Skip to main content
Log in

Forensic Analysis of a Distressed RE Wall and Rigid Pavement in a Newly Constructed Highway Approach

  • Case Study
  • Published:
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The current study details structural damage to a newly constructed rigid pavement and reinforced earth (RE) walls, as well as the corrective measures employed. When construction of the RE wall began and reached 1 m above the existing ground level, the client has decided to build a box culvert across the highway, for uninterrupted passage of rainwater across the highway. The bottom of the box culvert was 7 m below ground level. After the construction of box culvert, the surrounding soil below the ground level was not properly compacted due to accessibility constraints. As a consequence, a 5 mm-wide crack in the rigid pavement over the RE wall was observed just before opening for traffic. Moreover, the RE wall had fascia settlement of about 25–65 mm on both sides. Furthermore, around 150 mm gap between Pavement Quality Concrete (PQC) and Dry Lean Concrete (DLC) layers was also noticed over few meters along the approach. A forensic investigation was sought to understand the causes of distress of RE wall and rigid pavement. Non-destructive testing, such as Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) and Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) testing were conducted to assess the condition of backfill and foundation soil. The investigation revealed that the damage was primarily caused due to improper compaction of soil below ground level and adjacent to the box culvert. Pressure grouting of the subsoil in the vicinity of the box culvert and the gap between PQC and DLC layers was resorted to. Further as a safety measure, a simple load test was conducted on DLC layer beyond opening the highway for traffic, and the settlement of DLC layer was found negligible. In addition, the DLC layer settlement was continuously monitored during traffic loading, and no settlement has been observed even after 60 days.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of Data and Materials

The relevant data have been provided in the manuscript and in supplementary data. Any further data required shall be provided, on request, by the corresponding author.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Lee ES (1998) Historical review of reinforced earth structure. J Korean Soc Civil Eng 46(2):40–43 (in Korea)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Mitchell JK, Villet WCB (1987). Reinforcement of earth slopes and embankments. NCHRP Report 290, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, p 323

  3. Wang YH, Wang MC (1992) Internal stability of reinforced soil retaining structures with cohesive backfills. Transportation research record, p 1414

  4. Das BM (2008) Advanced soil mechanics. Taylor & Francis, New York

    Google Scholar 

  5. Shin EC, Cho SD, Lee KW (2011). Case study of reinforced earth wall failure during extreme rainfall. In: Proc. TC302 symposium Osaka 2011: international symposium on backwards problem in geotechnical engineering and monitoring of geo-construction, pp 146–153

  6. Rao PJ (2008) Practical lessons from failure of a reinforced soil retaining wall on a major highway. In: Proceedings international conference on case histories in geotechnical engineering, Arlington, VA, pp 5–36

  7. Haddad A, Shafabakhsh G (2008). Failure of segmental retaining walls due to the insufficiency of backfill permeability. In: Proc. geosynthetics in civil and environmental engineering. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 852–856

  8. Koerner RM, Soong TY, Koerner GR (2005) Back drainage design and geo-composite drainage materials. In: Proc. GRI-19 conference, Las Vegas, GII Publication, Folsom, PA, pp 51–86

  9. Bathurst RJ, Nernheim A, Walters DL, Allen TM, Burgess P, Saunders DD (2009) Influence of reinforcement stiffness and compaction on the performance of four geosynthetic reinforced soil walls. Geosyn Int 16(1):43–59. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.2009.16.1.43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Koerner RM, Koerner GR (2011) The importance of drainage control for geosynthetic reinforced mechanically stabilized earth walls. J GeoEng 6(1):3–13. https://doi.org/10.6310/jog.2011.6(1).1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Koerner RM, Koerner GR (2018) An extended data base and recommendations regarding 320 failed geosynthetic reinforced mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls. J Geotextile Geomembr 46(6):904–912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2018.07.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chauhan VB, Dasaka SM (2018) Performance of a rigid retaining wall with relief shelves. J Perform Constr Facil 32(3):04018021. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kim YJ, Jung HS, Lee YJ, Oh DW, Son M, Yoon HH (2020) Behaviour analysis of reinforced soil retaining wall according to laboratory scale test. Appl Sci 10(3):901. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10030901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lo DO, Cunningham J, Burland JB (2018) Investigation of distress of a reinforced earth wall in Hong Kong. Proc Inst Civil Eng Forensic Eng 171(3):127–136

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sengupta A (2012) Numerical study of a failure of a reinforced earth retaining wall. Geotech Geol Eng 30(4):1025–1034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. IS: 2720 (Part-4) (Indian Standard) (2015) Methods of test for soils: grain size analysis. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India

  17. IS: 2720 (Part-7) (Indian Standard) (2016) Methods of test for soils: determination of water content-dry density relation using light compaction. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India

  18. IS: 2720 (Part-16) (Indian Standard) (2016) Methods of test for soils: laboratory determination of CBR. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India

  19. IS: 2720 (Part-11) (Indian Standard) (1998) Methods of test for soils: determination of the shear strength parameters of a specimen tested in unconsolidated undrained triaxial compression without the measurement of pore water pressure. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India

  20. IS: 2720 (Part-2) (Indian Standard) (2010) Methods of test for soils: determination of water content. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India

  21. MORTH (Ministry of Road Transport and Highways) (2001) Ministry’s technical circulars and directives on national highways and centrally sponsored road and bridge projects, vol II. Ministry of Transport, Department of Surface Transport (Roads Wing), New Delhi, India

  22. IRC:SP:102 (Indian Road Congress: Special Publication) (2014) Guidelines for design and construction of reinforced soil walls. No: 102, New Delhi, India.

  23. IRC:SP:58 (Indian Road Congress: Special Publication) (2014) Guidelines for use of fly ash in road embankments. No: 58, New Delhi, India

  24. MRTS03 (Transport and Main Roads Specifications), July (2021) Drainage structures, retaining structures and embankment slope protections. Department of transport and main roads, Queensland Government, Australia. https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/-/media/busind/techstdpubs/Specifications-and-drawings/Specifications/3-Roadworks-Drainage-Culverts-and-Geotechnical/MRTS03.pdf?la=en

  25. Berg R, Christopher BR, Samtani N (2009) Design of mechanically stabilized earth walls and reinforced soil slopes-vol 1. Rep. No. FHWA-NHI-10-024. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC

  26. IMD (Indian Meteorological Department). Regional meteorological center, Mumbai, India. http://www.imdmumbai.gov.in/eindex.asp

  27. Jia J (2018) Dynamic and cyclic properties of soils. soil dynamics and foundation modeling. Springer, Cham, pp 75–108

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. IRC:6 (Indian Road Congress) (2016) Standard specifications and code of practice for road bridges, section: II, Loads and load combinations. No: 6, New Delhi, India

  29. Geoguide-1. (2020) Guide to retaining wall design. Geotechnical engineering office, Civil engineering and development department, The government of Hong Kong, special administrative region, Hong Kong. https://www.cedd.gov.hk/filemanager/eng/content_106/eg1_20200601.pdf

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors gratefully acknowledge the support provided by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) to collect the data presented in this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Material preparation, data collection, analysis, and preparation of first draft were performed by SMD and ASSR. Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis and investigation, and supervision: SMD.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. M. Dasaka.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

40891_2022_382_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

Supplementary file1 Figs. S1(a), S1(b), S2(a), S2(b), S2(c), S3(a), and S3(b) will be available in the Springer library (link.springer.com). (PDF 340 KB)

Supplementary file2 (PDF 393 KB)

Supplementary file3 (PDF 154 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Raghuram, A.S.S., Dasaka, S.M. Forensic Analysis of a Distressed RE Wall and Rigid Pavement in a Newly Constructed Highway Approach. Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. 8, 38 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-022-00382-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-022-00382-2

Keywords

Navigation