 21

4.2 Shredded Tires as backfill material 21

4.2.1 Properties of Shredded Tires 21

4.3 Finite Element Method 23

4.4 PLAXIS – 2D 23

vi
5. Use of Fly Ash as Backfill Material

5.1 Advantages of Jute Geo Textile 24

5.2 Investigation of Multi tiered Retaining walls 24

5.3 Fly Ash as backfill of Multi tiered Retaining walls 25

6. Mechanically Stabilized Earth Retaining Structures

6.1 Properties of LLDPE 26

6.2 Stabilization using Quick Lime 26

6.3 Process of Stabilization 27

6.3.1 Soil Drying 27

6.3.2 Modification 27

6.3.3 Stabilization 28

7. Applicability of Soil Rock Mixture as Backfill Material for

Multi-tiered Retaining Walls

7.1 Multi tiered Retaining walls 29

7.2 Advantages of Multi tiered Retaining walls 29

7.3 Stability of Multi tiered Retaining walls 29

7.4 Geo Synthetic reinforcement in Retaining Walls 30

7.5 Investigation of Pre-construction performance of Retaining Walls 30

8. Applicability of Clinker Ash as a Fill Material in Steel Strip

Reinforced

8.1 Clinker Ash 32

8.2 Laboratory Pull out Test 32

8.3 Applicability of Clinker Ash as backfill 33

vii
 9. Seismic Earth Pressures on Flexible Cantilever Retaining Walls

With Deformable Inclusions

9.1 Test Procedure 35

9.1.1 Materials used 35

9.1.2 Material Characteristics 36

9.2 Results 37

Results and Discussions 38

Gaps in Literature 40

Conclusions 41

Reference 42

viii
 Chapter 1

REVIEW ON EFFECT OF BACKFILL ON STABILITY OF

RETAINING WALLS

Introduction

An earth structure has to be constructed whenever there is an abrupt change in the elevation of

the ground surface. Such structures can be either rigid or flexible. An example of a rigid earth-

retaining structure is a retaining wall. On the other hand, sheet pile walls are considered to be

flexible structures. They are quite light weight and derive their stability primarily from the active

and passive earth pressures that develop on opposite sides. Bulkheads like Sheet piles are mostly

used in temporary constructions such as braced cuts, coffer dams or shore protection works.

Whereas retaining walls are permanent structures. Retaining wall systems, consisting mainly of a

retaining wall and backfill soil, is a prevalent structure used in our built environment including

basement wall, bridge abutments, residential elevations, highway walls and so on. The

engineering essence of retaining wall is to keep the retained soil in certain shape and prevent it

from falling (stability), or to restrain the deformation of the wall and the backfill to maintain its

service function (serviceability). Lateral earth pressure generated by retained backfill on the wall

and relevant soil / wall deformations are two main facets of engineering design and analysis of

retaining walls. Dynamic/seismic response of such system is one of the major areas due to the

influence of dynamic force on the lateral pressure, soil / wall deformation. There are quite a

number of analytical solutions, experimental investigations and numerical studies that have been

conducted in this area due to different soils, wall structures, dynamic and structural conditions

1
etc. In the meanwhile, it is widely accepted that traditional methods have insufficiencies

especially under certain circumstances.

Fig. 1 Various Types of Retaining Walls

Gravity Retaining Wall: These are used for moderate heights and generally they have

trapezoidal shape as shown in fig a. These derive their stability primarily from their substantial

weight. These are designed in such a way that tension should not be developed anywhere in the

structure.(fig 1)

Semi-gravity Retaining Wall: semi-gravity retaining walls are provided with slightly longer

base projections as compared to the gravity retaining walls. A few reinforcing bars are placed in

the base as well as the stem of the wall.

Cantilever Retaining Wall: These are RCC walls having much lighter sections. They consist of

three cantilever slabs – the stem, toe and heel as shown in fig b. They derive their stability

mainly from the weight of backfill supported by the base slab. They are generally economical up

to a height of around 5m. (Fig. 1)

Counterfort Retaining Wall: In this type of retaining wall, counter forts (cantilevers) are

provided on the earth side between wall and footing to support the wall, which essentially spans

as a continuous one-way slab horizontally as shown in fig c. Counter fort walls seldom find

2
application in building construction. A temporary condition in which basement walls may be

required to behave as counter fort retaining walls occurs though, if outside fill is placed before

the floors are constructed.(fig 1)

Buttressed retaining wall: It is similar to a counter fort retaining wall, except that the transverse

support walls are located on the side of the stem opposite the retaining material and act as

compression struts.

Modes of failure (Fig 2)

Before the actual design, the soil parameters that influence the earth pressure and the bearing

capacity of the soil must be evaluated. These include the unit weight of the soil, the angle of

shearing resistance, the cohesion intercept and the angle of wall friction. Knowing these

parameters, the lateral earth pressures and the bearing capacity of the soil can be determined.

After the earth pressures are determined, the retaining walls as whole are checked for stability

against sliding, overturning, bearing capacity failure & tension.

In addition to the three types of failures i.e. sliding, overturning and bearing failure, a retaining

wall may fail in the following two modes if the soil underneath is weak.

Shallow Shear Failure: This type of failure occurs along a cylindrical passing through the heel

of the retaining wall. The failure takes place because of the excessive shear stresses along the

cylindrical surface within the soil mass. However, it has generally been found that the factor of

safety against horizontal sliding is lower than that for the shallow shear failure. Consequently, if

the factor of safety against sliding is greater about 1.5, shallow shear failure is not likely to occur.

Deep shear failure: This type of shear failure occurs along a cylindrical surface, when there is a

weak layer of soil underneath the wall a depth of about 1.5 times the height of the wall. The

critical failure surface is determined by trial and error procedures.

3
Fig. 2 Modes of Failure of Retaining Walls

4
 1. Effect of Clayey Soils as Backfill on Stability of Retaining

Walls

(Al-Juari, Khattab, & Al-Shamam, 2016)

Clayey soils are one of the major fine-grained soils that show anomalous behavior with water

under the action of load. Various studies have been undertaken by the experts to know the soil

behavior under various conditions. This study involves

 Exploration of major clay minerals like montomorillonite, kaolinite, illite, and other

elements.
 Vertical deformation of soil and total suction.
 Effect on wall and its movement towards and away from backfill soil due to magnitude of

lateral pressure applied on wall.

In order predict behavior of clayey soils one of the tests was conducted by the authors at The

University of Mosul and it was as follows:

1. Experimental setup was designed as a steel structure mainly consists of o box with two

sides made of mild steel, third side of fiber glass and fourth side was kept for retaining

wall.

2. Circular holes were made on the central line of the retaining wall to introduce pressure

cell transducers.

3. It was designed to enable lateral swelling pressure, at rest lateral pressure, active and

passive earth pressures.

4. At bottom a thin layer of gravel overlain by geogrid was placed in order to permit

uniform water distribution.

5
 5. Soil was placed and compacted in layers in such a way that compaction pressure is

maintained for two hours to prevent soil rebound.

6. Holes were made into soil to install transducers to identify variation of suction at

different depths using LVDT (Linear Varying Differential Transformer).

7. Arrangement of a steel plate with three transducers at soil surface and other set of three

transducers on steel mesh which was placed at front part of wall were made.

8. Steel plate was used to enable load transfer to the soil.

9. Initially soil was saturated and load was applied then wall remained stable (because it

was riveted), without any movement.

10. Then was subjected to various horizontal movements away from soil using transducers.

11. After that unloading of soil was done and various predictions were made during

unloading.

1.1 The following results were observed

1.1.1 Effect of wall’s movement:

It indicates active case i.e. wall moves away from the backfill

i. Lateral stresses decrease with increase in wall’s movement and in order to reduce effects

due to elapsed time wall was allowed to left for many hours until lateral stresses

reached to equilibrium.

ii. Settlement of soil was determined using LVDT and it was observed that settlement

increases with wall’s movement. And

iii. Settlement was more behind the wall rather than away from the wall. From this it was

concluded that backfill was sloped downwards towards the backfill.

6
 iv. Total suction was measured by water mark monitor for every wall’s movement and it was

seen that it slightly increases with wall’s movement.

v. Thus it is observed that total suction has limited effect on wall’s movement.

1.1.2 Effects due to unloading:

i. Lateral stresses decrease at lower depth and increases as depth increases.

ii. This is due to; in lower part soil movement away from wall takes place and the upper part

of wall moves towards soil as soil rebound (passive earth pressure case).

iii. Vertical stresses were left for hours until equilibrium was attained and it was observed

that these get reduced to values less than initial values with elapsed time.

iv. Settlement decreases with release of vertically applied load.

v. Suction increases due to reduction in vertical stresses and suction rate increases from

bottom to top.

7
2. Effect Of Soil And Bedrock Conditions Below Retaining Walls On

Wall Behaviour

(gabar, 2012)

In general clean granular coarse grain soils are usually recommended as backfill material

because of following reasons:

 Predictable behavior

 Proper Drainage system

 Frost action.

It enables the analysis of wall behavior when coarse grain soils are used as backfill for retaining

walls. This also shows the effect of bedrock and it’s characteristics on retaining wall. The main

analysis includes wall movement, drainage and backfill characteristics. The analysis has to be

done with proper care because it includes wall failure and its stability.

Weakening of soil will cause damage to retaining wall and it takes place in three different types

 Passive wedge weakening (soil weakening at toe)

 Active wedge weakening

 Reduction in soil resistance under the wall.

Active wedge weakening can occur when the soil and soil pressure on the wall increases.

This will cause structural failure and the backfill soil also weakened during static loads. Then the

soil is susceptible to strain softening during static loads and it get weakens, as a result back force

on wall increases.

8
 The main parameters involved in analysis are Bending Moment, Anchor forces,

deformations in wall. Deformations are due to unloading of an excavated area where as bending

moment is due to lateral earth pressure behind the wall and coefficient of earth pressure, wall

stiffness majorly influences bending moment in the walls. PLAXIS, 2-D finite element analysis

software package, was used for the parametric study in this study. Soiland rock behavior is non

linear

And was analyzed by using various models by PLAXIS, 2-D.

Among those Mohr Coulomb’s model was used as a first approximation of soil behavior for this

study. This mainly includes five parameters like Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, cohesion,

Frictional Angle, and Strength Reduction Factor Interface.

2.1 Parameters required for Modeling are:

 Young’s Modulus (E)

 Poisson’s Ratio(ν)

 Cohesion (c)

 Friction Angle (ϕ)

 Dilatancy Angle (ψ)

 Strength Reduction Factor Interface

 Saturated and Unsaturated unit weight

 Permeability

9
2.2 Conditions assumed for modeling analysis:

 Bed rock depth: 5m, 15m, 25m & 50m.

 Bed rock slope: 1:1, 2:1, 3:1, 4:1 (both upwards and downwards).

 Wall heights: 6m, 9m with penetration depth 2m & 3m.

 Soil: dense sandy soil (ϕ=38 °) & loose sandy soil (ϕ=32°).

 Ground water table was assumed to be at a depth of 1m from rigid ground surface.

 Wall is considered as a plate with material properties like wall Stiffness, Flexural

Rigidity, Equivalent thickness, Weight, Poisson’s ratio.

 Boundary conditions:

i. fixed boundary (bed rock is horizontal at bottom)

ii. Friction boundary (represents friction between wall & soil).

2.3 Modeling of finite elements:

*Node: Every model is sub-divided into finite elements, their junction points are called as node.

*Degrees of Freedom: number of independents required to specify a system in equilibrium.

Soil elements were modeled using 15 node triangular elements which was

accurate element that can produce high quality stress results for difficult problems. But it will

consume relatively more memory and it will show relatively slow calculation and operation

performance. So four 6 node elements are used instead of 15 node elements (as number of stress

points and number of nodes are same for both).

Interface Elements were soil wall interfaces, when using 15 node elements corresponding

elements were defined by five pairs whereas when using 6 node elements those are defined by

three pairs.

10
 Wall elements were such that PLAXIS uses 3 (or) 5 node line elements as plate

elements. Elastic (or) elastoplastic behavior with degrees of freedom 3.Total 150 models were

analyzed out of which 65 for effect of depth of bed rock and bed slope, 65 for effect of type of

soil, 10 for wall height and 10for anchor angles.

2.4 TEST RESULTS:

All the results are expressed in figures and

It was shown that both fixed and friction boundaries have same behavior and variation of test

results was represented as follows

It was also revealed that factors such as depth of bed rock, bed rock slope, soil type, wall
height etc., will effect stability which were explained as in table 1.

Table 1 Variation of different parameters with respect to boundary

PARAMETER DIFFERS BY
BENDING MOMENT 1% - 7%

ANCHOR FORCES 1% - 7%

DISPLACEMENT 1% - 4%

(total, horizontal, vertical)

11
2.4.1 Effect of bedrock depth (below the wall):
 Total displacement vectors were analyzed for various depths and it was shown thatWall

displacements are minimal when bed rock is at shallow depth.

 Maximum horizontal, vertical and total displacements increase with the depth of bed

rock, and it was similar for both upward and downward slopes.

 Bending moment also shows the same behavior as displacement as it increases with

bedrock depth. It has lesser effect on wall’s bending moment and it will be more

significant when bedrock slopes are relatively low angled.

 Anchor forces also increases with increase in bedrock depth.

2.4.2 Effect of bedrock slope:

Analysis for various slope ratios i.e., upward, downward, horizontal were done and variations

were stated as expressed below

When slope changes from -1:1 to +1:1 (increasing slope)

 Maximum wall displacement increases by 33% for 25m bedrock depth and decreases by

same amount for 50m bedrock depth.

 Anchor forces increases significantly and the drop when slope is +3:1.

At deeper depths

 Vertical displacements may slightly fluctuate for downward slopes and decreases for

upward slopes.

Bending moments are high when bed rock is horizontal and decreases as bedrock slope

increases either upward or downward by 22% as that of the horizontal case.

12
2.4.3 Effect of soil type:

It is observed that

Walls in dense and loose sand have similar behavior under varying bedrock conditions and

bedrock slope conditions.

All the results of maximum wall displacements, bending moment, and maximum anchored force

shows that wall is relatively stronger when dense soils are used as backfill material.

2.4.4 Effect of wall height:

Finite element analysis was performed on both 6m and 9m walls and was observed that

Higher wall yields high bending moment, and negative moments at anchor level for 9m wall

are obvious when compared to that 6m high wall.

13
 ANALYSIS FOR ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS AS BACKFILL OF

RETAINING WALLS TO INCREASE THE STABILITY

Introduction

In order to increase stability of earth retaining walls dense soils are used, otherwise changes in

stability conditions may occur but it is always not possible to have desirable properties of

backfill .In such cases use of other alternatives materials that increases stability has to be

adopted. It requires analysis of those alternative materials. These materials may be

1. Shredded tires

2. Geofoams and geosynthetics

3. Soil stabilization

4. Shredded tires (under seismic action)

5. Clinker ash

6. Fly ash

7. Soil rock mixture.

The analysis of various elements is carried out efficiently and the properties of these

materials under various have to be studied carefully.

The materials should have following properties:

 It should be tough and durable i.e. it should not include additional cost like operational

cost and maintenance cost.

 It should be light weight and should be capable of resisting various loads like live loads

and dead loads.

 The materials have to be tested under various conditions in order to obtain various

parameters that will cause structural as well as soil failure.

14
 In case of soils, they should have high shear strength and identical properties under

various conditions like temperature etc.,

 The alternate material used should not cause any additional problems on retaining walls.

 The material should be available cheaply.

The materials used for this purpose should increase additional stability of the

retaining and at the same time it should resist failure of soil, overturning, sliding of the

structure. The material should be such that it should be easy to handle and to work with.

At the same time, it should not cause any harm to Environment and should be eco-

friendly.

Care should be taken while handling these materials in such a way that right

material should be used at right place for suitable atmospheric as well as drainage

conditions. It can be done through various technical skills, proper knowledge about the

material and experience (up to some extent).

15
 3. USE OF SHREDDED TYRES AS LIGHT WEIGHT BACKFILL

MATERIALFOR EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES

(Cecich, Gonzales, Hoisaeter, & Reddy, 1996)

Life of the various vehicle decreases from they began to run and this may be due to wear and tear

of vehicle tires, gear parts, engines etc., out of which it has become a complicated problem that

we are facing today is disposal of the worn tires. This review deals with the use of shredded tires

as a backfill for earth retaining structures. This was first adopted in United States. This technique

was a result of an alternative method for disposal of shredded tires as these create various

environmental problems during its disposal.

Before using this material as a backfill following process has to be analyzed

 Tests to determine engineering properties of shredded tires.

 Design of several of height of retaining walls with sand and shredded tires as backfill, its

comparison.

 Economic analysis.

3.1 Typical composition and characteristics of shredded tires

A typical tire casing is composed of carbon (83%), hydrogen (7%), sulfur (1.2%), and ash (6%).

Primary constituents include polymer, black carbon and softerners. Hydro carbon oils in

combination with polymers give the tire a very high heating value.

3.2 Test to determine engineering properties of shredded tires

The following experiments were conducted to determine Engineering properties of Shredded

tires used as a backfill material.

 Sieve analysis to determine Gradation.

16
  Compaction test using modified proctor method to determine unit weight.

 Constant head permeability test to determine hydraulic conductivity.

 Direct shear to determine shear strength.

In order to reduce the size either chopping, shredding (or) grinding.

After shredding a whole tire is reduced into strips of size ranges from 2in x 8in to 2in x 2in and

tire volume is reduced up to 75% in this process.

3.3 Sieve Analysis for gradation:

It was performed in accordance to ASTM testing standards to determine gradation.

Sieve analysis was performed twice, using two samples of shredded tires, one before compaction

and the other after compaction in a modified proctor mould. It was done to verify the effects of

compaction on the gradation of shredded tires. Then the gradation curve is compared with the

gradation of sandy or gravelly soils.

3.4 Unit weight testing:

Modified proctor compaction test was performed to obtain maximum unit weight.

In this test 4.5kg hammer as dropped through a vertical distance of 45cm to produce adequate

compaction energy.

17
3.5 Constant head permeability test

Ideal backfill should have high hydraulic conductivity. Constant head permeability

test was adopted in order to determine the permeability of shredded tires in the same manner as

conducted for the soils.

It was conducted as it defines an ideal property of material called drainage of free water.

3.6 Direct shear test

Direct shear tests were conducted using three different normal stresses. Horizontal

deformation, vertical deformation, shear forces were measured.

3.7 Graphs Drawn

 Shear stress Vs horizontal deformation – to obtain max shear stress that can be sustained

by shredded tires.

 Maximum shear stress Vs corresponding normal stress – shear strength parameters.

 Vertical deformation Vs horizontal deformation.

3.8 Results

From sieve analysis it was determined that

Co-efficient of curvature Cc = 1.26

Co-efficient of uniformity Cu = 2.14

And the sample was considered as uniform graded. The gradation is compared with the gradation

of sandy or gravelly soils and hence it was considered as acceptable one.

The unit weight of the shredded tires was obtained in the range of 562.3 Kg/m3 to 597.5 Kg/m3.

18
The hydraulic conductivity, cohesion, angle of internal friction was found as 0.034cm/s, 7.18

KN/m2, 27 degrees respectively.

3.9 Design

 This was done by comparing a retaining wall using a conventional backfill, sand with the

obtained for same situation using shredded tires as backfill.

 Retaining wall was designed for 10ft, 20ft, 30ft for thorough comparison and it was

designed under geotechnical as well structural aspects.

 Geotechnical aspects comprise of design based on sliding, overturning, bearing capacity.

 Structural aspects comprise of wall dimensions as well as selection of efficient strength of

materials like concrete and steel.

3.10 Economic analysis

Cost estimates were done for 10ft, 20ft, and 30ft high retaining walls with sand Vs shredded tires

as backfill.

Cost estimates were based on prevailing labor costs and including all major costs such as

clearing, grubbing, and excavation and material costs.

It mainly depends on transportation as processing cost to shredded tires to required chips.

It was found that 52% - 67% cost savings can be done by using shredded tires.

Materials cost reduced can be up to81% - 85% and the savings increases as wall’s height

increases.

19
3.11 OBSERAVATIONS

It is observed that factor of safety for sliding; overturning is significantly greater and more stable

than that for retaining walls with backfill as sand.

It is more economical than compare to the other backfill materials.

It also reduces the problems of disposal of tires

And the further studies are to be conducted on following concerns for actual field feasibility

i. Inadequate load bearing capacity

ii. High compressibility

iii. Adverse leaching effects.

20
 4. Design and Analysis of Retaining wall Backfill with Shredded

Tires and subjected to Dynamic loading

(Shrestha, Ravichandran, Raveendra, & Attenhofer, 2016)

4.1 Shredded tires:

In India every year millions of waste tires are generating annually and most of tires are disposed

of in landfills or dumped unlawfully which creates serious health and environmental problems.

Using those waste tires in form of shreds in civil engineering projects is a good practice of

recycling this waste material. Various civil engineering applications including shredded tires are -

 fills for highway embankments

 Backfill material for retaining walls

 Drainage material for septic fields

 as vibration absorbents in rail lines

 surfacing playgrounds

 mixing with asphalt pavements etc.

4.2 Shredded tire as backfill material:

4.2.1Properties of shredded tire:

Unit weight = 5.13 ken/cubic meter to 7.31 ken/ cubic meter

 Cohesion = 0 to 81 kappa

 Friction angle = 6° to 32°

 Modulus of elasticity = 770 Kpa to 3394 Kpa

21
 Poisson ratio = 0.2 to 0.33

 Hydraulic conductivity = 0.035 cm/sec to 8.25 cm/sec

 These properties indicate that the shredded tire can be used as retaining wall backfill

under certain conditions.

 In this study by designing the retaining wall for dynamic loading found that with

shredded tire as backfill, length of the will be more than the length of heel.

 Amount of reinforcement required get reduces compared to granular soil backfill.

 When height of retaining wall is high, shredded tires are more suitable.

 With shredded tire as backfill there will be reduction of 40% of volume of backfill and

about 67% of reduction of total cost compared to granular backfill.

 Using finite element method dynamic analysis of retaining wall in situ soil backfill

system done by PLAXIS-2D (2012) software.

 In "PLAXIS-2D" retaining wall model with shredded tire as backfill was constructed and

was investigated for dynamic loading.

 Different parametric studies such as variation in shredded tire properties, variation of

friction angle, variation of stiffness, variation in input motion etc. And found that

shredded tire is most suitable backfill material in case of dynamic loading conditions.

 In this study only 2D model are used for the investigation. If 3D models we're used then

it would have better to understand the deformation analysis.

 Also in this study only, suitability of shredded tires in dynamic loading cases only

investigated. No investigations on its suitability in non-earth quake regions.

22
4.3Finite element method:

It is a numerical technique to obtain an approximate solution to a problem which is in form of

partial differential equation or boundary value problem. The finite element method converts the

elliptical partial differential equation into a set of algebraic equations which are easy to solve.

4.4PLAXIS - 2D:

PLAXIS - 2D is a powerful and user-friendly finite element package intended for two

dimensional analyses of deformation and stability in geotechnical engineering problems. The

applications range from excavations, embankment and foundation to tunneling, mining and

reservoir aeromechanics.

23
 5.Use of Fly AAsh as Backfill Material

(Kumar & Mandal, 2017)

 It is a by-product from the coal fired thermal power plants.

 In India every year on an average 112 million tons of flash is producing among which

only approximately 59% get utilized and remaining going as waste. Hence, it can be

useful for many civil engineering applications.

 Fly ash can be classified as ML (low plastic silt) according to Unified Classification.

 Jute- geotextile as reinforcement:

 Jute is a naturally available eco-friendly material with which jute-geotextile is made.

5.1 Advantages of jute-geotextile:

 Abundantly available

 Superior Quality

 Ease of installation

 Bio degradable product

 lower cost compared to synthetic geotextiles.

With these advantages it is more beneficial to use as reinforcement in soil walls.

Engineering properties of jute-geotextile also good.

5.2 Investigation of multi tired retaining walls:

Multi-tiered retaining walls with different backfills and with or without reinforcement can be

investigated mainly in 3 ways

1. Numerical method

24
2. Laboratory model tests

3. Field monitoring

Among these, laboratory model tests are much more reliable as by constructing models in lab

different parametric analysis can be done.

5.3 Fly Ash as a backfill of multi-tiered retaining walls:

 With laboratory model tests conducted, it was found that fly ash can be applicable as

backfill in retaining walls.

 Fly ash can be applied in tiered retaining walls with or without reinforcement.

 To use as a backfill fly ash should be added by water content at which it attains maximum

dry density and should compacted to 90% degree of compaction.

 If reinforcement in form of jute-geotextile applied then it would be more beneficial as it

gives additional stability.

 Horizontal displacement will be more at top portion of upper tier in unreinforced wall.

 In reinforced wall with flash backfill horizontal facia displacement will be relatively less.

 Offset distance also one of important parameter in this case.

 In unreinforced multi-tiered retaining walls critical offset distance is 0.4 times the length

of lower tier.

 In reinforced multi-tiered retaining walls critical offset distance is 0.6 times the length of

lower tier.

 At critical offset distance horizontal facia displacement will be more.

 Geometric configuration plays an important role in stability of retaining wall. The

increase in offset distance reduces wall facia displacement.

25
 6.Mechanically Stabilized Earth Retaining Structures

Soil can be stabilized by using a wide range of materials such as cement, lime and fly ash.

Mechanically stabilized earth comprises of horizontal reinforcement into the soil. In the soils

such as clay the soil has to be stabilized to get adequate strength various methods are available

for stabilizing clayey soils. One of those methods is stabilization using lime. When lime and

water are mixed with clay at pH>12 this will cause corrosion to the steel elements in MSE earth

walls. In order to overcome this LLDPE (Linear Low DensityPolyethylene) coated, planar, high

tenacity polyester strips are used in reinforcement of concrete facing panels of MSE walls.

6.1 Properties of LLDPE:

 High tensile strength

 High puncture, impact resistance and elongate under loading.

 Good resistance to chemicals and cracking due to environmental stresses.

 It is a linear polymer with significant number of short branches made by co-

polymerization of ethylene with longer-chain olefins.

It requires analysis of soil properties, lime percent in backfill and durability of LLDPE coated

reinforcement. Interaction between soil and reinforcement plays a major role in stability of MSE

walls.

6.2 Stabilization using quick lime

This requires analysis of properties like gradation, plasticity index, climate, availability and cost

of the stabilizer.

Lime treatment can chemically transform unstable soils into exploitable materials by increasing

both workability and strength. Optimum utilization of lime has to be needed because high

amount causes permanent stabilization.

26
6.3 Following reactions can occur when lime and water are added to clay

6.3.1 Soil drying:

Quicklime immediately chemically combines with water and starts releasing heat. The

water present in the soil reacts, and the generated heat evaporates some additional moisture

leading to soil drying. The resulting hydrated lime will then react with clay particles reducing the

soil capacity to hold water (additional drying). Drying occurs quickly, within a matter of hours,

enabling the contractor to compact the soil much more rapidly than by waiting for the soil to dry

through natural evaporation. In case of hydrated lime or hydrated lime slurry, only drying due to

reaction with clay occurs.

Ca CO3 Ca O + CO2.

Ca O + H2O Ca (OH)2.

6.3.2 Modification:

After the initial phase, the calcium ions (Ca++) from hydrated lime move onto the

clay particles displacing water and other ions. The PI of the soil dramatically decreases as a

consequence in a process called “flocculation and agglomeration” that occurs in a matter of

hours, and so does its tendency to swell and shrink. The soil becomes easier to work and

compact.

27
6.3.3 Stabilization

Long-term strengthening is due to pozzolanic reactions that occurs in the highly alkaline

environment (pH >12 for a short period of time), which leads to the breaking down of the clay

particles, and allows the formation of calcium silicates and aluminates that form the matrix that

contributes to the strength of lime-stabilized soil layers.

28
 7. Applicability of soil rock mixture as backfill material for multi-

tieredretaining walls
(Gaung-Quing, Liu, Zhou, & Xiong, 2014)

7.1 Multi-Tiered Retaining Walls:

It is the retaining wall system in which a series of two or more stacked walls each higher wall set

back from underlying wall.

7.2 Advantages of multi-tiered retaining walls:

1. Aesthetic appearance - multi-tiered retaining walls give a very good aesthetic appearance

than conventional retaining walls.

2. Economy - construction of these walls will be cost effective because of less excavation and

reinforcement etc.

3. Safety - in retaining of high elevations (more than 12m) these walls are safe.

4. Maintains global stability.

7.3 Stability of two-tiered retaining wall with soil-rock mixture as backfill:

 There are only few studies on effect of soil-rock mixture as backfill material.

 Soil-rock mixture is mostly available geological material on Earth.

 In soil-rock mixture, if rock content is less (<30%) then it is more applicable as backfill.

 For maintaining stability soil-rock mixture requires an additional support which may be

geosynthetic reinforcement.

 The soil-rock mixture can be classified as either well or poorly graded gravel with sand.

 In using soil-rock mixture as backfill it has to be compacted to good quality.

29
  Lateral Earth pressure will decreases after construction and completely ceases after

certain duration.

 Lateral displacement at top of the wall will be much more than bottom and ceased to

develop after certain period.

 If geosynthetic reinforcement used then reinforcement strain will be lesser than the

failure strain always.

 It is required to maintain good interaction with the geosynthetic reinforcement by soil-

rock mixture.

 In present study post-construction performance of two-tiered retaining wall with soil-rock

mixture as backfill is investigated and finally found that the soil-rock mixture can be

applicable as a backfill.

7.4 Geo synthetic reinforcement in retaining walls:

 Geo synthetics are the synthetic products generally polymeric in nature used in many

civil engineering problems.

 Geosynthetics include 8 products: Geo textiles, Geo grids, geo nets, geo membrane,

geosynthetic clay liners, geofoam, geo cells and geo composites.

 Use of geosynthetic reinforcement in soil walls is very advantageous as it increases the

stability of wall.

7.5 Investigation of post-construction performance of retaining walls:

 Post construction performance will be very helpful in determining the stability of

retaining wall.

 These studies can be done by using some displacement sensors, surveying equipment,

pressure cells, transducers etc.

30
 By installing these in retaining wall which was already constructed different parameters

related to its stability are measured.

 But special care should be taken that these studies should not affect the stability of wall in

any way.

31
 8. Applicability of Clinker Ash as a Backfill Material in Steel Strip
Reinforced
(Suzuki, Nakashita, Tsukuda, & Wakatsuki, 2017)

8.1 Clinker Ash:

Clinker ash is a type of bottom ash produced from ash melting at 1500°c in boiler and then

falling into water tank at bottom of boiler, where it gets cooled and lumps of accumulated ash are

crushed with pulveriser into particles approximately 2cm diameter.

Clinker ash has following properties compared to sand:

 light unit weight

 high shear strength

 high permeability

 particle size distribution - contains fine sand and gravel content.

 compaction properties - relatively high Optimum moisture content and Low maximum

dry density

 uniformity coefficient = 12 to 24

 coefficient of curvature = 0.5 to 1.8

8.2 Laboratory Pull Out tests:

Applicability of clinker ash as backfill material was investigated by use of laboratory pull out

tests.

In this test behaviour of clinker ash under overburden pressure, maximum pull out resistance at

different degree of compaction can be determined.

32
In this study three series of pullout tests were implemented -

1. Examination of influence of overburden pressure on pull out resistance

2. Examination of influence of fine fraction on pullout resistance

3. Examination of influence of degree of compaction on pullout resistance

8.3 Applicability of Clinker Ash as fill material:

 Physical properties of clinker ash are Superior than Sandy soils in terms of pull out

resistance.

 Friction coefficient of clinker ash was found to be sufficiently greater than Sandy soils.

 In clinker ash with increase in overburden pressure - maximum pull out resistance

increases.

 With increase of degree of compaction, maximum pull out resistance increases.

 Maximum pull out resistance is directly proportional to the sands or gravel content in the

clinker ash with increase in fine content, pull out resistance decreases.

 To use clinker ash as a backfill material in retaining walls steel strip reinforcement has to

be used to increase the stability of retaining wall.

 There was no change in grain size distribution before and after pullout test.it indicates

that grain size distribution in clinker ash remain constant.

 As it is a byproduct from coal fired thermal power plants, its availability will be more.

 The geotechnical properties of clinker ash are almost comparable or Superior to the

Sandy soils.

 Coefficient of friction which is an important property in retaining wall system is more

than the Sandy soils for clinker ash.

 With all these clinker ashes can be applicable as a back fill in retaining walls.

33
 Clinker ash has already been used in several projects as an embankment material, road sub

grade or sub base course material or back fill material for Earth pressure resistant structures, such

as bridge piers and retaining walls. No post construction problems have yet been encountered

and it is believed that clinker ash meets long term material requirements.

34
9. Seismic earth pressures on flexible cantilever retaining walls

with deformable inclusions

(Ertugrul & Trandafir, 2014)

Seismic response of retaining walls is analyzed using 1-g shaking test with composite backfill

made of a deformable geo foam inclusions and granular cohesion less material. Comparisons are

made with the one without geo foams. It is observed reduction in earth pressures are up to 50%.

Main parameters under study are

 Flexible ratio

 Dynamic load reduction efficiency

 Amplitude and frequency ratio of seismic excitation.

The test was performed on cantilever retaining wall with EPS & XPS geofoam inclusions.

EPS means Expanded Poly Styrene which is blocks of various sizes and shapes. It minimizes

settlement on underground utilities, thermal insulation, and drainage and also used as

compressible inclusions.

XPS stands for Extruded Poly Styrene which is available in the form of sheets.

9.1 Test procedure

9.1.1 Materials used:

 Physical test with shaking table enables versatility.

 It uses laminar container was used to reduce disturbance of model response from wave

reflections encountered in dynamic test performed.

35
  A thin membrane made of rubber to prevent material leakage when laminar frames are

moving.

 Pressure and displacement transducers.

 Accelerators to monitor horizontal and vertical accelerations.

 Model walls are composed of steel rigidly welded to steel base.

9.1.2 Material characteristics

Dry cohesion less soils

Maximum void ratio 0.745

Minimum void ratio 0.436

Specific gravity 2.66

Angle of internal friction 43.5 degrees

Confining pressure range 5-15 K Pa

Density of EPS and XPS are 15 Kg/m3 and 22 Kg/m3.

The instrumented retaining wall models were placed on the 20-cm thick compacted

layer of sand. During the backfilling process, the wall model was kept fixed against horizontal

movements by means of lateral supports. Backfill was constituted of 10-cm lifts by dry

eluviation, a commonly used method to reconstitute granular materials representative of some

initial state. To make use of dry eluviation technique, a steel shutter and diffuser screen having

the same dimensions with the laminar container were manufactured. Based on the test results

presented by hole spacing of the shutter and diffuser screen were selected as 60 mm and

2.36mm, respectively, in order to obtain relative densities between 70% and 75% by raining

procedure. At the end of the backfilling process, the data acquisition equipment was used to

monitor wall pressures on the non-yielding wall (lateral restraints were presented). The data

36
acquisition continued during the removal of the restraints accomplished by the slow unloading of

the mechanical jack located between the wall model and the sides of the container. Lateral earth

Pressures and wall movements were monitored until no further wall movements and pressure

redistribution occurred. The tests involving compressible geofoam inclusions were carried out

following the same procedure. However, EPS and XPS geofoam panels were installed between

the wall model and the backfill prior

To the eluviation. Direct shear tests were performed to determine

The interface friction between the geofoam and the granular material.

The friction coefficient of the contact plane between the geofoam and the granular backfill was

found as 0.13 since the surfaces of the geofoam panels used in the current study were covered

with plastic tape to reduce the friction between the soils

And the geofoam. With decreasing frictional force at the geofoam backfill interface, the loading

axis of the earth thrust becomes closer to horizontal.

9.2 Results

Thus, the inclusion of geofoam reduced lateral earth pressure and can withstand various seismic

pressures.

37
 Results and Discussions

Current theories, experimental findings and numerical studies for retaining walls subject to

dynamic excitation and static conditions have been briefly revised in a generally chronological

order. Numerical analyses are an accurate way to solve relevant problems, while experiments are

good but incur big cost to conduct an accurate one.

 It is observed that when lateral swelling pressure is more than wall is subjected to active

earth pressure. If stability or self weight of wall is incapable to carry these pressures then

it will lead to sliding and overturning (if more critical).

 Wall is relatively stronger when dense soils are used as backfill material. The alternate

material used should not cause any additional problems on retaining walls.

 Alternate materials of various types are analyzed, compared with soil as backfill, and are

reviewed for to check their feasibility in the field.

 In order to reduce the impact of earthquakes on earth retaining structures a layer or a strip

of geo foams are used behind the walls.

 These inclusions offer high flexibility and reduces load transfer to the wall. It will take

the entire earth pressure and helps in wall’s stability.

 The use of geo foam is simple to analyze and compact to use.

 But this will result in uneconomical construction as it may cost around Rs. 4500 per cubic

meter of the material.

 It is observed that the use of GEOSTRIP REINFORCEMENT in MSE earth walls will

provide additional support for the structure.

38
  If the backfill is clay then it has to be stabilized in order to reduce shrinkage and swelling

which are caused due to change in temperature.

 For this clay is treated with lime which will treat the soil and reduces its swelling

potential.

 But this will lead to corrosion of earth reinforcement; in order to avoid this reinforcement

is provided with a protective layer of LLDPE.

 The use of LLDPE also reduces the disposal problems. Since it is non-bio degradable the

Government has banned the use of LLDPE bags.

 It is better to reduce the height of wall in order to reduce displacement, bending moment,

anchor forces.

 If height of the wall to be constructed is high then make sure that wall is laid at hard strata

and also if height of soil to be retained is more then use of cutting and filling method may be

economical to reduce wall’s height.

 Stability may also be effected by anchor angle and it no case it should not exceed 30degrees.

 It is better to use dense soil as backfill and if it is no possible to get dense soils best

alternatives may be

i. Use of admixtures in loose soils to increase soil bearing capacity.

ii. Compacting soils to attain required relative density.

39
 Gaps in Literature

The use of various types of Retaining structures had been increasing from past. It laid the main

purpose to analyse and predict the wall behaviour and its effects on stability of the retaining wall.

In present study effect of backfill such as plastic soil, Shredded Tires, Clinker Ash, Fly Ash, Soil

Rock mixture on stability of retaining walls are studied. In all these studies index properties of

backfill, model studies, strength parameters, micro-scale studies are commonly investigated.

Many Engineers, Researchers had been working in order to improve various aspects regarding

retaining walls. Various problems faced in design, construction and analysis of retaining walls

are considered and no proper solution has not yet found. In the analysis of these alternate

materials various properties were analysed but their capacity to withstand dynamic action had

not been found out properly. This is because most of the work had been done by considering the

wall under static loading condition but in our India various areas like Tamil Nadu, Kerala,

Jammu& Kashmir. This had analysed using 1g Shaking Test but it is limited to certain extent.

this is due to variation in intensity and magnitude of Seismic action. This can be further analysed

using various tests and their field mechanisms.

40
 CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of various backfill materials and its effect on wall behaviour has studied. Various

alternate solutions such as Geo foams which are light weight, shredded tires that are capable to

withstand seismic action, Fly Ash which is a by-product etc., had been checked for its feasibility

and economy. These alternate materials are checked against various types of soils that are

naturally available. The stability of Retaining Wall depends not only on backfill material but also

on other parameters such as depth of foundation, bedrock conditions, quality of materials used in

construction, type of retaining wall based on site situations, and various components of the wall

that can increase passive earth pressure on the wall (Shear Key, Sheet piles etc.,). In case of

plastic soils total suction, soil shrinkage and swelling under various exposures eventually effects

wall’s movement, for coarse grained soils the wall moves relatively away from backfill results in

failure of wall. Alternate materials are analysed and 1g shaking table test has performed to

determine displacement of wall under seismic action. This had obtained by using transducers at

various positions of a model wall, further use various materials like shredded tires, Geo Foams,

Fly Ash etc., has studied.

41
 REFERENCES

Al-Juari, K., Khattab, S., & Al-Shamam, M. (2016). "Effect of Plastic soil on Retaining Wall Subjected to
Surcharge loading."., 9, pp. 163-169. Retrieved from http://doi:10.1051/e3sconf/20160905006

Cecich, V., Gonzales, L., Hoisaeter, A., & Reddy, K. (1996, july 19). "Use of Shredded Tires as Lightweight
Backfill Material for Retaining Structures.". Waste Management & Research, 14(1), 433-451.
Retrieved from https://wmr.sagepub.com

Ertugrul, O., & Trandafir, A. (2014, july 15). "Seismicearth pressure on flexible cantilever retaining walls
with deformable inclusions.". Rock Mechanice & Geotechnical Engineering, 6(1), 417-427.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2014.07.004

Gabar, m. (2012, may 14). "Effect of Soil and Bedrock Conditions Below Retaining Walls on Wall
Behaviour.". soil mechanics, 16(1), 423-431. Retrieved from
http://do.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.05.007

Gaung-Quing, Liu, Zhou, & Xiong. (2014, january 27). "Post-Construction performance of a two-tiered
geogrid reinforced soil wall backfille with soil-rock mixture.". Geotextiles and Geo membranes,
42(1), 91-97. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2014.01.007

Kumar, A., & Mandal. (2017, may 19). "Effect of Reinforcement on Multi-Tiered Fly Ash Wall.".
Transportation Geotechnics and Geology, 189(1), 446-453. Retrieved from
https://doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.05.072

Shrestha, Ravichandran, Raveendra, & Attenhofer. (2016, august 24). "Design and analysis of retaining
wall backfilled with shredded tire.". Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 90(1), 227-239.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.08.034

Suzuki, M., Nakashita, A., Tsukuda, K., & Wakatsuki, Y. (2017, october 2). "Applicability of clinker ash as
fill material in steel strip-reinforced soil walls.". Soils and Foundations, 58(1), 16-33. Retrieved
from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2017.11.001

42