DESIGN AND CONSTRuCTION OF MODIFIED

RETAINING STRuCTuRES
raM aSra Khural*

AbSTRACT 1.2 In hills, it is not possible to construct the roads

A number of retaining structures are required for construction of hill
without constructing retaining structures such as
roads to achieve the requisite road formation width and to stabilise retaining walls, breast walls, toe walls, check walls,
disturbed hill slope. The purpose of construction of retaining walls revetment walls etc. These retaining structures support
is to achieve the desired road width instead of cutting when the the downhill side unstable strata or fills and stabilize
same is not economical or possible due to more height of cut. Also
the natural disturbed hill slope on uphill side.
to improve the road geometrics, retaining walls are constructed
at re-entrant curves, zigs etc. The breast walls are constructed to
1.3 Generally retaining walls are constructed on
stabilize the disturbed hill slope. The cost of retaining structures
is about 20% to 30% of total project cost of hill roads including re-entrant curves to improve the radius of the curve
cross-drainage works. On number of occasions the civil engineer and to support the fill material. These walls are also
encounters the problem of increasing formation width on valley constructed where either required formation width is
side where the valley side has almost vertical fall or steep slope. not available or the formation cutting is not possible
This technical paper recommends a modified design of retaining
due to some reasons and is also not economical. Toe
structures to achieve the same objective with less effort and less
cost. The emphasis has been laid on construction of modified walls are constructed under the toe of the retaining
retaining structures in plum concrete instead of construction of walls where either sufficient width is not available or
conventional retaining structures of stone masonry walls as dry, the toe of the wall is hanging in the air. But it cannot
banded and fully mortared. Construction of retaining structures in be constructed under the retaining wall where filling
plum concrete as suggested in this paper is not only cost effective,
is required behind the toe wall. Breast walls are
but more stable, more beautiful and easy for construction. By
adopting modified design of retaining structures cost can be generally constructed on the hair pin bends to support
reduced by 30 to 80% due to reduction in height depending upon the disturbed natural hill slope, loose or saturated soil
the slope of hill and further by 5 to 10% by use of plum concrete in to avoid occurrence of landslides.
place of stone masonry. Hence the cost of a hill road project can be
reduced by 5 to 15% as saving to the Govt. which can be utilized 1.4 Plum concrete is a composite concrete with
for some other development works or rich specifications can be stones used as plum stone to increase the bond
adopted within the same amount.
between the concrete. The purpose of using the plum
stones is to reduce the cost of concrete to some extent
1 INTRODuCTION in construction of gravity structures.
1.1 Retaining structures are the walls meant to
support earth or other materials. Hence in order to 2 AIM
design a retaining wall, it is necessary to determine 2.1 The objective of this paper is to highlight the
the horizontal pressures exerted by earth on the wall cost effectiveness and stability of modified retaining
i.e. active earth pressure and pressure exerted by wall structures in plum concrete or masonry as compared
i.e. passive earth pressure. to the conventional type of retaining structures.

* BRES, Executive Engineer (Civil), Officer Commanding, 129 RCC (GREF)/758 BRTF/PROJECT SWASTIK, Border Roads,
Email:[Link]@[Link]

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JANuARY 2013 51

 TECHNICAL PAPERS

3 ExISTING PRACTICE and cheaper material available especially in hills. But

based on economical analysis, it has been observed
3.1 As huge quantity of stones is available in hills,
that the cost of concrete walls is also at par with the
generally gravity retaining structures are constructed in
masonry walls. As the gravity walls are designed
stone masonry irrespective of the cost of construction.
based on their shape and size, but not based on type of
Following kinds of stone masonry retaining structures
material. The stability also depends upon dimensions,
are constructed on hill roads:-
hence to reduce the cost of concrete walls some quantity
• Random Rubble Masonry (Banded) of stones can be used as plum stones popularly known
as plum concrete. Moreover it has been observed that
• Random Rubble Masonry (Cemented)
stone masonry walls do not work as single unit due
• Random Rubble Masonry (Dry) to not placing proper bond stones as specified during
• Sausage or Gabion Wall construction due to lack of supervision.

3.2 Generally retaining structures are constructed 4.2 Keeping in view the objective of the retaining
as per the standard drawings being followed by walls and breast walls, some modifications are
particular department to avoid the wastage of time as recommended in the design and shape of the gravity
well as money on design of retaining structures time retaining structures without compromising with the
and again. The design parameters for the retaining stability of the structures. The design philosophy of
walls and breast walls as per Hill Road Manual are as the modified retaining wall is clear from the Fig. 1.
shown in Table 1. From the figure, it is clear that by giving steps onback
face of the wall to achieve the required base width, the
Table 1 Dimensions of Retaining Walls and breast
Walls as per Hill Road Manual height can be reduced by 10 to 80% depending upon
the slope of hill to achieve the same formation width
Sl. No. Description R/W b/W as shown in the Table 2. Moreover extra formation
1 Top width 0.6m 0.90 m width can be achieved by constructing retaining wall
2 Bottom width 0.4 H + 0.3 m 0.33H + 0.90 m
of same height.
up to 6 m ht

3 Bottom width 0.4H + 0.6 m NA

above 6 m ht

4 Depth of 0.1 H + 0.3 m 0.1 H + 0.30 m

foundation

5 Front batter 1:4 1:3

6 Back batter Vertical Vertical

4 MODIFIED PROPOSALS

4.1 The stone masonry retaining structures are

being constructed since long as there was no alternate
Fig. 1 Modified & Conventional R/W

52 INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JANuARY 2013

 TECHNICAL PAPERS

Table 2 Reduction in Height of Retaining Walls Due to Modified Design

Sl. No. Hill Slope Slope Height of Height of Reduction in % age

(Degree) R/W (CON) R/W(MODI) Height reduction
1 1 IN 0.65 33 4.8 4 0.8 16.67
2 1 IN 1 45 5.4 4 1.4 25.93
3 1 IN 1.19 50 6.0 4 2.0 33.33
4 1 IN 1.43 55 6.4 4 2.4 37.5
5 1 IN 1.73 60 7.3 4 3.3 45.21
6 1 IN 2 63.5 8.5 4 4.5 52.94
7 1 IN 3 71.5 17 4 13 76.47
8 1 IN 4 76 NA 4 #VALuE# #VALuE#

Note: When the valley slope is more than 76 degree, can be achieved by changing the design and formation
construction of conventional type of R/Wall will not be of wedge action behind walls having sloping/vertical
feasible as parallel lines will never meet.
back can be avoided. Hand Packed Stone (HPS) filling
behind retaining walls on all the offsets will not only
4.3 Keeping in view the basic principles of design
work as filter media, but will also add to the stability
for gravity walls, it is proposed to modify the design
by increasing counter weight. The base width of the
of the retaining walls from trapezoidal to rectangular
wall to be kept as 0.5H instead of 0.4H+0.3m and top
block in shape as shown in Fig. 1. It can be seen from width as 0.6 m. To increase stability, an inward slope
Fig. 1 that height of modified retaining wall will reduce of 0.1H has been proposed at the base of retaining wall
by about 25% when the hill slope is about 45 degree. as shown in Fig. 1. The dimensions and quantities of
The reduction in height will be more in case of slope the proposed modified retaining walls for 1m in length
more than 45 degree. It is clear that I m extra width have been given in Table 3.

Table 3 Dimensions and Quantities of Modified Retaining Walls

Sl. No. Description base Offset Plum Conc Hps Fill

Width (Cum) (Cum)
1. R/W 1m height 0.6 m 0.63 0.30
2. R/W 2m height 1.0 m 0.4m 1.80 0.40
3. R/W 3m height 1.5 m 0.4m, 0.5m 3.55 1.50
4. R/W 4m height 2.0 m 0.4m, 0.5m, 0.5m 5.90 2.90
5. R/W 5m height 2.5 m 0.4m, 0.5m, 0.5m, 0.05m 8.22 4.90
6. R/W 6m height 3.0 m 0.4m, 0.5m, 0.5m, 0.5m, 0.5m 12.40 7.40

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JANuARY 2013 53

 TECHNICAL PAPERS

4.4 A number of modified retaining walls have been 4.5 Modified retaining walls were also constructed
constructed on various roads in Bhutan and Sikkim on Gangtok-Chungthang Road at 6.95 in cemented
in plum concrete as well as in stone masonry fully masonry 20 months back which can be seen from
mortared. Modified retaining wall of size 16m x 2m Photo 2. The walls have also experienced major
has been constructed on Indira Bye Pass road in East earthquake on 18 Sept 201, but no sign of failure have
Sikkim at km 7.400. The wall has been constructed been noticed till date. It indicates safe design and
in a slide prone area which is clear from the construction of modified retaining walls which are
Photo. 1. The wall is more safe against failure, cost effective also.
durable and aesthetically beautiful. The wall has also
experienced a major earthquake on 18 Sept 2011 4.6 Breast walls are constructed on hillside of
of 6.8 magnitude on Richter Scale and the same is the road and are subjected to active earth pressure
still safe without any sign of failure where as a few due to moving soil mass. The breast walls should
conventional retaining walls got damaged. be constructed at locations which are unstable and
cannot be stable at an slope of 1 in 2 i.e at an angle
of 63.50 degree. Generally the breast walls are
constructed having top width 0.9 m and front slope
1:3, whereas it is proposed to be modified the front
slope as 1:2 instead of 1:3 and slope of back face as
1:3 in place of vertical face to increase the stability
of the walls against lateral active earth pressure and
to avoid filling of stones behind walls as shown in
Fig. 2 & 3. Moreover maximum height of the breast
walls should be restricted to 1.5m only from stability
point of view. But if there is requirement of more
height due to unavoidable circumstances, wall should
be constructed in steps instead of single wall having
more height as shown in Photos 3 & 4 to reduce the
horizontal pressure as well as cost by 10 to 50% due
Photo 1 Modified Retaining Wall in PC to less section depending upon the height of the wall
and will be more stable as pressure exerted on the
wall is directly proportionally to the height of the wall
ie.P=wH.

Photo 2 Modified Retaining Wall in CM Fig. 2 Conventional B/W

54 INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JANuARY 2013

 TECHNICAL PAPERS

4.7 To construct conventional breast wall, soil has

to be cut almost vertical. But it is pertinent to mention
here that if soil can be stable at an angle of 90 to 63
degree (1 in 2), it means there is no requirement of
any breast wall for stabilizing the hill slope.

4.8 The stone backfilling as proposed in Hill Road

Manual as 0.6m wide vertically behind the back of the
wall is neither practically possible, nor required as it
can be replaced by a wire mesh to serve as filter media.
Moreover it has been seen on ground that HPS filling
Fig. 3 Modified B/W is not being done behind breast walls having more
height either due to difficulty in filling stones behind
walls or due to lack of supervision. Hence the purpose
of filling stones behind breast walls is defeated. Based
on the facts mentioned above, it is proposed either to
use wire mesh on back face of the walls as filter media
in place of Hand Packed Stone (HPS) filling, which
will also act as skin reinforcement and will reduce
development of cracks in back face of the walls due to
horizontal earth pressure or to use empty cement bags
(non-degradable) which will result into reduction in
construction cost of breast walls. The dimensions
along with quantities of proposed breast walls are
Fig. 3 Conventional B/W
given in Table 4.

Table 4 Dimensions and Quantities of

Modified Breast Walls

Sl. No DESCRIPTION TOP bASE QTY

WIDTH WIDTH (CuM)

1. B/W 1 m height 0.9 m 1.07 m 1.38 cum

2. B/W 1.5 m height 0.9 m 1.15 m 1.57 cum

3. B/W 2.0 m height 0.9 m 1.23 m 2.58 cum

4.9 The proposed parameters for modified

retaining walls and breast walls are given in
Fig 4 Breast Wall in Steps Table 5.

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JANuARY 2013 55

 TECHNICAL PAPERS

Table 5 Dimensions of Modified Retaining Walls and Breast Walls

SL. NO. DESCRIPTION R/W b/W

1. Top width 0.6m 0.90m
2. Bottom width 0.5H 0.1H +0.90m
3. Depth of foundation 0.1 H +0.3m 0.1H +0.30m
4. Front batter Vertical 1:2
5. Back batter Vertical 1:3

5 PROPOSED THEORY • The soil mass is homogeneous and cohesion

less.
5.1 Before proposing any modification, it is
compulsory to know about the existing theories of • The ground surface is a plane which may be
design of retaining structures. There are two famous horizontal or inclined
theories of two famous scientists given as under:
• The back of the wall is vertical and smooth
• Coulomb’s Earth Pressure Theory
5.4 Assumptions of Proposed Theory
• Rankin’s Earth Pressure Theory
• Soil mass/fill material is homogeneous
5.2 Assumptions of Coulomb’s Theory
• Front face is vertical and smooth
5.2.1 The first rigorous analysis of the problem of
• Back face in steps is vertical and smooth without
lateral earth pressure was published by CA Coulomb
any shearing stress or friction
in 1776 and the assumptions of his theory are as
under: • Bed base of wall is in slope towards heel to
increase stability against sliding/overturning.
• The soil is isotropic and homogeneous.
• Fill material is cohesion less
• The rupture surface is a plane surface.
• No formation of pore water pressure behind
• The failure wedge is a rigid body
walls as sufficient number of weep holes are
• The pressure surface is a plane surface provided
• There is wall friction on the pressure surface • Concrete to be laid over stone metal but not
• Failure is two dimensional directly over soil

• The soil is cohesion less • Weight of hand packed stones will add to the
stability by increasing self weight of the wall
5.3 Assumptions of Rankine’s Theory

5.3.1 W J Rankine proposed a different approach 6 STAbILITY COMPARISON

to the problem of lateral earth pressure in 1857 and 6.1 From the design criteria, it is clear that stability
assumptions of his theory are as under: of a dry stone masonry, banded stone masonry and

56 INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JANuARY 2013

 TECHNICAL PAPERS

fully mortared stone masonry will be equal for same the frictional bond between the different layers of
dimensions and similar soil conditions since the masonry so that it can act integrally as one unit. In
stability depends upon the compressive strength. case of dry or banded stone masonry this can be
Against sliding the strength of above walls will be achieved if roughly rectangular shaped stones with
same because it depends upon the co-efficient of sufficient overlap and bond stones are used for proper
friction between the wall base and foundation material. interlocking. But practically it is not possible to use
The co-efficient of friction between the wall base and rectangular shaped stones with overlaps due to lack of
foundation can be increased by laying different kinds supervision, resulting into weak structure.
of material on bed base.
6.3 The factors of safety for modified retaining
6.2 The above discussion makes it clear that there walls have been calculated assuming µ= 0.5 (concrete
is no utility of bands or mortar being used in the over stone metal), Cp=0.2 (stones as filling material),
retaining structures as far as the strength is concerned. density of wall and HPS fill (w) = 2 t/cum as shown
The basic requirement of cement mortar is to increase in Table 6.
Table 6 Stability Checks for Retaining Walls of Various Heights

Sl. No. DESCRIPTION 1m 2m 3m 4m 5m 6m

1. FOS against overturning 5.01 3.72 3.72 3.72 3.72 3.72
2. FOS against sliding 2.6 2.17 2.17 2.17 2.17 2.17
3. Tension (e<b/6) e in m 0.07 0.15 0.23 0.30 0.38 0.45
4. Pressure at toe (t/sqm) 3.50 7.75 11.75 15.51 19.50 23.26
5. Pressure at heel (t/sqm) 0.64 0.48 0.60 0.97 1.09 1.45

6.4 Modified retaining walls are more safe seen from Table 7.
against sliding and overturning which can be
Table 7 Comparison Between Modified and Conventional Retaining Walls

Sl. No. Height of FOS (Sliding) FOS Eccentricity Pressure at Toe Pressure at
R/W (O/Turning) Heel

CR MR CR MR CR MR CR MR CR MR
1 1m 2.77 2.6 5.90 5.00 0.03 0.07 2.12 3.50 1.42 0.64
2 2m 1.79 2.17 3.02 3.72 0.08 0.15 4.66 7.75 1.88 0.48
3 3m 1.51 2.17 2.46 3.72 0.15 0.23 7.00 11.75 1.86 0.60
4 4m 1.36 2.17 2.23 3.72 0.24 0.30 9.65 15.51 1.48 0.97

5 5m 1.27 2.17 2.09 3.72 0.35 0.38 12.6 19.50 0.76 1.09
6 6m 1.21 2.17 2.00 3.72 0.47 0.45 15.9 23.26 -0.20 1.45

NOTE: CR-Conventional Retaining Wall, MR-Modified Retaining Wall

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JANuARY 2013 57

 TECHNICAL PAPERS

7 COST COMPARISON comparison of conventional retaining wall of 4 m

height constructed in banded RRM 1:6 to R/Wall in
7.1 As per DGBR SSR for Project Swastik of
Border Roads Organisation, construction of Retaining plum conc. (71% PCC 1:3:6 & 29% stone), modified
Walls in Plum Concrete is economical as compared R/Wall in banded RRM and modified R/Wall in plum
to construction of conventional wall i.e. banded/ conc. has been shown in Table 8. PVC pipe 4” dia has
cemented random rubble stone masonry. Cost been considered in place of weep holes.
Table 8 Cost Comparison of Retaining Walls

[Link]. DESCRIPTION COST PER MTR REMARKS

1. Conventional R/Wall (banded) Rs 14543/- As basic cost

2. Conventional R/Wall (cemented) Rs 16039/- +10.28%

3. Conventional R/Wall (plum conc.) Rs 14086/- -03.14%

4. Modified 3m ht R/Wall (banded) Rs 10293/- -29.22%

5. Modified 3m ht R/Wall (plum conc.) Rs 9961/- -31.51%

7.2 It can be seen from above table that the cost of plum concrete is about 30% to 80% depending upon
plum concrete walls is about 3% less than the stone the hill slope.
masonry (banded) walls and 12% less than cemented
masonry wall. The difference may vary from place to 7.3 The cost comparison between conventional
place and department to department based on their SSR breast walls in stone masonry and modified breast
rates. But the cost difference between conventional walls in plum concrete of 1.5 m height is given in
R/Wall in RRM (banded) and modified R/Wall in Table 9.
Table 9 Cost Comparison of breast Walls

[Link] DESCRIPTION COST PER MTR REMARKS

1. Conventional B/W (Banded) Rs 8311/- As basic cost

2. Conventional B/W (Cemented) Rs 8767/- +5.48%

3. Modified B/W (Banded) Rs 6143/- -26.09%

4. Modified B/W (Plum Conc.) Rs 6455/- -22.33%

5. Modified B/W (Cemented) Rs 7246/- -12.81%

7.4 Valley side slope varies from place to place that there will be about 45% reduction in construction
and to get the net saving due to modified design of cost of retaining walls and about 22% reduction in
retaining walls, following calculations have been done construction cost of breast walls on hill roads. The
based on ground experience and TI No.05 of DGBR, cost of breast walls may be further reduced up to 20%
as shown in Table 10. It can be seen from Table 10 by constructing breast walls in steps.

58 INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JANuARY 2013

 TECHNICAL PAPERS

Table 10 Weighted % Age Cost Reduction of Retaining Walls

Sl. No. Valley side slope (degree) Average % age % Age Height % Age Cost Weighted % age cost
of R/W reduction Reduction reduction
1 45 30 25.93 30.61 09.18
2 50 30 33.33 39.66 11.90
3 55 15 37.50 45.83 06.87
4 60 15 45.21 58.52 08.78
5 65 5 57.89 71.50 03.57
6 70 & above 5 69.2 80.96 04.05
TOTAL 44.35
SAY 45%

7.5 The net saving in any hill road project will be

about 9% as shown in Table 11.
Table 11 % Age Cost Saving

SL. NO. DESCRIPTION % AGE OF ITEM %AGE SAVING WEIGHTED %AGE

1. R/W 40 45 13.50
2. B/W 30 22 +18 12.00
3. CuLVERTS 25 20 05.00
4. MISC. 5 NA 00.00
TOTAL 30.50
SAY 30%
APPROX SAVING = 30% OF 30% 9% OF AE AMT

8 CONCLuSION REFERENCES
8.1 Based on study of this paper, it is concluded that 1. IRC SP-48 “HILL ROAD MANuAL”
construction of modified retaining structures is not only
2. DGBR TI NO-5 (REVISION-2002)
cheaper but also more stable than conventional type of
retaining structures. Height of retaining walls can be reduced 3. Dr A S ARYA and V P GuPTA, Retaining Walls for Hill
by constructing walls with vertical face and stepped back Roads-1983, IRC Compilation of some important papers
for achieving the desired width depending upon the site on design, construction and maintenance of Hill Roads-
conditions. 1985
8.2 It is strongly recommended that construction of 4. S RAMAMRuTHAM, Design of RCC Structures and
gravity retaining structures in banded and mortared/ Theory of Structures
cemented stone masonry walls should be replaced with
plum concrete walls up to 6m height and RCC Retaining 5. HARBHAJAN SINGH, AVSM, VSM, “A Fresh Look at
Walls beyond 6m height for better durability and aesthetic, Design of Retaining Walls on Hill Roads” Oonchi Sadken
depending upon the ground conditions to increase the life a Technical Magazine of BRO.
span of the structures resulting into durable roads and to 6. BRIG RAJESH TYAGI, “Construction of Retaining
reduce the cost of construction of the retaining walls by Structures in Bhutan” Journal of the Indian National Group
2% to 5%. Further the cost of construction be reduced by of the International Association for Bridge & Structural
30 to 80% by adopting the proposed modified design of Engineering, March-April 2009.
retaining wall for achieving the same formation width and
overall reduction in cost of a wall up to 82%. As the cost 7. R A KHuRAL “Cost Effective Construction of Retaining
of retaining structures is about 20 to 30% of the total cost Structures” Published in technical papers of IRC for
of the project estimate, so there will be about 5 to 10% seminar on ‘Roads in High Precipitation Areas’ at
reduction in the overall cost of the project estimate for Guwahati, Feb 2010.
construction of hill roads. Suitable standard specifications 8. R SELVAM, “Design Principles of Retaining Wall”
need to be drawn up and to be included in the ‘Hill Road Journal of the Indian National Group of the International
Manual” and DGBR TI No.05 for this purpose which can Association for Bridge & Structural Engineering, March-
be done with the help of data presented in this paper. April 2009.

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JANuARY 2013 59