A STUDY ON BAMBOO STRIP-REINFORCED EARTH WALL

 By
Iqraz Nabi Khan
Professor of Civil Engineering,
Manipal University Jaipur,
Jaipur, Rajasthan, India. 
and
Swami Saran,
Former Professor, Department of Civil Engineering ,
Indian Institute of Technology ,
Roorkee-247667, India.
1 INTRODUCTION
In this study an attempt has been made to explore the use of
Bamboo strips in Reinforced Earth Retaining Walls.
Reinforced Earth technique has widely been adopted due to its
economy, ease in construction and flexibility in nature.
It has been used successfully as water front structures, earth
retaining structures etc. for harbours, railways, highways, bridges
etc.
Vidal (1966, 1969) coined the term “Reinforced Earth”. He
systematically introduced fundamentals of Reinforced Earth
Technique and discussed about the choice of soil and
reinforcement, compaction, uses, risks of failure, cost and
examples of field construction.
Schlosser and Vidal (1969) published analytical and experimental
results.
Schlosser and Long (1974) carried out model study in laboratory.
There are many other investigators who have also contributed a
lot.
Effective and uninterrupted flow of traffic is like blood
circulation in human body. As the blood circulation is important
for healthy body so is the importance of uninterrupted flow of
traffic for development of a country. So any interruption in flow
of traffic may adversely affect the development process.

Sometimes flow of traffic is interrupted by landslides or slope

failures or a bridge being washed away or damaged by flood or
due to some other causes.
In such a case first priority of an engineer is to repair the
damages caused by it to any harbour, railway or road so the
traffic flow is resumed without much delay.
The remedy, which utilizes the locally available materials,
proves to be the best and economical.
Bamboos are usually available everywhere.
2 DEVELOPMENT OF TEST PROGRAMME
 
Field tests on prototype structures are always the best in any
research work but economical considerations and practical
difficulties either eliminate prototype tests completely or restrict
their scope to a great extent.
Model studies are generally less expensive and less time
consuming, can be used to study the effect of more parameters.
Behaviour of 1.0m high model reinforced earth wall with wooden
skin panel was monitored.
Uniformly distributed surcharge was placed on entire backfill.
Reinforcing strips were instrumented with strain gauge to measure
tension induced into them.
2.1 Soil and reinforcement
 
The soil used in this study was dry sand. The soil was
classified as SP with effective size (D10 ) of 0.185mm,
coefficient of uniformity (Cu) of 1.30. Backfill soil was
deposited at a density of 16.0 kN/m3, relative density of 60
percent. Angle of internal friction, obtained from direct
shear test, was 37˚.
Reinforcement
The reinforcements used were strips of bamboo (R1), aluminium
(R2) and nylon (R3). Bamboo strips were recovered by stripping
bamboo along its outer periphery aluminium strips were cut from
aluminium sheet, nylon strips from roll of nylon strip and then
cut to desired size.
Average width of bamboo strips was 25mm and average
thickness 1.5mm. The rupture strength was 12.75 × 104 kN/m2.
The length of reinforcement used for the study was 800mm,
horizontal spacing was 300mm and vertical spacing was 100mm
and 200mm.
 Reinforcement Symbol Properties
used
Width (mm) Thickness (mm) Rupture strength

1. Bamboo strips R1 20 to 30 1.0 to 2.0 12.75104 kN/m2

2. Aluminium strips R2 40 0.3 13.92104 kN/m2

3. Nylon R3 32 1.41 50N/mm (width)

niwar(strips)
2.2 Instrumentation
 
Instrumentation of bamboo reinforcing strips was done by
pasting strain gauges on both sides of strips. The strips were
calibrated by hanging them vertically and putting weights on
hanger.
2.3 Test set-up
 Sliding shear tests were conducted by modified shear box.
SLIDING SHEAR TEST RESULTS

Reinfor- Size of Density (kN/m3)  

cement Shear box 15.5 16.0 16.5 Remarks

Type (mm) Friction angle (degrees)  

R1 60  60 31.0 34.0 36.0 Sheared along
longitudinal direction
R1 60  60 38.0 38.5 42.0 Sheared along
transverse direction
R2 60  60 23.0 25.0 25.5  
R3 60  60 32.0 34.0 36.0  
R1 315  315 29.5 31.0 32.5  
Model tests were performed in a tank of size 2200mm ×
1000mm × 1250mm high. It was made of steel sections.
One longitudinal side of the box was provided with perspex
sheet properly stiffened to avoid any bulging. The purpose
of the perspex sheet was to observe the rupture surface. On
open side of the tank, a stand for the dial gauge was
provided. Wooden panels were fabricated to use them as
skin. Surcharge was applied in the form of sand bags, each
weighing 400N.
2.4 Test procedure
The procedures adopted for the construction of model was
similar to that used in the field and described in the following
steps:
The first row of skin panels, consisting of 2 side panels, 3 half
panels and 2 full panels, was assembled in a line at the base of
the tank and ensured plumb with a tri-square.
Arrangements were made to keep the panels in straight
alignment and vertical, and also to prevent flow of sand through
sides.
A vertical line was also marked on glass sheet side wall to see
its deviation from the plumb during backfilling.
The backfilling of sand was done by using rainfall technique up to
the level at which the first layer of reinforcement has to be laid.
After making the sand surface level, the reinforcing strips were laid
on it and properly attached to the panels. One central reinforcing
strip was instrumented with strain gauges and the leads were
carefully taken to the data acquisition system.
More panels were then placed in position and the sand was
deposited up to the next desired height. The records of tensions
induced in the central reinforcement of first layer were noted.
Above steps were repeated till the desired height of backfill was
achieved. At every layer of filling, the tensions in the central strips
of lower layers were noted.
Coloured sand bands were used at every 10cm fill height to
know the shape of failure wedge.
Surcharge on the backfill was then placed in five stages, each
giving an intensity of 4.8kN/m2.
For each surcharge intensity, the tensions in all central strips
were noted.
2.5 Tests performed
 
The details of two tests performed on 1.0m high model reinforced
earth retaining wall are given in table 1.

Table 1. Tests performed on 1.0m high model reinforced

earth retaining wall.

Test L/ SH Sv q
No H

1 0.8 300 100 5.1 to 24.4

2 0.8 300 200 5.1 to 24.4

3 TEST RESULTS AND ANAYSIS
 Following observations were recorded in a test.
(a) tension in the reinforcement strips, and
(b) deformation of wall.
Tension was obtained at each location of strain gauge, using
calibration charts, due to every backfill height and every increment
of surcharge. These tensions were used to draw tension curve for
every strip. For analysis, being reported here, tensions
corresponding to zero surcharge and 24.4 kN/m2 were selected. The
corresponding values of maximum tensions were noted.
The maximum tensions have been reduced to give the pressure
variation using following relation.
 
Pressure intensity = Tmax / SH  SV
 
Where SH and SV are horizontal and vertical spacings of
reinforcement.
Deformation of wall was monitored by installing dial gauges at
different heights
Deflected position of reinforced earth wall was obtained by
measuring final position of panels with respect to vertical line
drawn on the glass sheet indicating initial position of panels.
Figure 2 clearly indicates that the deformation of model retaining
wall under gravity and surcharge loads is similar to that of a
rotation about the toe. However, skin elements behave as a
flexible member.
Close examination of pressure distribution diagrams reveal that
observed pressures are quite close to the theoretical active earth
pressure obtained by using Rankine’s approach.
Regarding deflected position of wall, figure 2 clearly indicates
that the deformation of model retaining wall under gravity and
surcharge loads is similar to that of a rotation about the toe.
However, skin elements behave as a flexible member.
CONCLUSIONS
Rupture strength of bamboo strips is at par with aluminium
strips.
Friction angle between bamboo strips and sand is more than that
between aluminium strips and sand.
Earth pressure distribution suggested by Rankine holds good.
The deformation of retaining wall under gravity and surcharge
loads is similar to that of a rotation about the toe.
Skin elements behave as a flexible member.
 THANK YOU
FOR
YOUR KIND ATTENTION