Ferrocement and Convention Soil Retaining Structure Observation using Geometrical Configuration
Shubhashree R. Chimote1, Prashant D. Hiwase2

1Shubhashree R. Chimote, M.Tech, Structural Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Shri Ramdeobaba College of Engineering and Management, Nagpur (Maharashtra), India.
2Prashant D. Hiwase, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Shri Ramdeobaba College of Engineering and Management, Nagpur (Maharashtra), India.
Manuscript received on 18 July 2019 | Revised Manuscript received on 03 August 2019 | Manuscript Published on 10 August 2019 | PP: 487-491 | Volume-8 Issue-2S3 July 2019 | Retrieval Number: B10860782S319/2019©BEIESP | DOI: 10.35940/ijrte.B1086.0782S319
Open Access | Editorial and Publishing Policies | Cite | Mendeley | Indexing and Abstracting
© The Authors. Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering and Sciences Publication (BEIESP). This is an open access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Abstract: The conventional RCC soil retaining structure has got its certain drawbacks of being too heavy and costly. This paper deals with use of ferrocement as an alternative to conventional RCC soil retaining structure. An analytical study is carried out using Ansys 17.0 software to compare ferrocement soil retaining structure with geometrically identical Conventional RCC soil retaining structure. Ferrocement is advantageously used for its less thickness and flexibility to mould in required shapes. We can use full sectional strength of ferrocement in analysis of structure using optimum geometrical configuration. In the research work, Conventional RCC structure is also compared with rectangular and arch shaped ferrocement soil retaining structure of 50 mm thickness and 5m height, with a retaining soil density of 18kN/m3. The results showed that in arch shaped face and base wall structure, deflection and stresses are very less and within permissible limits. Due to reduced thickness of members, requirement of material is less and thus found to be more cost-effective than RCC soil retaining structure.
Keywords: Geometrical Configuration, Ferrocement, Soil Retaining Structure, Arch Shaped Retaining Wall.
Scope of the Article: Concrete Structures