Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3-Internal Design of Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Retaining
3-Internal Design of Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Retaining
DigitalCommons@USU
5-2010
Recommended Citation
Castellanos, Bernardo A., "Internal Design of Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Retaining Walls Using
Crimped Bars" (2010). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 580.
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/580
by
Bernardo A. Castellanos
of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
Approved:
_________________________ _________________________
James A. Bay John D. Rice
Major Professor Committee Member
_________________________ _________________________
Marvin W. Halling Byron R. Burnham
Committee Member Dean of Graduate Studies
2010
ii
ABSTRACT
by
Current design codes of Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls allow the use
lower lateral earth pressure coefficient (K value) for designing geosynthetics walls than
those used to design steel walls. The reason of this is because geosynthetics walls are
less rigid permitting the wall to deform enough to work under active pressures instead
A new concept of crimped steel bars was recently introduced. This new type of
bar was tested for tension and pullout behavior. Results on tests made on crimped bars
show that putting those crimps in the steel bar will give us a better pullout behavior and
a more flexible tensile behavior. This new type of steel bar will behave more like
geosynthetics, allowing the wall to deform sufficiently to reach the necessary deflection
The use of steel by current design codes is pushing MSE walls to be designed
with more steel than needed. Measurements of the force in different walls showed that
the steel is not being used even close to the maximum stress allowed by the code which
is 50%.
The proposed design methodology using crimped bars will help us save around
52% of steel volume compared to the actual design procedures. This means a huge
improvement in the usage of steel versus actual designs. This improvement is obtained
because of the efficient behavior of rounded bars under corrosion and because of the
flexibility in the bars obtained with the crimps that will allow us to reach the active
condition.
(137 pages)
iv
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated first to God for all the opportunities given and for being
the guide of my life. To the Dominican government, for providing me the necessary
funds to attend Utah State University. To my family, for their unconditional support all
these years. To friends and all others that motivated me throughout this process. The
gratitude I have for the inspiration and confidence conferred upon me by these people
is indescribable.
Bernardo A. Castellanos
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my committee members, Drs. James Bay, for all his
unconditional support and dedication to this project, Loren Anderson, John Rice, and
Marv Halling, for their support and insight throughout this process. Finally, I would like
to thank Hilkfiker Retaining Walls in the person of Bill Hilfiker for providing the funds
Bernardo A. Castellanos
vi
CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................ii
DEDICATION ........................................................................................................................iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..........................................................................................................v
CHAPTER
2.3.2 Strength limit state design for internal stability for geosynthetic
walls ........................................................................................... 39
2.3.3 Strength Limit state design for internal stability for steel walls 41
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 85
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................... 87
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2.6 Soil compressibility factor C for square footings on cohesionless soil .......... 14
2.7 Soil compressibility factor C for Strip footings on cohesionless soil ............. 15
2.8 Load Inclination Factor i for load inclined in direction of footing width ....... 15
2.10 Default and minimum values for the total geosynthetic ultimate limit
strength reduction factor, RF. ......................................................................... 27
2.11 Default values for the scale effect correction factor .................................. 29
2.12 Load factors for permanent loads for internal stability of MSE walls
designed using the K-Stiffness method, p ..................................................... 32
2.13 Resistance factors for the strength and extreme event limit states for
MSE walls designed using the K-Stiffness method ......................................... 33
4.1 Design summary table for the wall designed with crimp 1 and Sc = 2 ft ........ 75
4.2 Design summary table for the wall designed with crimp 1 and Sc = 1.5 ft .... 76
4.3 Design summary table for the wall designed with crimp 2 and Sc = 2 ft ....... 77
4.4 Summary table for the wall designed with crimp 2 and Sc = 1.5 ft ................ 77
5.1 Summary table of the AASHTO design approach using RECO straps ............. 80
ix
B.1 Properties of the select fill for the MSE wall. ............................................... 105
B.4 General information of the wall designed with crimp 1 and Sc = 2.00 ft...... 106
B.6 Calculations of the tension in the connections of the wall designed with
crimp 1 and Sc = 2.00 ft. ................................................................................ 108
B.7 Calculations of the deflections of the wall designed with crimp 1 and
Sc = 2.00 ft. .................................................................................................... 109
B.8 General information of the wall designed with crimp 1 and Sc = 1.50 ft...... 110
B.9 Pullout resistance calculations of the wall designed with crimp 1 and
Sc = 1.50 ft ..................................................................................................... 111
B.10 Calculations of the tension in the connections of the wall designed with
crimp 1 and Sc = 1.50 ft. ................................................................................ 112
B.11 Calculations of the deflections of the wall designed with crimp 1 and
Sc = 1.5 ft........................................................................................................ 113
B.12 General information of the wall designed with crimp 2 and Sc = 2.00 ft...... 114
B.13 Pullout resistance calculations of the wall designed with crimp 2 and
Sc = 2.00 ft ..................................................................................................... 116
B.14 Calculations of the tension in the connections of the wall designed with
crimp 2 and Sc = 2.00 ft. ................................................................................ 117
B.15 Calculations of the deflections of the wall designed with crimp 2 and
Sc = 2.00 ft. .................................................................................................... 118
B.16 General information of the wall designed with crimp 2 and Sc = 1.50 ft...... 119
x
B.17 Pullout resistance calculations of the wall designed with crimp 2 and
Sc = 1.50 ft ..................................................................................................... 120
B.18 Calculations of the tension in the connections of the wall designed with
crimp 2 and Sc = 1.50 ft. ................................................................................ 121
B.19 Calculations of the deflections of the wall designed with crimp 2 and
Sc = 1.5 ft........................................................................................................ 122
B.20 General information of the wall designed with AASHTO approach ............. 124
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1.1 Percentage of the yield stress used measured in existing MSE Walls.............. 2
2.1 Earth pressure distribution for MSE Wall with level backfill surface ............... 8
2.2 Earth pressure distribution for MSE wall with sloping backfill surface ............ 9
2.3 Earth pressure distribution for MSE wall with broken back backfill surface.... 9
2.6 Variation of the coefficient of lateral stress ratio kr/ka with depth in a
MSE wall .......................................................................................................... 18
2.8 Calculation of vertical stress for sloping backslope condition for internal
stability analysis .............................................................................................. 20
2.12 Dtmax as a function of normalized depth below wall top plus average
surcharge depth .............................................................................................. 39
3.3 1/2'' dia. steel reinforcement bar crimp 1 pullout resistance ........................ 48
3.4 3/8'' dia. steel reinforcement bar crimp 1 pullout resistance ........................ 49
xii
3.5 1/4'' dia. steel smooth bar crimp 1 pullout resistance ................................... 50
3.6 1/2'' dia. steel reinforcement bar crimp 2 pullout resistance ........................ 51
3.7 3/8'' dia. steel reinforcement bar crimp 2 pullout resistance ........................ 52
3.8 1/4'' dia. steel reinforcement bar crimp 2 pullout resistance ........................ 53
3.9 3/8'' dia. steel reinforcement bar crimp 1 measured vs. extrapolated
pullout resistance............................................................................................ 54
3.10 3/8'' dia. steel reinforcement bar crimp 2 measured vs. extrapolated
pullout resistance............................................................................................ 54
3.11 1/2'' dia. steel reinforcement bar crimp 1 displacement curve ..................... 56
3.12 3/8'' dia. steel reinforcement bar crimp 1 displacement curve ..................... 57
3.13 1/4'' dia. steel reinforcement bar crimp 1 displacement curve. .................... 58
3.14 1/2'' dia. steel reinforcement bar crimp 2 displacement curve. .................... 59
3.15 3/8'' dia. steel reinforcement bar crimp 2 displacement curve. .................... 60
3.16 1/4'' dia. steel reinforcement bar crimp 2 displacement curve. .................... 61
3.17 Tension distribution along the reinforcement behind the wall face. ............. 65
4.1 Displacement of the face of the wall vs. depth of the wall designed using
crimp 1 ............................................................................................................ 76
4.2 Displacement of the face of the wall vs. depth of the wall designed using
crimp 2. ........................................................................................................... 78
5.1 Steel usage for the existing and proposed design methodologies. ................ 82
CHAPTER 1
1.1 Introduction
Current design codes allow lower lateral earth pressure coefficient (K value) for
designing geosynthetics walls than those used to design steel walls. This is because
geosynthetics walls are less rigid, permitting the wall to deform sufficiently to work
After Suncar (2010), a new concept of crimped steel bars was proved to be
useful. These bars provided sufficient pullout resistance and the flexibility needed build
a flexible wall using steel reinforcement. This new type of steel bars will behave more
like geosynthetics, allowing the wall to deform sufficiently to lower the stresses to active
stresses.
The usage of steel by current design codes are making that the MSE walls are
designed with a lot of more steel than needed. Looking at the measurement on various
MSE walls presented by Wong (1989) and Goodsell (2000) and illustrated in Fig. 1.1 is
well shown that the steel is not being used efficiently because any but one is nearly
close to the maximum stress allowed by the code which is 50% and the average
60
40
Idaho Wall
30 Grayback RD. Wall, California
Rainier Ave. Wall, Washington
10
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
σ/σy
Fig. 1.1 Percentage of the yield stress used measured in existing MSE walls.
The objective of this research is to develop a design procedure that will allow the
use of crimped bars to build MSE walls. This new procedure will be more efficient in the
usage of steel than current design methods. One of the problems with the materials
used in the construction of MSE walls is the large cross-sectional area. In order to use
the steel at the maximum capacity allowed by the code (about 50% of yield stress) a
large horizontal spacing (larger than the allowed by the code) is needed. The use of
3
smaller bars, which will allow the wall to resist the stresses behind it, is proposed. Doing
so, the wall will be more flexible, with lower stresses, steel volume and cost.
Chapter 2 presents the literature review needed to understand the thesis and
gives the reader a background in the current designs methodologies that are currently
being used. The newly proposed design methodology is presented in Chapter 3. Chapter
4 presents a 40 ft MSE wall designed with the new proposed methodology and Chapter
5 provides a comparison between walls designed with current design procedures and
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
The concept of MSE walls is fairly new. The development of this type of
reinforced wall began in the decade of 1980. In the last decade notorious improvement
have been made in the understanding of the wall behaviors, how the stresses are
distributed based on the stiffness of the wall components, factors affecting the
durability of the materials, soil behavior behind the wall and now we have more walls
constructed that can be used as case studies to gather information an calibrate models.
All this facts together now make possible the design and construction of more efficient
As we all know in this world the design codes varies from country to country and
sometimes from state to state. In this chapter we are going to present a literature
review of everything concerning MSE wall design codes that are going to be applied
along this thesis and that will help us in the understanding of the problem.
2.2.1 General
included the MSE wall section in their Bridge Design Manual. Since that it has been
5
evolving till presents day where now it is focused on the new Load and Resistance
Factor Design (LRFD) concepts. In this new design philosophy we do not use factors of
safety anymore as we used to know them. Now we amplify the loads and reduce the
capacity of the materials with what they call load and resistance factors.
The AASHTO method is based on the classic linearly distributed earth pressure
behind the wall and it does not take into account the stiffness of the elements that
Instead of using the traditional definition of factor of safety LRFD introduces the load
factor which increment the loads (Table 2.1) and the resistance factor that are in
Load Factor
Type of Load
Maximum Minimum
DC: Component and Attachments 1.25 0.90
EH: Horizontal Earth Pressure
Active 1.50 0.90
At-Rest 1.35 0.90
EL: Locked-in Erection Stresses
1.00 1.00
EV: Vertical Earth Pressure
Overall Stability
1.00 N/A
Retaining Walls and
1.35 1.00
Abutments
ES: Earth Surcharge 1.50 0.75
6
Table 2.2 Resistance factors for permanent MSE walls (AASHTO, 2004)
Condition Resistance
Factor
Bearing Resistance
- Sand
Semiempirical Procedure using SPT Data. 0.45
Semiempirical Procedure using CPT Data. 0.55
Rational Method
Using ϕf Estimated from SPT Data. 0.35
Using ϕf Estimated from CPT Data. 0.45
Plate Load Test 0.55
Sliding
- Precast Concrete Placed on Sand (ϕτ)
Using ϕf Estimated from SPT Data. 0.90
Using ϕf Estimated from CPT Data. 0.90
The minimum length of reinforcement that should be used is 8.0 ft or 70% of the
wall height measured from the leveling pad. In the case that we have small compaction
equipments used in the wall a 6.0 ft reinforcement length can be considered if it is not
less than the 70% of the wall height. Longer reinforcement should be used to resist
The stress distribution behind a MSE wall is considered to vary linearly with
depth, Fig. 2.1, Fig. 2.2, and Fig. 2.3 show different scenarios that we might encounter
when designing a wall and its stress distribution and the force per unit width behind the
wall (Pa).
= 0.5 ℎ (2.1)
where:
h = Height of the horizontal earth pressure diagram taken as shown in Fig. 2.1, Fig.
2.2 and Fig. 2.3 (ft)
Ka = Active earth pressure coefficient with the angle of backfill slope taken as as
specified in Fig. 2.2, B, as specified in Fig. 2.3, and = and B in Fig. 2.2 and Fig.
2.3 respectively (dim.).
8
sin2 θ+ϕ'f
Ka= (2.2)
ϑ[sin2 θ sin θ-δ )
( ) ( )
= 1+ ( )
(2.3)
( )
where:
Fig. 2.1 Earth pressure distribution for MSE Wall with level backfill surface (AASHTO,
2004).
9
Fig. 2.2 Earth pressure distribution for MSE wall with sloping backfill surface (AASHTO,
2004).
Fig. 2.3 Earth pressure distribution for MSE wall with broken back backfill surface
(AASHTO, 2004).
10
The maximum friction angle used to calculate the horizontal forces in the
reinforced soil mass shall be assumed to be 34° unless results from triaxial or direct
shear tests methods (AASHTO T 234-74 and T 236-72) specifies a higher friction angle,
This is the case where we have a slope failure plane beneath the foundation of
the wall. This should be evaluated using limit equilibrium methods of analysis. The
resistance factor should be taken as follow in case we do not have any better
information:
1) 0.75 where we have well defined geotechnical parameters and the slope
2) 0.65 where we do not have well defined geotechnical parameter and the
2.2.4 Sliding
Sliding along the base of the wall can occur sometimes. To prevent this from
happening, the summation of forces in the X direction should be equal to zero. The
= = + (2.4)
where:
Φ = Resistance factor.
ϕτ = Resistance factor for shear between soil and foundation as in Table 2.2.
Qτ = Maximum shear resistance between the foundation and the soil (tons).
Qep = Passive resistance of soil available throughout the design life of the structure
(tons).
= (2.5)
where:
The bearing capacity of the soil is highly influenced by the position of the water
table below the foundation. This is because the weight of the soil is not the same when
submerged in water and so the effective parameters. Based on that, the bearing
resistance of the soil must be calculated using the highest elevation of the water table
= = (2.6)
where:
The bearing capacity must be estimated using the standards soil parameters of
the soil beneath the foundation. As we might know there are different soil shear
strength depending of the stress path used. In this case we must use the soils
parameters that most resemble the state of stress that we are going to have in the field.
effective stress analyses and drained soil strength parameter. For footings over
compacted soils, the bearing resistance shall be evaluated using the most critical of
= 0.5 (2.7)
where:
= (2.8)
where:
N = Bearing capacity factor as specified in Table 2.4 for footings on relatively level
ground.
Table 2.5.
Table 2.7.
Table 2.3 Coefficients Cw1 for various groundwater depths (AASHTO, 2004).
DW CW1*
0.0 0.5
> 1.5B 1.0
*For intermediate positions of the ground water table, the values of Cw1 should be
linearly interpolated.
14
Table 2.4 Bearing capacity factor N for footings on cohesionless soil (Barker et al. 1991)
Friction Ndim.)
28 17
30 22
32 30
34 41
36 58
38 78
40 110
42 155
44 225
46 330
Table 2.5 Shape factor S for footings on cohesionless soil (Barker et al. 1991)
L/B S (dim.)
1 0.60
2 0.80
5 0.92
10 0.96
Table 2.6 Soil compressibility factor C for square footings on cohesionless soil (Barker et
al. 1991)
Table 2.7 Soil compressibility factor C for Strip footings on cohesionless soil (Barker et
al. 1991)
Table 2.8 Load Inclination Factor i for load inclined in direction of footing width (Barker
et al. 1991)
H/V i (dim.)
Strip L/B = 2 Square
0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.10 0.73 0.76 0.77
0.15 0.61 0.65 0.67
0.20 0.51 0.55 0.57
0.25 0.42 0.46 0.49
0.30 0.34 0.39 0.41
0.35 0.27 0.32 0.34
0.40 0.22 0.26 0.28
0.45 0.17 0.20 0.22
0.50 0.13 0.16 0.18
0.55 0.09 0.12 0.14
0.60 0.06 0.09 0.10
0.65 0.04 0.06 0.07
0.70 0.03 0.04 0.05
Note: H and V shall be taken as the unfactored horizontal and vertical loads,
respectively.
16
2.2.6 Overturning
Rotation of the wall around the tail of the base should be checked. The flexibility
of the MSE walls should make the potential for overturning highly unlikely to occur.
However, the overturning criteria should always be satisfied. To check for overturning
the moment summation in the tail of the base should be equal to zero.
The load in the reinforcement is calculated at the zone of maximum stresses and
at the connection with the face of the wall. This zone is assumed to be between the
active zone and the resistance zone (Fig. 2.4 and Fig. 2.5). Those two locations are
where the maximum loads are and there is where we need to check for pullout
Fig. 2.4 Location of potential failure surface for inextensible reinforcements for internal
stability design of MSE walls (AASHTO, 2004).
17
Fig. 2.5 Location of potential failure surface for extensible reinforcements for internal
stability design of MSE walls (AASHTO, 2004).
should be used. In this method the load is calculated multiplying the vertical stress at
the reinforcement layer by a lateral earth pressure coefficient and dividing that into the
= ( +∆ ) (2.9)
where:
v = Pressure due to resultant of gravity forces from soil self weight within and
immediately above the reinforced wall backfill and any surcharge loads present
(ksf).
Fig. 2.6 Variation of the coefficient of lateral stress ratio kr/ka with depth in a MSE wall
(AASHTO, 2004).
The maximum tension (Tmax) shall be calculated in a per unit of wall width basis
as follow:
= (2.10)
where:
Vertical spacing (Sv) greater than 2.7 ft. should only be allowed if full scale wall
data (e.g. reinforcement loads and strains and overall deflections) is available to support
Fig. 2.7 Calculation of vertical stress for horizontal backslope condition, including live
load and dead load surcharges for internal stability analysis (AASHTO, 2004).
The maximum load applied to the connection to the face of the wall (To) should
be equal to the maximum force in the reinforcement (Tmax) independently of the facing
Fig. 2.8 Calculation of vertical stress for sloping backslope condition for internal stability
analysis (AASHTO, 2004).
The capacity of the reinforcement to resist the tension force that it is going to be
applied to it should be checked at every level of the wall at the boundary between the
active and resistant zone (Fig. 2.4 and Fig. 2.5) and in the connection of the
≤ (2.11)
21
Fig. 2.9 Reinforcement coverage ratio for metal reinforcement (AASHTO, 2004).
where:
A minimum design life of 75 years is required for permanent walls and 36 month
or less for temporary walls. For walls which its failure will have severe consequences a
grater design life (100 years) should be considered (i.e. bridge support, buildings, and
Fig. 2.10 Reinforcement coverage ratio for geosynthetic reinforcement (AASHTO, 2004).
The design of MSE Walls using steel reinforcement must account for the lost in
cross sectional area due to corrosion of the steel. All the steel reinforcement used for
soil shall comply with the provisions of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specification,
To calculate the thickness of the reinforcement at the end of the service life the
= − (2.12)
23
Where:
The corrosion rates where summarized in Yannas (1985) and should be taken as
pH = 5 to 10.
For soils with resistivity equal or greater than 5,000 ohm-cm the chloride and
oz/ft2 or 3.4 mils. in accordance to AASHTO M 111 (ASTM A 123) for strip reinforcement
sectional area must be used. This value is obtained by multiplying the corroded sectional
area by the yield stress and dividing it by the width of the reinforcement to have it in a
= (2.13)
where:
limited to some wall application, soil conditions and polymer type to be able to use a
single default reduction factor (RF) and to assure the degradation due to environmental
Maximum soil particle size is 0.75 in. unless full scale installation damage tests
Soil organic content for material finer than the No. 10 Sieve ≤ 1%.
Design temperature at wall site is ≤ 89°F for permanent applications and ≤ 95°F
If any drainage or seepage will occur from the surrounding soil to the backfill, the
surrounding soil must also meet the nonaggressive criteria unless a drainage preventing
the water coming from the aggressive soil reach the reinforced soil can be assure for the
If those requirements are not met then a product-specific durability studies shall
be carried to determine the short and long term properties of the Geosynthetic under
To calculate the long term tensile resistance of the Geosynthetics the following
= (2.14)
where:
= (2.15)
26
Table 2.9 Minimum requirements for geosynthetic products to allow use of default
reduction factor for long-term degradation (AASHTO, 2004).
Criteria to
Polymer Type Property Test Method Allow Use of
Default RF
Minimum 70%
strength
Polypropylene UV Oxidation Resistance ASTM D4355 retained after
500 hrs. in
weatherometer
Polyethylene UV Oxidation Resistance ASTM D4355 Minimum 70%
strength
retained after
500 hrs. in
weatherometer
Intrinsic Viscosity
Minimum
Method (ASTM D4603)
Number
And GRI Test Method
Average
Polyester Hydrolysis Resistance GG8, or Determine
Molecular
Directly Using Gel
Weight of
Permeation
25,000
Chromatography
Maximum of
Carboxyl End
Polyester Hydrolysis Resistance GRI Test Method GG7
Group Content
of 30
Weight per Unit Area Minimum 270
All Polymers Survivability
(ASTM D5261) g/m2
% Post-Consumer
Certification of Materials Maximum of
All Polymers Recycled Material by
Used 0%
Weight
And:
Table 2.10 Default and minimum values for the total geosynthetic ultimate limit
strength reduction factor, RF (AASHTO, 2004).
Tult = Minimum average roll value (MARV) ultimate tensile strength (kips/ft).
the reinforcement from being pulled out of the soil. The length of reinforcement needed
to resist the pullout force must be extended beyond the active edge (Resistance Zone)
28
because that is the soil that is not moving, and this cannot be less than 3 ft. The total
The length beyond the active edge is calculated by the following equation:
= ∗ (2.16)
where:
σv = Unfactored vertical stress at the reinforcement level in the resistant zone (ksf).
The values for F* and α shall be determined from the product specifics pullout
tests in the project backfill material or equivalent soil or they can be determined
empirically or theoretically.
Specification, Article 7.3.6.3 with the exception of uniform sand (Cu < 4) is used. In the
absence of test data conservative values from Table 2.11 and Fig. 2.11 can be used for α
29
and F*, respectively. If we are using ribbed steel and the Cu is unknown at the moment
Table 2.11 Default values for the scale effect correction factor (AASHTO, 2004)
Reinforcement Type Default Value for α
All Steel Reinforcement 1.0
Geogrids 0.8
Geotextiles 0.6
Fig. 2.11 Default values for the pullout friction factor F* (AASHTO, 2004).
30
2.3.1 General
The K-Stiffness method was first proposed by Allen and Bathurst (2003). The
calculations used in this method were empirically derived from full scale walls at
calculate the force in each reinforcement level. This method relies on the difference in
stiffness of the wall components to distribute the loads and also take into consideration
the wall toe restraint that produces lower pressures in the lowest part of the wall.
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification and summarized in the Section 2.1 to design
the internal stability of MSE Walls up to 25 ft and that are not directly supporting other
structures or in location where high settlement is expected. The use of the K-Stiffness
method in areas where these requirements are not met must be considered
experimental and will require the use of special monitoring equipments and the
The load factor provided in Table 2.12 must be used as minimum values to be
used for the K-Stiffness method although the factors provided in Table 2.1 still apply.
These load factors were calculated assuming that the soil parameters are well known at
the time of design. In practice this is not always true, so the soil parameters are
assumed based in previous experiences with the material that is going to be used as
backfill. The K-Stiffness method was calibrated to use plane strain soil friction angle. The
31
following equations should be used to approximate the plane strain soil friction angle
= 1.5 − 17 (2.17)
For direct shear test data (based in interpretation of data presented by Bolton
Note that the use of the triaxial or direct shear friction angle will only introduce
This method was calibrated for a mean value of K0 of 0.3 so friction angles higher
The maximum resistance factors to be used for the K-Stiffness Method are listed
in Table 2.13 for the strength and extreme event limit states for internal stability. For
service limit state a resistance factor of 1.00 should be used, except for the evaluation
factors are consistent with the use of select granular backfill and used in conformance
Table 2.12 Load factors for permanent loads for internal stability of MSE walls designed
using the K-Stiffness method, p (WSDOT, 2006)
Minimum
Type of Load
Load Factor
EV: Vertical Earth Pressure:
load must be determined in two locations, the boundary between the active and
resistance zone (Fig. 2.4 and Fig. 2.5). The design of MSE Walls assumes that the wall
facing and the reinforced backfill acts as a coherent unit to form a gravity structure. The
effect of large vertical spacing (> 2.7 ft.) is not well understood and the use of these
higher spacing must be avoided unless full scale wall data is available.
= + + + ∆ (2.19)
33
Table 2.13 Resistance factors for the strength and extreme event limit states for MSE
walls designed using the K-Stiffness method (WSDOT, 2006)
where:
σV = The factored pressure due to resultant of gravity forces from soil self weight
within and immediately above the reinforced wall backfill and any surcharge
loads present (ksf).
34
p = The load factor for vertical earth pressure EV in Table 2.1 and Table 2.12 (dim.).
LL = The load factor for live load surcharge per the AASHTO LRFD Specifications
(dim.).
q = Live Load Surcharge (ksf).
∆σV = Vertical stress increase due to concentrated surcharge load above the wall
(ksf).
The K-Stiffness method differs from the other that it determines the maximum
reinforcement load from the gravity forces acting in the wall and then it adjust the
maximum load per level of reinforcement using a load distribution factor (Dtmax) and
some others empirical factors that account the stiffness of the facing and
= 0.5 + ∆ (2.20)
where:
Dtmax = Distribution factor to calculate Tmax for each layer as a function of depth fig
(dim.).
stiffness (Sglobal) which takes into account the stiffness of the entire wall section.
∑
= = (2.21)
( )
where:
Jave = Average stiffness of all reinforcement layers within then entire wall section on
a per foot of wall width basis (kips/ft).
.
= 0.25 (2.22)
where:
= (2.23)
where:
= (2.24)
And:
Slocal = Local stiffness that consider the stiffness and reinforcement density at a given
layer (ksf).
a = 1.0 for geosynthetic walls and 0.0 for steel reinforced walls.
The wall face batter factor (Φfb), which takes into account the influence of the
= (2.25)
where:
Kabh = Horizontal component of the active earth pressure coefficient accounting for
wall face batter (dim.).
Kavh = Horizontal component of the active earth pressure coefficient assuming that
the wall is vertical (dim.).
To determine Kabh and Kavh Coulomb’s equation can be used assuming that there
is no friction between the wall and the soil and a horizontal backslope as follows:
( )
= (2.26)
where:
ω = Wall face inclination, positive in a clockwise direction from vertical. This should
be set to 0 to calculate Kav (°).
38
= cos (2.27)
= (2.28)
The data obtained from geosynthetics walls using segmental concrete blocks and
propped panel wall facing, shows a significantly reduced stress in the reinforcement. To
account for that was derive the facing stiffness factor (ϕfs). This factor is not well known
how it will affect steel walls and should be set to 1.00 for steel and flexible faced wall.
.
= (2.29)
and
= (2.30)
where:
Dtmax shall be determined using Fig. 2.12. This distribution only applies to wall
constructed in firm soil. The rock and soft soil distribution should be different; it
The design of geosynthetics wall must check four possibilities of failures: 1) Soil failure,
Fig. 2.12 Dtmax as a function of normalized depth below wall top plus average surcharge
depth: a) generally applies to geosynthetic walls, b) generally applies to polymer strap
walls and extensible or very lightly reinforced steel systems, and c) generally applies to
steel reinforced systems (WSDOT, 2006).
40
section we are just going to explain the soil failure and how to obtain the parameter
needed for Equation 2.20 because in this method the others failure methods are treated
as specified in the AASHTO Bridge Design Specification (2004) described in the section
2.2 with the differences that Tmax is obtained from Equation 2.20 and the load factor
provided in Table 2.12 must be used as minimum values to be used for the K-Stiffness
Soil failure is considered when the soil reaches its peak shear strain, because at
strains higher than that the soil lowers its friction angle. The purpose of this part of the
temperature, etc.) its stiffness is large enough to prevent soil failure to occur.
The stiffness for final design must be obtained using products specific
isochronous creep data obtained in accordance with WSDOT Standard Practice T925
(WSDOT, 2006). For design the secant stiffness should be used. If the reinforcement
ratio (Rc) is less than 1, the reinforcement stiffness must be calculated as follow:
= (2.31)
where:
To calculate the factored strain in the reinforcement at the end of design life (75
years for permanent structures is typically used) the following equation shall be used:
= (2.32)
where:
The reinforcement strain (εr) should be limited to the maximum soil strain which
can be assumed for granular soils to be 3% for flexible faced wall and 2% for stiff faced
The design of steel reinforced wall must check four possibilities of failures: 1) soil
this section we are just going to explain how to obtain the parameter needed for
Equation 2.20 and any difference with AASHTO. In this kind of wall we do not have to
worry about soil failure because if we keep the stress below yield (Equation 2.33) the
reinforcement strain will not be higher than the soil peak strain. The others failure
methods are treated as specified in the AASHTO Bridge Design Specification (2004)
42
described in the section 2.2 with the differences that Tmax is obtained from Equation
2.20 and the load factor provided in Table 2.12 must be used as minimum values to be
used for the K-Stiffness method although the factors provided in Table 2.1 still apply.
To begin with the design a trial spacing and steel area based on the end of
The reinforcement rupture has to be checked at the end of life of the wall. In this
method this limit state is verified using the ultimate strength of the steel instead if the
≤ = (2.33)
43
CHAPTER 3
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
3.1 Concept
values) used for design geosynthetics walls are lower than those used to design steel
walls. This is because geosynthetics walls are less rigid permitting the wall to yield and
The concept for this design is based on steel bars that will behaves more like a
geosynthetic, allowing the wall to deform sufficient to lower the stresses to active
stresses. To be able to do that, crimps (Fig. 3.1) were made in steel reinforcing bars like
the ones we used in reinforced concrete. These crimps allow the steel bar to be more
flexible and permit bigger deformations and lowers working loads. Also having crimps in
Another problem in current designs is that actual steel straps and wires have a
large cross sectional area and in order to use the steel at the maximum capacity allowed
by the code (about 50% of yield stress) we need to have large horizontal spacing
between bars which is not allowed in the code for wire facings and is not economically
suitable for concrete panels facings. Therefore a more efficiently way to use the steel is
proposed with the use of smaller bars with crimps which will resist the stresses behind
the wall, make the wall more flexible and lower the cost of it.
44
resistance and the tensile behavior of the steel bar with crimps when buried under soil
at different overburden pressures. The data presented in this thesis to obtain the
different properties needed for the design is based on the data presented by Suncar
(2010).
The crimps properties presented by Suncar (2010) are based on a soil with a
friction angle of at least 38°. More testing has to be done in order to characterize the
effect of the friction angle in the properties of the crimps. There are two sizes of crimp
on each bar. The crimp 1 is the biggest crimp and the crimp 2 is the medium crimp of
each bar size as presented by Suncar (2010). This crimps where made taking into
account the minimum radii as specified in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
(2004).
The first property needed for the design is the crimp pullout resistance. In this
case the pullout resistance is going to be divided in two parts. The first one consider the
45
pullout resistance of a single straight steel bar (Fig. 3.2) because the crimps are going to
be separated by a certain spacing and the resistance provided by that straight section
needs to be taken into account. The second part is the pullout resistance provided by
the crimp itself. As the crimp are pulled trough the soil, friction and passive forces are
developed preventing the crimp from sliding. The crimp pullout resistance is going to be
dependent on two variables: The effective vertical stress in the crimp and the tension at
which the crimp is working. The results from the pullout resistance test are illustrated in
Fig. 3.3 thru Fig. 3.8 along with a fit made to come up with the design charts.
The data presented by Suncar (2010) shows all the information obtained from
the pullout tests made in crimped bars. The pullout resistance of the straight bar and
Several tests were performed on 5/8’’ and 1/2'’ steel reinforcing crimped bars to
characterize its pullout behavior using different sizes of crimps. The pullout behavior of
the 3/8’’ steel reinforcing bar and 1/4'’ steel smooth crimped bars were extrapolated
based on the results from the 5/8’’ and 1/2'’ crimped bars. Those extrapolated results
were compared with a measured curve of each crimp size of the 3/8’’ diameter bar and
the results show a difference of less than 10% between the extrapolated and the
The 1/4'’ bar properties were extrapolated assuming half pullout resistance of
the 1/2’’ bar at the same percentage of the working stress referenced to the yield stress.
This results were not verified and taking into account that the 1/4’’ bar is smooth and
the 1/2'’ has some corrugation the behavior is not expected to be the same.
46
For the crimp 1 of the 1/2'’ bar the pullout resistance (Fig. 3.3 ) was just obtained
till a working load of 6,000 lbs (about 50% of yield strength) because that was the
maximum working load. When doing the pullout design of the wall as we apply the
safety factor to the maximum tension the tensions in the crimp might increase above
6,000 lbs. To be able to account for that, an assumption that the bar is totally straighten
When dealing with retaining structures the deflection in the wall is a determining
factor that indicates if the wall is going to be working at active state of stress or at-rest
state of stress. The deflection of the wall is preferred to be enough to work in active
state of stress because these stresses are about 50% lower than the at-rest allowing the
There have been various publication about the deflection needed to reach the
active condition. Bonaparte (1988) stated that at 0.2% strain of the steel reinforcement
is required to reach the active condition behind the wall. Terzaghi reported that only a
0.5% of the wall height is required to reach the active condition and Clough and Duncan
(1991) reported that 0.1% of the wall height is required for dense sand, 0.2% for
Tension test of crimped bars at different effective vertical stress were also made
and presented by Suncar (2010). The results of these tests are presented in Fig. 3.11
300
250
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Vertical Stress (psf)
Fig. 3.3 1/2'' dia. steel reinforcement bar crimp 1 pullout resistance.
48
700
650
600
550
500
450
360 psf (Extrapolated)
400 720 psf (Extrapolated)
1080 psf (Extrapolated)
350
1440 psf (Extrapolated)
300
2160 psf (Extrapolated)
250 2880 psf (Extrapolated)
100
50
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Tension Load in the Crimp (lbs)
Fig. 3.4 3/8'' dia. steel reinforcement bar crimp 1 pullout resistance.
49
450
400
350
300
360 psf (Extrapolated)
50
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Tension Load in the Crimp (lbs)
Fig. 3.5 1/4'' dia. steel smooth bar crimp 1 pullout resistance.
50
800
750
700
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Tension Load in the Crimp (lbs)
Fig. 3.6 1/2'' dia. steel reinforcement bar crimp 2 pullout resistance.
51
600
550
500
450
400
360 psf (Extrapolated)
350
720 psf (Extrapolated)
100
50
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Tension Load in the Crimp (lbs)
Fig. 3.7 3/8'' dia. steel reinforcement bar crimp 2 pullout resistance.
52
400
350
300
50
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Tension Load in the Crimp (lbs)
Fig. 3.8 1/4'' dia. steel reinforcement bar crimp 2 pullout resistance.
53
54
400
350
250
200
3/8'' Meassured
150 3/8'' Extrapolated
100
50
0
0 2000 4000 6000
Tension Load in the Crimp (lbs)
Fig. 3.9 3/8'' dia. steel reinforcement bar crimp 1 measured vs. extrapolated pullout
resistance.
300
Crimp Pullout Resistance (lbs)
250
200
150
Measssured
100 Extrapolated
50
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Tension Load In the Crimp (lbs)
Fig. 3.10 3/8'' dia. steel reinforcement bar crimp 2 measured vs. extrapolated pullout
resistance.
55
The 1/4'’ bar properties were extrapolated assuming half deflection of the 1/2’’
bar at the same percentage of the working stress referenced to the yield stress. This
results were not verified and taking into account that the 1/4’’ bar is smooth and the
1/2'’ has some corrugation the behavior is not expected to be the same.
All the deflection presented in the graph is assumed to come from the crimps
because the deflection of the straight bar is negligible compared to the deflection of the
crimp. The design graph presented does not take into account the difference in effective
vertical pressures because the data shows a negligible difference between tests so one
The model presented in this thesis is for internal design of the wall only. For
The definition of this model is going to be based in the assumption that with the
crimps the wall is going to yield enough to work under the active state of stress. Based
on this assumption the forces on the wall are going to be defined as follows:
= +∆ (3.1)
where:
12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
1/2'' dia. (Fitted)
6000 1/2'' dia 5 psi (Suncar, 2009)
1/2'' dia. 10 psi (Suncar,2009)
5000
1/2'' dia. 30 psi (Suncar, 2009)
3000
2000
1000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Displacement of the Crimp (in)
Fig. 3.11 1/2'' dia. steel reinforcement bar crimp 1 displacement curve.
56
3500
3000
2500
2000
500
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Displacement of the Crimp (in)
Fig. 3.12 3/8'' dia. steel reinforcement bar crimp 1 displacement curve.
57
4000
3000
2000
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Displacement of the Crimp (in)
Fig. 3.13 1/4'' dia. steel reinforcement bar crimp 1 displacement curve.
58
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
2000
1000
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Displacement of the Crimp (in)
Fig. 3.14 1/2'' dia. steel reinforcement bar crimp 2 displacement curve.
59
3500
3000
2500
2000
500
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Displacement of the Crimp (in)
Fig. 3.15 3/8'' dia. steel reinforcement bar crimp 2 displacement curve.
60
3000
2000
1000
Fig. 3.16 1/4'' dia. steel reinforcement bar crimp 2 displacement curve.
61
62
v = Pressure due to resultant of gravity forces from soil self weight within and
immediately above the reinforced wall backfill and any surcharge loads present
(psf).
= (3.2)
where:
The maximum tensile force in the reinforcement (Tmax) can also be calculated using
any other method approved by AASHTO like the K-Stiffness method presented in this
thesis.
The tensile design of the wall takes into consideration the loads that are going to
be received by the steel cross-sectional area during the design life of the structure. The
purpose if this step of the design process is to prevent the rupture of the reinforcement
The maximum load that the steel can handle is going to be limited by a percentage
of the yield stress of the steel used in the design. The maximum force allowable by the
= (3.3)
where:
Ac = Steel cross sectional area after corrosion as specified in Sections 0 and 2.2.9.2
(in2).
Combining equations 3.2 and 3.3 a basic equation for the tensile design of the
∅ ≤ (3.4)
where:
So:
≤ (3.5)
∅
permitted by the facing that is going to be used. For flexible wall facing the maximum
The pullout design takes into consideration the friction resistance provided by
the soil to the reinforcement to prevent it from being pulled out from the soil mass by
The distribution of the tensile force along the reinforcement without crimp will
be assumed to vary linearly with a slope defined by the pullout resistance per unit
length of the reinforcement (Fig. 3.17). In this case the contribution of the crimp will be
defined as a step localized value that will be located at the center of the crimp. This
value is going to be a function of the effective vertical stress and the tension in that
crimp.
The spacing between crimps needs to be assumed before entering in the design.
The values proved to be useful and efficiently range from 1.50 ft. to 2.00 ft. Other
spacing can be used if they meet the required displacement and length of reinforcement
Fig. 3.17 Tension distribution along the reinforcement behind the wall face.
To calculate the total length needed for pullout resistance a detailed analysis
must be made in each reinforcement level to calculate the tension in each crimp as we
go farther from the wall face and select the correspondence pullout resistance value for
each crimp. This analysis has to be done from the locus of maximum tension (Fig. 2.5),
assuming the behavior of an extensible reinforcement, and moving away from the wall
face. The followings formulas define the pullout resistance for each part of the bar:
= + = (3.6)
= (3.7)
= ∑ (3.8)
where:
66
Fstraight = Friction force resisted by the straight part of the bar (lbs).
fstraight = Straight bar friction factor per unit length for a given effective vertical stress
as show in Fig. 3.2 (lbs/ft).
fcrimp = Crimp friction resistance for a given effective vertical stress and working
tensile load as shown in Fig. 3.3 to Fig. 3.8 (lbs).
p = Load factor against pullout taken as 1.44 (dim.).
the summation of the length of the reinforcement in the active edge for extensible
reinforcement (La) and the length of reinforcement in the resisting zone (Le) (Fig. 2.5).
∅
= ℎ tan(45 − ) (3.9)
= + (3.10)
where:
h = Height from the bottom of the wall to the reinforcement layer (ft.).
calculated so the designer can know its values and can make decisions with them. The
and the tensions in the crimps. In this model we will make the assumption that all the
deflection is coming from the deformations of the crimps and the bar deformation is
deflection.
To calculate the deflection in the crimped bar the tension force is each crimp
must be known first. The total deflection in each layer is going to be defined as the
summation of all the deformations of all the crimps in the bar (the ones in the active
= ∑ (3.11)
where:
A detailed analysis must be made in each reinforced level. This analysis has to be
done from the locus of maximum tension toward the front of the wall and also toward
the end of the reinforcement so all the crimps are taken into account. To calculate the
expected deflection in the wall is recommended to use unfactored loads to obtain a real
value for deflection and not an overestimated value caused by the factored loads.
To reach the active condition this model is going to consider, based on past
average deflection of 0.35% of the wall height preferred taking into consideration that
we will be dealing with dense to medium dense soil in the reinforced zone.
69
CHAPTER 4
DESIGN OF A 40 FT. HIGH MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH (MSE) WALL USING THE
PROPOSED METHODOLOGY
4.1 Introduction
This chapter is going to present the design of wall that is going to be constructed
and monitored to see the behavior of an actual constructed wall using the newly
proposed crimped bars and design methodology. A detailed design of one layer is going
The wall that is going to be analyzed and designed is a 40 ft. wall with concrete
panel facing. The concrete panels will be 12.5 ft. x 2.5 ft. Each panel needs to be
attached at least to two rods or straps so the maximum horizontal spacing will be
limited to 6.25 ft and the vertical spacing will be used as 2.5 ft. The crimps spacing
proved to be useful for this design are 2.00 ft and 1.50 ft. This example calculation is
going to be based in the 1.50 ft spacing between crimps and using crimp 1 although the
summary table is presented for both crimp spacing and sizes all the calculations tables
The yield stress of the reinforcement that is going to be used in this design is 60
ksi.
70
The soil that is going to be used in the design will be a well graded sand with a
years.
For the step by step explanation of the design the last layer of this wall will be
selected. This example will cover everything from the calculation of the soils properties
The first thing to do to design the wall is calculate the vertical and horizontal
stress in the desired layer. To do this Equation 2.2 reduced for vertical walls and 3.1 will
be used.
∅ 38
= tan (45 − ) = tan (45 − ) = 0.23788308
2 2
Now that the horizontal stress is calculated the next step is calculate the
corroded area expected at the end of the life of the structure using considerations
specified in Sections 0 and 2.2.9.2 . After the calculation of the corroded area the
horizontal spacing needed in that layer can be calculated using Equation 3.5. In this layer
= 0.00047 75 = 0.03525
( −2 ) (0.375 − 2(0.03525))
= = = 0.07282
4 4
60000 0.07282
≥ = = 1.51
∅ 2 579.84 2.5
The horizontal spacing needs to be rounded down to fits the facing allowable
spacings and also to help the construction of the wall. Also the length of the
reinforcement need to be taken into account because it is not efficient to have a very
large length is better instead to have smaller horizontal spacing (Sh). For the purpose of
this thesis the horizontal spacing is going to be used as calculated just for the
After calculating the horizontal spacing needed between bars to limit the
internal stresses on it to be 50% of the yield stress we are done with the tension design
of the wall. Now the pullout analysis needs to be done in order to complete the internal
To begin with the pullout design the maximum pullout force to be resisted by the
reinforcement needs to be calculated using Equations 3.2 and 3.6 and the location of
∅ 38
= ℎ tan(45 − ) = 21.25 tan(45 − ) = 10.36
2 2
Now that we have the location of the maximum pullout force an analysis needs
to be done from this point and moving away from the wall face using the model
presented in Fig. 3.17 to know the length of reinforcement needed. First of wall a
calculation needs to be done to know the portion of straight bar that is just between the
= −( − ) (4.1)
= (4.2)
where:
X = Straight bar length between the point of maximum tension and the first crimp
behind that (ft.).
N = Number of crimps in the active edge length rounded down to the nearest integer
(dim.).
10.36
= = = 6.91 ≅ 6
1.5
Now the pullout resistance of the straight bar is needed. Using the effective
vertical stress at that level and knowing the size of the bar from Fig. 3.2 can be obtained
the value of the pullout resistance per unit length of bar. Then multiplying that value
times the straight bar length between the point of maximum tension and the first crimp
and subtracting that from the total friction force we can find the tension in the first
crimp. Having the tension in the crimp the pullout resistance of the crimp can be
= 7.68
= 170.59
Now that those values are calculated the tension in the second crimp can be
= 195.38
Following this procedure the tension in every crimp can be calculated. This
procedure can also be done from the point of maximum tension toward the wall face to
more precise value is obtained instead of a big value because of the factor in the loads.
The same procedure needs to be followed but using the value of Tmax.
= 247.74
= 0.38
= 278.72
= 0.31
Following that procedure the displacement of all the crimps can be obtained and
the total deflection is the summation of the deflection of each individual crimp. The
crimps in the active zone need to be taken into account to calculate the total
Below are the summary tables of the walls designed using the proposed
methodology and the new type of reinforcement. The complete information of the
design of these walls is presented in Appendix B. These walls where designed with both
the crimp 1 and the crimp 2 using two different crimp spacing of 2.00 ft. and 1.50 ft.
75
Table 4.1 Design summary table for the wall designed with crimp 1 and Sc = 2 ft
The wall design with crimp 1 shows a good behavior in terms of the deflection.
Although the minimum deflection was not reached in the first three and last one layers
of the wall it is expected to reach the active condition. The deflection at the top will
always be a problem because in order to get a reasonable bar length shorter horizontal
The amount of steel used in this wall is very low because of the long term
behavior of the round bars that will lose less cross-sectional area due to the corrosion of
the steel and that the deformation in the wall will allow the reach of the active
condition.
76
Table 4.2 Design summary table for the wall designed with crimp 1 and Sc = 1.5 ft
Displacement (in)
0 1 2 3
0
5
Sc = 2.0 ft
10
Sc=1.5 ft
15
Depth (ft)
35
40
Fig. 4.1 Displacement of the face of the wall vs. depth of the wall designed using crimp
1.
77
Table 4.3 Design summary table for the wall designed with crimp 2 and Sc = 2 ft
Table 4.4 Summary table for the wall designed with crimp 2 and Sc = 1.5 ft
Displacement (in)
10
Sc = 2.0 ft
15 Sc=1.5 ft
Depth (ft)
25
30
35
40
Fig. 4.2 Displacement of the face of the wall vs. depth of the wall designed using crimp
2.
Although the wall designed with crimp 2 uses little less amount of steel than the
one designed with crimp 1 the deflection in all the layer did not reach the minimum
displacement required to reach the active condition. For this reason this size of crimp
CHAPTER 5
5.1 Introduction
One of the biggest concerns when planning a project is choosing the design
approach to be used. This decision is going to be based by analyzing some aspects like:
safety, material availability, construction difficulty, time and money. The design
approach which can give us more benefits in each of those categories will be the winner.
A comparison between all three design methodology (AASHTO, K-Stiffness and Crimps)
Although the K-Stiffness method only deals with the calculation of the maximum
tension in the reinforcement a final designs using current materials (RECO Strap) is
presented. AASHTO guidelines for the internal design of the wall using RECO straps are
used with the maximum forces obtained from the K-Stiffness method.
A final design of the wall presented in Chapter 4 was made for the other two
methodologies (AASHTO and K-Stiffness) and is presented in this chapter so the reader
A summary table of the wall designed using AASHTO approach and RECO strap is
Table 5.1 Summary table of the AASHTO design approach using RECO straps
The design presented in Table 5.2 was done with the maximum tensions
calculated using the k-Stiffness method and taking the consideration presented by
AAHSTO to do the internal design of the wall. The complete information of the design is
presented in Appendix B.
After seeing the designs made of the same wall using the different
methodologies used actually to design MSE walls and the one proposed in this thesis is
good to compare them to find the pros and cons of each one.
81
Table 5.2 Summary table of the K-Stiffness method using RECO straps
First of all the three design methodologies showed about the same required
length of reinforcement which means that the cost on excavation and selected fill will
be about the same. Any of the methods showed advantage over the others in this
aspect. This aspect can be improved with the use of bars with bigger deformations as
One of the most important parts of the total cost of a steel reinforced MSE wall
is the amount of steel needed to build the wall. In this aspect the proposed
shown in Fig. 5.1 the amount of steel needed to build a MSE wall with the proposed
methodology is about 50% lower than the amount needed using AASHTO methodology
82
and current reinforcing materials and 45% better than using the K-Stiffness method with
The K-Stiffness method was not used with the proposed reinforcing materials
because this is an empirical method derived from the measurements of MSE walls and
the effect in the calibration and factors in the model is not well known as the behavior
974.13
1000 886.01
900
800
Steel Volume (in3) / ft of Wall
700
500
400
300
200
100
0
Crimp 1 Sc = 2.00 Crimp 1 Sc = 1.50 AASHTO Wall K-Stiffness Wall
ft ft
Fig. 5.1 Steel usage for the existing and proposed design methodologies.
83
CHAPTER 6
A new methodology for the design of MSE walls is proposed with the use of
crimped rounds bar which behaves more efficiently under corrosion and that allows
more deformation that will lead the wall to work under an active state of stress. This
the pullout forces is the same for the others design methodologies. This total length is
limited by AASHTO by 70% of the wall height and a single length must be used.
The proposed design methodology helps us save around 50% of steel compared
to the actual designs. This means a huge improvement in the usage of steel versus the
rounded bars under corrosion and because of the flexibility in the bars that will allow us
With the results obtained from crimp 1 and crimp 2 can also be concluded that
the number 2 crimp cannot be used in a design under the active state of stress because
Although all the theory behind the design of MSE walls and the theory about the
displacement needed to reach the active condition have been met a real wall needs to
be constructed and instrumented to prove the concepts proposed in this research. The
construction and instrumentation of a wall using the proposed methodology not only
will help us prove the theory behind this new type of bar also will help us adjust the
design charts with the actual pullout resistance obtained from the field measurements
84
and will help us calibrate the K-Stiffness method with this new type of bar, which will
help us to design with lowers load than the ones obtained using AASHTO.
bars (1/4’’ dia.). Doing that more precise design in the upper part of the wall can be
done.
displacement to reach the active condition in every layer and more testing needs to be
done with different soils to characterize the effect of the soil friction angle in the
REFERENCES
AASHTO. (2004). LRFD bridge design specifications (3rd ed.). American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington D.C.
Allen, T. M., & Bathurst, R. J. (2003). Prediction of reinforcement loads in reinforced soil
walls. Washington State Department of Transportation, Seattle, Wa.
Barker, R. M., Duncan, J. M., Rojiani, K. B., Ooi, P. S., Tan, C. K., & Kim, S. G. (1991).
Manual for the design of bridge foundation. NCHRP Report 343. TRB, National
Research Council, Washington D.C.
Bolton, M. D. (1986). “The strength and dilatancy of sands”. Geotechnique , 36(1), 65-78.
Elias, V., Christopher, B. R., & Berg, R. R. (2001). Mechanically stabilized earth walls and
reinforced soil slopes. Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C.
Jewell, R. A., & Wroth, C. P. (1987). Direct shear test on reinforced sand. Geotechnique,
37(1), 53-68.
Lade, & Lee. (1976). Engineering properties of soils. Report UCLA-ENG-7652, University of
California, Los Angeles.
Suncar, O. (2010). Pullout and tensile behavior of crimped steel reinforcement for MSE
walls. Utah State University, Logan, Utah.
86
Wong, W. L. (1989). Field performance of welded wire retaining walls. Utah State
University, Logan, Utah.
APPENDICES
88
Bar 1 is referred to the 1/2'’’ diameter bar, Bar 2 is the 3/8’’ diameter bar and
Bar 3 is the 1/4'’ diameter bar. The pressure needs to be used in psi and the tension in
pounds. The straight function gives the pullout resistance at a given pressure for each
bar, the pullout function gives the pullout resistance of the crimp at a given load for
each bar and the displacement function gives the displacement of each crimp for a given
Else
pullout = 0.5 * pullout("Bar 1", pressure, tension * (0.5 ^ 2 / 0.25 ^ 2))
End If
ElseIf (pressure = 25) Then
If (tension >= 1500) Then
pullout = 0.5 * pullout("Bar 1", pressure, tension * (0.5 ^ 2 / 0.25 ^ 2))
ElseIf (tension >= 258.065) Then
pullout = 0.5 * pullout("Bar 1", pressure, tension * (0.5 ^ 2 / 0.25 ^ 2))
Else
pullout = 0.5 * pullout("Bar 1", pressure, tension * (0.5 ^ 2 / 0.25 ^ 2))
End If
ElseIf (pressure < 30 And pressure > 25) Then
pullout = (((pullout(bar, 30, tension) - pullout(bar, 25, tension)) * (5 - (30 - pressure)))
/ 5) + pullout(bar, 25, tension)
ElseIf (pressure = 20) Then
If (tension >= 1500) Then
pullout = 0.5 * pullout("Bar 1", pressure, tension * (0.5 ^ 2 / 0.25 ^ 2))
ElseIf (tension >= 273.747) Then
pullout = 0.5 * pullout("Bar 1", pressure, tension * (0.5 ^ 2 / 0.25 ^ 2))
Else
pullout = 0.5 * pullout("Bar 1", pressure, tension * (0.5 ^ 2 / 0.25 ^ 2))
End If
ElseIf (pressure = 15) Then
If (tension >= 1500) Then
pullout = 0.5 * pullout("Bar 1", pressure, tension * (0.5 ^ 2 / 0.25 ^ 2))
Else
pullout = 0.5 * pullout("Bar 1", pressure, tension * (0.5 ^ 2 / 0.25 ^ 2))
End If
ElseIf (pressure < 25 And pressure > 20) Then
pullout = (((pullout(bar, 25, tension) - pullout(bar, 20, tension)) * (5 - (25 - pressure)))
/ 5) + pullout(bar, 20, tension)
ElseIf (pressure < 20 And pressure > 15) Then
pullout = (((pullout(bar, 20, tension) - pullout(bar, 15, tension)) * (5 - (20 - pressure)))
/ 5) + pullout(bar, 15, tension)
ElseIf (pressure = 10) Then
If (tension >= 1500) Then
pullout = 0.5 * pullout("Bar 1", pressure, tension * (0.5 ^ 2 / 0.25 ^ 2))
Else
pullout = 0.5 * pullout("Bar 1", pressure, tension * (0.5 ^ 2 / 0.25 ^ 2))
End If
ElseIf (pressure = 7.5) Then
If (tension >= 1500) Then
pullout = 0.5 * pullout("Bar 1", pressure, tension * (0.5 ^ 2 / 0.25 ^ 2))
Else
94
Bar 1 is referred to the 1/2'’’ diameter bar, Bar 2 is the 3/8’’ diameter bar and
Bar 3 is the 1/4'’ diameter bar. The pressure needs to be used in psi and the tension in
pounds. The straight function gives the pullout resistance at a given pressure for each
bar, the pullout function gives the pullout resistance of the crimp at a given load for
each bar and the displacement function gives the displacement of each crimp for a given
Table B.1 Properties of the select fill for the MSE wall.
Soil Information
130 pcf
38 deg
ka 0.237883078
Ko 0.384338525
Corrosion
Time 75
Rate 0.00047
Ec 0.03525
Table B.4 General information of the wall designed with crimp 1 and Sc = 2.00 ft.
δT
T-5 δ-5 T-4 δ-4 T-3 δ-3 T-2 δ-2 T-1 δ-1 T1 δ1 T2 δ2 T3 δ3 T4 δ4 T5 δ5
Layer (in
(lbs) (in) (lbs) (in) (lbs) (in) (lbs) (in) (lbs) (in) (lbs) (in) (lbs) (in) (lbs) (in) (lbs) (in) (lbs) (in)
)
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
1 0.00 00 0.00 00 27.75 26 61.44 58 94.52 89 94.05 89 60.96 57 27.26 26 0.00 00 0.00 00 3
0.00 0.00 101.1 0.00 191.8 0.01 278.0 0.02 287.6 0.02 201.9 0.01 111.8 0.01 16.9 0.00 0.00 0.1
2 0.00 00 5.75 05 6 95 5 81 4 62 6 71 6 90 0 05 5 16 0.00 00 1
0.00 95.2 0.00 358.5 0.02 610.0 0.03 850.2 0.06 804.6 0.05 562.3 0.03 308.5 0.01 42.8 0.00 0.00 0.2
3 0.00 00 5 56 8 12 7 61 5 82 3 65 0 33 6 83 7 25 0.00 00 4
0.00 244. 0.01 560.9 0.03 863.4 0.07 1152. 0.14 1178. 0.15 889.9 0.07 588.5 0.03 273. 0.01 0.00 0.5
4 0.00 00 48 45 3 32 8 16 73 59 00 24 1 84 8 49 40 62 0.00 00 5
244. 0.01 622. 0.03 982.3 0.10 1325. 0.19 1651. 0.27 1529. 0.24 1197. 0.15 847.9 0.06 481. 0.02 95.9 0.00 1.1
5 25 45 40 69 5 21 00 01 15 39 38 26 07 73 6 76 21 85 3 57 2
410. 0.02 831. 0.06 1230. 0.16 1606. 0.26 1961. 0.34 1933. 0.33 1576. 0.25 1198. 0.15 798. 0.05 374. 0.02 1.6
6 43 43 82 34 00 57 24 24 76 45 29 95 11 46 11 75 07 48 71 22 9
313. 0.01 791. 0.05 1239. 0.16 1660. 0.27 2054. 0.36 2150. 0.37 1762. 0.30 1348. 0.19 907. 0.08 437. 0.02 1.8
7 30 86 20 30 49 82 00 62 45 06 43 73 33 25 58 62 50 29 28 59 6
195. 0.01 742. 0.04 1248. 0.17 1717. 0.29 2151. 0.37 2033. 0.35 1590. 0.25 1111. 0.13 594. 0.03 36.6 0.00 1.6
8 41 16 31 40 58 05 23 09 08 74 85 70 60 84 78 54 53 52 0 22 8
0.00 459. 0.02 1045. 0.11 1579. 0.25 2067. 0.36 2097. 0.36 1612. 0.26 1080. 0.12 498. 0.02 0.00 1.5
9 0.00 00 46 72 12 82 71 56 67 29 30 80 17 39 68 74 42 95 0.00 00 5
0.00 0.00 821.6 0.06 1424. 0.21 1968. 0.34 2176. 0.38 1654. 0.27 1076. 0.12 436. 0.02 0.00 1.4
10 0.00 00 0.00 00 0 08 44 57 68 57 33 18 45 48 37 63 05 58 0.00 00 3
0.00 0.00 881.4 0.07 1523. 0.24 2098. 0.36 2026. 0.35 1443. 0.22 791.8 0.05 63.0 0.00 0.00 1.3
11 0.00 00 0.00 00 9 62 85 12 40 82 66 58 65 06 2 32 6 37 0.00 00 2
0.00 0.00 0.00 1354. 0.19 1988. 0.34 2116. 0.37 1500. 0.23 804.2 0.05 19.0 0.00 0.00 1.2
12 0.00 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 94 78 21 91 89 15 13 51 2 64 4 11 0.00 00 1
0.00 0.00 0.00 1489. 0.23 2146. 0.37 1938. 0.34 1252. 0.17 470.8 0.02 0.00 0.00 1.1
13 0.00 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 15 23 64 66 51 04 21 14 7 79 0.00 00 0.00 00 5
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2025. 0.35 2039. 0.35 1327. 0.19 510.4 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.9
14 0.00 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 25 55 95 81 40 08 4 02 0.00 00 0.00 00 3
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2156. 0.37 1441. 0.22 621.4 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.6
15 0.00 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 96 84 60 01 2 68 0.00 00 0.00 00 4
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1945. 0.34 1179. 0.15 300.6 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.5
16 0.00 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 49 16 19 27 1 78 0.00 00 0.00 00 1
109
B.3 Wall Designed with Crimp 1 and Sc = 1.50 ft.
Table B.8 General information of the wall designed with crimp 1 and Sc = 1.50 ft.
Table B.11 Calculations of the deflections of the wall designed with crimp 1 and Sc = 1.50 ft.
Ten Ten Ten Ten Ten Ten Ten Ten Ten Ten Ten Ten
sio Defl sio Defl sio Defl sio Defl sio Defl sio Defl sio Defl sio Defl sio Defl sio Defl sio Defl sio
De
n In ectio n In ectio n In ectio n In ectio n In ectio n In ectio n In ectio n In ectio n In ectio n In ectio n In ectio n In Tota
Layer pt
Cri n Cri n Cri n Cri n Cri n Cri n Cri n Cri n Cri n Cri n Cri n Cri l
Numb h
mp in mp in mp in mp in mp in mp in mp in mp in mp in mp in mp in mp Defl
er (ft
-6 Crim -5 Crim -4 Crim -3 Crim -2 Crim -1 Crim 1 Crim 2 Crim 3 Crim 4 Crim 5 Crim 6 ectio
)
(lbs p -6 (lbs p -5 (lbs p -4 (lbs p -3 (lbs p -2 (lbs p -1 (lbs p1 (lbs p2 (lbs p3 (lbs p4 (lbs p5 (lbs n
) (in) ) (in) ) (in) ) (in) ) (in) ) (in) ) (in) ) (in) ) (in) ) (in) ) (in) ) (in)
1. 0.0 0.0 27. 60. 92. 123 124 92. 60. 28. 0.0 0.0
1 25 0 0.00 0 0.00 67 0.00 21 0.01 16 0.01 .51 0.01 .22 0.01 87 0.01 95 0.01 42 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.06
3. 0.0 31. 122 208 290 368 374 297 215 129 39. 0.0
2 75 0 0.00 54 0.00 .32 0.01 .60 0.02 .61 0.03 .55 0.03 .64 0.04 .01 0.03 .33 0.02 .40 0.01 00 0.00 0 0.20
104 110
6. 0.0 149 390 620 839 9.5 9.7 902 686 459 222 0.0
3 25 0 0.00 .87 0.01 .54 0.02 .38 0.04 .89 0.07 3 0.12 1 0.13 .90 0.08 .36 0.04 .62 0.03 .21 0.01 0 0.55
111 136 161 155 131 105
8. 284 573 850 5.7 8.8 0.9 7.7 3.2 7.5 790 510 217
4 75 .22 0.02 .93 0.03 .90 0.07 1 0.14 7 0.20 1 0.26 4 0.25 6 0.19 3 0.12 .06 0.05 .28 0.03 .65 1.37
11 201 552 886 120 150 179 176 147 117 853 517 165
5 .2 .96 0.01 .51 0.03 .19 0.08 3.8 0.16 6.7 0.24 3.9 0.31 5.6 0.30 6.3 0.23 2.5 0.15 .31 0.07 .97 0.03 .68 1.62
113
Table B.11 Continued
13 386 774 114 148 181 212 213 182 149 115 784 396
6 .7 .32 0.02 .91 0.05 2.0 0.14 9.0 0.23 6.8 0.32 6.6 0.37 4.3 0.37 4.9 0.32 7.6 0.23 1.1 0.15 .51 0.05 .49 2.28
16 137 174 209 215 180 143 103
.2 95. 547 972 1.1 4.9 5.5 0.4 3.4 3.5 9.1 618 170
7 5 03 0.01 .89 0.03 .69 0.10 6 0.20 4 0.30 6 0.37 3 0.38 4 0.31 3 0.22 7 0.12 .77 0.04 .58 2.08
18 123 166 205 217 178 136
.7 0.0 277 775 6.8 3.7 8.8 2.1 6.1 9.0 918 431 0.0
8 5 0 0.00 .67 0.02 .78 0.05 8 0.17 3 0.28 7 0.36 6 0.38 1 0.31 8 0.20 .59 0.09 .94 0.03 0 1.87
21 127 174 216 204 160 112
.2 0.0 200 762 4.8 2.7 9.8 6.2 7.2 6.4 599 23. 0.0
9 5 0 0.00 .62 0.01 .21 0.05 3 0.18 4 0.30 5 0.38 1 0.36 9 0.26 3 0.14 .63 0.04 88 0.00 0 1.71
23 114 166 213 206 158 105
.7 0.0 0.0 569 6.2 6.8 6.9 4.1 6.2 6.9 470 0.0 0.0
10 5 0 0.00 0 0.00 .51 0.03 3 0.14 8 0.28 3 0.37 7 0.36 9 0.26 6 0.12 .63 0.03 0 0.00 0 1.60
26 101 158 209 208 157
.2 0.0 0.0 369 0.8 4.9 8.4 7.7 2.9 997 354 0.0 0.0
11 5 0 0.00 0 0.00 .00 0.02 4 0.11 2 0.26 0 0.37 3 0.37 9 0.25 .50 0.11 .09 0.02 0 0.00 0 1.50
28 149 205 211 156
.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 865 5.5 4.2 6.8 6.1 944 243 0.0 0.0
12 5 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 .10 0.07 3 0.23 7 0.36 9 0.37 8 0.25 .82 0.09 .73 0.01 0 0.00 0 1.40
31 139 200 215 156
.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 4.5 1.6 5.9 899 139 0.0 0.0
13 5 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 0.21 4 0.35 6 0.38 1 0.25 .06 0.08 .86 0.01 0 0.00 0 1.28
33 156 217 196 131
.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 7.3 3.9 6.2 573 0.0 0.0 0.0
14 5 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 0.25 2 0.38 1 0.34 6 0.19 .70 0.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 1.20
36 213 199 133
.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 4.9 6.8 582 0.0 0.0 0.0
15 5 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 6 0.37 1 0.35 3 0.19 .32 0.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.95
38 203 136
.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 3.8 598 0.0 0.0 0.0
16 5 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.36 3 0.20 .31 0.04 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.59
114
B.4 Wall Designed with Crimp 2 and Sc = 2.00 ft.
Table B.12 General information of the wall designed with crimp 2 and Sc = 2.00 ft.
T -6 T6 δT
Lay δ -6 T -5 δ -5 T -4 δ -4 T -3 δ -3 T -2 δ -2 T-1 δ -1 T1 δ1 T2 δ2 T3 δ3 T4 δ4 T5 δ5
(lbs (lb (in
er (in) (lbs) (in) (lbs) (in) (lbs) (in) (lbs) (in) (lbs) (in) (lbs) (in) (lbs) (in) (lbs) (in) (lbs) (in) (lbs) (in)
) s) )
0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 115.2 0.00 111.9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
1 0 00 0.00 00 6.05 04 43.44 29 79.84 53 8 77 4 75 76.40 51 39.91 27 2.42 02 0.00 00 0 03
0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 192.9 0.01 282.3 0.01 283.3 0.01 193.9 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
2 0 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 97.11 65 2 29 5 89 5 89 9 30 98.26 66 0.00 00 0.00 00 0 08
0.0 0.00 0.00 190. 0.00 451.2 0.01 697.9 0.02 936.3 0.03 1008. 0.03 770.0 0.02 527.3 0.01 270. 0.00 0.00 0.
3 0 00 0.00 00 45 63 2 49 5 30 7 09 43 33 0 54 8 74 94 89 0.00 00 0 16
0.0 0.00 175. 0.00 472. 0.01 757.3 0.02 1038. 0.03 1319. 0.04 1281. 0.04 1000. 0.03 718.8 0.02 432. 0.01 133. 0.00 0.
4 0 00 25 58 38 56 5 50 63 43 91 36 42 23 13 30 5 37 24 43 40 44 0 24
0.0 0.00 164. 0.00 501. 0.01 827.0 0.02 1152. 0.03 1477. 0.05 1528. 0.06 1203. 0.03 878.4 0.02 553. 0.01 218. 0.00 0.
5 0 00 34 54 26 65 9 73 34 80 60 86 99 46 74 97 8 90 22 83 07 72 0 30
20. 0.00 413. 0.01 789. 0.02 1163. 0.03 1537. 0.06 1899. 0.10 1782. 0.09 1414. 0.05 1040. 0.03 666. 0.02 284. 0.00 0.
6 67 07 55 37 91 61 91 84 92 57 50 85 93 47 52 11 52 44 51 20 73 94 0 46
0.0 0.00 441. 0.01 864. 0.02 1286. 0.04 1708. 0.08 2104. 0.13 2100. 0.13 1703. 0.08 1282. 0.04 859. 0.02 436. 0.01 0.
7 0 00 47 46 22 85 97 25 39 59 58 27 30 22 84 53 13 23 38 84 63 44 0 61
0.0 0.00 0.00 629. 0.02 1101. 0.03 1573. 0.06 2022. 0.12 2162. 0.13 1722. 0.08 1252. 0.04 780. 0.02 303. 0.01 0.
8 0 00 0.00 00 16 08 37 64 58 99 88 31 05 95 25 75 42 13 21 58 84 00 0 55
0.0 0.00 0.00 596. 0.01 1118. 0.03 1640. 0.07 2129. 0.13 2035. 0.12 1538. 0.06 1016. 0.03 494. 0.01 0.00 0.
9 0 00 0.00 00 83 97 62 69 40 78 97 57 00 45 52 58 73 36 95 63 0.00 00 0 51
0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 921.6 0.03 1492. 0.06 2037. 0.12 2107. 0.13 1569. 0.06 998.0 0.03 426. 0.01 0.00 0.
10 0 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 0 04 96 04 07 47 95 31 37 94 1 29 64 41 0.00 00 0 47
0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 971.5 0.03 1592. 0.07 2172. 0.14 1952. 0.11 1353. 0.04 732.4 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.
11 0 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 0 21 44 21 86 08 20 47 35 47 1 42 0.00 00 0.00 00 0 43
0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1432. 0.05 2068. 0.12 2036. 0.12 1396. 0.04 726.3 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.
12 0 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 14 32 76 85 34 47 84 90 2 40 0.00 00 0.00 00 0 38
0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1949. 0.11 2136. 0.13 1458. 0.05 738.1 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.
13 0 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 08 43 07 65 24 63 1 44 0.00 00 0.00 00 0 33
0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2117. 0.13 1947. 0.11 1209. 0.03 445.6 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.
14 0 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 96 43 23 41 26 99 9 47 0.00 00 0.00 00 0 30
0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2058. 0.12 1311. 0.04 527.6 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.
15 0 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 16 72 16 33 4 74 0.00 00 0.00 00 0 19
0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1840. 0.10 1052. 0.03 248.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
16 0 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 61 15 22 47 5 82 0.00 00 0.00 00 0 14
118
B.5 Wall Designed with Crimp 2 and Sc = 1.50 ft.
Table B.16 General information of the wall designed with crimp 2 and Sc = 1.50 ft.
Table B.20 General information of the wall designed with AASHTO approach.
Table B.21 General information of the wall designed with K-Stiffness approach using RECO straps.
1 1.25 6.25 1440.00 576.00 1.00 0.05 0.25 0.01 0.07 1.74 0.39 11.63 12.02 28.00
2 3.75 6.25 1440.00 576.00 1.00 0.16 0.76 0.08 0.61 1.61 1.27 11.63 12.90 28.00
3 6.25 6.25 1440.00 576.00 1.00 0.27 1.26 0.23 1.68 1.48 2.30 11.63 13.92 28.00
4 8.75 6.25 1440.00 576.00 1.00 0.38 1.76 0.45 3.30 1.36 3.52 11.63 15.15 28.00
5 11.25 6.25 1440.00 576.00 1.00 0.48 2.27 0.74 5.46 1.23 5.00 11.63 16.62 28.00
6 13.75 4.20 2143.61 857.45 1.00 0.59 2.77 1.11 5.48 1.10 4.58 11.63 16.21 28.00
7 16.25 3.01 2993.97 1197.59 1.00 0.70 3.27 1.55 5.48 0.97 4.38 11.63 16.01 28.00
8 18.75 2.26 3986.06 1594.42 1.00 0.81 3.78 2.06 5.48 0.85 4.37 11.63 16.00 28.00
9 21.25 1.76 5119.87 2047.95 1.00 0.91 4.28 2.65 5.48 0.78 4.17 10.50 14.67 28.00
10 23.75 1.44 6260.77 2504.31 1.00 1.00 4.79 3.24 5.48 0.78 3.73 9.00 12.73 28.00
11 26.25 1.30 6919.80 2767.92 1.00 1.00 5.29 3.58 5.48 0.78 3.38 7.50 10.88 28.00
12 28.75 1.19 7578.82 3031.53 1.00 1.00 5.79 3.92 5.48 0.78 3.09 6.00 9.09 28.00
13 31.25 1.09 8237.85 3295.14 1.00 1.00 6.30 4.26 5.48 0.78 2.84 4.50 7.34 28.00
14 33.75 1.01 8896.88 3558.75 1.00 1.00 6.80 4.60 5.48 0.78 2.63 3.00 5.63 28.00
15 36.25 0.94 9555.91 3822.36 1.00 1.00 7.30 4.94 5.48 0.78 2.45 1.50 3.95 28.00
16 38.75 0.88 10214.94 4085.97 1.00 1.00 7.81 5.28 5.48 0.78 2.29 0.00 2.29 28.00
125