5 5 PDF
5 5 PDF
5 5 PDF
LRFD
5-5
Modified Retaining Walls supporting sound walls, Type 1SW series and Type 5SW
series and Type 7SW series
5-5
LRFD
Soil Backfill Parameters
Soil Cohesion, c = 0
Internal friction angle, =34 for the backfill and foundation soil of all ERS except
MSE
Internal friction angle, =30 for the retained soil (behind the reinforced soil) and
foundation soil (below the reinforced soil) of MSE
Compressive Strength of Concrete at 28 days , fc' = 3.6 ksi (4.0 ksi for MSE panels)
5-5
1.0DC+1.0EV+1.0EH +1.0LS
LRFD
Strength Limit State I
1.0DC+1.0EV+1.0EH+1.0EQE+1.0EQD
1.0DC+1.0EV+1.0EH+1.0EQE
(For Extreme Event Limit State I, live load surcharge is not considered)
where:
EV = the self weight of the soil above the heel of a footing in a semi-gravity retaining
wall or of the reinforced soil in a MSE
EQD = the inertia from EV and DC. Numerically, EQD is equal to the horizontal seismic
coefficient, kh, times EV plus kh times DC except for the case of the crib walls,
where EQD equals kh times EV
More information about Extreme Event Limit State I can be found in section d) Seismic
Design.
At the Service Limit State, the ERS is evaluated for eccentricity, and structural service
performance, such as member deformation (e.g. the stem deflection on a Type 1 wall),
cracking, temperature, and shrinkage requirements (in the case of the standard ERS built
with reinforced concrete). At the Strength Limit States, the ERS is evaluated so that sliding
limits and structural strength are not exceeded. At Extreme Event Limit State I, the ERS
is evaluated so that eccentricity, sliding limits, and structural strength are not exceeded.
The bearing stresses of each ERS are provided for project specific use of all standard ERS
designs. Similarly, overall stability and settlement must be considered for project specific
use of these designs. Table 1 summarizes design considerations for all standard ERS.
5-5
LRFD
Table 1 Analysis for ERS Design
Limit State
Service I
Bearing Stresses*
Eccentricity
Sliding
Structural Service
Performance
Structural Capacity
Strength Ia
X
X
X
X
X
Load combinations for concrete retaining walls supporting sound walls or containing
ground anchors have slightly different load combinations than other standard ERS. The load
combinations for those ERS include force effects of the wind load on the sound wall, the
inertial force of the sound wall for seismic events, and the prestress force from the vertical
ground anchors. These walls form part of the Bridge Standard Details (XS sheets), and their
respective loading can be found on those sheets.
Load factors are chosen to create maximum force effect for a given load combination.
Strength Limit State I is separated into Strength Ia and Strength Ib using load factor values
as shown in Figure 1. These load combinations are also illustrated in Section C11.5.5 of
the AASHTO Design Specifications. The loads depicted in Figure 1 are shown applied to a
semi-gravity wall, but are applied to all standard ERS.
5-5
LRFD
5-5
LRFD
b) Standard Loading Cases
The loading case numbers (i.e. Case 1, Case 2, and Case 3) assumed in the standard designs
should not to be confused with the limit state load combination numbers in the LRFD
methodology previously discussed. The standard loading cases depict the backfill and live
load surcharge configurations used in the design. There are two standard loading cases,
Load Case 1 and Load Case 2. Load Case 1 has a traffic live load on a horizontal backfill,
and Load Case 2 has a backfill slope of two horizontal to one vertical (2:1) for a specified
distance and then turns level afterwards.
Minor variations in loading cases occur according to ERS types. Some standard ERS have
additional loading cases that are considered and are shown on the respective standards. When
additional project specific loading is required on the ERS, the standard designs can no longer
apply to the project without special design. The standard loading cases are shown in Figure 2.
5-5
LRFD
d) Seismic Design
The seismic design of the standard ERS is performed using either Mononobe-Okabe (MO)
Method for Loading Case 1 (a backfill with a planar surface and no live load surcharge), or
the trial wedge method for Loading Case 2. The Trial Wedge Method is similar to the MO
Method and is used for the other Loading Cases where the backfill surface is not planar.
As a result of analysis using the MO Method, the resultant of seismic soil pressure, PAE, is
obtained. All standard ERS are designed using the criteria in the 2010 California Amendments
for seismic load. The 2010 California Amendments assumes that the total soil thrust, PAE, is
separated into two components, the static active soil pressure in a triangular shape and the
dynamic soil pressure in a rectangular shape, as shown in Figure 3.
=
1
static
soil
pressure
H
dynamic
soil
pressure
PAE
ha
total
soil
pressure
5-5
LRFD
affected soil is included in the seismic design, the inertial force is assumed to act at their
respective center of gravity.
5-5
LRFD
Sliding Resistance
For semi-gravity walls sliding resistance is provided by passive resistance on the footing
and shear key, as well as the friction between the footing and the foundation soil. When
calculating the passive resistance, the passive force provided by the soil over the top of
the footing is ignored because the material in this region is often disturbed and hence
the passive force of this region is not reliable. However, the contribution of the weight
of this portion of the soil is considered in calculating the passive resistance of the soil
in front of the footing and the shear key. Figure 5 shows how the passive resistance is
calculated. The arrows in the pressure diagram in front of the footing and the shear key
denote the passive pressure contributing to the passive resistance. (For other types of
ERS the passive resistance is ignored and only the friction at the bottom of the wall is
considered in resisting sliding.)
5-5
LRFD
Extreme Event Limit State II
In the case of semi-gravity concrete walls with level backfill on which highway traffic
is present, solid traffic barriers (e.g. type 736, 742, etc.) may be integrally mounted on
top of the stem. The vehicular collision force on the barrier must be considered in the
design of the walls. This load combination falls in the category of extreme event limit
state II, hence the load factor is 1.0. Live load surcharge is not considered in this load
combination. The load combination involving vehicular collision in standard plan wall
design is,
1.0EH+1.0DC+1.0EV +1.0CT
where:
CT = the vehicular collision load of 54 kips corresponding to a Test Level 4 load
At Extreme Event Limit State II, the ERS is evaluated so that bearing capacity, sliding
requirements, and structural strength are not exceeded.
The collision force (CT) is assumed to be distributed over a length of 10 feet at top of
the stem for a solid barrier and is assumed to spread downward to the top of the footing
at a 45 degree angle. The spread limits thus constitute the contributory length of the wall
resisting the collision force. Figure 6 illustrates how the collision force is distributed
down the wall stem. The shaded area illustrates the effective region resisting the collision
force. In Figure 6, Ft is the lateral design collision load and is 54 kips corresponding to
Test Level 4 (TL4). i is the angle of the collision load spread down the wall which is
assumed to be 45 degrees and Lc is the length over which the collision load is spread at
the top of the stem and is assumed to be 10 feet. When calculating the moment of the
stem, the moment arm is measured from 32 inches above the toe of the barrier to the
point on the stem where the moment is evaluated.
10
5-5
LRFD
Lc Collision Load Distribution Width
Stem Face
Distribution Area
40' Minimum
Distribution at Footing
5-5
11
LRFD
12
5-5
LRFD
Designing the base of the walls of the bin or crib is difficult as the mathematical analyses
often indicates that failure will occur but is not seen in practice when constructed on yielding
foundation soils. Therefore, the design assumes the foundation soil must give sufficiently to
allow the corner base plate or bottom most crib member to slightly punch into the foundation
soil enough to transfer the loading back to the soil plug and avoid deformation failure.
This design cannot be used directly on solid rock, nor a concrete slab, without a special soil
layer designed as its foundation.
Drainage must be provided in these designs especially when the facing closure member is
selected for use. The special backfill gradation in the construction specifications typically
provides for sufficient drainage in open cribs and bins from within the structure. The materials
behind and underneath must still be adequately drained for the unsaturated conditions
assumed during design. Care must be taken when selecting a different backfill for inside
these systems so that both the weight and the drainage requirements are maintained.
No collision loading on traffic barriers or rail is included in these designs. The Load Case 1
condition is modified to provide sufficient soil separation from the traffic to the top members
of the bin or crib. Additionally, one of the benefits of these designs is the ability to deform
in service. All design details are modeled as pinned to maintain this deformation ability.
Support of any rigid loading physically attached to these structures was not considered in
design and doing so would constitute a special design. Historically this type of loading has
not been allowed.
In the case of the Concrete Crib Walls and the Steel Bin Walls, Load Case 1 includes a
slight variation of the backfill to provide two feet clearance above the structural members
for Metal Beam Guardrail or Concrete Barrier installation, as shown in Case 1 of Figure
8. In addition, the back slope of Load Case 2 is limited to only 115 feet above the base, as
shown on the right side of Figure 8.
Figure 8 Variations in Loading Cases for Crib and Bin Walls
(Reference: Standard Plan C7C)
5-5
13
LRFD
Orientation of PA and PAE
In the case of single cell crib and bin walls, the plane where the soil lateral pressure is
applied is the backside of the cell. The for PA and PAE is taken as 0.5 of the soil friction
angle, . In the case of multiple cell crib walls, the plane of soil lateral pressure application
is a plane connecting the top back corner of the topmost cell and the bottom back corner
of the bottom cell, as shown in Figure 9. The for PA and PAE is taken as 0.75 of .
14
5-5
LRFD
For Load Case 1, the standard MSE design height is increased by 1'-8'', measured from the
top of the top panels to the roadway surface, in order to accommodate the traffic barrier
attached to a concrete slab floating above the MSE. The concrete barrier slab design used is
shown on XS12-090. The increase over prior practice will also reduce the potential conflict
between the roadbed base layers and the reinforcement by providing typically 35 inches
of cover over the topmost layer of soil reinforcement, as shown in Figure 10. This change
increases the overburden pressure used in the design of the MSE in addition to the live load
surcharge. For Load Case 2 the simple coping remains the same as in prior practice, no
additional height was utilized.
Traffic surcharge
nd
b
Per project
needs
Load Case 1
The base width (BW) in Figure 10 is no longer synonymous with the length of the soil
reinforcement. The design assumes the BW will be used to set the MSE on site and move
utilities, sign foundations and so forth as needed. The BW includes the facing thickness, the
reinforcement length, and at least 1 foot of the reinforced backfill behind the end of the steel
reinforcement which separates the reinforcement from the retained backfill that might be
chemically aggressive to the steel. BW in Figure 10 assumes a panel thickness of 6 inches.
Passive pressure is ignored at the front base of the MSE during all stability analyses, since
erosion and various maintenance activities can remove the fill during the MSEs service
life. A minimum embedment is still required to reduce the potential of undermining at the
toe during the MSEs service life.
No vehicular collision loading is applied to the MSE. The barrier slab system is placed on
top in the Load Case 1 condition. Under collision forces, the dynamic analysis of the barrier
5-5
15
LRFD
slab shows that the vehicle briefly lost contact with the slab during collision when it was
redirected back onto the roadway. This temporarily lifts the slab slightly from the backfill
soil and negates friction force transfer into the MSE. Additionally, the notch used to recess
the top panels into the slab in the previous design has been removed from the bottom of
the slab to disengage the load transfer to the back of the facing panels. If the slab is to be
buried and rotation off the soil is prevented, the MSE will need to be specially designed to
include the collision load.
The 2010 Standard Specifications for construction of MSE allow for finer soils with slightly
more aggressive corrosion behavior than the AASHTO construction specifications during
design. Thus the MSE design continues to apply the corrosion loss equations that correspond
to these more aggressive backfill soils (California Amendments 11.10.6.4.2a). It is anticipated
that the backfill soil specifications will be revisited after the corrosion study into the actual
lifetime corrosion of metallic MSE reinforcement in California is complete.
Bridge Design Aids 3-8 contains information about standard MSE using 5ft by 5ft concrete
panels and steel soil reinforcement. The MSE design details, design considerations, inspection
wire locations and internal drainage requirements and design check lists can also be found
in BDA 3-8.
16
5-5
LRFD
References
1. AASHTO LRD Bridge Design Specifications, 4th Edition, American Association of
State Highway Transportation Officials, 2007.
2. Bridge Design Specifications, LFD Version, Department of Transportation, State of
California, April 2000.
3. Bridge Memo to Designers, 22-1 Soundwall Design Criteria, Department of
Transportation, State of California, August 2004.
4. Bridge Standard Detail Sheets (XS), California Department of Transportation, online at www.dot.ca.gov.
5. California Amendments to the AASHTO LRD Bridge Design Specifications, 4th
Edition, Department of Transportation, State of California, September 2010.
6. Corrosion Guidelines, Version 1, California Department of Transportation, Division
of Engineering Services, Materials Engineering and Testing Services, Corrosion
Technology Branch, September 2003.
7. MSEW, Version 3, ADAMA Engineering, Inc, 2007.
8. Standard Plans, 2010 Edition, California Department of Transportation, on-line at
www.dot.ca.gov , 2011.
9. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08), American
Concrete Institute, 2008.
5-5
17