12,000sqm Of Reinforced Earth Concrete Retaining Walls Supplied To

Inner City Bypass Project – Brisbane

John Ritchie – Sales & Marketing Manager

The Reinforced Earth Company
2/20 George St
Hornsby NSW 2077

ABSTRACT

The Inner City Bypass Project in Brisbane represents one of the largest and more complex road
infrastructure projects undertaken in Australia in recent years.

Awarded to Leighton Contractors in early 2000, this D&C project incorporated some 12,000
square meters of concrete faced retaining walls spread over 20+ structures from one end of the
new bypass to the other. Using the Reinforced Earth concept, the structures formed ramps, bridge
abutments and viaducts, and incorporated a variety of architecturally designed patterns and
colors.

The coordination of the Reinforced Earth wall design, manufacture and installation formed a
major part of the project and was a real planning accomplishment. Design of the large number of
structures was developed in stages in line with the D&C style contract. And as such a contract
demands, The Reinforced Earth Company was required to work in closely with project architects
and designers, and to be ready to react quickly to continuously changing design requirements as
they occurred. Coordinating the design work for retaining walls, whilst continuously
manufacturing and supplying panels to site represented a serious challenge.

The Reinforced Earth Company manufactured all the panels at the relatively small pre-casting
facility at Wacol near Brisbane. Some 250sqm of 2m x 2m panels were poured every week for
almost a full year. Each panel was unique, many panels with intricate patterns and varying colors,
and manufactured in careful coordination with delivery schedules. Manufacture also incorporated
sand blasting and a two-stage anti-graffiti treatment processes.

The Reinforced Earth retaining walls on the ICB now are a recognizable and attractive feature of
Brisbane’s newest infrastructure achievement.

12,000sqm Of Reinforced Earth Concrete Retaining Walls Supplied To Inner City Bypass Project
– Brisbane
John Ritchie

483
1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 WHAT IS REINFORCED EARTH?

The intent of this paper is to give an overview of the design, manufacture and delivery of
12,000sqm of concrete faced Reinforced Earth retaining walls to the Inner City Bypass project.
As a prelude to this however, it is the authors wish to educate any unfamiliar reader, with the
Reinforced Earth concept.

A Reinforced Soil System (RSS) is a composite material which has the following basic
components ;
- Facing Panel (Commonly made of concrete, steel plate, wire mesh, block etc…)
- Soil Reinforcement Strips (Galvanized steel in the case of the ICB Project)
- Select Fill (Cohesionless soil meeting specific defined requirements)

The frictional forces created when combining the select fill with the flexible metallic reinforcing
strips result in a robust structural material, commonly known as Reinforced Earth. The strips are
attached to a front facing panel, which may be manufactured from concrete or steel. The facing
material selected is generally dependent on it having sufficient durability to accommodate the
design life of the structure, and also meet the aesthetic needs of the project.

The Reinforced Earth monolithic mass acts cohesively and supports it’s own weight and any
applied loads (Refer Figure 1.1) which may include ;

- Over-burden
- Dead and Live Load Surcharge
- Bridge Loading
- Earth Pressure
- Hydrostatic Pressure
- Seismic Loads
- Blast Forces
- Construction Loads etc…..

(Figure 1.1 Forces acting on a Reinforced Earth Block for a true bridge abutment)

484
The forces induced in the steel strips can be precisely calculated and depend on ;

- Strip geometry
- Strip frictional characteristics
- Vertical soil pressure on the strip
- Strength and stiffness characteristics on the strip

Importantly, the durability of the structure relies heavily on the ability of the steel soil
reinforcement strip to maintain a level of tensile strength in the operational environment for the
duration of the structure’s design life. The steel strip is therefore designed to include a sacrificial
steel thickness, which predicts the amount of strip corrosion throughout the design life of the
structure. This is achieved by controlling the environment in which the strip will be operating.
The select fill, whilst having certain physical requirements that ensure it is activated in forming
part of the structural mass, is also required to have electrochemical characteristics that also
ensures that corrosion of the strip is not excessive or beyond the allowance made in the strip
design. Furthermore, the strip is coated with zinc galvanizing for further protection.

The final length and frequency of the steel soil reinforcement strips is a function of the
combinations of geometric and physical properties of the structure and the applied design loads.

Whilst the facing to the Reinforced Earth wall technically does not take on a structural role in
support of the loads, it obviously forms an important part in the wall in preventing the erosion of
backfill, supporting the soil reinforcement and weathering the local environment.

Typically, for roads projects, concrete is the only economical material that can achieve the
necessary 100 year design life without the need for any continuous maintenance or repair. The
facing also forms the most visual aspect of the structure and is often required to have some
aesthetic appeal, particularly in urban areas. Concrete can lend itself readily to the provision of
architectural and aesthetic requirements, many of which were seen on the Inner City Bypass
Project.

The facing panels can however, often be a complex component to manufacture as each facing
panel may have very individual characteristics with respect to its geometry, finish or cast-in
inclusions. Manufacturing several thousand square metres of these panels for Brisbane’s Inner
City Bypass represented a signif icant challenge. This “Design and Construct” project required
vigilant coordination between the Reinforced Earth design office and the precast facility.

1.2 THE INNER CITY BYPASS PROJECT

After many years in the planning, Brisbane City Council awarded Brisbane’s $230 million Inner
City Bypass project, one of the most complex roads infrastructure projects ever undertaken in
Australia, to a consortium lead by Leighton Contractors in December 1999. The primary designer
was Maunsell.

The project aimed to divert traffic from the southern accesses of the city linking Hale St in
Paddington through to the northern accesses, depositing traffic on Kingsford Smith Drive at
Hamilton, or vice versa (Refer Figure 1.2). The 4.5km route consists of a major tunnel under the

485
RNA Showground, and numerous viaducts, grade separations, intersections and underpasses. In
total the project consisted of the following major structures ;

- Four Tunnels
- Eighteen Bridges including the famous “Landbridge”
- Two Major Interchanges

Many of these structures incorporated a significant amount of retaining wall in fill situations,
which is a situation for which a Reinforced Soil System (RSS) is particularly suitable. In fact,
more then 1% of the total project value would be made up of design and supply of the RSS walls,
and this before constructions costs were considered.

However, as with any modern tender situation, the RSS supplier had to also consider the main
contractors strict quality regime, which included;

- Functional requirements – ensuring the RSS wall was designed for the task
- Community acceptance – incorporating architectural features to soften the impact
- Timely delivery – wall completion was often on the projects critical path
- Value for money – keeping the price of each structure to a minimum whilst
meeting all other requirements.
- Safety and the environment – Fulfilling all client and statutory requirements
- Maintenance issues – Keeping future maintenance costs to a minimum
- Final product quality – Detailed quality plan and associated ITP’s to be used

The project was undertaken in the “Design & Construct” pretext. This meant that the true extent
or final requirements of the design, would only be finalised just prior to construction. The
retaining walls were particularly vulnerable to the “living design” phenomena. As the design
developed, the RSS supplier needed to be able to adapt and react quickly.

Figure 1.2 Map Of Route For Brisbane’s Inner City Bypass

2.0 REVIEW OF THE TENDER PROCESS FOR REINFORCED SOIL SYSTEMS

Shortly after Leighton were awarded the project, representatives of the Reinforced Earth
Company (RECO) commenced discussions with Leighton Construction Managers, Project
Managers and Administrators with respect to the design and supply of RSS walls component of
the project.

486
Tendering this work in itself, before any negotiations, award or commencement of work had
occurred, was a veritable challenge. The difficulty related to the fact that the client had only an
approximate estimate of the quantity of retaining wall tha t would be involved in the project and
designs for the vast majority of structures were at a very preliminary stage.

In addition, the architectural finishes to the structures were still under review and certain options
proposed for the project were also still under consideration. Some of these options – Eg a large
viaduct at the time know as “Option Orange” potentially increased the wall area requirement by
up to 20%.

The need however to quickly bring on an RSS designer to work with Maunsell and the architect
was vital and this was recognized by the main contractor early on. RSS systems formed an
integral part of the project scope and a specialist in this field was immediately needed so that the
many of the complexities could immediately be attended to.

The first RSS structure to be built – The Landbridge – was to be a unique focal point for the
project, and had a particularly tight program for delivery with completion required in early 2001,
in time for the opening of the first stage of the project. The Landbridge was to link the two
sections of Victoria Park, spanning the freeway and railway line at “York’s Hollow” and would
eventually support mature trees and landscaping. This structure, which was 100m long, and 40m
wide at its widest point was to be supported on piers contained by architecturally designed RSS
false abutments.

Leighton and RECO determined a costing methodology of unit rates that could be applied to
various wall heights and applications throughout the entire project. Extra-overs for inclusion of
colours, anti-graffiti treatment, sand blasting, textures and special panels were determined.

RECO supplied several sample panels to the site compound as soon as practical so that the client
and his designer would have immediate understanding of the product being offered before any
orders were placed. Leighton Precast Manager – Mr Don Wroe – was introduced to the
Reinforced Earth precast plant at Wacol which, whilst having only 100sqm of floor space, is
100% dedicated to the manufacture of RSS type panels for projects in Queensland and New
South Wales.

Comparing the unit rates, capabilities, capacity and degree of service offered by the various
contenders for the RSS work, Leighton were able to make an award of this component of the
project to RECO, which allowed the real work to get under way.

3.0 COMMENCEMENT OF WORK

3.1 DESIGN

The complexity and extent of some of the structures on the ICB were difficult to identify
immediately. Allocated Project Manager for RECO – Mr. James Bye developed a useful method
of requesting and extracting the relevant information from the client, which was designated as the
“Request For Information” form (RFI). The purpose of the RFI was to give Leighton and
Maunsell designers the opportunity to provide the detailed information required by the RECO
designers to allow commencement and eventually completion of the necessary design work for

487
each individual structure. This exceptionally organized method assisted in keeping the vast
quantities of necessary design information, which was transferred between parties, in order.
Information that remained unavailable could be easily recognized and the consequences of not
obtaining the information could be quickly relayed to the client.

The RFI (Refer Appendix I) identified the potential inclusions or critical design criteria that would
form the basis for the final design and eventually the price of the structure. This includes the
extra-over features determined as possibilities at tender stage such as the inclusion of crash
barriers to the top of wall, or types of panel finish or colour required for the structure. This
allowed for the speedy identification of the necessary data required.

RECO set up a team comprising of a dedicated draftsman and design engineer to be available to
work to the strict client program and to disseminate the design data as relayed from Leighton by
the RECO Project Manager.

The “Landbridge” and other bridges and retaining walls including the retained embankments
along the route, presented a significant visual element to the freeway. The urban design of the
bridges was therefore very important to Brisbane City Council, and the structural design of the
bridges was to a great extent architecturally driven. Maunsell, together with the project architect,
developed a design for the bridges, which reflects the significance of their position.

From an early stage the architects established a consistent pattern of using the Reinforced Earth
2m x 2m panels featuring various colours and incorporated patterns to add interest. However he
interesting and innovative designs featured along the freeway created challenges where the
utilisation of Reinforced Earth panels was used in unusual situations, some of which included;

- The RE walls were required to integrate in some locations with structures that
were not supported by soil reinforcement. Thus the RE panels were used as
cladding to steel frame structures to some locations. Some steel structures
actually passed through voids in panels that were created specifically for the
purpose. (Refer to Appendix II Detail 2.1).
- Some locations required the panels to form up-stands for balustrades or to hide
sill beams. A number of 4mx2m moulds were created for this purpose.
- Complex geometry and highly skewed corners to abutments were accommodated
using skewed soil reinforcement strips and cement stabilizing. (Refer to Appendix
II Detail 2.2)
- Some areas were subject to high settlements, for which a 1.5m x1.5m panel had
to be developed, to accommodate future movements in the wall. A Reinforced
Earth wall incorporating smaller panels has a greater number of joints
incorporated in the wall, which thus allows the structure greater flexibility during
settlement of the foundation. By using square 1.5mx1.5m panels, the integrity of
the architectural consistency was not lost.

The RECO design team over the eighteen-month period of their involvement with the project was
required to produce 150 design drawings and almost 1,500 fabrication drawings for special
panels.

488
3.2 PRECASTING

The Inner City Bypass Project utilized concrete panel walls, which incorporated a new panel
shape for the company. The architect for the project specified their desired panel shape, and in
order to produce the panels, new moulds were specifically manufactured. The new square panel
shape is now known as the “TerraPlus” concrete panel and has quickly become a popular panel
shape, on projects well beyond the ICB project.

The “TerraPlus” mould produces a 2 metre x 2 metre standard unit. Also manufactured was an
extended mould, which can produce 2 metre x 4 metre panels - the latter proving very efficient in
that two standard panels could also be cast in place of an extended panel if required. These
extended moulds provided for locations where a significant upstand was required at the top of
wall to hide sill beams or for balustrades.

Precasting was carried out in the Reinforced Earth, “Recast” factory at Wacol, Brisbane with a
total of 16 moulds being utilized for the ICB project. Using such a small number of moulds for
the estimated 12,000sqm of wall over approximately 21 structures required a carefully organized
and well maintained casting program that could be flexible enough to adapt quickly to late
changing design needs. The ability to make an instantaneous response throughout the design and
manufacture process is an advantage that RECO could offer the client due to RECO having the
capability to produce the panels itself for the project. In the course of the project it became clear
that the streamlined transactions between design office and precast yard was an invaluable
advantage that should not be under-estimated in the practical working environment of a design
and construct project.

The casting program was put in place in conjunction with Leighton Precast Manager, Mr. Don
Wroe who provided assistance throughout the whole project, forming the vital “go between” from
the Maunsell designer to the RECO Project Manager whilst providing the necessary Leighton
input. Casting of the first Reinforced Earth wall, the Landbridge, commenced on 27/7/00 after
sample panels had been approved by the client.

The Landbridge panels were specified as 40MPa plain and coloured concrete with a light
sandblast to the face. Concrete Colour Systems (CCS) supplied coloured oxide - the oxides being
of “Charcoal” and “Honeycomb” colour. Apart from these colours, a “Pottery” oxide was used to
the Abbotsford Rd structures and this gave an impressive effect, as did a "Shingle" pattern, given
to panels on the entrance to the Bowen Bridge tunnel. (Refer photographs in Appendix III)

RECO was also placed in the position of being required to apply an anti-graffiti coating to the
panels before dispatch to the site – a process usually shunned by precasters due to the difficulty in
accessing the panel face and often requiring much panel re-handling and turning. Panels are
generally cast flat, face down and are not stood up until reaching the final position in a wall. With
in-house application of anti-graffiti however, panels were taken from a stack, stood up and
treated, allowed to cure and retreated before being returned to the stack in preparation for
delivery. Application of the anti-graffiti was carried out at the Recast yard well in advance of
panel dispatch and proved to be very time consuming, with air temperature, humidity and
concrete moisture having to be monitored before any attempt at application could be made.

Various anti-graffiti chemicals from various manufacturers were tested on sample panels at the
Recast yard before Ameron Coatings were determined to be the successful suppliers with their
non-sacrificial coating Polymet 309 being selected for the job. Although an awkward and costly

489
process, the majority of the ICB walls were successfully treated with anti-graffiti chemicals in
this way.

Casting of the Viaduct Walls carried on from the Landbridge and from there followed another 16
Reinforced Earth structures making up the 12,000 square metres of concrete facing for the ICB
Project manufactured between July, 2000 and December, 2001.

4.0 CONSTRUCTION OF THE REINFORCED EARTH WALLS

As with the manufacture of the panels, the construction of each wall required further close
coordination. Approximately 40-50 square metres of panel can be placed on a truck, so for this
project, close to 300 truckloads of panels had to be delivered to the project in the right sequence,
to the right location, at the right time.

The “Landbridge” commenced construction in late 2000 and was challenging in itself with live
railway lines in close proximity to the construction works.

Panels were delivered to site in a horizontal position in stacks, without the use of ‘A' frames and
were unloaded individually with weblon slings to protect the face. Deliveries were coordinated
between the Leighton construction crew and the Recast Yard, which worked very well, ensuring
minimal holdups. It was vital that production was able to keep up with construction and constant
monitoring and reprioritizing of programs ensured this.

Site access, with all the road restrictions, was always a problem but with adequate ramps prepared
by the main contractor, these issues were kept to a minimum.

Once panels are on-site, construction of the wall is generally a simple and reasonably quick
process. Each panel is identified with markings that indicate the panel’s specific location in the
wall. After preparing the foundation and leveling pad, the erection contractor must start off by
identifying the base row panels from the site stockpile and carefully place them to the ir correct
location on the leveling pad and propped.

Having stood up all base row panels, the erection contractor can bring the backfill up to the level
of the first soil reinforcement connection point (known as tie point), at which time the first layer
of soil reinforcement straps can be connected up. Once select fill has been placed and compacted
on the first layer of straps, the second layer of panels can be placed in the wall and the
combination of backfilling, connecting further soil reinforcement and further layers of panels is
repeated until the design level is reached.

Reinforced Earth walls have the advantage that they can be built completely from the rear of the
structure, thus preventing disruption to traffic, which can be allowed to proceed only metres from
the face of the wall under construction.

Construction of many walls on the ICB project occurred simultaneously, complicating the need to
deliver correct panels to the correct structures. Leighton and RECO worked together, putting
systems in place to minimise any errors and to maintain a streamlined and expeditious delivery of
the vast quantity of panels required and construction of the numerous walls.

490
5.0 CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the completed project presented complex technical and challenges to both designers
and constructors which required the implementation of a number of innovative solutions to enable
aesthetic and technical requirements to be achieved within very tight time constraints and project
budgets.

The project included signific ant concrete structures including tunnels, bridges and retaining walls
all of which were designed and constructed to achieve the strict requirements of the owners and
operators, presenting a high standard of urban design whilst achieving the technical and
functional requirements of a reliable, high capacity facility for the City Of Brisbane for the
foreseeable future.

The completed project is now passing it’s major test on a daily basis as it efficiently transfers
traffic around Brisbane’s CBD. Brisbane City Council estimates that the project has now removed
more then 25% of previous traffic from Brisbane’s CBD, Fortitude Valley and the inner northern
suburb roads.

491
APPENDIX I - THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FORM (RFI)

REV No 0
The Reinforced Earth Company
Groupe TAI REQUEST FOR
Reinforced Earth Pty Limited
ACN 001 215 327 DESIGN
Level 2, 20 George Street, Hornsby, NSW 2077
Tel (02) 9910 9910 Fax (02) 9910 9999
INFORMATION

PROJECT No: 3834

PROJECT NAME: ICB – MEA 1

CLIENT Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd

Prior to detailed design commencing we need the following design
information to be provided by the client.
Section
1 Bridge Loads
Is the wall an abutment? Yes

No Go to section 2

a) Vertical Working Loads due to

Bridge superstructure Only required if true abutment

b) Bridge Working Horizontal Loads

due to:- Braking

Shrinkage
Thermal loads
Other
2 Crash Barrier
Is there a crash barrier on the wall? Yes

No Go to section 3

Barrier type used as detailed on drawings

492
 Height from top of concrete barrier to road level mm

3 Water Levels
Is there a water table above our Yes
bottom of wall RL? RL

No

What flood frequency should we

design to? 1 in Years RL

4 Geotechnical report
Are there any soil investigation reports Yes Please Attach No
for the area?

5 Settlement
What is the estimated settlement
expected? mm

Is there a possibility of differential Yes No

settlement? I.e. differing foundations

6 Panel Finish
Colour

Sand Blast Yes No

Anti-Graffiti Yes No

7 Drawings
Please attach the latest set of drawings
including: -

Wall long Sections Attached

Top of wall details Attached

Abutment details Attached

Pile Locations Attached

493
7 LCPL Approval
This information has been: -

Name Position Signed Date

Prepared by
Approved by

494
APPENDIX II - SELECTED DESIGN DETAIL DRAWINGS

Detail 2.1 – Detail of integration of Reinforced Earth Wall with steel frame structure from at
Bowen Bridge

Detail 2.2 Plan view of Reinforced Earth soil reinforcement at an acute corner of the ICB
Viaduct

495
APPENDIX III - SELECTED PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph 3.1 – Bowen Bridge showing interaction of steel framed structure with
Reinforced Earth wall as per detail 2.1 Appendix II

Photograph 3.2 – View of Reinforced Earth ramp at MDR 1

496
Photograph 3.3 – Charcoal coloured precast panels for Reinforced Earth bridge
abutment at the Inner City Bypass Project.

Photograph 3.4 – Reinforced Earth precast concrete retaining wall at MDA7

497