Introduction

A stretch of a 9m retaining high reinforced soil segmental wall collapsed in the final stage of
construction when backfilling behind the wall reached about 8m high.
Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the condition of the wall after the collapse. Earth fill of approximate
2m high was immediately introduced in front of the retaining wall after the incident to prevent
further collapse.

Figure 1: Overall view of collapsed wall

Site Topography and Subsoil Condition

The location of the site is in Setapak area of Kuala Lumpur. Geologically, the
site is located in Hawthornden Schist Formation of Middle to Upper Silurian
Age as shown in Figure 3. When completely weathered, the rock
decomposed to residual soils which mainly consist of clayey silt or sandy silt
and occasionally with gravel.
The proposed development consists of a fire station and staff quarters for
the employees and families. Figure 4 shows the site layout plan. The
proposed platform for the development is approximately 15m lower than the
original ground level. Two reservoirs of 1 million gallon volume each are
situated at the West side of the site. A 9m height soil reinforced segmental
retaining wall was proposed to retain the cut slope between the building
platform and the reservoirs. The retaining wall has to support a 6m high
slope standing at 450. The typical cross section of the segmental wall is
shown in Figure 5.

A satisfactory retaining wall must meet the following requirements.

a. The wall is structurally capable of withstanding the earth pressure applied to it.
b. The foundation of the wall is capable of supporting both the weight of the wall and the
force resulting from the earth pressure acting upon it without:
- Overturning or soil failure
-Sliding of the wall and foundation
 - Undue settlement
The earth pressure against a retaining wall depends on the deformation condition or tilt of the
wall, the properties of the soil and the water condition. For greatest economy, retaining walls are
ordinarily designed for active pressure as developed by a dry cohesionless backfill, but if
necessary, a design can be developed for any condition of yield, soil and water. Physical
investigation of some retaining walls in Minna shows that there were cracks, sliding or even
collapse of these walls. These deformations may be due to the following:
i. The sliding of soil on soil well below the retaining wall which may constitute the most
common kind of sliding failure.
ii. By slip of the surrounding soil which is most common in cohesive soils and can be
analyzed for a slope stability problem.
iii. Overturning which should allows for the resultant to be within the base
iv. By sliding forward this is caused by insufficient base friction or lack of passive
resistance in front of the wall.
Other may include rotation about a point near the top of the wall as may occur in shell piled
walls and structural failure caused by faulty design poor workmanship and deterioration of
material etc. In the course of this research work attempt was made to investigate some of these
cause of failure highlighted above. The greatest proportion of failure of wall higher than 3m is
caused by water pressure in a backfill that was assumed by the designer to remain dry. The must
important single consideration in wall design is insuring good drainage. There are two
approaches
- Remove water from backfill
- Keep water out of backfill
The best backfill is rigid, free – drainage and with a high angle of internal friction, so as to
develop minimum. Lightweight artificial material such as expanded shale and crushed slag often
make good backfill. All the cohesion less backfill are best when well compacted because the
higher the internal friction angle and the resistance to vibration offset the higher
weight . The design of a retaining wall is based on the material available, appearance, the space
required, the forces acting and finally cost. Space is an important factor in wall design since the
function of retaining walls is to make more usable, level space than a natural slope will
provide. its environs have a lot of retaining walls owing to the terrain of place and moving
around some of them shows some lines of cracks which widen with some months or years. As
such the idea of this investigation came to mind to find out the probable cause of failures and
hence proffer solution to prevent future occurrence.

CONCLUSION
The investigation after the collapse of a soil reinforced segmental retaining
wall designed for a maximum retaining height of 9m revealed that the main
possible causes of the retaining wall failure was due to inadequate length
and strength of the geotextile reinforcement. Checking on the internal
stability failure mode showed that rupture or pullout of reinforcement was
the main mechanism to cause the collapse of wall. The replacement
retaining wall was cantilever reinforced concrete wall supported by a row of
contiguous bored piles in view of the space constraint, ease and speed of
construction. A double drainage system consisting of filter blanket with
subsoil pipe behind the wall and weep holes on the wall was provided to
ensure that ground water behind the wall would not be accumulated.
 SCHOOL HOUSING BUILDING PLANNING

Ir.Dr.Mohd.Zaid Yusof

Prepared by:

NAME : RIONOV BAYUNTA

NO.MATRIC : P-RM0177/09