The Pennsylvania State University. The Graduate School. College of Engineering PERFORMANCE AND COST EFFECTIVENESS OF MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALLS

Pages 59
Views 5

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 59
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Description
The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of Engineering PERFORMANCE AND COST EFFECTIVENESS OF MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALLS A Thesis in Civil Engineering by Steven J. Donahue 2010
Transcript
The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of Engineering PERFORMANCE AND COST EFFECTIVENESS OF MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALLS A Thesis in Civil Engineering by Steven J. Donahue 2010 Steven J. Donahue Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science December 2010 ii The thesis of Steven Donahue was reviewed and approved* by the following: Mian C. Wang Professor of Civil Engineering Thesis Advisor H. Randolph Thomas Professor of Civil Engineering Angelica Palomino Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering Peggy Johnson Professor of Civil Engineering Head of the Department of Civil Engineering *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School iii ABSTRACT Modular block walls (MBWs), also known as segmental retaining walls (SRWs), continue to be a growing segment of the public retaining wall market. While MBWs have long been popular in the private sector, estimates by the Federal Highway Administration show that MBWs have had a distinct growth over the last ten years in the public sector. Still, many state Departments of Transportation do not permit the use of MBWs based on expectations of poor performance. This thesis presents information obtained from available literature including published papers and reports in regards to cost and performance of MBWs. In addition, a telephone survey was conducted of thirty-two departments of transportation to determine which states utilize modular block walls, how cost effective modular block walls have been, and how they have performed in comparison to more traditional wall types. The effectiveness of new freeze-thaw requirements was evaluated. States not currently using modular block walls revealed their current concerns that discourage these DOTs from utilizing MBWs. Based on the completed analysis and evaluation, advantages and disadvantages of MBWs are presented, and recommendations for successful implementation of MBWs are offered. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES... vii LIST OF TABLES... ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... x Chapter 1 Introduction... 1 Background and Current Use of Modular Block Walls... 2 Retained & Reinforced Earth Options for State Agencies... 6 Explanation of Survey... 7 Survey Participation... 9 States Using Modular Block Walls Chapter 2 Design, Construction, and Composition of Modular Block Walls Modular Block Wall Design Modular Block Wall General Construction Sequence Modular Block Units Geosynthetic Reinforcement Backfill Material Chapter 3 Performance of Modular Block Walls Potential Performance Advantages Geosynthetic Reinforcement Alignment of Facing Units Aesthetics and Adaptability Potential Performance Disadvantages Aesthetic Issues Mechanical Issues Other Issues Performance History Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2001 Wall Review Wisconsin Department of Transportation, 2000 Wall Review Geosynthetic Reinforced Segmental Retaining Walls, Koerner and Soong, A Database and Analysis of Geosynthetic Reinforced Wall Failures Performance Related Survey Results Performance Comparison of Modular Block Walls Versus Large Precast Panel MSE Walls and Cast-in-place Walls Maintenance Comparison of Modular Block Walls Versus Precast Panel MSE Walls and Standard Cast-in-place Walls Freeze-Thaw Durability... 44 v Limitations of Modular Block Wall Use Chapter 4 Cost Effectiveness of Modular Block Walls Potential Modular Block Wall Cost Advantages Speed of Construction Labor Force Modular Block Wall Cost History Federal Highway Administrations Relative Cost Data Geosynthetic Reinforced Segmental Retaining Walls, Koerner and Soong, Cost Effectiveness Survey Results Cost Comparison of Modular Block Walls Versus Large Precast Panel MSE Walls and Cast-in-place Walls Maintenance Cost Comparison of Modular Block Walls Versus Precast Panel MSE Walls and Standard Cast-in-place Walls Other Cost Survey Results Chapter 5 Summary, Recommendations and Conclusions Summary Conclusions Recommendations Recommendations for Further Research Recommendations for Successful Implementation References Appendix A Survey for States Using Modular Block Walls Survey for States Not Using Modular Block Walls Appendix B Survey Result Comments for States Using Modular Block Walls Cost Survey Comments Performance Survey Comments General Survey Comments Additional Survey Comments Survey Result Comments for States Not Using Modular Block Walls General Survey Comments Additional Survey Comments Appendix C Survey Results, Raw Data States Using MBWs, Cost Data States Using MBWs, Performance and General Data States Using MBWs, Performance and General Data for States Above Latitude States Using MBWs, Performance and General Data for States Below Latitude States Not Using MBWs, Cost, Performance and General Data vi vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Precast concrete paneled, mechanically stabilized earth wall on Route 22/ Figure 1-2: Typical dry cast modular block retaining wall Figure 1-3: Map of known Departments of Transportation using modular block walls Figure 1-4: Departments of Transportation that participated in survey Figure 2-1: Typical modular block wall cross section (10) Figure 2-2: Left: Typical concrete (12). Right: Typical modular block unit with visible voids (12) Figure 2-3: Some commercially available patented block (13) Figure 2-4: Various geosynthetic to modular block connection types (13) Figure 2-5: Graphical representation of differing gradation requirements for MWBs. (17) Figure 3-1: Left: Multi-tiered modular block retaining wall (9). Right: Modular block wall at a ninety degree angle (15) Figure 3-2: Above: Performance comparison to precast panel MSE walls. Below: Performance comparison to cast-in-place walls Figure 3-3: Above: Maintenance comparison to precast panel MSE walls. Below: Maintenance comparison to cast-in-place walls Figure 3-4: Above: Maintenance comparison of MBWs to precast panel MSE walls. Below: Maintenance comparison of MBWs to cast-in-place walls Figure 3-5: Map showing latitude and longitude of the United States (19) Figure 4-1: Left: Equipment and bracing needed for precast panel MSE walls (20). Right: Schematic for precast panel wall bracing (21) Figure 4-2: Mean value of various categories of retaining wall costs, Koerner et al., 1998 (17) Figure 4-3: Above: Cost comparison to precast panel MSE walls. Below: cost comparison to cast-in-place walls Figure 4-4: Above: Maintenance cost comparison to precast panel MSE walls. Below: Maintenance cost comparison to cast-in-place walls Figure 4-5: Above: Modular block wall construction speed statement. Below: Modular block wall equipment use statement viii ix LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1: Retained and reinforced earth structure types and description Table 2-1: Modular block retaining wall construction process (1) Table 2-2: Reinforced soil zone gradation requirements (17) Table 3-1: Effects of experience on modular block wall performance Table 3-2: Potential effect of geography on modular block wall performance Table 3-3: Comments on freeze-thaw durability after new block requirements Table 4-1: Retaining wall costs extracted from Koerner et. al., 1998 (17) Table 4-2: Adjusted Values from Koerner et. al. (1998) retaining wall data compared to survey results Table 5-1: Table of pros and cons for modular block wall construction x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to extend my deepest appreciation to my committee chair, Dr. Mian Wang. His patience and knowledge have helped me through this thesis while still allowing me the freedom to complete it in my own way. I attribute part of my master s degree to him, as without his guidance throughout my undergraduate and graduate studies, I would have still been questioning what I want to do with my career. Of course, I owe thanks to the remainder of my committee, Dr. Thomas and Dr. Palomino. They have both supplied me with ample information and were always willing to sit down and discuss my thesis topic. I owe my deepest gratitude to Dr. Justice Maswoswe of the Federal Highway Administration. Without his generosity in supplying contact information for engineers at each Department of Transportation, this thesis would have never gotten off the ground. Also, thank you to Dr. Robert M. Koerner for his kindness and quick responses to my inquiries. My family, without them I would not have had a place to write my thesis while continuing to eat, drink, and sleep for free. The ability to relax and write my thesis at home did wonders for my psyche. Thank you Mom, Dad, Greg and Bill. Lastly, my love and thanks go to Jessica Intintoli. You were always willing to help, swift with a red pen, and eager to give positive feedback during this unpleasant endeavor. Thank you. 1 Chapter 1 Introduction There are a variety of reinforced earth and retained earth structures available for use to departments of transportation. Historically, cast-in-place concrete walls were employed, as they typically lived up to their year design life; however, oftentimes they left much to be desired when it came to price. Mechanically stabilized earth walls were later invented and rely on the mechanics of a stabilized soil mass rather than a large structure to retain soil loads. One mechanically stabilized earth option, which has gained steam in the last thirty years particularly in the private sector, is the modular block wall (also known as the segmental retaining wall). This wall type utilizes smaller concrete masonry units with geosynthetic reinforcement within a well compacted backfill. Despite a period of relative growth, a stigma still exists in the public sector concerning the cost effectiveness and performance of modular block retaining walls. In fact, many states still refuse to use this wall type for fear that they underperform. A historical database exclusively focusing on modular block walls in regards to performance and cost does not currently exist to quell the states concerns. Much of the stigma continues to focus on the freezethaw durability of the block units themselves. Research funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has been completed on freeze-thaw durability, and new specifications to manage freeze-thaw issues have been employed by a small number of states. Again, the effectiveness of these new freeze-thaw specifications has not yet been explored. This study explores cost and performance data from previous papers and reports while incorporating the results of a new survey. The new survey, conducted via the telephone and answered by senior engineers at state DOTs, clearly gives insight into the cost effectiveness, performance, and maintenance requirements of MBWs in the public sector. States not currently 2 using modular block walls revealed their continuing performance concerns that discourage their states from utilizing MBWs. Additionally, the success of new freeze-thaw specifications is explored. Incorporating all survey comments and previous research, a summary of all possible MBW advantages and disadvantages are presented along with recommendations for successful MBW implementation. Background and Current Use of Modular Block Walls Retaining walls are a vital component of highway design and construction. These earth retaining structures can be used for a variety of purposes, from retaining wall to use as headwalls, wingwalls, and bridge abutments. Historically, retaining wall structures were almost always rigid structures made of reinforced concrete. While this construction was easy and performed well over time, it proved to be less desirable when it came to cost effectiveness. Concerning performance, reinforced cast-in-place walls had difficulty dealing with differential settlement when placed in shallow foundations or when interacting with inadequate subsoil conditions (1). The industry needed a more cost effective solution, and in the early 1960s, a French architect and engineer named Henri Vidal pioneered a new system of soil reinforcement. Henri Vidal, referencing the knowledge that soil inclusions have been used for stabilization since prehistoric times, developed a company named Reinforced Earth which used steel strip reinforcements to aid in soil retention. Vidal s company is still thriving today in the United States with a variety of soil stabilization and earth retaining structures. The first wall to use this technology was built in 1972 on California State Highway 39. Generally, this system utilizes large precast concrete panels (typically 20-25ft 2 ) in conjunction with metallic reinforcement within a well compacted backfill. By placing tensile reinforcing materials in the soil, the internal shear resistance of the soil can be significantly improved, leaving the facing unit system in 3 essence self-supporting. Since its inception, many other similar systems have been developed and used. Overall, mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls have been a heavily used alternative to classic cast-in-place retaining walls. Covering more than 750 million ft 2 of wall facing, over 23,000 reinforced earth structures have been constructed worldwide. In the United States, over 8,000 walls have been built since 1972 (1). Currently, mechanically stabilized earth walls are documented to have been used in every state in America. It is estimated that more than 9,000,000 ft 2 of retaining walls with precast panel facings are constructed each year in the United States. The majority of in-place and planned MSE walls use large precast panel facings with metallic reinforcement (2). In fact, the longest mechanically stabilized earth wall in the United States and second largest in the world was just completed in Lewistown Pennsylvania on Route 22/322. Figure 1-1: Precast concrete paneled, mechanically stabilized earth wall on Route 22/322. This project, seen in Figure 1-1, cost around $142 million, has a 2.5 mile long wall with a maximum height of 30ft, and utilized 41,000 metallic strips for reinforcement. Mechanically stabilized earth walls are frequently used at heights ranging greater than 40ft and can be feasible but are not often seen at heights of up to 100ft. Very few of these walls, designed for a lifespan of years, fail completely. Yet, there is certainly a case history of these walls underperforming for their intent, which will be explored in later sections (3). 4 After the development of the first mechanically stabilized earth wall, the concept of using geosynthetics in MSE walls instead of metallic reinforcement soon emerged. Geosynthetic is a general term that covers all flexible reinforcement options including geotextiles, geogrids and any other polymeric material generally consisting of polypropylene, polyethelyne, or polyester (4). The first geosynthetic reinforced wall was built in France in 1971, and three years later one was built in the United States. The use of geosynthetic reinforcement in large precast panel MSE walls has become more popular; however, the great majority of walls still use metallic reinforcement. Within the last 20 to 30 years, dry cast modular block walls using geogrid reinforcement have gained acceptance in the private sector for their potential cost, construction, and performance advantages. Acceptance in the public sector has been slow, but it has been reported that around 3,000,000ft 2 of modular block walls have been built yearly in the United States. This value is approximately one-third the area of large precast panel walls constructed in the United States each year. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), as of 2010 approximately 100 projects per year used modular block walls in transportation applications (2). This is a distinct growth from 2001, where it was reported that 2,000,000 ft 2 of modular block walls were constructed yearly with about 50 projects per year (1). A picture of a typical modular block wall can be seen below in Figure 1-2. Even though modular block walls are used substantially in the United States, there is concern by DOTs that these walls also under-perform. 5 Figure 1-2: Typical dry cast modular block retaining wall. While modular block wall construction has been approved for use by the Federal Highway Administration, there is no comprehensive list of st states ates utilizing modular block walls. walls By researching and compiling several existing sources, a list of states utilizing MBW was created, as seen in Figure 1-33 below. As the color color-coded coded map conveys, there are inconclusive results for the majority of state DOTs based on currently published research research. The surveys completed by state DOTs for this study yielded a more accurate and comprehensive overview of MBW usage. Figure 1-3: Map of known Departments of Transportation using modular block walls. 6 In the private sector, modular block walls are used regularly for a variety of purposes. Modular block walls are most often used for landscaping purposes, and around parking lots, parks, and residential areas. Also, a modular block wall s low cost and aesthetic appeal often make it the wall of choice around commercial centers. Retained & Reinforced Earth Options for State Agencies This study focuses on modular block retaining walls with geosynthetic reinforcement as compared to cast-in-place walls and precast panel walls, though many other reinforced and retained-earth options exist. In the past, traditional retaining structures such as gravity walls, cantilever walls, pile walls and anchored (tieback) walls have been used across the United States. Over time, many alternatives such as soil nailing, gabion walls, T-Walls, double walls, and a variety of mechanically stabilized earth walls have been used by United States agencies. Table 1-1 summarizes different retained and reinforced earth structures that are typically used by state DOTs. DOTs are not limited to these wall choices; these are only the wall types most often used. It is important to understand that each wall type has distinct advantages and disadvantages. Overall, economics and site conditions are the two factors that most influence which wall type is chosen. 7 Table 1-1: Retained and reinforced earth structure types and description. Structure Type Structure Description Retained Earth Structures Gravity Wall Cantilevered Wall Pile Wall Anchored Wall Soil Nailing Gabion Wall T-Wall Redi-Rock Wall Typically concrete, earth retaining structure that uses its own self weight to resist soil pressures. Typically concrete, inverted T-shaped earth retaining structure that uses its own weight and configuration to resist soil pressures. Steel, vinyl, or wood driven into the ground to resist soil pressures. Often need tiebacks. Typically used with other systems to tie back/anchor a wall. A top down soil retaining system used on slopes, embankments, excavations, or retaining walls in which reinforcing bars are drilled, tensioned, and grouted to create a composite soil mass. Retained earth structure made of rectangular shaped wire mesh containers filled with stone or riprap stacked upon each other. These generally act as a gravity wall. Reinforced concrete module system that acts as a gravity wall. The system stability is a function of the weight of units and their long concrete stems within a select backfill material. Dry placed massive precast concrete blocks stacked to create a gravity wall structure. Most often do not need any type of geosynthetic reinforcement. Reinforced Earth Structures Segmental Precast Concrete Panel Wall Modular Block Retaining Wall System utilizes large precast concrete panels (typically 20-25ft 2 ) in conjunction with metallic or geosynthetic reinforcement within a well compacted backfill. System utilizes small dry cast blocks in conjunction with geosynthetic reinforcement within a well compacted backfill. Explanation of Survey A review of published papers and reports indicated that a current compilation of states using modular block walls does not exist. Two surveys were created to gather information on stat
Advertisements
Related Documents
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x