TEVALUATION

ECHNICAL
REPORT

EVALUATION OF THE
MACCAFERRI TERRAMESH SYSTEM
RETAINING WALL

Prepared by the
Highway Innovative Technology
Evaluation Center (HITEC),
a CERF/IIEC Innovation Center

CERF/IIEC Report: #40626

June 2002
CERF/IIEC through a cooperative agreement with the Federal Highway Adminis-
tration (FHWA), created the Highway Innovative Technology Evaluation Center
(HITEC) to expedite the introduction of innovative products into the U.S. highway
and bridge markets.

HITEC evaluates products for which there are no recognized standards or

specifications. By providing impartial evaluations of technologies, HITEC hopes
to encourage state and local governments to implement more quickly innovative
products in the highway system, thereby enhancing the incentives for private
industry to invest in highway-oriented research and development. HITEC was
organized not only to provide a service to specific clients, but also to serve as a
clearinghouse for information useful to the highway community at large,
particularly public sector officials.

To guide the overall process, HITEC assembles a unique, multi-disciplinary panel

of experts for each evaluation. The panel works with the manufacturer of the
innovative product or technology to devise a plan for comprehensively evaluating
the performance of the product. The panelists selected to direct the evaluation
include experts from county, state, and federal transportation agencies, academia,
and the private sector.

The information found in this report is neither an endorsement nor an approval

of a technology. Instead, the information is intended to provide the reader with
accurate information and/or a credible analysis. Also, where appropriate, HITEC
hopes to feed the development of national standards for innovative technologies
through its published reports.

If you would like further information on HITEC, please contact us at 202-785-

6420, hitec@cerf.org, or visit www.cerf.org/hitec.

Cover Photos:
Left: Installation of geotextile in the facing section of the wall
Center: Terramesh System wall 5 m high
Right: Photos of a drainage pipe installed in the wall
 Abstract

The Highway Innovative Technology Evaluation Center (HITEC), an innovation center of CERF/IIEC, serves as a clearinghouse for implementing
highway innovation by conducting nationally-focused, collaborative evaluations of new products and technologies. This report, Evaluation of the
Maccaferri Terramesh System Retaining Wall, was prepared as part of the HITEC evaluation for earth retaining systems (ERS). This evaluation was
performed on the Terramesh Retaining Wall System, a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) structure developed, designed, and supplied by Maccaferri,
Inc.

This report describes a HITEC evaluation designed to determine the basic capabilities and limitations of the Terramesh System for use as a technically-
viable MSE retaining wall system. The evaluation was conducted based on material, design, construction, performance, and quality assurance
information outlined in the HITEC Protocol.
The Terramesh System features a Gabion basket facing of various configurations and metal double twisted grid type of soil reinforcement, which is
manufactured integrally with the basket facing blocks.

Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Highway Innovative Technology Evaluation Center (U.S.)

Evaluation of the Maccaferri Terramesh system retaining wall / prepared by the Highway Innovative Technology Evaluation Center (HITEC),
a service center of the Civil Engineering Research Foundation (CERF).
p.cm -- (Technical evaluation report) (CERF report ; ...)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-7844-0626-X
1. Retaining walls—Evaluation. I. Title. II. Series. III. Series: CERF report ; ...

TA770 .H54 2002

624.1’64—dc21
2002025574

The material presented in this publication has been prepared in accordance with generally recognized engineering principles and practices,
and is for general information only. This information should not be used without first securing competent advice with respect to its suitability
for any general or specific application. The contents of this publication are not intended to be and should not be construed to be a standard of
the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), or its research affiliate, CERF/IIEC, and are not intended for use as a reference in purchase
specifications, contracts, regulations, statutes, or any other legal document. No reference made in this publication to any specific method,
product, process, or service constitutes or implies an endorsement, recommendation, or warranty thereof by ASCE and CERF/IIEC.

ASCE and CERF/IIEC make no representation or warranty of any kind, whether expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness,
suitability, or utility of any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this publication, and assumes no liability thereof. Anyone
utilizing this information assumes all liability arising from such use, including, but not limited to infringement of any patent or patents.

Photocopies. Authorization to photocopy material for internal or personal use under circumstances not falling within the fair use provisions
of the Copyright Act is granted by ASCE to libraries and other users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) Transactional
Reporting Service, provided that the base fee of $4.00 per article plus $.50 per page is paid directly to CCC, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA
01923. The identification for ASCE Books is 0-7844-0626-X/02. $4.00 + $.50 per page. Requests for special permission or bulk copying
should be addressed to Permissions & Copyright Dept., ASCE.

Copyright ©2002 by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

All Rights Reserved.
Library of Congress Catalog Card No: 2002025574
ISBN 0-7844-0626-X
Manufactured in the United States of America.

ii
 Disclaimer

This document is based on work supported by the Federal Highway Administration under Cooperative Agreement No. DTFH61-93-X-00011.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the Highway Innovative Technology Evaluation
Center (HITEC) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Federal Highway Administration.

This report is the result of an impartial, consensus-based approach to evaluating innovative highway technology in accordance with the HITEC
Technical Protocol. The data presented are believed accurate and the analyses credible. The statements made and conclusions drawn regarding
the product evaluated do not, however, amount to an endorsement or approval of the product in general or for any particular application.

iii
 Contents

Preface vii
Acknowledgments viii
Technical Evaluation Panel Key Contacts ix
Executive Summary x
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Purpose, Scope, and Basis for Evaluation 1
1.2 Documents Reviewed 2

2 History and System Concept 3

3 Design Method Evaluations 5
3.1 Performance Criteria 5
3.2 External Stability 5
3.2.1 Global Stability
3.3 Internal Stability 6
3.3.1 Interaction Coefficient
3.3.2 Corrosion/Degradation
3.3.3 Allowable Strength of Reinforcement
3.3.4 Connection to Facing
3.3.5 Backfill in Reinforced Zone
3.4 Design Computations 8
3.5 Limitations 9
3.6 Design Details 9
3.6.1. Facing
3.6.2 Wall Elements
3.6.3 Barriers, Copings and Connection Appurtenances
3.6.4 Obstruction Avoidance Details

4 Construction Specifications 11
4.1 Description 11
4.2 Materials 12
4.2.1 Facing Baskets
4.2.2 Ring Fasteners

v
 4.2.3 Facing Infill Rock
4.2.4 Soil Reinforcements
4.2.5 Select Granular Material
4.3 Construction

5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Systems 13

5.1 Galvanization 13
5.2 PVC Supply 13
5.3 Terramesh PVC Coating and Manufacture 14
5.4 Ring Fasteners 14
5.5 Construction and Quality Control Manual (Installation Manual) 14
5.6 Design QA/QC
5.7 Warranties and Insurance

6 Performance Review 15
6.1 Costs 15

References 17

Appendices 19

vi
 Preface

When a manufacturer is introducing a new or innovative technology to the highway community, it is often necessary to demonstrate
the product to many, if not all, state highway agencies to prove that it performs as claimed. This practice is inefficient, time consuming,
and often costly. To overcome these barriers, the Highway Innovative Technology Evaluation Center (HITEC) was established in 1994
in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), and the Transportation Research Board (TRB). HITEC’s mission is to accelerate the process of introducing
technological advances to the highway community.

HITEC facilitates the conduct of consensus-based, nationally accepted performance evaluations of new or innovative technologies for
the highway community. HITEC is available to evaluate products, systems, services, materials, equipment, or other technologies that
the owners believe can be used beneficially on the nation’s highways.

The HITEC earth retaining system (ERS) program was initiated at the request of federal and state highway officials and was established
through a collaborative relationship with FHWA. It is an ongoing program to evaluate the performance of proprietary ERS technologies
against a common evaluation plan. It is believed that the development of up-to-date evaluation criteria and performance information
will help reduce the time and efforts required of suppliers and user agencies, and eliminate the inefficiency associated with the current
agency-by-agency approval process. The figure below illustrates the step-by-step group evaluation process pioneered by HITEC and
used for this ERS program.

The fundamental feature of this process is the formation of the Technical Evaluation Panel (Panel), a group of key representatives
from the user community, academia, and the private sector. The Panel, with the cooperation and assistance of the ERS technology
suppliers, identified the specific performance issues and concerns requiring resolution for these products to be adopted by the
highway community. The Panel oversaw the development and execution of the evaluation plan, and ultimately, reviewed the evaluation
findings.

As a result of their participation in this ERS program, many system suppliers have taken advantage of the process to modify and
improve their retaining wall systems so they conform to HITEC Protocol and AASHTO design methods. Consequently, it is important
to verify that the retaining wall system currently provided by a supplier is the same as that evaluated in this program.

HITEC is accepting applications for this ERS program on an ongoing basis and will publish the results of each evaluation. Evaluation
reports will be developed to provide an analysis of each of the technologies participating in this program. Currently, there are several
reports completed and/or scheduled for publication. Additionally, HITEC created the Guidelines for Evaluating Earth Retaining
Systems report (#40334), which fully describes the scope and details of the program. These reports are available from ASCE at 800-
548-2723 or marketing@asce.org. Copies can also be downloaded from the web site at www.cerf.org.

1. Evaluation
Panel of Public &
Private Sector
Volunteers 2. Evaluation
Formed Plan Developed

3. Applications 4. Refine Plan 5. Report

Submitted from If Needed & Prepared &
Owners of the Execute Plan Distributed
Technology Worldwide

vii
 Acknowledgments

The Highway Innovative Technology Evaluation Center (HITEC), a service center of CERF/IIEC, prepared this report and wishes to
acknowledge the contributions of individuals whose efforts and suggestions have significantly influenced the content of this report.

Most notably, this report is based on work and guidance by members of a technical evaluation panel who volunteered to develop the
evaluation plan for this project and carry out its objectives. The HITEC Panel is composed of Chairman Terry Shike, David Evans &
Associates, Inc.; Tony Allen, Washington State Department of Transportation; Randy Cannon, South Carolina Department of
Transportation; Todd Dickson, New York State Department of Transportation; Jerry DiMaggio, Federal Highway Administration; Chris
Dumas, Federal Highway Administration; David Dundas, Ontario Ministry of Transportation; Dov Leshchinsky, University of Delaware;
and Mark McClelland, Texas Department of Transportation. Additionally, D'Appolonia served as the consultant to the Panel and was
instrumental in producing this report.

CERF/IIEC also wishes to thank the employees of Maccaferri, Inc. for their cooperation during the evaluation process.

Among the staff that worked on this project, I wish to acknowledge the efforts of Scott C. Edwards, Nicole Testa, and Kanako Beringer
who prepared this report for publication.

Publication of this report is made possible in part through the contributions by members of CERF's New Century Partnership:

n Black & Veatch

n CH2M Hill Ltd.
n Charles Pankow Builders
n Charles J. Pankow Matching Grant
n Kenneth A. Roe Memorial Program
n Lester B. Knight & Associates
n Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc.
n The Turner Corporation

Harvey M. Bernstein
President & CEO, CERF/IIEC

viii
 Technical Evaluation Panel Key Contacts

Product: Maccaferri Terramesh® System

Chair: Terry J. Shike

Senior Bridge Engineer
David Evans & Associates, Inc.

Panelists: Tony M. Allen David Dundas, P. Eng.

State Geotechnical Engineer Senior Foundation Engineer
Washington State Department of Transportation Ministry of Transportation, Ontario

Randy Cannon Dov Leshchinsky, Ph.D.

Bridge Design Engineer Professor of Civil Engineering
South Carolina Department of Transportation University of Delaware
Todd H. Dickson Mark McClelland
Civil Engineer II Geotechnical Branch Manager
New York State Department of Transportation Texas Department of Transportation
Jerry A. DiMaggio
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
Federal Highway Administration

Chris Dumas
Geotechnical Engineer
Eastern Resource Center
Federal Highway Administration

HITEC Project
Manager: Scott C. Edwards Client: Maccaferri, Inc.
10303 Governor Lane Blvd.
Consultants: D’Appolonia Williamsport, MD 21795-3116
Barry Christopher Phone: 301-223-6910
Victor Elias Fax: 301-223-6134
James Withiam Web: www.maccaferri-usa.com
Email: magaec@aol.com

ix
 Executive Summary

This evaluation was performed on the Terramesh Retaining Wall System (Terramesh System), a Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE)
structure developed and supplied by Maccaferri, Inc. (Maccaferri) of Williamsport, Maryland. Maccaferri is part of the worldwide
Maccaferri Industrial Group headquartered in Italy.

The evaluation was conducted based on design, construction, performance and quality assurance information provided by Maccaferri,
the developer and supplier. This information was evaluated for conformance with the state-of-practice criteria as outlined in the
HITEC Protocol. To date (2001), 37 structures have been constructed in the United States, and many more worldwide, using this
system.

As shown in Figures 1, 2 and 3, the Terramesh System is fabricated from a double twisted steel mesh, which is galvanized and
subsequently PVC coated, and features a Gabion-type basket facing section. The facing basket is integrally manufactured with the
double twisted wire-mesh soil reinforcement. The facing section of the unit is formed by connecting the back panel and a diaphragm
to the main unit that forms rectangular-shaped cells used for infill facing stone confinement. Terramesh System units are manufactured
with all components mechanically connected at the production facility.

Figure 1. Hexagonal Double Twisted Wire Mesh

Figure 2. Spenax Fastener

x
 Figure 3. Terramesh System Unit

Maccaferri introduced the system in the early 1990’s as a combination of box Gabions with a field-connected metallic mesh panel as
reinforcement. That system evolved in the present system, which is fabricated of one continuous piece of woven mesh.

The design of this type of structure is fully governed by Article 5.8 of AASHTO (2000a). The design methods submitted for external
and internal stability are in accordance with the requirements for extensible reinforcements that are in AASHTO (2000a) except for
any variations noted in the evaluation.

With respect to the submitted system-specific design parameters, the following are noted:

n The normalized friction coefficient F* varies widely, primarily as a function of maximum grain size and grain size distribution,
within the backfill gradations permitted and commonly used for MSE structures. For construction with fine-grained backfill
meeting the current MSE specifications, an F* of 0.30 at the surface decreasing to 0.16 at a depth of 6 m (20 ft) is indicated
by current testing results. For coarse gravelly backfill, the F* is considerably higher.

n The durability of the PVC coating for in-ground use has been extrapolated from heat aging tests results based on UL 746B
(Underwriters Laboratories) standard as no current ASTM or AASHTO standards are available. The acceptance criteria
outlined in UL 746B (useful life determination) was modified for this determination, and is less restrictive. The PVC was
tested in isolation, unstressed and for a shorter period of time than recommended under the UL standard. On this basis, a
useful life of approximately 69 years has been established.

n The durability of the PVC coating at the face of the gabion basket exposed to UV radiation for 75 years has not been
demonstrated. It must be noted that no ASTM or AASHTO test methods are currently available for this determination. Field
examination of a few old existing structures suggests a useful life in excess of 45 years.

n The long-term (i.e., 75 year) strength of the Terramesh soil reinforcement, considering construction damage and all
applicable in-ground degradation/corrosion losses, has been established at 26 kN/m (1780 lb/ft). No assessment for 100-
year life has been provided.

xi
n Where the vertical spacing of reinforcements for the modular Terramesh system is 0.91 m (3 ft), it is in excess of the
maximum vertical spacing of 0.80 m (2.62 ft) required by AASHTO (2000a).

The construction material and methods specification and QA/QC programs submitted are in substantial agreement with current
practice and AASHTO (2000a). Maccaferri, Inc. provides quality control for the manufactured materials in accordance with their QA/
QC program. They rely on the owner’s engineers or consultants for design and construction verification and/or inspection.

The maximum height of the Terramesh System is a function of the gabion basket height, which controls vertical spacing of reinforcements
and the tensile capacity of the reinforcements. Accordingly, the maximum height for a structure statically loaded with a horizontal
backslope is on the order of 10 m (33 ft), using the standard material elements. The tallest structure completed to date in the United
States is about 12-m (40-ft) high.

The Terramesh System is a technically viable MSE retaining wall system. Insufficient actual project cost data have been provided to
compare with other available MSE systems.

xii
CHAPTER 1

Introduction

12 m high wall Terramesh System installed in a

residential area

1.1 Purpose, Scope and Basis for Evaluation

This evaluation was conducted for the Terramesh Retaining Wall System developed and supplied by Maccaferri, Inc. (Maccaferri),
Williamsport, Maryland. The essential elements of this mechanically stabilized earth wall (MSE) system are a Gabion basket facings,
a double-twisted, galvanized and subsequently PVC coated metallic grid-type soil reinforcing elements, and a select granular backfill.
Figure 3 in the Executive Summary shows front and rear isometric views of the Terramesh System.

The evaluation was conducted using material, design, construction, performance, and quality assurance information provided by
Maccaferri, and was evaluated for conformance with the latest state-of-the-practice criteria as outlined in the HITEC Protocol (Protocol).
The Protocol substantially incorporates the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges (AASHTO 2000a) and Demonstration
Project 82, FHWA-SA-96-071, (Elias and Christopher, 1996) referred to as Demo 82. Where no applicable criteria in the referenced
documents exist, evaluations were based on state-of-the-practice as indicated in the technical literature or documentation provided
by the developers.

This evaluation is intended for readers who have a working knowledge of the design and construction specification requirements in
AASHTO (2000a), Article 5.8 for MSE Walls and FHWA-SA-96-071, Demo 82. Understanding the test methods and interpreting
procedures in the Appendices of FHWA-SA-96-071 is essential to understanding the test data submitted by Maccaferri in support of
product-specific design parameters.

The submittal by Maccaferri for the Terramesh System was evaluated relative to the Protocol developed by the HITEC Panel and the
Consultant. The Protocol (see Appendix A) was further reviewed and commented by industry in a public forum prior to being
finalized.

The results of this evaluation do not constitute an approval or a rejection of the system and/or its components. Further, any
recommendations for modifications and/or conformance to specific evaluation criteria should not be construed as mandatory. The
potential effects are noted, and each approval agency must determine its own requirements for implementation.

It is suggested that manufacturers note any deviation from their submittal to HITEC when submitting for acceptance of their system by
an approving agency.

Introduction 1
1.2 Documents Reviewed
The documents that provide the basis of the reviews in support
of this report were initially submitted on January 28, 2000. An
initial review of these documents indicated the need for additional
information to complete the submittal. Partial additional
information was received on August 14, 2000. Additional
information, test data or clarifications were requested and were
subsequently submitted for the record in August 2001,
December 2001 and January 2002.

A complete set of the submitted data is available from HITEC,

which maintains the-chain-of-custody for all data reviewed and
used in this evaluation, including all revisions to the initial
submittals.

2 Evaluation of the Maccaferri Terramesh System Retaining Wall

CHAPTER 2

History and
System Concept

Demonstration of the sinuosity of Terramesh wall

installation

T
he Terramesh System is an MSE retaining wall system comprised of stone-filled gabion type baskets for facings and metallic
double-twisted, grid-type soil reinforcement. Initially introduced in the late 1980’s as a combination of a box Gabion mechanically
connected in the field to mesh reinforcement, the system has evolved to the present product, which is manufactured from one
continuous piece of woven mesh.

Terramesh System units are supplied in standard lengths and heights that require site erection. The units are supplied in collapsed
form, folded and bundled. The bundles are compressed and strapped together at the factory for easy shipping and handling. Each
bundle is labeled with a tag reporting the size of the units contained.

The standard dimensions of the manufactured units, tabulated below, all have a ± 5% manufacturing tolerance:

Length Width Height Depth

(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
9 6 1.5 3
12 6 1.5 3
15 6 1.5 3
18 6 1.5 3
9 6 3 3
12 6 3 3
15 6 3 3
18 6 3 3

The unit length is measured from the front face of the erected Gabion facing basket. Other lengths can be produced by special order.

The double twisted mesh 8x10 type has an internal mesh opening of 3.25 in (83 mm) with an initial wire diameter of 0.106 in (2.7
mm) including galvanization which is subsequently PVC coated.

History and System Concept 3

The walls may be constructed vertically, however for maintenance
of vertical control during construction, the walls are often
constructed with a small batter ranging from 1H:12V to 1H:15V.

The design of this type of structure is fully governed by applicable

design criteria in AASHTO (2000a).

Maccaferri, Inc. markets the system in the United States and

provides technical design and construction assistance, as well
as the manufactured facing and reinforcement materials.

The first wall constructed in the United States using this

technology was built in 1992 in Mt. St. Park, Alabama. At present
(2001), numerous Terramesh projects have been completed or
are under construction both in the United States and worldwide.
A detailed listing of projects in the United States and Canada
totaling about 485,00 ft2 (45,000 m2) is provided in Appendix
E.

4 Evaluation of the Maccaferri Terramesh System Retaining Wall

CHAPTER 3

Design Method
Evaluations
Terramesh System wall during installation

3.1 Performance Criteria

The methodology submitted, supported by typical computations, indicates a design practice with respect to Factors of Safety (FS) for
external and internal stability, foundation embedment, bearing pressure computations and minimum reinforcement length, which
conforms to AASHTO criteria (Article 5.8, AASHTO, 2000a).

With respect to maximum vertical spacing, the submitted design in the upper 4.57 m (15.0 ft) deviates from the maximum recommended
AASHTO vertical spacing of 0.80 m. (2.62 ft), to match the height of one of the standard gabion basket sizes (0.91 m [3.0 ft])
manufactured by Maccaferri. As required by Article 5.8.4.1 AASHTO (2000a), the submitted technical justification for the larger
vertical spacing is described in Section 3.3.

With respect to erection overall vertical tolerances, no actual project data were submitted to indicate that the acceptable tolerances for
MSE systems in Demo 82 or AASHTO (2000a) can be met.

Horizontal movements during construction were measured at the FHWA research test wall site in Illinois. A maximum horizontal
movement of just over 1 in (25.4 mm) for the 20 ft (6.1 m) wall was measured. This performance suggests that the overall vertical
tolerances in Demo 82 could be met.

The submitted specifications provide no guidance on required erection tolerances.

Regarding the facing unit(s) tolerance to differential settlement, no estimate or data was presented to indicate a maximum level that
would affect performance or require maintenance. Review of the technical literature for gabions suggests these systems have significant
flexibility. Therefore, differential settlements limited to 1/50 to 1/100 should be considered as a guide, at present, to ensure minimal
maintenance or acceptable performance.

Design Method Evaluations 5

3.2 External Stability
The submitted methodology for external stability computations
under static loading (dead and live load) conforms to AASHTO
(2000a) criteria. The project owner is responsible for providing
strength parameters for the retained fill as well as allowable
foundation bearing pressures, anticipated foundation settlement,
and global stability determinations for each structure.
3.2.1 Global Stability
Maccaferri has developed a computer program (MAC S.T.A.R.S.)
for global stability analysis of simple walls and complex tiered
structures. The use of this or other global stability programs in
general use is consistent with current practice; however the
accuracy and assumptions used in the program have not been
reviewed. The program should be considered applicable for
analyses of global stability only (i.e., critical surfaces beyond
the extent of the reinforcements).
3.3 Internal Stability
The submitted methodology for internal stability computations
under static and seismic loading conforms to AASHTO (2000a)
and Demo 82 criteria for extensible reinforcements, with respect
to:
n Assumed failure surface for internal stability
calculations and calculations for effective length Le
n Horizontal stress computations using Ka
n Distribution of surcharge and concentrated loads
n Development of seismic loads and calculations to
preclude pullout or rupture
The in isolation failure strain of the Terramesh metallic twisted
mesh reinforcement is greater than 12 percent. However, the
failure strain of the mesh tested in a confined environment in a
sand box is less than 3 percent. This behavior qualifies the
material as an extensible reinforcement, because the failure strain
of the mesh is greater than that of the granular reinforced fill
material specified for construction.
The current design practice for the upper 15 ft (4.6 m) of a
Terramesh wall typically utilizes, where possible, a vertical
6 Evaluation of the Maccaferri Terramesh System Retaining Wall
reinforcement spacing of 3 ft (0.91 m) to match the height of a
currently manufactured gabion face unit. This spacing exceeds
the recommended AASHTO (2000a) spacing of 0.8 m (2.6 ft).
The technical justification provided for the larger spacing, as
required by Article 5.8.4.1 (AASHTO, 2000a), is based on the
results obtained from a fully instrumented test wall in Illinois at
a FHWA test site. The 1987 test wall was constructed with 3-ft
(0.91-m) vertical spacing for the full height of a 21 ft (6.4 m),
and utilized gabion face baskets 3-ft (0.91-m) wide. The
instrumentation indicated the face units did not bulge or slide at
their interfaces, and that the wall overall horizontal deflection of
the face was just over the MSE limit of 13 mm per 3 m (1/2 in
per 10 ft). The test wall performance suggests that the larger 3
ft (0.91 m) spacing are technically feasible and could be
considered especially where face deflection greater than
normally specified for MSE walls can be tolerated.
With respect to design parameters needed to determine spacing
and sizing of the reinforcement to preclude pullout or rupture,
the submitted data for interaction coefficients and allowable
strength are discussed in the following sections.
3.3.1 Interaction Coefficient
The normalized Friction Factor, F*, used in AASHTO (2000a)
and Demo 82 was developed primarily by laboratory and field
testing by STS Consultants, Ltd. in 1988 and 1997 and
subsequent laboratory testing by Bathurst, Clarabut Geotechnical
Testing (BCGT) in 2001. The laboratory testing used methods
similar to the methods outlined in Demo 82, Appendix A, except
that no internal strain measurements were made in the 1997
test series to determine the pullout load at a maximum 15 mm
(0.6 in) deflection measured at the back end of reinforcement
mesh. Therefore, only the 1988 and 2001 test series is strictly
applicable in determining the normalized friction parameter
F*.
The field pullout test performed at the FHWA research test wall
in Illinois yielded results to confirm the applicable laboratory
data. Review of all of the relevant pullout test data for the double-
twisted, PVC-coated grid-type reinforcement, indicates that the
interaction coefficients are principally affected by the grain size
characteristics of the reinforced fill and to a minor extent by the
height of fill above the reinforcement.
The most recent BCGT pullout test data for a range of reinforced
zone backfill soils permitted by Demo 82 indicates F* ranges
between 0.18 to 3.5, where higher values of F* are associated
with a coarse gravelly soil. This range is consistent with previous
test results both in the laboratory and from the limited field
pullout tests.
The pullout data indicates a very strong dependence on
maximum grain size and grain size distribution as well as normal
load with as much as one order of magnitude difference between
F* associated with a silty fine sand meeting the Demo 82
specifications and that of a gravelly sand.
For design, in the absence of site-specific knowledge and grain
size test distribution of the actual backfill, a value of F* = 0.30
at the surface decreasing to 0.16 at a depth of 6 m (20 ft) is
indicated. This range was established based on the latest series
of tests conducted by BCGT for silty sand meeting the gradation
requirements for MSE structures.
Where a specific site backfill is tested and subsequently used,
higher actual test values may be used.
3.3.2 Corrosion/Degradation
The Terramesh System mesh reinforcement is initially galvanized
to a minimum 244 g/m2 (0.80 oz/ft2), which is equivalent to a
thickness of approximately 33 mm (0.001 in), and then PVC
coated to a minimum thickness of 0.5 mm (0.02 in). The
corrosion/degradation resistance is therefore initially subject
to construction damage and subsequently to potentially three
stages of degradation due to the composite nature of the coated
wire mesh.
The PVC coating provides the initial protection. Once the PVC
protection is no longer effective and the galvanized wire is
exposed, the second level of protection, galvanization, provides
additional protection by it’s sacrificial nature. The final level of
protection is afforded by a sacrificial metal thickness provided
in addition to the requirements for tensile capacity.
The durability of the PVC coating for the normally required
design life of 75 to 100 years must be assessed in air in
consideration of it’s use as a facing material, and in ground in
consideration of it’s use as soil reinforcement. In air, the major
degradation mechanism is likely to be exposure to UV radiation
and elevated temperature, while in ground the likely oxidative
degradation mechanism is a function of the soil regime and the
damage to the coating during construction filling operations.
Design Method Evaluations
The in-air exposure models the durability of the facing and the
in-ground degradation models the durability of the mesh
reinforcement.
The in-air durability of the PVC subject to UV exposure was
evaluated qualitatively from test results obtained from ASTM
D1499-99 (2000) and ASTM G-23 (“Standard Practice for
Operating Light-Exposure Apparatus (Carbon-Arc Type) With
and Without Water for Exposure of Nonmetallic Materials”) ,
which expose the material to UV radiation in a controlled test
chamber. The test duration is 3000 hours at 63° C (145° F). As
ASTM G-23 is no longer current, further testing was conducted
in accordance with ASTM D4355 (2000), a newer, but still
qualitative standard used by the geosynthetic industry, for 500
hours. The results from either test method indicated small
decreases of initial strength and elongation properties. No
extrapolation of these laboratory results to field performance
has been made. The in-air degradation rate of the underlying
galvanization is not specified by AASHTO or Demo 82 and is a
function of local atmospheric conditions.
Examination by Maccaferri of selected upland completed works
world wide up to 45 years of age indicates no visible face distress,
visible PVC deterioration, especially where substantial vegetative
growth has covered the facing. Note however that PVC
geomembranes are not recommended by industry for in air
exposure use.
The in-ground durability of PVC has been qualitatively evaluated
by examination of published chemical compatibility tables and
quantitatively by heat aging tests, which is common polymer
practice for evaluating oxidative resistance of thermoplastics.
Chemical compatibility tables suggest poor resistance to organic
solvents, hydrocarbons and strong acids.
Heat aging tests were conducted in general accordance with UL
746B (Underwriters Laboratories, 2000), which is a heat aging
method at multiple elevated temperatures on unstressed samples,
for a maximum of 5000 to 6500 hours. Note that no present
comparable ASTM or AASHTO standard is available for heat
aging evaluations. Degradation rates are then computed using
conventional Arrhenius modeling using time and retained
strength or elongation change from retrieved samples from at
least three temperatures as the variables. Often, for thermoplastic
materials a loss of strength or elongation change of 50 percent
is taken as time to embrittlement or loss of function.
7
Heat Aging tests on the base PVC material identified as Apex 88-
N394G-5 Natural were conducted at five elevated temperatures
for a maximum duration of approximately 2200 hours. The
results were evaluated using conventional Arrhenius modeling
and based on the assumption that a measured elongation
reduction of 25 percent would be considered as the useful
lifetime for the product. The justification for using a 25 percent
loss on elongation rather than the 50 percent in UL 746B (1997)
was in consideration that the PVC coating would not be subjected
to a greater stress or elongation than the steel wire.
Based on heat aging test results, a useful lifetime of 83 years at
20° C (68° F) was computed with a correlation coefficient R 2 of
0.86. A factor of safety of 1.2 to account for precision of test, a
somewhat low correlation coefficient and fabrication process
for the material was further recommended, projecting a useful
life of 69 years.
A summary of the Heat Aging Test data is provided in Appendix
B.
The in-ground degradation rate of the galvanization is calculated
based on the corrosion rates given in AASHTO (2000a) and
Demo 82 for the specified non-aggressive soil backfill.
The PVC and galvanization is also subject to damage from
construction backfill operations. Field installation damage tests
have been conducted in the U.K in accordance with BS
8006:1995 (2000) to evaluate both the physical level of damage
to the coatings and the effect of this damage on the corrosion/
degradation mechanisms. The U.K. standard is not as restrictive
as the recently adopted ASTM D5818 (2000).
The results of these field tests indicated that for fine-grained
backfill meeting the requirements of the standard MSE
specifications; no consistent visible coating damage was noted.
Coarse-grained backfill with a 50 mm (2 in) maximum size
and a grain size distribution within the specifications, were subject
to coating damage averaging three areas of damage per meter
width (1/ft) of reinforcement. This level of damage can be
converted to represents approximately 12 percent of the area of
reinforcement for which the protective benefit of the PVC could
not be counted on. Coarser grained soils inflicted levels of
damage 3 to 4 times greater.
8 Evaluation of the Maccaferri Terramesh System Retaining Wall
3.3.3 Allowable Strength of Reinforcement
The Terramesh System uses a metallic, soft-temper, double-
twisted mesh soil reinforcement, which is galvanized and then
coated with PVC. The reinforcement is manufactured in
accordance with ASTM A975-97 (2000) with a mesh opening
of 3.25 in (83 mm) and with 23 longitudinal wires per meter
(7.0/ft) of twisted mesh width.
The ultimate tensile strength of the specified soft temper mesh
2.7 mm (0.106 in) diameter in accordance with ASTM A641-
98 (2000) is 485 MPa (70 ksi) with an elongation greater than
12 percent in accordance ASTM A370-92 (2000). The
maximum yield strength is approximately 407 MPa (59.0 ksi)
which results in an allowable tensile strength of 0.55 Fy or 224
MPa (32.5 ksi) when used as a reinforcement not connected to
a rigid facing. The allowable strength must then be reduced for
corrosion degradation effects discussed previously.
The specified zinc coating with respect to weight and quality
must conform to Class 3 in accordance with ASTM A641-98
(2000), which requires a minimum coating weight of 230 g/m2
(0.75 oz/ft2). The PVC coating is applied in accordance with the
physical, chemical and mechanical requirements contained in
ASTM A975-97 (2000) to a minimum thickness of 1.0 mm
(0.04 in).
Considering the data developed in the corrosion/degradation
studies, a PVC design life of 69 years, a galvanization life of 4
years, as well as a reduction of cross-sectional steel area of 12
percent for construction damage, an allowable strength for in-
ground use can be computed. Applying these reductions, a
allowable design strength of 26 kN/m (1.8 k/ft) is indicated for
design for a 75-year structure life. The design life of the facing
for 75 years has not been demonstrated, although it is understood
that the mesh is generally unstressed and can be visibly inspected
during its functional use.
3.3.4 Connection to Facing
The standard Terramesh units, facing and reinforcement mesh,
is fabricated continuously and therefore no separate connection
to the reinforcement mesh exists nor should be permitted.
3.3.5 Backfill in Reinforced Zone
Select granular fill in accordance with the grain size, soundness,
and requirements in AASHTO Division II (AASHTO, 2000b), as
outlined in the Terramesh System Specifications.
n Reinforcement exposed to acid runoff or industrial
pollution characterized by low pH, hydrocarbons or
organic solvents.
n Unpredictable erosion or uncontrolled scour depth
below the reinforced fills zone.

This evaluation has identified a height limitation of approximately

3.4 Design Computations 10 m (33 ft) for a vertical wall with horizontal backfill. This
limit is based on the minimum vertical spacing based on standard
Terramesh gabion facing baskets and reinforcing mesh, and
The submitted design computations for three of the four required any backfill meeting the current grain size requirements
typical cases (i.e., horizontal backfill, infinite backslope) contained in the AASHTO or Demo 82 specifications.
including seismic considerations were checked and found in
compliance with AASHTO (2000a) criteria. The abutment design
was not submitted because the Terramesh System will not be
marketed for this application.
3.6 Design Details
External stability calculations for static and seismic design Reinforcement length for internal stability should be measured
comply with the methodology for the typical cases submitted. from the back of the facing units as per the submitted calculations
Internal stability computations are in compliance with respect and AASHTO.
to methodology.
3.6.1 Facing
The coverage ratio for this system is always 100 percent.
The rock for the facing section of a Terramesh unit shall be
Typical computations for the transfer of supplemental loads and hard, angular to round, durable and of such quality that it shall
inconnectionwithobstructionshavenotbeensubmittedforreview. not disintegrate on exposure to water and weathering for the life
of the structure. The rock shall range in size between 4 to 8 in
Typical com putations for the horizontal backfill case are (102 – 203 mm). A minimum of 3 layers of rock must be used
presentedinAppendixB.Forconditionswherethedesignstress in filling a 3 ft (0.91 mm) basket and 2 layers when filling a 1.5
inthesoilreinforcementunderseismicloadingisexceeded,a ft (0.460 m) basket. Maccaferri has recommended the following
nonstandardsolutionutilizingdoublemeshcanbeconsidered. material specifications:
Thisadditionalmeshisconnectedtothefacingbyclipsasshown
inAppendixB.
Architectural variations are only possible by varying the type/
color of the stone used to fill the facing baskets.
3.5 Limitations The minimum constructable radius on curves is reported as 10
ft (3 m) for the Terramesh facing units.
The Terramesh system limitations are generally consistent with
AASHTO (2000a) limitations. Terramesh use is not 3.6.2 Drainage Elements
recommended for the following conditions:
The wire basket facing of the Terramesh System is filled with
n Use as a bridge abutment directly carrying bridge rock and contains up to 30 percent void space. A filtration
loads. geotextile is placed at the interface of the facing basket and the
n Placement of utilities within the select fill. reinforced soil zone to preclude infiltration of fines.

Design Method Evaluations 9

Where required by site conditions, a drainage system may be Crash barrier testing has not been performed to substantiate the
required at the interface of the reinforced zone and random fill design detail.
or natural ground as for all other MSE systems.
Available blocks, joint details, and corner elements are presented
3.6.3 Barriers, Copings and Connections to in Appendix C. A slip-joint detail was not submitted.
Appurtenances
3.6.4 Obstruction Avoidance Details
No detail has been provided for copings or smaller height units
to better follow inclined finished grades. No details have been submitted to demonstrate an understanding
of AASHTO requirements with respect to major obstructions to
The posts for appurtenances such as handrails, guardrails, and the normal placement of the reinforcement.
signposts are cast in place within the top basket to provide
interconnection and stability. No calculations in support and/or
sizing were provided for review.

Property Acceptable Value Test Method

3 3
Unit Weight 24 kN/m (150 lb/ft ) Not supplied
Absorption Less than 4.2% loss AASHTO T-85
Abrasion (500 revolutions) Less than 20% loss AASHTO T-96
Freezing and Thawing Less than 10% loss, 12 cycles AASHTO T-104
Magnesium Sulfate Less than 15% loss, 5 cycles AASHTO T-103
Wetting and Drying No major cracking Not supplied

10 Evaluation of the Maccaferri Terramesh System Retaining Wall

CHAPTER 4

Construction
Specifications

Compaction of the backfill

T
he submittal suggests that the Terramesh System construction methods specifications are intended to be in general conformance
with the applicable provisions of the specifications for MSE Walls, Sections 8.8, from Demo 82. Significant editorial and
technical revisions to the base specifications (Section 8.8) would be necessary to produce an appropriate specification as
described below.

4.1 Description
Editorial changes are needed to reflect the use of PVC coated twisted mesh basket facing which are continuous with the wire mesh
reinforcement.

4.2 Materials
Substitute the following for Reinforced Concrete Facing Panels, Soil Reinforcement and Attachment Devices, Joint Materials and
Leveling Pad.

4.2.1 Facing Baskets

The facing baskets woven wire mesh shall be manufactured in strict conformance with the provisions of ASTM A975-97 “Standard
Specifications for Double Twisted Hexagonal Mesh Gabions and Revet Mattresses (Metallic-Coated Steel Wire or Metallic-Coated Steel
Wire With Poly (Vinyl Chloride)(PVC) Coating)” (2000). Specifically the facing basket shall be manufactured using an 8´10 Gabion
PVC coated twisted wire mesh in accordance with the dimensions and other requirements of Table 1 of ASTM A975-97 (2000).

Construction Specifications 11
The Terramesh System shall be manufactured with all
components mechanically connected at the production facility.
The external face, reinforcing panel, and lid shall be woven into
a single unit. The ends, back and diaphragm shall be factory
connected to the base. All perimeter edges of the mesh forming
the basket shall be selvedged with wire having a larger diameter.
The facing element of the unit shall be divided into two cells by
means of a diaphragm positioned at approximately 3 ft (910
mm) centers. The diaphragm shall be secured in position to the
base so that no additional lacing is necessary at the job site.
4.2.2 Ring Fasteners
Overlapping stainless steel fasteners may be used in lieu of lacing
wire for basket assembly and installation. The fasteners shall be
of stainless steel, 0.120 in (3.05 mm) in diameter manufactured
in accordance to ASTM A313-98, Type 302, Class I (2000). The
tensile strength shall be in the range of 222 to 253 ksi (1530 -
1750 MPa) as measured in accordance with ASTM A313-98
(2000).
4.2.3 Facing Infill Rock
The rock used to fill the facing basket shall be hard, angular to
round and durable. The rock shall range in size between 4 in
(102 mm) and 8 in (203 mm) and conform to the requirements
in Section 3.6.1 Facing.
4.2.4 Soil Reinforcement
The reinforcing woven wire mesh shall be manufactured in strict
conformance with the provisions of ASTM A975-97 (2000).
Specifically the facing basket shall be manufactured using an
8´10 Gabion PVC coated twisted wire mesh in accordance with
the dimensions and other requirements of Table 1 of ASTM A975-
97 (2000).
4.2.5 Select Granular Material
The following minor change is required to the gradation limit
for the reinforced zone fill:
Percent passing 50 mm=100
12
4.3 Construction
Wall erection. Delete 2nd paragraph and add the following:
The facing section of the units are assembled individually by
erecting the sides, back, ends, and diaphragm, ensuring that
the panels are in the correct position, and the tops of all sides
are satisfactorily aligned. The four corners of the basket shall
be connected first, followed by the internal diaphragm to the
outside walls. All connections shall be made using lacing wire
or the ring fasteners detailed under Materials and require a
nominal overlap of 1 in (25 mm) after closure.
The Terramesh units shall be carried to their final position and
connected with the adjoining empty units along the vertical and
top edges of their contact surfaces using lacing wires or ring
fasteners. For more than one layer of units, the upper layer shall
be connected to the top of the lower layer along the front and
back edges of the contact surface using lacing wire or ring
fasteners.
The facing baskets shall be filled with rock as specified under
Materials. During the filling operation manual placement is
required to minimize voids. The exterior of the basket shall be
carefully placed to ensure a flat and compact appearance. The
fill material shall be carefully placed to ensure that the PVC
coating is not damaged.
The cells shall be filled in stages 9 to 12 in (230 to 305 mm) in
height and to a depth not exceeding 1-ft (305-mm) higher than
the adjoining cell. Connecting wires shall be installed after the
placement of each layer. The cells shall be slightly overfilled to
allow settlement of the rock infill and the lid pulled tight until
the lid meets the perimeter edge of the basket. The lid shall be
tightly laced and/or fastened along all edges, ends, and top
diaphragms.
Prior to the placement of the granular fill in the reinforced soil
zone, the specified geotextile filter shall be placed at the facing
section with a 12 in (305 mm) return at the top and bottom.
Evaluation of the Maccaferri Terramesh System Retaining Wall
CHAPTER 5

Quality
Assurance/
Quality Control
Systems Terramesh Wall used for road embankment

A
n undated Quality Assurance Manual has been developed and submitted for review for the manufacture of the Terramesh
supplied materials.

5.1 Galvanization
All galvanized wire is purchased from U.S. manufacturers/suppliers of wire product and is provided with a full heat or coil trace
ability and certification with respect to chemistry, tensile strength and galvanization. The current supplier QC manual has been
reviewed and is consistent with industry standards as evidenced by the ISO 9002 certification. The QA Manual provided for internal
QA checking by Maccaferri of product from new suppliers only.

5.2 PVC Supply

PVC pellets are currently purchased from one supplier and each shipment is provided with certification attesting to compliance with
the chemical and physical properties required for gabions under ASTM A975-97, section 8. QC manuals from the supplier, Teknor
Apex Company, have been reviewed and are consistent with industry standards as evidenced by the ISO 9001 certification.

5.3 Terramesh PVC Coating and Manufacture

The PVC coating is applied to the wire by an extrusion process at a Maccaferri, Inc. facility. The thickness of the coating is automatically
controlled and every batch is measured for Q/C compliance.

The PVC-coated wires are used during spiral processing to produce the mesh. The QA manual provides no information as to any
process control nor the frequency of any inspections or measurements of mesh openings and length of the finished product.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control Systems 13

5.4 Ring Fasteners engineering staff. If requested, the Maccaferri Group will contract
with independent consultants to provide the required design
services.
The hog rings used for lid closure are manufactured by Stanley
Fastening Systems. A QC Manual was provided, reviewed and
found to be consistent with industry standards. 5.7 Warranties and
Insurance
5.5 Construction and Maccaferri does not warranty or guarantee the constructed
Quality Control structure using their product.
Manual (Installation Maccaferri maintains property and casualty insurance. The
Manual) commercial liability insurance provided coverage for Products
and Completed Operations to the following limits:
A Product Installation Guide (Guide) was submitted and
reviewed. The Guide details the erection procedures for the Amount: $ 5,000,000 General Aggregate
facing system, materials supplied by Maccaferri, Inc., and $ 2,000,000 Products and Completed Operations
materials supplied by the erection contractor. This manual is Aggregate
very brief and should be used with the materials and methods $ 1,000,000 Each Occurrence
specifications outlined in Section 4.0. The Guide requires no Basis: Claims Made
documentation requirements. Insurer: Not disclosed
Effective Dates: Not disclosed
Renewal: Renews annually
5.6 Design QA/QC
Owners perform design for the Terramesh System and/or their
consultants, with technical support provided by the Maccaferri

14 Evaluation of the Maccaferri Terramesh System Retaining Wall

CHAPTER 6

Performance
Review

Terramesh System compined with Green Terramesh for

road project

T
erramesh System walls have been constructed since 1990 with over 130,000 m2 (1,400,000 ft2) of wall completed worldwide
and 485,00 ft2 (45,000 m2) in the United States and Canada. In the United States 31 structures have been completed (2000)
ranging in height from 2 to 12.8 m (6.5 to 42 ft). Project information and contact personnel are provided in Appendix E.

No performance case studies of commercially constructed walls have been submitted for review. Maccaferri states that no performance
problems have been encountered to date, other than some ascribed to foundation distress. No details of the latter were submitted for
verification.

A 21-ft (6.4 m) high, extensively instrumented Terramesh System Wall was constructed at an FHWA-sponsored research facility in
Illinois in 1987. The measured performance data confirmed the extensible behavior of the woven mesh reinforcement, measured
reinforcement stress levels, field and laboratory pullout parameters and horizontal deflections.

6.1 Costs
Insufficient actual cost has been provided for future guidance.

Project information and contact personnel for the bid projects are also enclosed in Appendix E.

Performance Review 15
References

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2000a. Interim Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 16th Edition.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2000b. Interim Standard Specifications for Transportation
Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing. Part II Tests, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, D.C.

American National Standard (ANSI/UL). 2000. American National Standard/Underwriters Laboratories 746B. “Standard for Polymeric
Materials – Long Term Evaluations”.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2000. ASTM A313/A313M-98, “Standard Specification for Stainless Steel Spring
Wire,” American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2000. ASTM A370-01 Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical
Testing of Steel Products,” American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2000. ASTM A 975-97, “Standard Specifications for Double-Twisted Hexagonal
Mesh Gabion and Revet Mattresses (Metallic-Coated Steel Wire or Metallic-Coated Steel Wire With Poly(Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Coating)
Glass Fiber Strands,” American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2000. ASTM A 641/A641-M98, “Standard Specifications for Zinc-Coated
(Galvanized) Carbon Steel Wire, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2000. ASTM D1499-99, “Standard Practice Filtered Open-Flame Carbon-Arc
Type Exposures of Plastics,” American Society for Testing and Materials,” West Conshohocken, PA.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2000. ASTM D4355-99, “Standard Test Method for Deterioration of Geotextiles
from Exposure to Ultraviolet Light and Water (Xenon-Arc Type Apparatus),” American Society for Testing and Materials, West
Conshohocken, PA.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2000. ASTM D5818-95, “Standard Practice for Obtaining Samples of Geosynthetics
from a Test Section for Assessment of Installation Damage,” American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2000. ASTM D 638-98, “Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics,
American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.

References 17
British Standards Institute (BSI). 2000. BS 8006:1995, “Code of Practice for Strengthened/Reinforced Soils and Other Fills,” London,
United Kingdom.

Elias, V. and B.R. Christopher. 1996. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) SA-96-071 (Demonstration Project 82) Mechanically
Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes, Design & Construction Guidelines, Office of Technology Applications, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.

18 Evaluation of the Maccaferri Terramesh System Retaining Wall

 2131 K Street NW Suite 700
Washington DC 20037-1810
Tel 202.785.6420
Fax 202.833.2604
Web www.cerf.org
Email hitec@cerf.org
The Civil Engineering Research Foundation and the
International Institute for Energy Conservation (CERF/IIEC)
is a global not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization, created by
ASCE, focused on constructing an efficient and renewable
future. In collaboration with the construction, engineering,
and environmental industries, CERF/IIEC promotes and
facilitates the advancement of innovation for a sustainable
infrastructure. In particular, CERF/IIEC operates innovative
technology programs to speed the use of innovation into
practice in the areas of transportation, public works, energy
systems and applications, and the environment. CERF/IIEC
also strives to bring about market transformation and move
institutions toward a sustainable future through training and
technical assistance, financial analysis, policy advocacy and
project demonstrations. CERF/IIEC is headquartered in
Washington, DC, with offices in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the
Americas.