This article explains the difference in Interbloc MSE wall installation compared to other precast mass concrete MSE wall systems like Stone Strong, MagnumStone, and Redi Rock.
Massive strides in construction technology have led to various innovative solutions for mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls. Among these, Interbloc stands out as a versatile mass concrete block integrated with geogrid reinforcement.
Installation Process: A Comparative Analysis
1. Integration of Geogrid During Manufacturing
Interbloc creates efficiency in MSE wall construction by incorporating geogrid into the block during the manufacturing phase. This integration not only establishes a more robust bond between the block and the geogrid, it also speeds up the installation process significantly. In contrast, traditional mass block systems necessitate the sandwiching of geogrid between layers of blocks, leading to a time-intensive layer-by-layer installation approach.
 Interbloc MSE Wall fully installed before backfill placement |
Non-Interbloc MSE wall installed layer by layer. |
2. Construction Methodology
Interbloc’s construction methodology demonstrates efficiency. The full height of an Interbloc wall is constructed as equipment and installers move along the wall. After completion, the wall is backfilled, geogrid laid, and the backfill compacted. This streamlined process reduces block placement time, as equipment and installation teams only traverse the wall once.
In contrast, other mass block systems mandate a back-and-forth movement along the wall for every layer. Each layer requires placement, backfilling, geogrid placement, and compaction before moving on to the subsequent layer. This repetitive process extends the installation duration significantly.
Where a hollow core block requires filling with concrete, this further increases installation times
3. Lifting Mechanism
Interbloc employs the Ancon Quicklift Unilift certified anchor system, typically utilizing one anchor per block. These precast concrete anchors are specifically designed for swift, secure movement of blocks into place. Conversely, other mass block systems rely on bent rebar, necessitating multiple lifting points and the use of chains for movement into place. This variance in lifting mechanisms further accentuates the efficiency gap between Interbloc and other systems.
Case Study
Below is data from a case study to provide context to how different Interbloc installation rates can be from other mass block installation.
- Interbloc was compared against a common other MSE mass block system.
- The total facial m2 of the retaining wall was 108m2.
- The max height of the wall was 4.2m high.
- This required ~145 of both Interbloc blocks and a competitor block.
- The block placement rate did not differ significantly enough to substantially alter the cost of the wall and totalled ~8 hours, excluding non-block placement delays.
- The excavator tracking back and forth along the wall 14 times for the comparison system added 6 additional hours to the installation time.
- The excavator only tracked along the wall once for Interbloc, as the wall was built to its full height as it progressed.
- Filling and compacting hollow comparison blocks during construction added ~17hrs.
- Both walls took the same amount of time too backfill and compact.
- The Interbloc installation was 23 hours shorter than the comparison system.