13.10. Design Procedure for Cantilever Retaining Walls 413 3x 32=96 psf surcharge a 96 pst (2162) = 672 pst Figure 13.16 13.10 DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR CANTILEVER Stem RETAINING WALLS This section is presented to describe in some detail the procedure used for designing @ cantilever retaining wall. At the end of this section the complete design of such a wall is presented. Once the approximate size of the wall has been established, the stem, toe, and heel can be designed in detail. Each of these parts will be designed individually as a can- tilever sticking out of a central mass, as shown in Figure 13.17. ‘The values of shear and moment at the base of the stem due to lateral earth pressures are ‘computed and used to determine the stem thickness and necessary reinforcing. Because the lateral pressures are considered to be live load forces, a Joad factor of 1.6 is used. It will be noted that the bending moment requires the use of vertical reinforcing bars fn the soil side of the stem. In addition, temperature and shrinkage reinforcing must be provided. In Section 14.3 of the ACT Code, a minimum value of horizontal reinforcing ‘equal to 0.0025 of the area of the wall br is required as well as a minimum amount of ver~ tical reinforcing (0.0015). These values may be reduced to 0,0020 and 0.0012 if the rein- forcing is @ in. or less in diameter and if it consists of bars or welded wire fabric (not larger than W31 or D31), with f, equal to or greater than 60,000 psi ‘The major changes in temperature occur on the front or exposed face of the stem. For this reason most of the horizontal reinforcing (perhaps two-thirds) should be placed on that face with just enough vertical steel used to support the horizontal bars. The concrete.414 Chapter 13 Retaining Walls Figure 13.17 for a retaining wall should be placed in fairly short lengths—not greater than 20- or 30-ft sections—to reduce shrinkage stresses.“ Factor of Safety Against Overturning ‘Moments are taken about the toe of the unfactored overturning and righting forces. Tradi- tionally, it has been felt that the safety factor against overturning should be at least equal to 2. In making these calculations, backfill on the toe is usually neglected because it may very well be eroded. Of course, there are cases where there is a slab (for instance, a high- way pavement on top of the toe backfill) that holds the backfill in place over the toe. For such situations it may be reasonable to include the loads on the toe. Factor of Safety Against Sliding ‘A consideration of sliding for retaining walls is a most important topic because a very large percentage of retaining wall failures occur due to sliding. To calculate the factor of safety against sliding, the estimated sliding resistance (equal to the coefficient of friction for concrete on soil times the resultant vertical force ;xR,) is divided by the total horizon- tal force. The passive pressure against the wall is probably neglected, and the unfactored Toads are used.13.10 Design Procedure for Cantilever Retaining Walls 415 EI Teniente Copper Mine, Rancagua, Chile. (Courtesy of EFCO,) ‘Typical design values of y1, the coefficient of friction between the footing concrete and the supporting soil, are as follows: 0.45 to 0.55 for coarse-grained soils, with the lower value applying if some silt is present, and 0.6 if the footing is supported on sound rock with a rough surface. Values of 0.3 to 0.35 are probably used if the supporting mate- rial is silt Its usually felt that the factor of safety against sliding should be at least equal to 1.5. ‘When retaining walls are initially designed, the calculated factor of safety against sliding is. very often considerably less than this value, To correct the situation, the most common prac- tice is to widen the footing on the heel side. Another practice is to use a lug or key, as shown. in Figure 13.18, with the front face cast directly against undisturbed soil. (Many designers, feel that the construction of keys disturbs the soil so much that they are not worthwhile.) Keys are thought to be particularly necessary for moist clayey soils. The purpose of a key is to cause the development of passive pressure in front of and below the base of the footing, as416 Chapter 13 Retaining Walls Heel Design heel part of footing —— —_ key shown by P, in the figure. The actual theory involved, and thus the design of keys, is still a question among geotechnical engineers. As a result, many designers select the sizes of keys by rules of thumb. One common practice is to give them a depth between two-thirds and the full depth of the footing. They are usually made approximately square in cross section and have no reinforcing provided other than perhaps the dowels mentioned in the next paragraph, Keys are often located below the stem so that some dowels or extended vertical rein- forcing may be extended into the key. If this procedure is used, the front face of the key needs to be at least 5 or 6 in. in front of the back face of the stem to allow room for the dowels. From a soil mechanics view, keys may be a litle more effective if they are placed a little further toward the heel. If the key can be extended down into avery firm soil or even rock, the result will bea greatly increased sliding resistance—that resistance being equal to the force necessary to shear the key off from the footing, that is, a shear friction calculated as described in Sec- tions 8.12 and 12.13 of this text. The lateral earth pressure tends to cause the retaining wall to rotate about its toe. This ac- tion tends to pick up the heel into the backfill. The backfill pushes down on the heel can- tilever, causing tension in its top. The major force applied to the heel of a retaining wall is the downward weight of the backfill behind the wall. Although it is true that there is some upward soil pressure, many designers choose to neglect it because it is relatively small The downward loads tend to push the heel of the footing down, and the necessary upward reaction to hold it attached to the stem is provided by the vertical tensile steel in the stem, which is extended down into the footing. Because the reaction in the direction of the shear does not introduce compression into the heel part of the footing in the region of the stem, it is not permissible to determine V, at a distance d from the face of the stem, as provided in Section [Link] of the ACI Code. The value of V, is determined instead at the face of the stem due to the downward loads This shear is often of such magnitude as to control the thickness, but the moment at theToe Design 13.10 Design Procedure for Cantilever Retaining Walls 417 face of the stem should be checked also. Because the load here consists of crete, a load factor of 1.2 is used for making the calculations, It will be noted that the bars in the heel will be in the top of the footing. As a result, the required development length of these “top bars” may be rather large. The percentage of flexural steel required for the heel will frequently be less than the Prine OF 200/f, and (3\VF/f,). Despite the fact that the Code (10.5.4) exempts slabs of uni- form thickness from these Pai, Values, the author recommends that these be used because the retaining wall is a major “beamlike” structure. and con- ‘The toe is assumed to be a beam cantilevered from the front face of the stem. The loads it ‘must support include the weight of the cantilever slab and the upward soil pressure be- neath, Usually any earth fill on top of the toe is neglected (as though it has been eroded). Obviously, such a fill would increase the upward soil pressure beneath the footing, but be~ cause it acts downward and cancels out the upward pressure, it produces no appreciable changes in the shears and moments in the toe. A study of Figure 13.19 shows that the upward soil pressure is the major force ap- plied to the toe. Because this pressure is primarily caused by the lateral force H, a load factor of 1.6 is used for the calcufations. The maximum moment for design is taken at the face of the stem, whereas the maximum shear for design is assumed to occur at a distance d from the face of the stem because the reaction in the direction of the shear does intro- duce compression into the toe of the footing, The average designer makes the thickness of the toe the same as the thickness of the heel, although such a practice is not essential. It is a common practice in retaining wall construction to provide a shear keyway be- tween the base of the stem and the footing. This practice, though definitely not detrimen- tal, is of questionable value. The keyway is normally formed by pushing a beveled 2 4 or 2X 6 into the top of the footing, as’shown in Figure 13.20. After the concrete hardens, the wood member is removed, and when the stem is cast in place above, a keyway is formed. It is becoming more and more common simply to use a roughened surface on the top of the footing where the stem will be placed. This practice seems to be just as satisfac tory as the use of a keyway. <—a1 toe part of footing hee par } a of footing LLL Figure 13.19418 Chapter 13 Retaining Walls stem cast forming beveled timber for ‘keyway with footing easy removal igure 13.20 In Example 13.3, #8 bars 6 in. on center are selected for the vertical steel at the base of the stem. Either these bars need to be embedded into the footing for development pur- poses or dowels equal to the stem steel need to be used for the transfer. This latter practice is quite common because it is rather difficult to hold the stem steel in position while the base concrete is placed, The required development length of the #8 bars down into the footing or for #8 dow- cls is 33 in. when f, = 60,000 psi and.” = 3000 psi. This length cannot be obtained vert cally in the 1 ft 6 in. footing used unless the bars or dowels are either bent as shown in Figure 13.21(a) or extended through the footing and into the base key as shown in Figure 13.21(b). Actually, the required development length can be reduced if more but smaller dowels are used. For #6 dowels, €, is 20 i. If instead of dowels the vertical stem bars are embedded into the footing, they should not extend up into the wall more than 8 or 10 ft before they are spliced because they are difficult to handle in construction and may easily be bent out of place or even broken. Ac- tually, you can see after examining Figure 13.21(a) that such an arrangement of stem steel can on some occasions be very advantageous economically The bending moment in the stem decreases rapidly above the base; as a result, the amount of reinforcing can be similarly reduced. Itis to be remembered that these bars can be cut off only in accordance with the ACI Code development length requirements. @ ) Figure 13.21EXAMPLE 13.3 SOLUTION 13,10 Design Procedure for Cantilever Retaining Walls 419 Example 13.3 illustrates the detailed design of a cantilever retaining wall. Several im- portant descriptive remarks are presented in the solution, and these should be carefully read. ‘Complete the design of the cantilever retaining wall whose dimensions were estimated in Exampl 13.2 and are shown in Figure 13.22, if f = 3000 psi, f, = 60,000 psi, q, = 4000 psf, and the coeffi- cient of sliding friction equals 0.50 for concrete on soil. Use p approximately equal to 0.18 /1/f, to ‘maintain reasonable deflection contro. ‘The safety factors against overturning and sliding and the soil pressures under the heel and toe are computed using the actual unfactored loads. Safety Factor against Overturning (with Reference to Figure 13.23) Overturning moment Force Moment arm Moment Ay = G21K672) 7056 lb 7.00 = 49,392 ft-lb Hy = (2196) = 2016 Ib X 10.50 = 21,168 ft-lb, Total 70,560 ft-Ib vo" 300 psf surcharge 210" Figure 13.22420 Chapter 13 Retaining Walls eee 3x32 = 96 ps Righting moment Fore Moment arm Moment 1.5)(11.5)(150) = 2588 Ib x 14,881 fb W, = GU9.5\X150) = 731 1b X 4.08 = 2982 fi-Ib W, 19.5)(@3)(150) (22.5)(6.25)100 R 2925 Ib X 4.75 = 13,894 ft-lb 14,062 Ib 8.37 = 117,699 fIb* 20306 1b M = 149,456 fi-lb Wy TTneludes surcharge. 149,456 _ TO s6y 7 2:12> 2.00 OK ‘Safety factor against overturning = Factor of Safety Against Sliding Here the passive pressure against the wall is neglected. Normally, it is felt that the factor of safety should be at least 1.5. Ifit is not satisfactory, a little wider footing on the heel side will easily take care of the situation, In addition to or instead of this solution a key, perhaps 1 ft-6 in, % 1 ft-6 in, (ize selected to provide sufficient development length for the dowels selected later in this design) can be used. Space is not taken here to improve this safety factor.13.10. Design Procedure for Cantilever Retaining Walls 424, Force causing sliding = H, + H, + 9072 Ib (0.50)(20,306) Resisting fore 10,153 Ib Safety factor = WSS — 1.12 < 1.50 Footing Soil Pressures 0,306 Ib and is located a distance & from the toe of the footing = 70,560 _ 78,896 * 202306 ~ just inside middle third Ri. Me Soil pressure = —* + M A= (NALS) = 15 fe 1 1 (doa _(20,306)(5.75 ~ 3.895.75) 126.74 1766 — 1714 = ~3480 pst frat = ~1766 + 1714 = -52 pst 26.74 ft Design of Stem ‘The lateral forces applied to the stem are calculated using a Toad factor of 1.6 as shown in Figure 13.26. Design of Stem for Moment My = (H,(6.50) + (H2\9.75) M, = 92,472 ft-lb (9734)(6.50) + (2995)(9.75) surcharge = (3)(32)(1.6) = 153.6 ps ,, Hy = (19.5)(153.6) = 2995 tb $0" (19.50)(32)(1.6) = 998.4 pst Figure 13.24422 Chapter 13 Retaining Walls Use 0.18f. _ (0.183000) = approximately YS = OD pag OM Table A12) = 4826 pst a. (1292472) ot = 1825) = 2555 a fass5 : a= PS = 439 h= 1459 +2" +1 = 17:09" Say 18"(d = 15.50) (12)(92,472) (0.90K12\15.5) (0.00786 (from Appendix Table A.12) (0.00786)(12)(15.5) = 1.46in? Us 1.57 (TU cats 217 @6ras7 Minimum vertical p by ACI Section 14.3 = 0.0015 < 0.0084 OK 2155) o (0.0025)(12){average stem 1) = cownsytay 22 = 18) = 0.450 in? Minimum horizontal 4, (say one-third inside face and two-thirds outside face). Use at 72 outside face and #4 at 15" inside fave ‘Checking Shear Stress in Stem ‘Actually, V, ata distanced from the top ofthe footing can be used, but for simplicity. 9734 + 2995 = 12,729 Ib (0.75 (23000 12)(15.5) 15,281 Tb > 12,729 Ib OK Design of Hee! ‘The upward soil pressure is conservatively neglected, and a load factor of 1.2 is used for calculating the shear and moment because soil and concrete make up the load. V, = (22.5¥6.25)(100)(1.2) + (1.5)(6.25\150X1.2) = 18,563 Ib V, = (0.75)(2V/3000)(12)(14.5) = 14,295 < 18,563 ‘No good ‘Tey 24-in, Depth (d = 20.5 in.) Neglecting slight change in V, with different depth BV, = (0.75)(2V3000)(12)(20.5) = 20,211 > 18,563 ok M, ce bbd* (0.9(12\205P P= Prix Use p = 0.00333 = 15313.10 Design Procedure for Cantilever Retaining Walls 423, Using 0.00333, (0.00333)(12\(20.5) = 0.82 in./ft ¢, required calculated with ACI Equation 12-1 for #8 top bars with c = 2.50 in. and K,. <72 in. available. Heel reinforcing is shown in Figure 13.25. Note: Temperature and shrinkage steel is normally considered unnecessary in the heel and toe. However, the author has placed #4 bars at 18 in. on center in the long direction, as shown in Figures 13.25 and 13.27, to serve as spacers for the flexural steel and to form mats out of the reinforcing. Design of Toe For service loads, the soil pressures previously determined are multiplied by a load factor of 1.6 be- ‘cause they are primarily caused by the lateral forces, as shown in Figure 13.26. V, = 10,440 + 7086 = 17,526 Ib (The shear can be calculated a distance d from the face of the stem because the reaction in the direction of the shear does introduce compression into the toe of the slab, but this advantage is neglected because 17,526 Ib is already less than the 19,125 Ib shear in the heel, which was satisfactory.) stunt son = 002) + anaa2378) = S48 (1284958) _ (0.9)(12)(20.5" p= less than Pin clear cover required = 2" wen" ace eis" Figure 13.25 Heel reinforcing424 Chapter 13 Retaining Walls Figure 13.27 Toe reinforcing. ‘Therefore, use 200 Bata = 0.00833 A, = (0.00333)(12)20.5) = 0.82 init Use #8 at 1" €, required calculated with ACI Equation 12-1 for #8 bottom bars with ¢ = 2.50 in, and K,, = 0 equals 33 in. < 42 in, available OK Toe reinforcing is shown in Figure 13.27. Selection of Dowels and Lengths of Vertical Stem Reinforcing The detailed selection of vertical bar lengths in the stem is omitted here to save space, and only a few general comments are presented. First, Table 13.1 shows the reduced bending moments up in the stem and also shows the corresponding reductions in rein- forcing required. Table 13.1 Distance Effective Ay fromtop MM, stem d required Bars ofstem (ft-lb) (in) ft) needed 2987 11.04 Use Prin = 0.00333 0.44 #8 @ 18" 10" 162131258 Use Pug = 0.00333 0.508 @ 18 Is’ 46,080 14.12 0.00452 om #8 @ 17" 15.50 0.00786 1.46 #@613.1 Cracks and Wall Joints 425 After considering the possible arrangements of the steel in Figure 13.21 and the re- quired areas of steel at different elevations in Table 13.1, the author decided to use dowels for load transfer at the stem base. Use #8 dowels at 6 in, extending 33 in, down into footing and key If these dowels are spliced to the vertical stem reinforcing with no more than one-half the bars being spliced within the required lap length, the splices will fall into the class B category (ACI Code 12.15) and their lap length should at least equal 1.3€, = (1.3)(33) = 43 in. Therefore, two dowel lengths are used—half 3 ft7 in. up into the stem and the other half 7 ft 2 in—and the #7 bars are lapped over them, half running to the top of the wall and the other half to middepth. Actually, a much more refined design can be made that in- volves more cutting of bars. For such a design, a diagram comparing the theoretical steel area required at various elevations in the stem and the actual steel furnished is very useful. Itis to be remembered (Code 12.10.3) that the bars cut off must run at least a distance d or 12 diameters beyond their theoretical cutoff points and must also meet the necessary de- velopment length requirements. 13.11 CRACKS AND WALL JOINTS Objectionable horizontal cracks are rare in retaining walls because the compression faces are the ones that are visible. When they do occur it is usually a sign of an unsat- isfactory structural design and not shrinkage. In Chapter 6 of this book the ACI proce- dure (Section 10.6) for limiting crack sizes in tensile zones of one-way beams and slabs was presented. These provisions may be applied to vertical retaining wall steel. However, they are usually thought unnecessary because the vertical steel is on the earth side of the wall. On the other hand, vertical cracks in walls are quite common unless sufficient con- struction joints are used, Vertical cracks are related’to the relief of tension stresses due to shrinkage, with the resulting tensile forces exceeding the longitudinal steel capacity Construction joints may be used both horizontally and vertically between successive pours of concrete. The surface of the hardened concrete can be cleaned and roughened, or keys may be used as shown in Figure 13.28(a) to form horizontal construction joints. If concrete is restrained from free movement when shrinking, as by being attached to more rigid parts of the structure, it will crack at points of weakness. Contraction joints are weakened places constructed so that shrinkage failures will occur at prepared locations. When the shrinkage tensile stresses become too large, they will pull these contraction joints apart and form neat cracks rather than the crooked unsightly ones that might other- wise occur. In addition to handling shrinkage problems, contraction joints are useful in handling differential settlements. They need to be spaced at intervals about 25 ft on center (the AASHTO says not greater than 30 ft). The joints are usually constructed with rubber strips that are Jeft in place or with wood strips that are later removed and replaced with caulking. Expansion joints are vertical joints that completely separate the different parts of a wall. They are placed approximately 50 to 100 ft on centers (the AASHTO says maxi- mum spacing should not be greater than 90 ft). Reinforcing bars are generally run through all joints so that vertical and horizontal alignment is maintained. When the bars do run