International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT)

ISSN: 2249 – 8958 (Online), Volume-9 Issue-4, April 2020

Construction Cost Analysis of Retaining Walls

Aikaterini Alexiou, Dimos Zachos, Nikolaos Alamanis, Ioannis Chouliaras, Grigorios
Papageorgiou

Abstract: Retaining walls are relatively rigid walls used to The magnitude of the lateral earth pressure is dependent on
support the ground laterally so that it can be held at different the shear strength characteristics of the soil, the lateral strain
levels on both sides [1]. Retaining walls are considered all conditions, the pore water pressures and the state of
technical works, which allow the implementation of a sharp equilibrium of the soil. These in turn depend on drainage
change in the level of the earth's surface, in such a way that the
ground-construction system presents limited displacement or is
conditions, the interaction between the soil and the wall and
marginally restrained. Support structures are mainly used in on the magnitude and nature of relative displacements [3]. A
cases of disruption of soil continuity resulting from an excavation, retaining wall is a wall that provides lateral support for a
below the natural surface of the ground, such as when building vertical or near-vertical slope of the soil. It is a common
roads in a difficult geographical terrain with steep slopes. It is also structure used in many construction projects [4]. In the
common for them to be used in the construction of basements in present work, retaining walls were studied and resolved in
urban areas, when there are other buildings or roads around the specific soil conditions. This study was conducted using the
perimeter. In special cases, functional reasons impose the local
GEO5 geotechnical software [5]. GEO5 is a series of software
elevation of the ground surface with grounding in the area
around the construction, such as on bridge piers or in port
designed to solve geotechnical problems, based on both
projects, so it becomes necessary to support the soil mass. classical analytical methods and the Finite Element Method
Finally, the construction of retaining walls becomes necessary to (FEM).
stabilize and protect natural slopes that present kinematic
ΙΙ. METHODOLOGY- LITERATURE REVIEW
instability.
The purpose of the present work is to compare the cost of
constructing three retaining walls (gravity, cantilever, braced) In the introduction and in section III, there is a historical and
subject to identical ground pressures. The retaining walls were general reference to the lateral support structures and
designed using the same finite element software (GEO5), taking classification of their mechanisms. Subsequently, in section
into account common parameters for the soil stress, the strength IV, retaining walls simulations as well as cases and types of
properties of the soil mass, the wall material as well as the support are presented in detail. For this construction cost
diameter of the reinforcing steel bars, so that the results can be analysis, three retaining wall simulations, a Gravity wall, a
absolutely comparable. The market research that followed Cantilever wall, and a Braced wall were created. These walls
produced interesting conclusions on the comparison of the cost
estimates for the three retaining walls.
are studied for specific soil conditions in order to evaluate the
Keywords: infrastructure support, retaining walls, construction final construction costs. In Section V, carrying out a
cost, comparative analysis, infrastructure management. construction cost analysis investigation for the three types of
retaining walls (Gravity Wall, Cantilever Wall and Braced
I. INTRODUCTION Wall) from which useful results are extracted is presented as
well. Finally, sections VI and VII provide suggestions and
S lopes are defined as inclined natural or artificial soil or
conclusions drawn from the above research. Regarding the
references, it should be noted that [1] - [4] provide historical
rock formations. This slope is the cause of its extreme as well as recent time data for retaining walls. Source [5]
instability due to the presence of shear stresses. As Terzaghi refers to geotechnical software GEO5 which is based on the
(1969) pointed out, soil masses, which are located behind a Finite Element Method (FEM). Sources [6] – [9] (mentioned
sloping surface or behind an open pit, tend to move downward in the text) were used to reinforce the theoretical background
and outward under the influence of gravity [2]. of the text as slopping surfaces and retaining walls are one of
the most important areas of soil mechanics and geotechnical
Revised Manuscript Received on April 25, 2020.
* Correspondence Author engineering research. The figures present and describe briefly
Aikaterini Alexiou.*, Civil Engineer T.E. (Technological Educational types of walls while sources [10], [11], [12] (mentioned in the
Institute of Thessaly, 2017). text) provide better support for suggestions and conclusions.
Dimos Zachos, Civil Engineer T.E. & Mechanical Engineer T.E. Finally, it should be emphasized that the construction cost
(Technological Educational Institute ofThessaly).
Dr. Nikolaos Alamanis., PhD in Stability of Slopes (University of
analysis for the three retaining wall simulations (with the
Thessaly, Dept. of Civil Engineering) desired range of calculation: 2 < FS < 2.4), is completely
Dr. Ioannis Chouliaras., Professor, University of Thessaly, Larissa, original and first published, and the results have led to very
Greece. Civil Engineer (Democritus University of Thrace, 1980). useful conclusions in seeking solutions for the comparison of
Dr. Grigorios Papageorgiou., Assistant Professor, University of
Thessaly, Larissa, Greece.
the cost estimation.

© The Authors. Published by 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/)

Published By:
Retrieval Number: D8929049420/2020©BEIESP Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI: 10.35940/ijeat.D8929.049420 & Sciences Publication
Journal Website: www.ijeat.org 1909 © Copyright: All rights reserved.
 Construction Cost Analysis of Retaining Walls

II. LATERAL SUPPORT STRUCTURES AND ground loads. Because of their permanent nature, it is
CLASSIFICATION OF THEIR MECHANISMS important to realistically predict the long-term effects that the
system is going to be subjected to [9].
Retaining structures are mainly applicable in cases of soil
discontinuity caused by an excavation beneath the natural
III. RETAINING WALLS SIMULATIONS
surface of the soil, such as when digging roads in difficult
geographical terrain with steep slopes [6]. For this construction cost analysis, three retaining wall
There is a wide variety of structures used to retain soil and simulations, a Gravity wall, a Cantilever wall, and a Braced
water for both temporary and permanent works [7]. wall were created. These walls are studied for specific soil
Depending on the type of construction the support works conditions in order to evaluate the final construction costs.
are as follows: Key parameters taken into account for the study of each wall
 Retaining walls separately are:
 Gravity walls  External stability factor: 2 < FS < 2.4
 Cantilever walls  Wall height: 4 meters
 Anchored walls  Two-layer soil profile
 Berlin walls  Presence of aquifers
 Ground support constructions (Sheet pile walls,  Permissible ground stress σ = 0.15 MPa.
Diaphragm walls, etc.). The study steps include the wall analysis settings, the
The retaining structures can be classified according to the geometry and the material of each wall as well as the number
concept of "displacement" based on three criteria: and corresponding thicknesses of the soil layers of the
 The newest criterion, with a basic support mechanism, in supported terrain. Two layers of soil were used in the present
which the retainers are stabilized either externally or work, the first of which consists of sand and the second of
internally and stabilize the excavations or landfills in a very clay. These initial settings are presented in the tables 1, 2 and
different way. 3:
Externally stabilized retainers are those in which the Table- I: Wall analysis settings
ground pressures add up, producing an overall action that the Analytics settings: Standard - safety factors
Concrete structures: EN 1992-1-1 (EC2)
retainer is required to sustain.
Coefficients EN 1992-1-1: standard
Internally stabilized systems, such as the reinforced earth, Bearing masonry: EN 1996-1-1 (EC6)
are called systems in which the soil mass is shared so that each Calculation of active earth pressure: Coulomb method
part of it is supported by a locally reinforcing element (e.g. Calculation of passive land pressure: Coulomb method
reinforcement). Seismic analysis: Mononobe-Okabe
 A second criterion classifies the retainers according to Ground wedge shape: Calculation as oblique
Eccentricity permitted: 0.333
the geomaterial retained. Verification Methodology: Safety Factor (ASD)
 Finally, the oldest classification criterion separates the
retainers according to the size of the pressures applied, Table- II: Specification of materials
ranging from zero to the free slope (natural material) to the Concrete: C20 / 25
condensation pressures on the artificial earthy materials of the Cylinder compressive strength: fck = 20 MPa
landfill. The displacements here are taken as uncontrolled, Tensile strength: fctm = 2.20 MPa
that is to say, because of the "earth pressures at rest", the Longitudinal steel: B500
displacement of the system was zero, so that the entire Steel strength: fyk = 500 MPa
scientific community would spend on static analysis with the
aim of dimensioning the bearer [8].
Another discrimination between the retaining structures is
based on the life span of each construction. Thus, the gravity
walls are characterized as permanent structures for receiving

Table- III: Specification of materials

1st Soil layer: Sand 2nd Soil layer: Clay
Specific weight: γ = 18 kN/m3 Specific weight: γ = 18 kN/m3
Stress state: active Stress state: active
Internal friction angle: φef = 40º Internal friction angle: φef = 29º
Cohesion: Cef = 0 kPa Cohesion: Cef = 5 kPa
Wall-soil friction angle: δ=0 Wall-soil friction angle: δ=0
Soil class inconsistent Soil class cohesive
Saturated Soil Specific Weight: γsat = 18 kN/m3 Saturated Soil Specific Weight: γsat = 20 kN/m3
Poisson's ratio v = 0.30

Case 1: Gravity Wall three-dimensional representation as well as the schematic

It should be noted that in the process of the geometry analysis of its stability. The safety factor resulted is 2.34 > 2.
design of each wall, different dimensional values were
examined until the final dimension of the width was obtained,
so as to meet the requirement of the safety factor, 2 < FS < 2.4.
Figures 1, 2 and 3 show the geometry of the Gravity wall, its

Retrieval Number: D8929049420/2020©BEIESP Published By:

DOI: 10.35940/ijeat.D8929.049420 Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Journal Website: www.ijeat.org & Sciences Publication
1910 © Copyright: All rights reserved.
 International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT)
ISSN: 2249 – 8958, Volume-9 Issue-4, April 2020

Fig. 5. Three-dimensional Cantilever wall illustration

Fig. 1. Gravity wall geometry Next step in the Cantilever wall design is the stage of
selecting the wall reinforcement. In this wall, as that in the
third case, the minimum reinforcement required with a rod
diameter 14 is used. The checking positions of the
reinforced cross-sections are at the vertical trunk and at the
foot of the wall. After completing these steps, stability
analysis was performed (Figure 6), using the Bishop method.
The safety factor resulted is 2.37 > 2.

Fig. 2. Gravity wall 3D illustration

Fig. 6. Cantilever wall stability analysis

Case 3: Braced Wall
In the third case, a wall with two brackets, with the
dimensions shown in Figure 7 is studied. Figure 8 shows the
three-dimensional representation of the wall.

Fig. 3. Gravity wall stability analysis

Case 2: Cantilever Wall
In the second case, a cantilever wall with the dimensions
shown in Figure 4 is studied in the same way. In addition,
Figure 5 gives the three-dimensional image of the Cantilever
wall. Fig. 7. Wall dimensions with brackets

Fig. 8. Three-dimensional illustration of wall with

brackets

Fig. 4. Dimensions of the Cantilever wall

Retrieval Number: D8929049420/2020©BEIESP Published By:

DOI: 10.35940/ijeat.D8929.049420 Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Journal Website: www.ijeat.org & Sciences Publication
1911 © Copyright: All rights reserved.
 Construction Cost Analysis of Retaining Walls

The dimensions of each bracket (Figure 9) are: Fig. 10. Stability analysis of the Braced wall
Distance: l = 2.50
(m) III. CONSTRUCTION COST ANALYSIS
Thickness: b = 0.25
(m) After the stability analysis of each wall separately, the aim
was to examine their cost of construction. The construction
Upper a1 = 0.10
Width: (m) prices taken in the analysis are the current market prices and
were obtained by questionnaires submitted to technical
After completing these steps, stability analysis was performed businesses that undertake similar works. The materials that
(Figure 10), using the Bishop method. The safety factor have been used for the construction of the walls, as already
resulted is 2.37 > 2. mentioned, are concrete and reinforcing steel. However, in
addition to the cost of each material separately, labor costs
were also taken into account. As for the cost of both the
concrete and the use of pump, which is calculated with VAT,
the corresponding price is 70€/m3 and the labor price 35€/m3.
The cost of steel reinforcement is 0.9€/kg and installation cost
is 0.11€/kg.
In addition, the necessary parameters to estimate the cost of
Fig. 9. Dimensions of brackets the quantities of the materials for the construction of the walls
are the wall cross section, calculated using the Autocad
software and the weight of the steel bars, for a diameter of 14
mm used, taken equal to 1.21 kg/m [10]. Cost analysis was
performed using the Microsoft Excel software. The
calculations and the results of the construction costs are
referred in euros per current meter of the walls. Table 4
presents analytically the calculated construction costs.

Table- Ⅳ: Calculation of the construction costs of the three retaining walls

Specific weight of concrete: 23 kN/m3
Steel bar weight (14) = 1,21 kg/m
Price of Concrete Pump with VAT = 70 €/m3
Labor costs 35 €/m3
Cost of reinforcement 0,9 €/kg
Cost of reinforcement mounting 0,11 €/kg
GRAVITY WALL
Wall cross section area: A = 8,6 m2
Wall volume = A × 1 m = 8,6 m3
Wall weight 8,6 m3 × 23 kN/m3= 197,8 kN
Cost of concrete 8,6 m3 × 70 € /m3 = 602 €
Labor costs 8,6 m3 × 35 €/ m3 = 301 €
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 903 €/m
CANTILEVER WALL
Wall cross section area: A = 3,89 m2
Wall volume = A × 1 m = 3,89 m3
Wall weight 3,89 m3 × 23 kN/m3 = 89,47 kN
Total steel bars per current meter of the wall: 16 kg
Weight of reinforcement 16 × 1,21 kg/m = 19,36 kg/m
Cost of concrete 3,89 m3 × 70 € /m3 = 272 €
Labor costs 3,89 m3 × 35 €/m3 = 136 €
Total cost of concrete = 408 €/m
Cost of reinforcement 19,36 kg/m × 0,9 €/kg = 17,24 €/m
Cost of reinforcement mounting 19,36 kg/m × 0,11 €/kg = 2,14 €/m
Total cost of reinforcement = 19,55 €/m
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 428 €/m
BRACED WALL
Bracket Thickness: b = 0,25 m
Wall cross section area: AT = 3,755 m2
Bracket Area: Ref 2,428 m2
Volume T = AT × 1 m = 3,755 m3
Bracket Volume (2,428 m2 × 1m × 0,25) × 2=1,214 m3

Retrieval Number: D8929049420/2020©BEIESP Published By:

DOI: 10.35940/ijeat.D8929.049420 Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Journal Website: www.ijeat.org & Sciences Publication
1912 © Copyright: All rights reserved.
 International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT)
ISSN: 2249 – 8958, Volume-9 Issue-4, April 2020

Total wall volume = 3,755 m3+ 1,214 m3=4,696 m3

Weight T = 3,755 m3 × 23 kN/m3= 86,365 kN
Bracket Weight = (1,214 m3×23 kN/m3 ×0,25) ×2=27,922 kN
Total wall weight = 4,969 m3 × 23 kN/m3 = 114,287 kN
Total steel bars / m wall: 73
Weight of reinforcement 73 × 1,21 kg/m = 88,33 kg/m
Cost of concrete 4,969 m3 × 70 €/m3 = 348 €
Labor costs 4,969 m3 × 35 €/m3 = 174 €
Total cost of concrete= 522 €/m
Cost of reinforcement 88,33 kg/m × 0,9 €/kg = 79,49 €/m
Cost of reinforcement mounting 88,33 kg/m × 0,11 €/kg = 9,74 €/m
Total cost of reinforcement= 89,21 €/m
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 611 €/m

Figures 11, 12, 13 and 14, illustrate diagrammatic V. CONCLUSIONS

comparisons of the concrete volume, the cost of concrete, the The purpose of the present work is to approach and study
reinforcement cost, and the total construction costs of the the stability and the construction cost of the retaining walls.
walls. Historically, the impact of lateral pressure on constructions
was one of the first problems of geotechnical engineering. In
trying to approach the problem some of the first and most
basic principles of Soil Mechanics were developed. In order
to achieve the goals, three simulations were produced and
solved using appropriate software: a gravity wall, a cantilever
Fig. 11. Comparative chart of required volume of wall and a bracket wall.
concrete for each wall These walls are studied by assuming similar soil
characteristics. The basic assumption of the study is the
external stability factor with the desired range of calculation:
2 < FS < 2.4. In particular, each wall separately supports a
4-meter two-layer soil profile with the presence of an aquifer.
Bearing the above in mind, the authors come to the following
conclusions:
Fig. 12. Comparative cost chart of required concrete 1. Relative to the concrete used in each wall, the gravity
wall is the largest wall in volume compared to the other
two. Specifically, its cross-section area is 8.6 m3, the
Brace Wall follows with 4.97 m3 and finally the
cantilever wall with 3.89 m3. Of course, this has a direct
impact on the cost of concrete, as the final cost of the
gravity wall is € 903/current meter. Less costly,
Fig. 13. Cost Comparison Diagram of Requirement for
concerning the cost of concrete, is the Brace Wall at 522
Attic Wall and Brace Wall
€/current meter and finally the cantilever wall at 408
€/current meter.
2. The comparison that has been carried out is related to the
required reinforcement of the Cantilever wall versus the
Brace Wall regarding their construction. The cantilever
wall in particular requires a much smaller reinforcement
weight per current meter than the brace wall.
Fig. 14. Gravity wall geometry Specifically, the weight of reinforcement per current
meter of the Cantilever wall is 19.36 kg and for the
IV. SUGGESTIONS Brace Wall the figure is 88.33 kg. Analogous is the
impact of this, again, on the overall picture of costs,
The aforementioned cantilever walls are more economical
than conventional gravity walls, as they utilize the weight of taking into account the price of reinforcement and the
the soil mass above the foot of the wall. Their design can be price of its installation. Specifically, the cantilever wall
further improved through appropriate dimensioning [11]. costs 19.55 €/current meter and the Brace Wall 89.21
The retaining walls must be mounted at a depth greater than €/current meter.
0.6m from the surface of the adjacent soil [12].
When laying the foundation concrete separately from the
wall, one or more joints must be formed in the concrete
slab-wall junction. This is performed to enable the
cross-section to assume a shear force greater than that due to
friction.

Retrieval Number: D8929049420/2020©BEIESP Published By:

DOI: 10.35940/ijeat.D8929.049420 Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Journal Website: www.ijeat.org & Sciences Publication
1913 © Copyright: All rights reserved.
 Construction Cost Analysis of Retaining Walls

3. Furthermore, upon comparing the total cost of the walls, Member of professional and scientific association of technological
education engineers. He was a laboratory associate and external collaborator
it can be concluded that the construction of the gravity of research projects of the Mechanical Engineer Dept. of TEI of Thessaly. He
wall becomes uneconomical given the cost price (903 has published papers in international peer-reviewed journals and
€/current meter) compared to the next cheaper (Braced) conferences at the field of strength of materials. Research interests: dynamic
in which the cost of construction is 611€/current meter. strength of metal and composite materials, 3D design and analysis of
structures using FEM, strength stability of soil retaining wall.
4. The cantilever wall and the braced wall, which have the
same external stability factor of 2.7, in addition to Dr. Nikolaos Alamanis. Assistant Professor PhD in
comparable costs, can be compared on the overturning Stability of Slopes (University of Thessaly, Dept. of Civil
Engineering), D.E.A (Msc) Mécanique des
and sliding safety factors. The safety factors of the Sols-Structures (Ecole Centrale Paris), MEng, BEng in
cantilever wall in tilt control and in slip are 4.03 and Civil Engineering (integrated master from National
1.53 respectively. In contrast, bracket walls present with Technical University of Athens, School of Civil Engineering). Member of
Technical Chamber of Greece, Member of Hellenic Association of Civil
safety coefficient of 3.97 in tilt control and 1.51 in slip Engineers, Member of American Society of Civil Engineering. He has
control. professional experience of 32 years as an engineer and 25 years in teaching
5. The above results confirm that the construction of the graduate and postgraduate civil engineering subjects. He has published
papers in international peer-reviewed journals and conferences at the field of
cantilever wall is preferable in terms of/in favor of safety
Geotechnical Engineering and Infrastructure Works. Research interests:
and is also rated as more economical at a total cost of stability of slopes, retaining walls, retaining systems for deep excavations,
428 €/m compared to the 611 €/m of the braced wall. spatial variability of soil properties, autocorrelation and cross correlation of
soil strength parameters.
REFERENCES Dr. Ioannis Chouliaras. Professor, University of
1. Vallas D. (1986). Restraints and Foundations. Kyriakides Bros Thessaly, Larissa, Greece. Civil Engineer (Democritus
Publications, Thessaloniki. University of Thrace, 1980). He obtained his Master’s
2. Barnes G. (2000). Soil Mechanics: Principles and Applications. degree in Construction Management and Economics
Klidarithmos Publications, Athens. from ASTON University in Birmingham in1982. He
3. Whitlow R. (1990). Basic soil mechanics. Longman Scientific & holds his Ph. D degree from Aristotle University of
Technical, Hong Kong. Thessaloniki in 2000 with doctoral thesis “Hydraulic erosion. Study of the
4. Das B.M. (1998). Principles of Foundation Engineering. PWS erodibility of cohesive geomaterials”. He has professional experience of 39
Publishing Company, Boston Publisher: Brooks/Cole ISBN years as an engineer, 34 years in teaching graduate and postgraduate civil
10: 0534954030. engineering subjects and 22 years in positions of responsibility in the TEI of
5. https://www.geosoftware.gr/geotechnical-software/. Thessaly. He participated in 6 research and in 9 EPEAEK programmes,
6. Morgenrstern N.R. and Price V.E. (1965). The analysis of the published 27 scientific articles and wrote a textbook. He supervised 15
stability of general slip surfaces, Geotecnique, Vol. 15, 79-93. postgraduate and 51 graduate students’ theses. His research interests include
7. Barnes G.E. (1995). Soil Mechanics: Principles and Practice. Soil Mechanics, Environmental Geotechnics, Project Management,
MacMillan press Ltd, Malaysia. Reinforced Concrete and Research Methodology.
8. Kostopoulos S. (1998). Geotechnical Constructions. University
Notes, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Thessaly, Dr. Grigorios Papageorgiou. Assistant Professor,
Volos. University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece. PhD in
9. Mylonakis G., Kloukinas P. and Papantonopoulos C. (2007). An Transport Infrastructure Management (University of
Alternative to the Mononobe–Okabe Equations for Seismic Earth Thessaly, Dept. of Civil Engineering), MSc in
Pressures. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. Volume 27, Environmental Design of Infrastructure Works (Hellenic
Issue 10, Pages 957-969. Open University, School of Science and Technology),
10. Chouliaras I.G. (2003). Reinforced concrete constructions. MSc in Environmental Design of Cities and Buildings (Hellenic Open
Papasotiriou Publications, Athens. University, School of Science and Technology), Member of Technical
11. Kloukinas P. (2012). Contribution to static and dynamic analysis of Chamber of Greece, Hellenic Association of Civil Engineers, Hellenic
retaining walls through theoretical and experimental methods. Institute of Transportation Engineers. He has published papers in
Doctoral Dissertation University of Patras Polytechnic School, Civil international peer-reviewed journals and conferences at the field of
Engineering Department, Patras 2012. Transport Infrastructure Management. Research interests: smart roads,
pavement management, environmental road design, highway infrastructure
12. Marketos E.G. (1984) Soil Mechanics and Foundations Courses,
optimization.
Athens 1984.

AUTHORS PROFILE
Aikaterini Alexiou. Civil Engineer T.E.
(Technological Educational Institute of Thessaly, 2017).
She obtained her Master’s degree in Advanced
Environmental Management Technologies in Engineering
Works (General Department of Larissa, University of
Thessaly, 2019). She is attending seminars at the National
Kapodistrian University of Athens on Geographical
Information Systems (GIS). She is active in the field of civil engineering.
Specifically, she has worked for a construction company undertaking
construction surveys, road construction surveys and cadastral surveys. She
has also worked for a company that conducts geotechnical surveys. This
collaboration gave her the opportunity to gain research interest in Soil
Mechanics. In addition, her research interests include correlation of soil
strength and soil properties, stability of slopes.

Dimos Zachos. Civil Engineer T.E. & Mechanical

Engineer T.E. (Technological Educational Institute of
Thessaly). M.Sc. in Advanced Environmental
Management Technologies in Engineering Works
(General Dept. of Larissa, University of Thessaly).

Retrieval Number: D8929049420/2020©BEIESP Published By:

DOI: 10.35940/ijeat.D8929.049420 Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Journal Website: www.ijeat.org & Sciences Publication
1914 © Copyright: All rights reserved.