Retaining Structures Manual

RETAINING STRUCTURES MANUAL OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MARCH 1998
Oregon DOT Retaining Structures Manual March 1998
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
Preface Record of Revisions Revising the Manual
SECTION 1:
RETAINING STRUCTURES PROGRAM POLICY
1.1 Background / Purpose 1.2 Objectives 1.3 Responsibilities 1.3.1 Vendor 1.3.2 ODOT 1.4 Design Requirements 1.5 Review Procedure for Retaining Wall Materials, Products or Systems 1.6 Proprietary / Non-Proprietary Product Agreement 1.7 Product Documentation 1.8 ODOT Contract Document Preparation 1.8.1 Contract Plans 1.8.2 Contract Specifications 1.9 Material Specification Requirements 1.10 Proprietor Prepared Working Drawings and Design Calculations Appendix A - Submittal Requirements for Retaining Wall Materials, Products or Systems Appendix B - ODOT Retaining Structures Product Data sheets Section 1 Appendix A1.1 Background / Purpose A1.3 Responsibilities & Task Relationship Diagram A1.5 Review Procedure for Retaining Wall Materials, Products or Systems
SECTION 2:
DESIGNER GUIDELINES
2.1 General Design Guidance 2.1.1 References 2.1.2 Design Responsibilities 2.12.1 Stability 2.1.2.2 Appurtenances 2.1.3 Retaining Structure Materials, General 2.1.4 Non-Critical vs. Critical Retaining Structure [Applications] 2.1.5 Seismic Loads 2.1.6 Retaining Wall vs. Slope 2.2 Contract Document Preparation 2.2.1 Contract Plans 2.2.2 Contract Specifications 2.2.2.1 General 2.2.2.2 Selection of Acceptable Retaining Walls for Contract Specifications 2.2.2.2.1 Aesthetic Considerations 2.2.2.3 Measurement and Payment 2.3 Assignment of Bridge Numbers 2.4 Correspondence At Advance Plans 2.5 Working Drawing and Design Calculation Review Requirements 2.6 As Constructed Plan Requirements Section 2 Appendix A2.1.1 References A2.1.2.1 Design Responsibility - Stability A2.1.4 Non-Critical vs. Critical Retaining Structure [Applications] A2.2.1 Contract Document Preparation - Contract Plans A2.2.2.3 Measurement and Payment A2.4 Correspondence At Advance Plans A2.5 Working Drawing and Design Calculation Review Requirements Section 2 Commentary C2.1.4 Non-Critical vs. Critical Retaining Structure [Applications] C2.1.5 Seismic Loads C2.2.1 Contract Document Preparation - Contract Plans C2.2.2.1 Contract Document Preparation - Construction Specification - General C2.2.2.3 Contract Document Preparation - Construction Specification - Measurement and Payment C2.3 Assignment of Bridge Numbers C2.5 Working Drawing Review Requirements - Specific to MSE Retaining Walls
ii
SECTION 3:
DESIGN AND DETAILING PRACTICES
3.1 Retaining Structure Types 3.2 General Design Practices 3.2.1 Height 3.2.2 Embedment 3.2.3 Batter 3.2.4 Contraction/Expansion Joints 3.2.5 Shrinkage and Temperature Steel Reinforcement for Concrete 3.2.6 Excavation 3.2.7 Backfill 3.2.7.1 Granular Wall Backfill 3.2.7.2 MSE Granular Backfill 3.2.8 Earth Pressure 3.2.9 Drainage 3.2.10 Utilities 3.2.11 Concrete Barriers General Notes And Design Requirements Rigid Gravity and Semi-Gravity Retaining Structures 3.4.1 ODOT Standard Cast-In-Place Concrete Gravity Retaining Wall 3.4.2 ODOT Standard Cast-In-Place Reinforced Concrete Semi-gravity (Cantilever) Retaining Wall 3.4.3 ODOT Standard Masonry Semi-Gravity (Cantilever) Retaining Wall MSE Retaining Structures 3.5.1 Geotextile Retaining Walls 3.5.1.1 General 3.5.1.2 Facings 3.5.1.3 Geotextile Material Properties 3.5.1.4 Appurtenances 3.5.1.5 Construction Specifications 3.5.2 Leveling Pads 3.5.3 Soil Reinforcements 3.5.4 Coping 3.5.5 Seismic Design 3.5.6 Bridge Abutments on MSE Retaining Walls 3.5.7 Exposure to Deleterious Deicers 3.5.8 MSE Retaining Wall Details Prefabricated Modular Retaining Structures 3.6.1 Gabion Retaining Walls 3.6.1.1 Corrosion Protection 3.6.1.2 Gabion Retaining Wall Details 3.6.2 Conventional Segmental Retaining Walls 3.6.3 ODOT designs using Lock-Block Retaining Wall Product
3.3 3.4
3.5
3.6
iii
Section 3 Appendix A3.2.3 Batter A3.2.5 Shrinkage and Temperature Steel Reinforcement for Concrete A3.2.11 Concrete Barriers A3.3 General Notes and Design Requirements A3.5.8 MSE Retaining Wall Details A3.6.1.2 Gabion Retaining Wall Details Section 3 Commentary C3.1 Retaining Structure Types C3.2.1 Height C3.2.3 Batter C3.2.7.2 MSE Granular Backfill C3.4.2 ODOT Standard Cast-In-Place Reinforced Concrete Semi-Gravity (Cantilever) Retaining Wall C3.5.6 Bridge Abutments on MSE Retaining Walls
SECTION 4:
ODOT STATUS OF RETAINING STRUCTURES PRODUCTS
4.1 General 4.2 Product Table 4.2.1 Status 4.2.2 Proprietorship 4.3 Index Tabs Section 4 Appendix
APPENDIX A - RETAINING WALL COST CHARTS - 1995
iv
Oregon DOT Retaining Structures Manual September 2000
INTRODUCTION
PREFACE
This manual has been prepared as a guide for ODOT personnel involved with the review, recommendation, selection, and design of retaining structures. Every effort has been made to make this manual informative, comprehensive, and accurate. However, it is not a legal document and there is no substitute for sound engineering judgment. Numeric values in this manual are provided in English units. The Retaining Structures Coordinator is responsible for keeping this manual updated. Manual users are encouraged to submit comments, corrections, and proposals for new or revised materials. Manual users are required to provide updated information to the Retaining Structures Coordinator regarding changes of name address, telephone number, etc. Failure to do so will result in the manual user not receiving future updates. Any comments or questions about this manual should be directed to: Retaining Structures Coordinator Oregon Department of Transportation Technical Services - Geo/Hydro Section 355 Capitol Street N.E., Room 301 Salem, OR 97301-3871 Ph: (503) 986-4200
INTRO-1
RECORD OF REVISIONS
Revision/ Update # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Date 6-16-87 1-18-90 7-6-90 1-2-91 3-4-91 1-20-93 11-3-93 10-3-94 1-96 1-97 2-97 3-98 9-00 Description Retaining Wall Review & Acceptance Procedures Retaining Wall Review & Acceptance Procedures Retaining Wall Review & Acceptance Procedures Retaining Wall Review & Acceptance Procedures w/ FHWA comments included Acceptance Criteria for Retaining Wall Systems w/ TJS comments included Retaining Structures Office Practice Retaining Structures Office Practice Update Retaining Structures Manual (RSM): Sections 1 & 4 RSM Update: Sections 2 & 3, Revise Section 1 RSM Update: Metric, Revise for Non-Proprietary Products RSM Revision: Section 2 - revise measurement and payment definition RSM Update: All Sections RSM Update: All Sections Revision by GAP:JS:GRT JLS JLS JLS GRT SDL SDL SDL SDL SDL SDL SDL LDB
INTRO-2
REVISING THE MANUAL

Discuss your suggestion for revising or making additions to this Retaining Structures Manual with your Team Supervisor and the Retaining Structures Coordinator. If it is agreed the item should be proposed, your supervisor will assign you or another person to develop a written proposal or ask an in-house committee to develop it. Development of the written proposal, review and approval or disapproval and implementation shall be according to the instructions for revising the Bridge Office Practice Manual provided in the Bridge Office Practice Manual Introduction. Please note that as of August 1995 the Retaining Structures Coordinator is responsible for maintenance of and revisions to the Retaining Structures Manual. Eventually, it is anticipated that maintenance of and revisions to the manual will be handled jointly by the Retaining Structures Coordinator and the Bridge Engineering Office Practice Coordinator.
INTRO-3
SECTION 1: RETAINING STRUCTURE PROGRAM POLICY

Section Contents:
1.1 Background / Purpose 1.2 Objectives 1.3 Responsibilities 1.3.1 Vendor 1.3.2 ODOT 1.4 Design Requirements 1.5 Review Procedure for Retaining Wall Materials, Products or Systems 1.6 Proprietary / Non-Proprietary Product Agreement 1.7 Product Documentation 1.8 ODOT Contract Document Preparation 1.8.1 Contract Plans 1.8.2 Contract Specifications 1.9 Material Specification Requirements 1.10 Proprietor Prepared Working Drawings and Design Calculations Appendix A - Submittal Requirements for Retaining Wall Materials, Products or Systems Appendix B - ODOT Retaining Structures Product Data sheets
1.1
Background / Purpose
Like most other DOTs across the nation, ODOT has constructed many-a-mile of cast-in-place reinforced concrete semi-gravity cantilever retaining walls. This was due, in part, to retaining walls being considered minor or incidental structures lending themselves to standard designs. As the years passed and construction costs steadily rose industrious individuals began seeking ways to reduce retaining walls costs. These individuals typically patented their product or some part of the product and began what is today known as the vendor or proprietary retaining wall. As the proprietors work became more and more accepted FHWA recognized possible cost savings associated with the use of proprietary retaining walls over the typical cast-in-place retaining wall. FHWA sought a way to incorporate these walls into DOT designs and began the first review and acceptance procedures for allowing alternate (proprietary) retaining wall designs on federal-aid projects. FHWA also developed guidelines for contract document preparation using a generic wall plan approach (i.e., conceptual plans). Following FHWAs guidance ODOT experienced a period of experimental projects, plan review, and inclusion of proprietary wall plans in the contract documents until this method of contract plan preparation became unmanageable. In 1987 FHWA geotechnical engineers were no longer able to provide technical review and approval of design and construction procedures for proprietary retaining walls. FHWA still advocated the use of proprietary retaining walls and their policy was, and still is, that acceptance of any proprietary retaining wall for federally funded projects be based on a formal state adopted review and acceptance procedure. FHWA recommends that proprietary retaining walls should only be approved for use following a rigorous 1 engineering evaluation by state structural, geotechnical, and material engineers. Failure of an ODOT retaining wall in the Siskiyou Mountains in Southwest Oregon prompted ODOT management to delegate responsibility for evaluating all retaining wall locations where the height of the wall is greater than a concrete shoulder barrier and performing retaining structure foundation designs to the 3 4 Bridge Foundation Unit . This responsibility was temporarily transferred to the Geotechnical Group , but 5 later resumed by the Bridge (Engineering) Foundation Unit . Also noted in an ODOT Interoffice Memo
2
1-1
dated July 21, 1989 was that the Bridge (Engineering) Section was in the process of developing a policy for the acceptance of new and proprietary retaining walls in conjunction with the New Products Committee. Note that the proprietary retaining wall acceptance policy was Point 9 of a 10-Point FHWA Improvement 6 Plan for the ODOT Geogroup (FHWA defined the ODOT Geogroup as the Engineering Services Geotechnical Services Unit; the Bridge Engineering Foundations Unit; and the Region Geology Units). In 1989 the Bridge Foundation Unit initiated a formal "Review and Acceptance Procedure." This procedure is continually being updated and is currently being supported by both foundation and structural engineers in the Geo-Hydro and Bridge Engineering Sections. Currently, FHWA has two categories of projects; exempt (from FHWA review) and non-exempt (from FHWA review). All projects are exempt except those over one-million dollars on the NHS System (i.e., local agency projects are exempt). All responsibility for appropriate use of design standards and wise use of federal dollars was delegated to ODOT (except for specific items like The Davis Bacon Act, etc.). FHWA prefers that local and state projects meet state standards and review procedures, however, this is not a mandate. The ODOT Retaining Structures Program (i.e., ODOTs formal state review procedure for new retaining walls) is one of these review procedures. FHWA may elect not to participate (i.e., fund) retaining walls constructed that have not been reviewed according to this formal state procedure. New retaining walls may be included without undergoing a formal state review procedure provided they are in accordance with current FHWA Experimental Features policies. Therefore, the formal state review 7 procedure can be considered an alternate to the FHWA Experimental Features program.
1.2
Objectives
1. Promote safe and cost-effective retaining wall designs, 2. Establish statewide uniform design criteria, 3. Promote cost-effective and efficient ODOT contract document preparation, 4. Establish standard policies and procedures for the technical review and approval or rejection of retaining wall materials, products and systems, 5. Delineate responsibility within ODOT for the review and approval or rejection of retaining wall materials, products and systems, 6. Use new retaining wall technology and products, 7. Promote uniform review and specification of proprietary retaining walls, 8. Promote competitive bidding between acceptable retaining walls, and 9. Delineate responsibility between ODOT and proprietors for the preparation and/or review of contract documents, designs, and working drawings, and providing for construction support.
1-2
1.3 Responsibilities 1.3.1 Vendor
The Vendor is responsible for: the product (materials) product expertise final design of proprietary products supplying the product construction support (the Contractor for construction practices, ODOT for inspection)
1.3.2
ODOT
ODOT is responsible for: product review (preapproval) product selection for specific projects conceptual and/or preliminary design contract plans and specifications product acceptance construction inspection product maintenance
1.4 Design Requirements

All retaining structures shall be designed according to the current AASHTO ASD/LFD design specifications supplemented and modified according to current AASHTO Interim Specifications and pertinent data in the ODOT Retaining Structures Manual. Designs according to AASHTO LRFD design specifications supplemented and modified according to AASHTO Interim Specifications and pertinent data in the ODOT Retaining Structures Manual is acceptable, but not mandatory at this time.
1.5
Review Procedure for Retaining Wall Materials, Products and Systems
Retaining wall materials, products and systems (hereafter referred to as products) used in permanent 1 applications shall be approved by ODOT prior to inclusion in the contract special provisions (i.e., preapproved). Retaining wall products shall be reviewed by ODOT and, based on the results of the review and the products use and/or performance history in the Department, assigned one of the following status: 1 used in permanent applications APPROVED: -- Prequalified Product has been reviewed, is commonly used and is acceptable according to ODOT Conditions of Use.
1-3
-- Conditional
Product has been reviewed, has been used on a limited basis and is acceptable according to ODOT Conditions of Use. Additional information may be required before including in ODOT special provisions. Obtain Retaining Structures Coordinator approval before including in ODOT special provisions. Product has been reviewed; has not been used, is being used for the first time or is being used in an unusual or innovative application (analogous to FHWA "Experimental Feature" projects) and is acceptable according to ODOT Conditions of Use. Construction of product will require performance documentation. Obtain Retaining Structures Coordinator approval before including in ODOT special provisions. Product has been reviewed and is not acceptable for use. Product is not acceptable. Approval revoked. Vendor may elect to address the comments relating to the suspension and submit data for ODOT review. A new status (not necessarily the status held prior to suspension) will be assigned upon completion of the review. Product is not acceptable. Product data has been submitted by vendor and is available for review by an ODOT Review Group. Product is not acceptable. Product is known to ODOT, however, vendor has not submitted data for review. Product is not acceptable. Vendor has identified product as no longer available.
-- Experimental
REJECTED SUSPENDED
EVALUATION KNOWN DISCONTINUED
The review process consists of a detailed technical evaluation of the theory, design, materials, constructibility, and performance history of the proposed retaining wall product(s) by an appointed ODOT Review Group consisting of a foundation, structural, and materials engineer. Approval of a retaining wall product is based on a vendors: valid and practical design theory, past construction experience and performance, and capability to adequately supply materials and documentation, competency and construction support of past projects.
Also, approval is based on the information provided by the vendor on a given date. ANY DESIGN CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS MADE AFTER THE REVIEW DATE SHALL BE SUBMITTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE FOR REVIEW. Approval is subject to change depending on ODOT design requirement changes, product design changes or other modifications made after the review date. Written notification of ODOT's approval or rejection, with comments, will be provided by the ODOT Bridge Engineer. ODOT reserves the right to remove any product from an ODOT approved status due to vendors:
1-4
theory or design not meeting AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, any other ODOT recognized document and/or the ODOT Retaining Structure Manual. changes to the approved products, construction or post-construction performance, inability to provide approved products, or inability to support the construction of the retaining wall.
When a product is removed from an ODOT approved status it will be reassigned to a status of 'Suspended'. Written notification to the vendor regarding the suspension, with comments, will be provided by the ODOT Bridge Engineer. The vendor may elect to address the comments relating to the suspension and submit data for ODOT review. A new status (not necessarily the status held prior to suspension) will be assigned upon completion of the review. Send review requests to: Oregon Department of Transportation Technical Services - Geo/Hydro Section Retaining Structures Coordinator 355 Capitol Street N.E., Room 301 Salem, OR 97301 Refer to Appendix A of this policy document for product submittal requirements. Review requests shall be accompanied by the ODOT Retaining Structures Product Data sheets, a Proprietary/Non-Proprietary Product Agreement, and any other applicable agreements noted on the Product Data sheets. Refer to Appendix B of this policy document for these forms. Approval means that the retaining wall product may be considered for use on ODOT projects. APPROVAL DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE PRODUCT WILL BE SPECIFIED ON ALL PROJECTS.
1.6
Proprietary / Non-Proprietary Product Agreement
The Proprietary/Non-Proprietary Product Agreement establishes the proprietorship of the product; that is, who is responsible and liable for the final design, supply and construction support of the product. It is a formal agreement, mutually agreed to by ODOT and the vendor, and signed by the vendor. The vendors response to the Proprietary/Non-Proprietary Product Agreement will be reflected in Section 4 of this manual. Refer to Appendix B of this policy document for this form.
1.7
Product Documentation
All products will be documented in Section 4 of the ODOT Retaining Structures Manual. Non-Proprietary, commercially available, products with a low risk of failure will be published in the Departments Qualified Products Listing (QPL). Brief guidance regarding the appropriate use of the product will also be provided with reference to the ODOT Retaining Structures Manual for detailed information.
1-5
Proprietary and higher risk Non-Proprietary products will be published in the ODOT Retaining Structures Manual.
1.8 1.8.1
ODOT Contract Document Preparation Contract Plans
ODOT contract plans may be: A fully detailed set of plans -- showing a retaining wall composed of non-proprietary materials. A semi-detailed set of plans -- showing a semi-detailed representation of a specific retaining wall type, for which proprietary retaining walls will be allowed to bid. A conceptually detailed set of plans -- showing a conceptual representation of a retaining wall that will allow different retaining wall types, for which proprietary retaining walls will be allowed, to bid.
Preparation of ODOT contract plans is dependent on the proprietorship of the retaining wall products being considered. Reference Section 1.5 for the establishment of the proprietorship of a product.
1.8.2
Contract Specifications
The contract specifications shall reflect the method of plan preparation. A fully detailed set of contract plans should be accompanied by a fully detailed set of contract specifications; semi-detailed contract plans should be accompanied by a set of contract specifications specific only to a particular retaining wall type; and conceptually detailed contract plans should be accompanied by a set of contract specifications general to all the retaining wall types being allowed. The designer is encouraged to specify all applicable and approved retaining walls meeting the projects site conditions. For semi-detailed and conceptually detailed contract plans the designer shall provide in the contract special provisions a list of acceptable retaining wall Options meeting the projects site conditions. For fully detailed contract plans the designer may allow Alternates at his or her discretion. If Alternates are allowed, acceptable retaining walls meeting the projects site conditions shall be listed in the contract special provisions. Selection of acceptable retaining walls to include in the contract special provisions should be based on site specific conditions such as the magnitude and direction of loading, depth to suitable foundation support, potential for earthquake loading, presence of deleterious environmental factors, proximity of physical constraints, tolerable differential settlement, aesthetics, and ease and cost of construction. It is the designers responsibility to ensure the acceptable retaining walls are approved prior to the contract (i.e., pre-approved) according to this policy document.
1.9
Material Specification Requirements
Material specifications must be compatible with ODOT Standard Specifications. It is preferred that vendors submit material specifications that refer to the ODOT Standard Specifications. If this is not done, ODOT will modify the vendors specifications to fit ODOT's standard materials classifications. Such items will include
1-6
concrete strength and mix design requirements, aggregate quality and gradation, AASHTO specification designations, acceptance requirements and check testing requirements. It is not intended that these modifications be to the detriment of the vendor. The modifications are to facilitate fabrication, construction inspection and acceptance by ODOT. Also, the modifications reflect ODOT's experience with local materials and suppliers. The primary structural components of any retaining structure may be subject to material quality review and testing prior to each project. All testing will be according to ODOT's current testing methods and frequency regardless of the manufacturer's recommendations. Likewise, material acceptance will be according to ODOT's current policies as stated in the appropriate sections of the Standard Specifications or project special provisions regardless of the manufacturer's recommendations.
1.10
Proprietor Prepared Working Drawings and Design Calculations
The successful proprietor shall supplement the Departments prepared plans with such working drawings and calculations meeting the requirements of the project contract plans and the Oregon Standard Specifications for Highway Construction supplemented and modified according to the ODOT project special provisions. Submittal units shall correspond to the contract document units (i.e., English working drawings shall be submitted when contract drawings are in english; metric working drawings shall be submitted when contract drawings are in metric).
1-7
APPENDIX A
Submittal Requirements for Retaining Wall Products
Submittal data shall include, but not be limited to: ___ Completed Retaining Structure Product Data sheets and Attachments (includes references and supply capabilities) ___ Product Documentation product brochure product drawings product specifications design guide(s) field construction manual other DOT approvals, FHWA Experimental Features projects, ICBO Certification, etc. ___ Components, Geometry and Terminology e.g. components, height, width, embedment, backslope, foreslope, horizontal curvature, corners, grade considerations, jargon definitions, etc. ___ Material Specifications and Testing including, but not limited to, material type, testing specifications, acceptance/rejection criteria, certifications, placement procedures, tolerances laboratory and field testing ___ Design Theory e.g. history, earth pressure theory, bearing pressure theory, failure modes, design life, design methodology and assumptions, supporting laboratory and field tests, etc. ___ Applications and Appurtenances practical applications with descriptions and photos or sketches appurtenances with descriptions and details ___ Design/Analysis sample design calculations performed by hand (including, but not limited to, loads, factors of safety, external stability (e.g. overturning, sliding), bearing pressures, settlement, internal stability (e.g. pullout), connections, corrosion protection, appurtenances) sample design calculations performed by computer, if applicable (use same sample design as calculated by hand) ___ Miscellaneous e.g., drainage requirements, standard details, obstruction details, construction requirements, example working drawings.
APPENDIX B
FOR ODOT USE ONLY Index #: OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RETAINING STRUCTURE PRODUCT DATA
NOTE: One product or system per Product Data sheets (sheets may be copied for other products or systems)
TRADE NAME: COMPANY: Proprietor Supplier Manufacturer Engineering Firm
Brief description of product or components of system:
Recommended Uses:
Advantages:
Cost:
typical installed cost (range) typical materials only cost (range) typical equipment only cost (range) typical labor only cost (range)
$ $ $ $
ft 2 ft 2 ft 2 ft
Meets the requirements of the following Materials Specifications: AASHTO ASTM ODOT Other (list): Meets the requirements of the following Design Specifications: AASHTO ODOT Other (list): Date of product inception: Quantity constructed worldwide: Quantity constructed in Oregon (any entity): FOR ODOT USE ONLY
(To be completed by ODOT Retaining Structures Coordinator)
Product Status:
Initials:
Date:
FOR ODOT USE ONLY Index #: Proprietary/Non-Proprietary Product Agreement attached Non-Disclosure Statement available?: If No, is an Agreement required? Disclaimer Statement available? If No, is an Agreement required? Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes No (Attachment A)
(Attachment B) (Attachment C) Yes No
Can Company provide a field representative at start of wall construction?
Product or Trade Name(s) of other products or systems; or variations of products or systems; designed, manufactured, supplied or supported by the named company:
PROPRIETOR: Representative: Address: City: Phone: ENGINEERING FIRM: Representative: Address: City: Phone: MANUFACTURER: Representative: Address: City: Phone: Production Capability: (quantity)
NA State: Fax: Zip:
NA
State: Fax:
Zip:
NA State: Fax: (units) per Zip:
(duration) NA
SUPPLIER: Representative: Address: City: Phone: Supply Capability: (quantity)
State: Fax: (units) per
Zip:
(duration)
FOR ODOT USE ONLY Index #:
REFERENCES: Name:: Address: City: Description: Phone: State: Zip:
Name:: Address: City: Description:
Phone: State: Zip:
Phone: State: Zip:
Phone: State: Zip:
(Attach separate sheet for additional References)
FOR ODOT USE ONLY Index #: ATTACHMENT A PROPRIETARY / NON-PROPRIETARY PRODUCT AGREEMENT TRADE NAME: Is the Trade Name registered? Is the product patented? Date patented: Date patent expired: Date patent applied for: Yes Yes No No Net Yet Net Yet
Check only one of the following three boxes: Category 1 The above noted product will be mutually recognized as Non-Proprietary. ODOT may prepare in-house final designs using and specifying all or any part of the product without infringing upon any legal rights. Category 2 The above noted product will be mutually recognized as Proprietary. ODOT may not prepare in-house final designs. Final designs and construction support will be provided by the named company. The above noted product is generally recognized as a proprietary product, however, the named company relinquishes any legal design rights and liabilities associated with the product and allows ODOT to prepare in-house final designs. When final designs using this product are prepared by ODOT the product will be mutually recognized as Non-Proprietary.
Category 3
The following box may be checked, if so elected, only if the first or third box above has been checked: Category 4 As noted above, the product has been established as Non-Proprietary, however, the named company is capable of providing final designs and construction support and requests ODOT consider including the Trade Name and Company as an alternate or option to in-house designed walls. When final designs using this product are provided by the Company the product will be mutually recognized as Proprietary.
Signature: Company Name: ODOT Retaining Structures Coordinator initials:
Date:
Date:
FOR ODOT USE ONLY Index #: ATTACHMENT B NON-DISCLOSURE STATEMENT TRADE NAME:
Signature: Company Name:
Date:
Note: A copy of the companys Non-Disclosure Statement for this product may be substituted for this attachment.
FOR ODOT USE ONLY Index #: ATTACHMENT C DISCLAIMER STATEMENT TRADE NAME:
Signature: Company Name:
Date:
Note: A copy of the companys Disclaimer Statement for this product may be substituted for this attachment.
SECTION 1: APPENDIX - RETAINING STRUCTURE PROGRAM POLICY

Section Contents:
A1.1 Background / Purpose A1.3 Responsibilities A1.5 Review Procedure for Retaining Wall Materials, Products or Systems
A1.1
Background / Purpose
REFERENCES - (Available from the Retaining Structures Coordinator)

1
FHWA memorandum dated March 20, 1987, from Stanley Gordon, Chief, Bridge Division, to Regional Federal Highway Administrators, regarding Geotechnical Information, Earth Retaining Structures, Review and Acceptance Procedures. ODOT Interoffice Memo dated May 22, 1985, from E. S. Hunter, Assistant State Highway Engineer, to Walt Hart et. al., regarding Retaining Wall Foundations.
ODOT letter dated August 15, 1985, from Bob Pool, Location Engineer, and Walt Hart, Bridge Engineer, to Region Engineers, regarding Procedure for Subsurface Evaluations of Retaining Walls.
4
ODOT Interoffice Memo dated November 4, 1988, from Tom Lulay, Bridge Engineer, to (distribution list), regarding Geotechnical Investigations of Retaining Walls. ODOT Interoffice Memo dated July 21, 1989, from Tom Lulay, Bridge Engineer, to Jack Sullivan, regarding Geotechnical Investigations of Retaining Walls.
FHWA report dated September 28, 1989, from Dale E. Wilken, FHWA Division Administrator, to Donald E. Forbes, State Highway Engineer, regarding ODOT Geotech Program Management Review, Final Report. ODOT Discussion Memo dated February 12, 1996, between Scott Liesinger, ODOT Retaining Structures Coordinator, and Bruce Johnson, FHWA, regarding FHWAs current position regarding a formal state review procedure (i.e., retaining structure preapproval).
7
1A-1
A1.3
Responsibilities
ODOT considers the retaining wall product vendor the experts of their product. Therefore ODOT reviews vendor products for: 1. conformance to AASHTO Specifications. If no AASHTO Specifications exist, then to the best accepted design practice. (The best accepted design practice may be another regulatory specification, industry specification, manufacturers specification, etc.) 2. conformance to ODOT Design Instructions (ODOT supplement to AASHTO Specifications). 3. conformance to ODOT Construction Specification.
The following outlines the current Bridge Engineering Section responsibilities to approve, select, prepare contract documents and support the design of retaining structures. Responsibilities outside the Bridge Engineering Section have intentionally been neglected at this time.
I. Retaining Structures Program Coordination A. Retaining Structures Coordinator 1. Maintains ODOT Retaining Structures Manual. 2. Maintains ODOT Standard Specifications for Highway Construction and related special provisions pertaining to retaining structures. 3. Coordinates retaining structures approval efforts between Retaining Structures Technical Working Group. 4. Acts as liaison between location, design and construction.
II.
Retaining Structures Review and Acceptance/Rejection Procedure A. Retaining Structures Coordinator 1. Receives Retaining Structures Product Data sheets and Attachments from vendor, documents correspondence. Notes patent/proprietary status, design requirements and determines extent of review. 2. Receives retaining structure submittal from vendors, documents correspondence. Determines members of Retaining Structures Technical Working Group consisting of a foundation, structural, and materials engineer; forwards for review. 3. Collects and combines evaluations from the Retaining Structures Technical Working Group and provides comments and recommendations to Bridge Engineer. Writes formal letter to vendor for Bridge Engineer's signature. 4. Maintains documenting medium (i.e., QPL, Retaining Structures Manual). Retaining Structures Technical Working Group 1. Foundation Design Engineer a) Reviews geotechnical aspects of retaining structure submittal and provides formal comments and recommendations to the Retaining Structures Coordinator. Structural Design Engineer a) Reviews structural aspects of retaining structure submittal and provides formal comments and recommendations to the Retaining Structures Coordinator. Materials Engineer a) Reviews material aspects of retaining structure submittal and provides formal comments and recommendations to the Retaining Structures Coordinator.
B.
2.
3.
1A-2
Oregon DOT Retaining Structures Manual March 1998 C. State Bridge Engineer 1. Signs formal letter of system approval or rejection. Sends letter to the retaining structure vendor. 2. Signs formal letter of retaining structure suspension from an approved status. Sends letter to the retaining structure vendor.
III.
Retaining Structure Selection A. B. Foundation Unit 1. Investigate site soil conditions and make initial retaining structure type recommendations. Structural Unit 1. Finalize list of acceptable approved retaining structures.
IV. Retaining Structure Contract Plans and Specifications Preparation A. Foundation Unit 1. Perform global stability analysis. 2. Provide foundation data for external stability analysis 3. Recommend retaining structure type(s). 4. Provide special notes to be included on the contract plans or in Special Provisions. 5. Consult with Structural Unit as necessary. Structural Unit 1. Perform external stability analysis and structural related calculations. 2. Consult with Foundation Unit as necessary. 3. Consult with FHWA and other agencies as necessary concerning retaining structures and specifications. 4. Prepare retaining structure contract plans. 5. Prepare applicable Special Provisions.
B.
V.
Post-Award Design and Working Drawings Review A. Structural Unit and Foundation Unit 1. Review structural and geotechnical aspects of retaining structure submitted.
VI. Construction Support A. Structural Unit and Foundation Unit 1. Provide technical assistance to project construction personnel prior to or during retaining structure construction (preconstruction meetings, construction problems, experimental evaluation of new or unusual retaining structures).
VII. Post-Retaining Structure Construction Review A. Retaining Structures Coordinator 1. For "Experimental" and Conditional proprietary retaining structures, Retaining Structures Coordinator to prepare performance evaluation with assistance from project foundation designer, structural designer and field personnel. 2. Monitor performance of all previously constructed retaining structures. 3. Propose re-evaluation of retaining wall materials, products or systems as required.
1A-3
Task Relationship Diagram
1A-4
A1.5
Review Procedure for Retaining Wall Materials, Products or Systems
REFERENCES - (Available from the Retaining Structures Coordinator)

1
ODOT E-Mail dated April 7, 1998, between Scott Liesinger, ODOT Retaining Structures Coordinator, and Bruce Johnson, FHWA, regarding FHWAs expectation of temporary proprietary retaining walls vs. permanent proprietary retaining walls in relation to meeting the States review and acceptance criteria (i.e., ODOT Retaining Structures Program)..
1A-5
SECTION 2: DESIGNER GUIDELINES

Section Contents:
2.1 General Design Guidance 2.1.1 References 2.1.2 Design Responsibilities 2.1.2.1 Stability 2.1.2.2 Appurtenances 2.1.3 Retaining Structure Materials, General 2.1.4 Non-Critical vs. Critical Retaining Structure [Applications] 2.1.5 Seismic Loads 2.1.6 Retaining Wall vs. Slope 2.2 Contract Document Preparation 2.2.1 Contract Plans 2.2.2 Contract Specifications 2.2.2.1 General 2.2.2.2 Selection of Acceptable Retaining Walls for Contract Specifications 2.2.2.2.1 Aesthetic Considerations 2.2.2.3 Measurement and Payment 2.3 Assignment of Bridge Numbers 2.4 Correspondence At Advance Plans 2.5 Working Drawing and Design Calculation Review Requirements 2.6 As Constructed Plan Requirements
2.1 2.1.1
General Design Guidance References
The current AASHTO ASD/LFD design specifications are lagging FHWA recommendations and the retaining wall industry. Therefore, supplemental material has been referenced to create ODOT supplements and modifications to the AASHTO design specification. Due to age of publication some of the material is better substantiated than others. Refer to this sections appendix for a list of references used by ODOT.
2.1.2
Design Responsibilities
2.1.2.1 Stability
Reference AASHTO 4.4.9 - Overall Stability: Delete the last two sentences and substitute the following: Where soil and rock parameters and ground water levels are based on in-situ and/or laboratory tests, the minimum factor of safety shall be 1.3 (or 1.5 where abutments are supported above a slope). Otherwise, the minimum factor of safety shall be 1.5. For applications involving retaining walls see Section 5.2.2.3.
2-1
For retaining walls composed of non-proprietary products the ODOT designer is responsible for all aspects of the design including, but not limited to, overall, external, and internal stability. Overall stability refers to a global slope failure. External stability includes sliding, overturning and bearing. Internal stability includes shears, moments and deflections in Rigid Gravity, Semi-Gravity and most Prefabricated Modular walls and soil reinforcement pullout, rupture and facing connection in MSE walls. For proprietary retaining walls the ODOT designer is responsible for the overall stability, the ultimate bearing capacity, and the soil parameters necessary for the calculation of external stability factors of safety. Internal stability is the responsibility of the proprietor. External stability calculations are typically included in the proprietors calculations because the resulting dimensions from these calculations become the basis or starting point for the internal stability calculations.
2.1.2.2 Appurtenances
Appurtenances for MSE retaining walls other than standard coping (i.e., traffic barrier coping or sidewalk coping) have, on occasion, been designed by the MSE proprietor. For the most part, neither ODOT nor the MSE proprietors recommend that appurtenances other than standard coping be designed by the proprietor. ODOT prefers that the ODOT designer take responsibility for appurtenances other than standard coping and show complete details in the retaining wall contract plans. It is recommended that the ODOT designer discuss the appurtenance and proposed details with the Retaining Structures Coordinator. This will ensure the use of the most up to date details and reduce the use of out of date details possibly used in a past contract. Contact with proprietors may be necessary to coordinate details.
2.1.3
Retaining Structure Materials, General
A retaining structure, in its most rudimentary sense, consists of three features: 1. the backfill (load) 2. the structure (resistance) 3. the foundation (support) Foundation material properties are the responsibility of ODOT. Backfill material properties, acting either as retained backfill or as part of the composite structure (e.g., MSE soil reinforcements, soil anchors), may be promoted by the vendor, however, ODOT has elected to assume control of this material (Except under special circumstances that would be identified on a project specific basis.). These materials may consist of the following: 1) in-situ native material (e.g., existing foundation material, existing retained material, soil nails), 2) non-in-situ native material (e.g., select backfill, including cohesives; select granular backfill), or 3) non-insitu non-native material (e.g., granular wall backfill, granular structure backfill, MSE granular backfill). The properties of all in-situ native materials, assuming that no ground improvements are made, are determined from the exploration data and should be shown on the plans. The properties of all non-in-situ native and non-native materials are typically controlled by an ODOT backfill specification. Cohesive materials are not acceptable unless specifically specified in the contract documents. Proprietary structure materials and their related features are controlled by the vendor (approved by ODOT). Non-proprietary structure materials and features are controlled by the designer of record. Structure mateirals may consist of various materials (under development) Traditional materials
2-2
concrete masonry steel wood Modern materials geosynthetics modular blocks Non-conventional materials asphalt emulsions as protective geotextile facing slag as backfill recycled asphalt grindings as backfill used tires glass cullet as drainage backfill
2.1.4
Non-Critical vs. Critical Retaining Structure [Applications]
The 1996 AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 16th ed., Section 5 - Retaining Walls, and accompanying supplemental Interim Specifications only differentiate between critical and non-critical [applications] in two articles: 5.8.6.1 - Design Life Requirements for MSE Walls - Steel Reinforcement, and 5.8.6.2 - Design Life Requirements for MSE Walls - Polymeric Reinforcement
Article 5.1 - General alludes to a difference simply by stating that for most applications, permanent retaining walls should be designed for a minimum service life of 75 to 100 years. The subject of criticality has been discussed quite extensively by several engineers and committee members of the ODOT Bridge Engineering Section and members of the AASHTO T-15 Technical Working Group It was agreed that the terms critical and non-critical refer to the application or external environment around the retaining structure, not the retaining structure itself. Furthermore, all types of retaining structures, not just MSE, should account for critical/non-critical applications and that a critical application for one type of retaining structure may not be a critical application for another type of retaining structure. Determining the criticality of a retaining structure application does not lend itself to a "cookbook" solution. The criticality of a retaining structure application is dependent upon site specific conditions and anticipated future events and must be assessed based on sound engineering judgment. Refer to this sections appendix for examples of site specific conditions, possible future events and risk considerations. From a highway standpoint, ODOT considers the majority of retaining structures non-critical and designs for a minimum service life of 75-years. ODOT considers retaining structures supporting bridge abutments as critical retaining structure applications. Retaining structures supporting buildings, critical utilities or other facilities for which the consequences of poor performance or failure would be severe are generally considered critical retaining structure applications. The decision regarding whether or not these or any other application not described here are critical or non-critical for a given retaining structure will be the responsibility of the designer of record. Consultation with the designers manager and the Retaining Structures Coordinator is recommended in order to obtain a broad viewpoint of the factors affecting the decision.
2-3
For retaining structure applications designated critical the components of the retaining structure are generally designed for an increased design life, increased levels of safety, and/or other increases in appropriate design data. The retaining structure contract plans should, as a minimum, note the required design life. The project special provisions should include any additional material requirements to account for an increased design life, levels of safety and/or other applicable data. Any other information applicable to an increased design life or levels of safety should be included either on the retaining structure contract plans or in the project special provisions, or both.
2.1.5 Seismic Loads

ODOT policy for seismic load design for earth retaining structures is: Lifeline Facilities -- Facilities are to remain useable for emergency vehicles after a 500 year design event. Other Facilities -- Facilities are not to catastrophically collapse during a 500 year design event.
Lifeline facility walls require specific design by the Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, Section 5 (Retaining Walls), and Division I-A Seismic Design, Sections 6 and 7, criteria for a 500 year design event. Abutment walls which provide support for a bridge also require design by these criteria. Normal, non-abutment, non-lifeline retaining wall designs are presumed to meet the Other Facilities criteria without specific seismic load design. When seismic loading and design is explicitly performed, include the following note in the contract plans with the General Notes: Retaining wall seismic design is in accordance with {AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges} {Division I-A, Seismic Design}. The site peak bedrock acceleration coefficient (A) is ____ g and the assumed site coefficient (S) is ____. If the application is considered critical (e.g., some movement can not be tolerated) more extensive analysis may be required.
2-4
2.1.6 Retaining Wall vs. Slope

"Is it a retaining wall or is it a slope?" This has been a topic of past discussions and will probably be debated long into the future. The following information will attempt to explain the Retaining Wall Group's position and provide guidance to designers who encounter this situation on future projects. Material placed at a slope less than or equal to its angle of repose will support itself; thus no retaining structure is required. Materials placed at a slope greater than its angle of repose will require some type of structure to preclude failure. A few references (e.g., FHWA-SA-96-071) make reference to an angle of the front face of the structure of 70 from the horizontal as a division between a slope and a wall. Structures less than or equal to 70 being controlled by slope stability and analyzed using Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability Methods. Structures greater than 70 being controlled by lateral earth pressure and analyzed using Coulomb or other acceptable earth pressure theories. This is an acceptable concept provided the retained material remains generally homogeneous and the "added structure" is in the form of, for example, MSE type soil inclusions. However, If the "added structure" is basically a barrier comprised of a different material (e.g., rock filled gabions) that is intended to retain material then it is a retaining wall at any angle. Shallow angle retaining structure configurations will be analyzed using the appropriate backface angle yielding a reduced lateral earth pressure. Intuitively, shallow angle retaining structures with a reduced lateral earth pressure will yield a stable wall for sliding and overturning failure modes. However, this may not be the case for the global stability failure mode. It is imperative that a Geotechnical Engineer verify the global stability of retaining structures of this configuration.
2.2 2.2.1
Contract Document Preparation Contract Plans
Fully detailed contract plans. A fully detailed set of plans is generally a designers plan preparation method of choice. This method is typically used to detail retaining walls composed of generic, conventional, or non-patented/non-proprietary retaining wall materials or products. (This can include more than the typical DOT cast-in-place type walls; e.g., non-proprietary gabions, cribs, bins, blocks, and MSE). This methods primary advantage is that it allows the designer to detail what he or she believes to be the most cost-effective retaining wall for the site. This method can be used to either specify a particular wall for a particular site or specify a particular wall yet allow proprietary Alternates. For the latter case all specific details for the proprietary Alternate must be provided by the proprietor in the form of working drawings (assuming the successful contractor opts for an alternate proprietary retaining wall) since the contract plans will be detailed for a specific non-proprietary retaining wall.
Note: For fully detailed contract plans using commercially available non-patented/non-proprietary products FHWA still requires three or more product options be stated (and may be followed by or approved equal.) to address product sole source issues. Semi-detailed contract plans. A semi-detailed set of plans is generally the plan preparation method of choice when the designer is allowing proprietary products or systems. This method is typically used to specify several proprietary retaining walls of a specific type. Generally the project designers have decided upon a specific wall type (e.g., MSE) and will provide enough detail in the contract plans to depict this wall type and not infringe upon any legal or patent rights. All acceptable proprietary walls in that particular wall type are listed in the project special provisions as Options.
2-5
Conceptually detailed contract plans. A conceptually detailed set of plans tends to be the most difficult to produce, award and construct. This method is typically used to specify several proprietary retaining walls of differing types. The required coordination between the design units, lack of contract plan details and the sometimes overwhelming number of options specified in the special provisions make this plan preparation method unattractive. The primary advantage of this plan preparation method is increased competitive bidding by incorporation of several wall types (typically proprietary) into a set of plans with minimal detailing.
Refer to this sections appendix for specific items to include on the contract plans regardless of plan preparation method discussed above.
NOTE:
ELEVATIONS ALONG THE MAXIMUM BOTTOM OF WALL FOR WALLS WITHOUT FOOTINGS, MAXIMUM TOP OF FOOTING FOR WALLS WITH FOOTINGS OR MAXIMUM TOP OF LEVELING PAD ARE CRITICAL FOR DEFINING THE PAY AREA FOR BIDDING, BASING CHANGES AND PAYMENT PURPOSES. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION REFER TO SECTION 2.2.2.3.
2.2.2 2.2.2.1
Construction Specifications General
The initial special provision package will be assembled by the structural designer. Obtain the applicable boilerplate special provisions from the file cabinet located on the second floor of the Transportation Building or from the Roadway Engineering Specification Writer. Read the boilerplate special provisions and mark out specifications that do not apply to the acceptable retaining walls. Also, ADD appropriate specifications that are unique to your retaining structure and are not included in the boilerplate special provisions. DO NOT RE-NUMBER OR RE-LETTER ANY PART OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS.
2.2.2.2
Selection of Acceptable Retaining Walls for Contract Specifications
Reference AASHTO 5.2.1 - Selection of Wall Type: Add as the last paragraph: Rigid Gravity and Semi-Gravity walls have traditionally been used for permanent retaining walls, bridge substructures and grade separations. Prefabricated Modular walls, whose elements may be proprietary, have also been used in permanent retaining wall applications. Some Prefabricated Modular walls have been used in permanent retaining wall applications for many years while other are new to the retaining wall industry. Prefabricated Modular walls have generally not been used for bridge abutments or grade separations. Mechanically Stabilized Earth walls, whose elements may be proprietary, are also gaining popularity in permanent retaining wall applications. Mechanically Stabilized Earth walls have also been used to support bridge abutments, however the designer should be satisfied that the performance of the retaining wall materials and the completed structure will not produce undesirable deformations, either vertically or laterally. The designer of record is responsible for providing the final list of acceptable retaining wall Alternates or Options in the contract special provisions. Refer to Section 4 of this Retaining Structures Manual for current retaining wall product approvals. Review product documentation for Limitations and Conditions of Use. 2-6
Specify all feasible retaining walls meeting the site conditions. If the projects conditions are outside the current ODOT Limitations and Conditions of Use for a particular proprietary retaining wall of interest the designer should consider performing additional review (in cooperation with the Retaining Structures Committee) and pursue either a statewide revision of approval or a project specific approval. For projects located within a local agency jurisdiction, MSE walls may be prohibited due to impaired access to utilities. Use of MSE walls should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Note: Current City of Portland policy is not to allow MSE walls within City of Portland Right-of-Way. Therefore if the wall would be located within City of Portland Right-of-Way do not detail and/or specify a MSE wall without written documentation from the City of Portland stating otherwise.
2.2.2.2.1
Aesthetic Considerations
Retaining structure aesthetics is not so much what a retaining wall looks like itself, but what the retaining wall looks like in a given environment (also remember; Beauty is in the eye of the beholder). Ones opinion of past retaining wall projects may be that aesthetics of the wall was given little consideration. Retaining walls (considered incidental structures at the time) were typically specified as cast-in-place concrete gravity or cantilever walls. When aesthetics was considered, it usually consisted of scoring on the front face. Occasionally a form liner was used for walls where a specific type of appearance was desired. Today, however, retaining structure aesthetics is becoming more of a concern. Communities are taking more notice of their surroundings and making more recommendations. Various aesthetic treatments are available and acceptable. ODOT currently staffs a Visual Resource Unit. This staff works with groups of local citizens who have concerns pertaining to the aesthetics of ODOTs projects. The retaining wall designer should work in concert with the Visual Resource Coordinator to incorporate the appropriate aesthetic features into the contract plans. This issue should be addressed early in the selection process to alleviate potential problems later.
2.2.2.3
Measurement and Payment
Retaining walls will be measured and paid on a defined Pay Area; the limits of which are to be shown on the respective contract plans for each retaining wall. These limits may either be incorporated in the retaining wall Elevation or shown on a separate Pay Area diagram. The typical boundaries of the defined Pay Area would be the beginning and end of the retaining wall; the top of the retaining wall (label the top of wall on the retaining wall Typical Section and reference elevation labels to these points on the Elevation); and the maximum bottom of wall elevations for walls without footings, maximum top of footing elevations for walls with footings, or maximum top of leveling pad elevations for walls with leveling pads. Refer to this sections appendix for examples. Field measurement of each retaining wall will not be required. The quantity for payment will be the theoretical area shown in the schedule of bid items unless changes are ordered by the Engineer. If changes are ordered, an adjustment to the theoretical Pay Area will be made only for the quantity difference involved in the ordered plan changes. In many respects this is a lump sum measurement (since field measurement is not required) except an estimated area is included in the Bid Schedule rather than in the body of the special provision. Because of this and since several items have been included in the new pay item 'Retaining Wall' (e.g., excavation, shoring, backfill, wall material) it is also reasonable for the designer to include his or her quantity estimates of these items in the special provisions. This is similar to including quantity estimates for true lump sum items
2-7
and alerts the contractor to the items and their respective quantities that the designer included in the area estimate. Use the pay item Retaining Wall Contractors Option when the list of acceptable walls at a particular location consists of two or more basic wall types and neither are fully detailed on the plans. That is, for example, when the list consists of both gabion and MSE options.
2.3
Assignment of Bridge Numbers
All retaining walls designed in the Bridge Engineering Section or for the Bridge Engineering Section, shown on Bridge Engineering Sections Title and Design Sheets, and filed under the Bridge Engineering Sections internal filing system SHALL have an identifying number assigned to them as follows: Each free-standing retaining wall shall be assigned an OT Number (e.g., OT12345). Retaining walls acting as bridge abutments will have the same Bridge Number as assigned to the bridge (e.g., BR12345).
OT Numbers shall be shown on the plans in the box labeled Bridge No. The entire number, including the OT prefix, shall be shown (e.g., Bridge No.: OT12345). Retaining walls acting as bridge abutments (including attached wingwalls) shall be detailed in the plans for the bridge and have included in the box labeled Bridge No. the same BR Number as that assigned to the bridge (e.g., Bridge No.: BR12345). (In other words, do not detail stand-alone drawings for retaining walls acting as bridge abutments separate from the drawings for the bridge.) Note: Walls abutting and extending from the ends of bridge abutment wingwalls, separated in such a manner to be free-standing, shall have assigned to them an OT Number. The free-standing portion of the wall shall be shown as stand-alone drawings separate from the drawings for the bridge. The appropriate drawings from each set (that is, a drawing from the plans for the bridge and a drawing from the plans for the free-standing retaining wall) shall show by dashed line the continuation of the wall and adequately cross-reference the drawings for the respective details. OT Numbers are obtained through the same process as BR Numbers. Make certain a Highway Name and Milepoint are provided on the retaining wall number request. Also, upon receiving the number assignment conformation printout check that the OT prefix is included with the assigned retaining wall number.
2-8
2.4
Correspondence At Advance Plans
Advance Plans should be sent to the proprietary retaining wall companies of the proprietary retaining walls that will be listed in the project special provisions. Retaining wall companies and addresses are included at the end of the respective computerized boilerplate Advance Plans letter. After completing the required data in the body of the letter, simply check the boxes of the proprietary retaining walls that will be listed in the project specifications. Submit the letter and checklist to the Bridge Engineering front office and the appropriate number of letters will be produced.
2.5
Working Drawing and Design Calculation Review Requirements
Working drawings shall be submitted through the project manager according to the Oregon Standard Specification for Highway Construction and applicable project special provisions. Design calculations, construction manuals and product brochures shall also be included in the transmittal for proprietary retaining walls. The construction manual and product brochure are primarily for the benefit of the inspector and do not require review or stamping. However, the reviewer may find information contained within these documents valuable in performing the review of the working drawings and/or design calculations. If construction manuals are not submitted the reviewer shall contact the company and request the manuals be submitted immediately or the submittal will be rejected. If construction manuals are not submitted in a reasonable amount of time the submittal is to be rejected. Missing product brochures are not necessarily grounds for rejection. The purpose of a product brochure is to provide a pretty picture of what the final product should look like. This may be accomplished either by pictures in the construction manual or by the amount of time the product has been in the construction arena. Newer products or products that the inspector may not be familiar with may warrant this type of documentation. Review working drawings and design calculations in accordance with the contract documents and information in Section 4 of this retaining structures manual. Refer to this sections appendix for specific items to consider reviewing. (Review / Approval (stamping) of working drawings - Being Developed)
2.6
As Constructed Plan Requirements
For projects allowing alternates or options include the name of the retaining wall constructed on the As Constructed plans. If several walls occur on a project include the name of the retaining walls constructed and locating station for each wall. This data can be presented in either note form or in a table.
2-9
SECTION 2: APPENDIX - DESIGNER GUIDELINES

Section Contents:
A2.1.1 References A2.1.3.1 Design Responsibility - Stability A2.1.4 Non-Critical vs. Critical Retaining Structure [Applications] A2.2.1 Contract Document Preparation - Contract Plans A2.2.2.3 Measurement and Payment A2.4 Correspondence At Advance Plans A2.5 Working Drawing and Design Calculation Review Requirements
A2-1
A2.1
General Design Guidance
The following flowcharts the basic process for plan preparation, proprietary alternates, and cost reduction proposals.
A2-2
A2.1.1 References
References used by ODOT include: 1997 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes, Design and Construction Guidelines, FHWA Demonstration Project 82, FHWA-SA-96-071, August 1997 Corrosion/Degradation of Soil Reinforcements for Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes, FHWA Demonstration Project 82, FHWA-SA-96-072, August 1997 1996 Earth Retaining Systems, Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 2, FHWA-SA-96-038 1994 Design and Construction of Low Cost Retaining Walls, Colorado Transportation Institute, J.T.H. Wu, 1994 1993 Geosynthetic Mechanically Stabilized Earth Slopes on Firm Foundations, FHWA-SA-93-025, January 1993 ASTM Standards on Geosynthetics, ASTM Pub. Code No. (PCN): 03-435093-38, ASTM Committee D35 on Geosynthetics, Third Edition, 1993 Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls (Modular Concrete Block Retaining Wall Systems), NCMA Pub. No. TR 127, National Concrete Masonry Association, First Edition, 1993 Soil Nailing Field Inspectors Manual, FHWA-SA-93-068 1992 Geosynthetic Research Institute Standards, Drexel University, Philadelphia PA, January 1992 [may be ordered from GRI, contact Marylyn at (215)895-2343, $75 (1993) for current book containing 36 articles] 1990 In-Situ Soil Improvement Techniques, Task Force 27, January 1990 Reinforced Soil Structures, Volume I & II, Design and Construction Guidelines; FHWA-RD-89-043, November 1990 Design & Performance of Earth Retaining Structures, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 25, ASCE, 1990 Durability/Corrosion of Soil Reinforced Structures, NTIS PB91-176610, (FHWA-RD-89-186), December 1990 1989 Soil Nailing for Stabilization of Highway Slopes & Excavations, FHWA-RD-89-193 1988 AASHTO Manual on Subsurface Investigation, 1988 1987 Reinforcement of Earth Slopes and Embankments, NCHRP #290, June 1987
A2-3
1982 Tiebacks, NTIS PB83-178368, (FHWA-RD-82-047), July 1982 1973 AASHTO Construction Manual for Highway Bridges and Incidental Structures, 1973 Other Manual for the Design of Bridge Foundations, NCHRP #343 Geotechnical Instrumentation for Monitoring Field Performance, Dunnicliff NAVFAC DM-7.1, 7.2, & 7.3 Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, Canadian Geotechnical Society Draft FHWA paper on MSE backfill, Victor Alias Construction and Geotechnical Engineering Using Synthetic Fabrics, Koerner & Welsh Geotechnical Fabrics Report, GFR Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors, Post-Tensioning Institute Foundation Engineering Peck (textbook), Hanson, Thornburn Foundation Engineering Handbook (textbook), Winterkorn & Fang Foundation Analysis & Design (textbook), Bowles Soil Mechanics (textbook), Lambe & Whitman Geotechnical Engineering Techniques & Practices (textbook), Hunt Designing with Geosynthetics (textbook), Koerner
A2-4
A2.1.3.1
Design Responsibilities - Stability
A2-5
A2.1.4
Site specific conditions, possible future events and risk considerations to consider when determining retaining structure criticality. Site specific conditions may include: site geology (retain a slide? retain water?) amount of rainfall ground-water level height of retained material backslope, foreslope embedment depth length of wall horizontal clearance between wall and nearest traffic lane sustained dead loads (support backslope? abutment?) live load surcharge foundation confidence (risk, vulnerability) total settlement, differential settlement global stability Future events may include potential of or vulnerability to: hydrostatic pressures streamflow, scour, erosion vehicular impact landslide earthquake flame, extreme heat The engineer must also consider risk of loss of life risk of loss of service risk of loss of emergency route impact to public economic loss ease of maintenance, repair
A2-6
A2.2.1
Contract Document Preparation - Contract Plans
In all cases the contract plans should include a Title Sheet and Detail Sheets as required. The Title Sheet should include a Plan, Elevation, Typical Section(s), General Notes, and Vicinity Map. More specifically the contract plans should include: A wall control line (e.g., final ground line at front fact of retaining structure) described in itself (i.e., shows horizontal curve data if applicable) or is referenced to a described construction centerline, Right-of-Way and easement limits, Existing utilities or drainage facilities that may affect the retaining structure design, A gradeline at the wall control line including vertical curve data if applicable, line, Stations at beginning and end of retaining structure and at all profile break points along the wall control
Elevations at beginning and end of structure and at all profile break points along the top of the retaining structure, Elevations along the maximum bottom of wall for walls without footings, maximum top of footing for walls with footings, or maximum top of leveling pad for walls with leveling pads. At abutments, elevation of bearing pads, location of bridge seats, skew angle and all horizontal and vertical survey control data including clearances and details of abutments, Original and proposed ground profiles in front of and behind the retaining structure, At stream locations, extreme high water and normal water levels, geometric restraints due to environmental features, Foundation data, Location, depth and extent of any unsuitable material to be removed and replaced, Minimum embedment, Maximum/Minimum front face batter, Magnitude, location and direction of applicable external loads: dead load surcharge live load surcharge barriers (vehicle, bicycle, and/or pedestrian) luminaire and sign supports bridge end panels bridge abutments Aesthetic requirements,
A2-7
Pay Area - may either be incorporated in the Elevation or shown as a separate diagram. Construction sequence requirements, if applicable, including traffic control, access, stage construction sequences, and temporary shoring, Details of applicable retaining structure appurtenances: utilities and drainage facilities (e.g.., storm sewer pipes) copings barriers or rails (e.g., vehicle, bicycle, and/or pedestrian) guardrail posts luminaire and sign supports (including conduit locations) fencing bridge end panels bridge abutments
Quantity table - A quantity table is not required. These items and their respective quantities are reflected in the schedule of bid items.
A2-8
A2.2.2.3 Payment
Contract Document Preparation - Construction Specifications - Measurement and
A2-9
A2.4
Correspondence At Advance Plans
January 1, 1997 {company} {address} {city and state} Advance Retaining Structure Plans [name of bridge] Bridge [bridge number] [name of section] Section [name of highway] Highway [name of county] County Key [key number]
We are enclosing a reduced set of prints of Drawings [drawing numbers], which are the advance detail drawings for this project's retaining structure(s). We anticipate specifying the following pre-approved proprietary retaining wall(s) offered by your company: {proprietary retaining wall name(s)} These advance drawings will give you additional lead time to schedule your work and develop proposals for potential contractors. Proposals should include, but may not be limited to, such costs as providing engineering, design drawings and calculations, and technical/construction support (i.e., providing a representative on site at the retaining wall preconstruction conference and as requested during the construction of the wall) of the proprietary retaining wall(s). It is planned to call for bids on this section on [bid date].
[name of manager], P.E. Structural Managing Engineer, Bridge Engineering Section Enclosures [your initials]:
A2-10
A2.5
Working Drawing and Design Calculation Review Requirements
Working Drawings
Verify with contract plans and/or system information. Review should include, but not be limited to:
General
Wall control line, Beginning and end stations of the retaining structure, Top and bottom elevations at controlling points or planes along the retaining structure, Horizontal and vertical geometry, Backfill properties Materials and material properties (including design soil properties) Note: It is imperative that the designer compare the material list included on proprietary retaining wall submittals to the preapproved material list included in the respective ODOT Product Summary (reference Section 4 of the ODOT Retaining Structures Manual). Differences should be discussed with the Retaining Structures Coordinator. Major discrepancies will be grounds for submittal rejection. Embedment (very important for contract plans that are semi-detailed or conceptually detailed), Details, Construction sequence, Quantity table,
Specific to Cast-In-Place Concrete Rigid Gravity and Semi-gravity Retaining Walls

Rebar size and spacing.
Specific to MSE Retaining Walls

Verify that soil reinforcement lengths conform to AASHTO Section 5.8.1. Verify that soil reinforcement details, connections to facing elements and miscellaneous hardware are consistent with the suppliers preapproved details. Soil reinforcement lengths are typically the same from top to bottom of any section unless the contract documents allow variations per a site specific design. Soil reinforcement size (thickness, diameter, etc.) shall be the same throughout any section. The cross-section of any soil reinforcement shall not vary along its length. Soil reinforcement shall be detailed at all obstructions and corners.
A2-11
Verify that panel types and thickness are consistent with suppliers standard panel details. Special corner panels shall be used where walls or wall sections intersect with an angle of 130 or less.
Specific to Gabion Retaining Walls

Basket layout, Basket assembly method, and Basket to basket connection method.
Specific to Lock-Block Retaining Walls

Block layout
Design Calculations
Review should include but may not be limited to:
General
Verify externally applied loads. Check that wall has been adequately designed for seismic loads, if applicable. Review external and internal stability design calculations. Verify use of preapproved design theory, design soil properties, and factors of safety for all modes of failure. Check that applied bearing pressures (contact pressures) are calculated based on AASHTO Section 4.4.7 or 4.4.8 and do not exceed the ultimate bearing capacity (divided by an appropriate factor of safety) reported in the project's Foundation Report.
Specific to MSE Retaining Walls

Check stress level in soil reinforcements and connections. Check corrosion resistance-durability of extensible soil reinforcements (i.e., design life, galvanization, sacrificial steel and allowable stress at end of design life).
A2-12
SECTION 2: COMMENTARY - DESIGNER GUIDELINES

Section Contents:
C2.1.4 Non-Critical vs. Critical Retaining Structure [Applications] C2.1.5 Seismic Loads C2.2.1 Contract Document Preparation - Contract Plans C2.2.2.1 Contract Document Preparation - Construction Specification - General C2.2.2.3 Contract Document Preparation - Construction Specification - Measurement and Payment C2.3 Assignment of Bridge Numbers C2.5 Working Drawing Review Requirements - Specific to MSE Retaining Walls
C2.1.4
The concept of criticality is recognized worldwide, however, the subject seems to be controversial nationwide, . Based on the review of several retaining structure publications, design manuals, and vendor information for many different types of retaining structures, it is believed the controversy stems from the differing yet similar basic applications of a retaining structure. It seems the authors of these documents leaves the reader to determine in which basic application they are providing guidance and, since the overlap from one basic application to another may be large, it is believed the authors do not want to make this distinction. To date, the best summary of the most basic wall applications are described as follows: 1. small walls, typically marketed to the homeowner, 2. average walls, typically marketed to landscape contractors, and 3. large walls, typically marketed to wall builders (e.g., large landscape contractors, general contractors and excavation and road contractors for state DOTs, municipalities, commercial and high-end residential construction). In lay terms these three types of applications tend to be more commonly referred to as: 1. the garden wall, 2. the landscape wall, and 3. for transportation purposes, the highway wall. Each of these three basic applications can, in itself, have critical functional applications. Basically a critical application is one in which the owner is more concerned about the effects of poor performance or consequences of failure. Therefore, to account for these concerns, increases are typically specified in the design life, levels of safety, and/or other applicable data. Also these three types of applications are, sometimes confusingly, associated with height: 1. low-height --- generally 0 to 3 6 ft 2. medium-height --- generally 3 6 ft to 10 - 13 ft 3. tall-height --- generally > 10 - 13 ft The height of a wall should not normally be a limiting factor but a design factor. However, it is typical to speak of wall limitations and conditions of use by referring to wall heights. The above noted heights should not be taken as limiting heights but approximate references. ODOT is primarily interested in the third basic application; the large wall, however, there are applications in the transportation field for the average wall.
C2-1
C2.1.5
Seismic Loads
ODOT design criteria draws on CALTRANS observed wall performances during seismic events. Their cast-in-place concrete semi-gravity (cantilever) and mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls have typically not been designed for seismic loads yet seismic performance has been good. Neither CALTRANS nor WSDOT requires seismic load design for retaining walls except in special circumstances. Another factor leading to the ODOT criteria is the mode of wall failure during an event. Normal failure is by wall sliding. This is the most ductile failure mode and prevents catastrophic collapse. The consequences of wall sliding could include visual wall distortion, subsidence of the retained earth and supported structures, and increased loading of adjacent structures (e.g., lateral load on abutment piles extending through an MSE fill). When these consequences would occur and are not acceptable, the wall should be designed to resist seismic loads.
C2.2.1
Contract Document Preparation - Contract Plans
It is recommended, when appropriate, to provide a fully detailed set of plans of the most cost-effective nonproprietary retaining wall for a given site. If appropriate, list alternate proprietary retaining walls, approved prior to contract letting (i.e., pre-approved), meeting the project needs. Cost-Reduction (Value Engineering) proposals for other pre-approved retaining structure products or systems may or may not be allowed and will be left to the discretion of the designer and his or her manager. The bounds of the pre-approval review (i.e., Conditions of Use), which purpose is to base selection without further review, are outlined in Section 4. An alternate to a fully detailed set of plans is the conceptual plan approach. A conceptual plan will show the spatial limits (or envelope) for the retaining structure. Basically, spatial limits depict the beginning, end, top, bottom, front, and back boundaries of the wall. The preparation of the conceptual plan must be a coordinated activity between the structural designer, the foundation designer, and the roadway designer. Structural, geotechnical, and geometric details must complement one another for the conceptual plan to convey the desired end product to the bidders. A more recommended alternative to the conceptual plan approach described above is an approach in which the designer determines the most cost-effective type of retaining structure suitable for the site (say MSE) and provides plans with a level of detail between that of the conceptual plan approach and a fully detailed set of plans. The level of detail should be sufficient to describe all project related needs, however, not overly detailed to infringe upon any legal patent rights. For this example, a list of acceptable MSE options would be included in the special provisions. If appropriate, a clause allowing Cost Reduction (Value Engineering) proposals, with project requirements noted, may be included to allow other pre-approved retaining structure types (e.g., gabions, blocks, etc.) to make proposals.
C2-2
C2.2.2.1
Contract Document Preparation - Construction Specifications - General
An attempt has been made to make the design and/or specification of retaining structures as flexible as possible, considering such things as needs, in-house design capability, non-proprietary materials and products, proprietary products, size, options, design costs, structure costs, and competitive bidding strategies. The ODOT construction specification is primarily for Gravity type retaining structures. Standard or boilerplate language does not exist at this time for Non-Gravity (Cantilevered) and Anchored type retaining structures. The designer will need to include specifications appropriate for the materials, construction, measurement and payment of Non-Gravity and Anchored type retaining structures. Examples of this specification language may be found in some more recent Non-Gravity or Anchored type retaining structures projects. Review past project special provisions with the Foundation Designer before finalizing. The `Description` section of the ODOT construction specification should be as independent of any particular type of retaining structure as possible. It should be general and applicable to all types of retaining structures. The `Materials` section, at the first level (refer to following example), should be independent of any type of retaining structure. At the first level this section should only address the basic material. This will prevent describing a particular type of retaining structure by its materials rather than by how it functions to resist loads. After the first level, materials may be addressed according to retaining structure type if appropriate. Example: 00596.11 Backfill - This is the first level of this particular material and should be independent of any type of retaining structure. (a) Granular Drain Backfill Material - This is the second level and may be dependent upon retaining structure type. The `Construction` section may remain dependent on the retaining structure type. For simplicity to both construction and field personnel the ODOT construction specification should be presented based on the basic retaining structure type. The `Measurement and Payment` section should reflect the basic retaining structure types specified in the Construction section. To understand the rationale for the pay item Retaining Wall Contractors Option one must 1) recognize that the possibility exists that products from two or more basic wall types may be specified at a given location, and 2) recognize that pay items must be complete and representative of the work prior to the bid. Upon review of the other standard pay items it should be apparent they all describe a specific basic wall type. When products from two or more basic wall types are specified and neither is fully detailed on the plans it is impossible for the designer to identify which wall type will win the bid. Therefore, for the same reasoning, making it impossible to use one of the other standard pay items specific to a basic wall type.
C2-3
C2.2.2.3 Payment
Contract Document Preparation - Construction Specifications - Measurement and
The decision to use a defined Pay Area to measure and pay retaining walls was arrived at through a joint task force consisting of ODOT and AGC representatives. This groups objectives was to create a measure and pay method that: 1. applied to all types of retaining walls, both proprietary and non-proprietary, 2. defined a representative area of the retaining wall, 3. reduced calculation and re-measure efforts, 4. provided an equitable bidding area, 5. allowed for adjustment for changes.
C2.3
Assignment of Bridge Numbers
To understand the rationale for assigning an identifying number to all retaining walls designed in the Bridge Engineering Section or for the Bridge Engineering Section one must be aware of the Departments current and future vision for the management of transportation features. Currently, free-standing retaining walls are a non-managed transportation feature. That is, they are not tracked on the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) for routine inspection and maintenance purposes. This being the case, a Bridge Number is not required. Note, however, retaining walls acting as bridge abutments are considered an integral part of the bridge and are included in the routine inspection and maintenance of the bridge; therefore, the logic for including their details with the Bridge Plans and assigning them the same number as the bridge proper. Assuming free-standing retaining walls will not be tracked in the future, it is the vision of Department personnel associated with the management of our transportation features that these walls will be included as a feature of the Roadside Inventory - identified by Highway and Milepoint. Design would be shared with Roadway Engineering personnel. When appropriate, Bridge Engineering would provide retaining wall designs as a service to Roadway Engineering. Free-standing retaining wall details would be shown in the Roadway portion of the contract documents on Roadway Plan Sheets. They would have assigned to them Roadway Sheet Numbers rather than Bridge Drawing Numbers. And they would be filed with the Roadway portion of the contract plans. BE AWARE --- THIS VISION IS DEPENDENT UPON CERTAIN OTHER TRANSPORTATION FEATURES MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS BECOMING OPERATIONAL. In the meantime, Bridge Engineering will continue showing retaining walls on Bridge Drawings, thus requiring Drawing Numbers, thus requiring some type of identifying number primarily for internal filing purposes. However, since retaining walls are not a managed feature of the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) they will not be assigned a BR Number, but instead be assigned an OT Number. The OT Number will meet our current internal filing needs and later serve as a means to search for and remove all non-managed features from our records and transfer them to the Roadside Inventory.
C2-4
C2.5
Working Drawing Review Requirements - Specific to MSE Retaining Walls
As stated in the AASHTO design manual, soil reinforcement lengths should be uniform throughout the entire height of the wall, unless substantiating evidence is presented to indicate that variation in length is satisfactory. Also, not only should variation in length be satisfactory it should also be reasonable and realize a cost benefit. Advantages to varying the soil reinforcement lengths include reducing cost due to amount of material both in length and section and constructing around foundation conflicts (e.g., an encroaching rock slope at the heel of the wall). However, a disadvantage to recognizing this type of cost savings in materials is the risk that the wrong length or size of soil reinforcement will be placed in the wrong location during construction. Generally, MSE walls specified with varying lengths are considered a complex structure, requiring a site specific design. Recognizing this guideline, ODOT does not preapprove MSE retaining walls for varying soil reinforcement length. A retaining structure design requiring varying soil reinforcement lengths would require a special, site specific design, and review and approval/disapproval by the designer of record.
C2-5
SECTION 3: DESIGN AND DETAILING PRACTICES

Section Contents:
3.1 Retaining Structure Types 3.2 General Design Practices 3.2.1 Height 3.2.2 Embedment 3.2.3 Batter 3.2.4 Contraction/Expansion Joints 3.2.5 Shrinkage and Temperature Steel Reinforcement for Concrete 3.2.6 Excavation 3.2.7 Backfill 3.2.7.1 Granular Wall Backfill 3.2.7.2 MSE Granular Backfill 3.2.8 Earth Pressure 3.2.9 Drainage 3.2.10 Utilities 3.2.11 Concrete Barriers 3.3 General Notes And Design Requirements 3.4 Rigid Gravity and Semi-Gravity Retaining Structures 3.4.1 ODOT Standard Cast-In-Place Concrete Gravity Retaining Wall 3.4.2 ODOT Standard Cast-In-Place Reinforced Concrete Semi-gravity (Cantilever) Retaining Wall 3.4.3 ODOT Standard Masonry Semi-Gravity (Cantilever) Retaining Wall 3.5 MSE Retaining Structures 3.5.1 Geotextile Retaining Walls 3.5.1.1 General 3.5.1.2 Facings 3.5.1.3 Geotextile Material Properties 3.5.1.4 Appurtenances 3.5.1.5 Construction Specifications 3.5.2 Leveling Pads 3.5.3 Soil Reinforcements 3.5.4 Coping 3.5.5 Seismic Design 3.5.6 Bridge Abutments on MSE Retaining Walls 3.5.7 Exposure to Deleterious Deicers 3.5.8 MSE Retaining Wall Details 3.6 Prefabricated Modular Retaining Structures 3.6.1 Gabion Retaining Walls 3.6.1.1 Corrosion Protection 3.6.1.2 Gabion Retaining Wall Details 3.6.2 Conventional Segmental Retaining Walls 3.6.3 ODOT designs using Lock-Block Retaining Wall Product
3-1
3.1
Retaining Structure Types
ODOT further categorizes retaining structures according to the following classifications (or wall types): v Gravity Rigid Gravity, including but not limited to: Stone Masonry Masonry Unreinforced Cast-In-Place Concrete Semi-Gravity, including but not limited to: Masonry Reinforced Cast-In-Place Concrete Cantilever Reinforced Cast-In-Place Concrete Precast Counterfort/Buttress Reinforced Cast-In-Place Concrete Precast Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Extensible (includes geotextiles & geogrids) Inextensible Prefabricated Modular, including but not limited to: Gabion Bin Crib Conventional Segmental Retaining Wall (SRW) (modular concrete blocks) v Non-Gravity (Cantilevered) v Anchored / Soil Nailed
3.2 3.2.1
General Design Practices Height
Height has long been referenced as a limiting feature of retaining walls. However, for most cases, height, of and in itself, should not be a limiting feature but a design feature. It is anticipated that this reference to height as a limiting feature stems from other more applicable limiting features which are inappropriately associated to wall height.
3.2.2
Embedment
In the past, it was assumed that the top 2 ft. of soil at the toe of the wall was subject to disturbance or frost penetration. Furthermore, the majority of walls being constructed then were cast-in-place concrete gravity or semi-gravity (cantilever) walls. For cast-in-place concrete gravity walls this was typically interpreted to mean the bottom of footing was to be located 2 ft. below final ground and for cast-in-place concrete semi-gravity (cantilever) walls embedment to bottom of footing was such that 2 ft. of cover occurred over the top of the footing toe.
3-2
This generally applies to cast-in-place walls designed today, however, more leniency is allowed to deviate from the 2 ft. value when justified. Refer to AASHTO design specifications for embedment requirements for other types of retaining walls The primary benefit of wall embedment is enhanced stability. The depth of embedment is influenced by any of the following conditions: large settlement potential or weak bearing capacity of underlying soils steep slopes near or below the toe of the wall potential scour at the toe of the wall maximum depth of seasonal soil volume change extends below the leveling pad seismically active location
3.2.3
Batter
Cast-in-place concrete walls should be battered 14v:1h (4) when located adjacent to roadways or in the publics view. Exceptions may include matching existing walls or structure bents. Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls are constructed in a range of batters. Wrapped face geotextile walls have been constructed within a range of batters from the more typical 6:1 (10) (positive) batter to cases which use negative batter. Batter in these types of geotextile walls, for the most part, is dependent upon construction practices and the fact that the wall face will displace when removed from the temporary construction forms. MSE walls using precast concrete panels are typically constructed so their final position results in no (negligible) batter. MSE walls using prefabricated modular block faces range in batter between 3 and 15 depending on the form of the block or location of alignment/shear devices. Other prefabricated modular retaining wall types (e.g., gabions, bins, and cribs) are typically battered at 6:1. See Appendix A3.2.3 for depiction of actual slopes for range of typical retaining wall batters.
3.2.4
Contraction/Expansion Joints
For cast-in-place concrete walls contraction joints may be placed at 30 ft. maximum spacing and expansion joints at 90 ft. maximum spacing to coincide with form panel lengths that may be in multiples of 8 ft. (Refer to AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, Section 5.5.6.5).
3.2.5
Shrinkage and Temperature Steel Reinforcement for Concrete
Reference AASHTO 5.5.6.4 - Reinforcement: See AASHTO 8.20.1 for shrinkage and temperature reinforcement design guidelines.
3-3
Provide reinforcement for shrinkage and temperature stresses near exposed surfaces of concrete retaining wall components not otherwise reinforced. The area of reinforcement per surface should be at least 0.0008 times the gross concrete area with a minimum of No. 3 at 14 in. centers. For cast-in-place concrete gravity retaining structures space reinforcement no farther apart than three times the wall slab thickness nor 18 in.. See Appendix for table of generally accepted bar sizes and spacings.
3.2.6
Excavation
The excavation limit behind retaining walls should generally extend 12 in. beyond the heel of spread footings or the ends of soil reinforcements. This is to assure space to contain and construct the retaining wall and to provide a zone of free-draining granular material to aid in dissipation of hydrostatic pressure.
3.2.7 3.2.7.1
Backfill Granular Wall Backfill
Granular Wall Backfill meeting the gradation specified in the construction specification is primarily intended for use behind retaining walls or other elements in which hydrostatic pressure could occur and could be detrimental to the design of the structure. This material may not be conducive to compaction since the gradation could yield a granular material consisting of large particles of similar size such as pea gravel. If compaction of the backfill material is critical discuss possible modifications of the specification or use of a different material with the project Geotechnical designer.
3.2.7.2
MSE Granular Backfill
Three MSE Granular Backfill gradations are currently available. The first gradation, Class A, is intended to be specified for MSE walls using inextensible soil reinforcements. The second gradation, Class B, is intended to be specified for MSE walls using extensible soil reinforcements. The third gradation, Class C, is intended to be specified in the spread footing foundation zone of MSE walls supporting spread footing bridge abutments. THE DESIGNER OF RECORD IS TO SHOW THE APPROPRIATE CLASS OF MATERIAL TO BE USED ON HIS OR HER CONTRACT PLANS. REFER TO TYPICAL SECTIONS IN APPENDIX SECTION 3.5.8. MSE Granular Backfill meeting these gradations are intended to be a free-draining cohesionless material, however, it is not intended to be a rapid-draining material. These gradations are specified to provide a well-graded, compactable material that is capable of producing high frictional and/or passive resistance for the soil reinforcement. It is recommended that the designer consult with the Foundation Designer or reference the projects Foundation Report to determine the presence of groundwater or fluctuating water tables. If groundwater or fluctuating water tables are expected, the gradation should be modified and/or positive drainage systems included to intercept anticipated flows before entering the backfill. It should also be noted that these gradations normally represents a more permeable volume than the surrounding native soils if approved for use where groundwater is anticipated.
3-4
3.2.8
Earth Pressure
Reference AASHTO 3.20 - Earth Pressure: 3.20.1 Delete Rankines and substitute Coulombs. 3.20.4 Delete no live load surcharge need be considered and substitute the pressure shall have added to it a live load surcharge pressure equal to not less than one and one half feet of earth. See Commentary C3.4.2 for discussion of the location of the lateral earth pressure moment arm. The magnitude of passive earth pressure used in a design is a function of the anticipated wall rotation and displacement. If the wall does not rotate or displace the required amount, or is restrained from rotation or displacing, do not assume full passive pressure is attained. Discuss anticipated rotations and displacements with the Foundation Designer to estimate the magnitude of passive earth pressure. (Refer to AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, Section 5.5.2). Passive earth pressure is also greatly reduced for footings located on slopes. It is recommended that the passive earth pressure coefficient be further reduced to account for slope effects and ensure an adequate factor of safety.
3.2.9
Drainage
Retaining walls with the possibility of experiencing hydrostatic pressure behind the wall should be designed with positive drainage systems. For cast-in-place concrete gravity or counterfort walls this is typically accomplished with weep holes. For cast-in-place concrete semi-gravity (cantilever) walls a perforated drain pipe in a gravel drain material is placed on top of the wall heel for the full length of the wall and day-lighted to a drainage ditch or collection system. For other retaining wall types refer to drainage details presented later in this section. (guidance regarding ODOTs current and future use of deicing methods being developed)
3.2.10 Utilities
Provide for drainage and utility structures or pipes in MSE walls. The design of drainage and utility structures or pipes shall take probable soil reinforcement locations into account with a method of handling variations. For proprietary designs any alteration of drainage or utility structures or pipes shall be shown on the proprietors working drawings and design calculations. Additional work, time and materials shall be at no additional cost to the State.
3-5
3.2.11 Concrete Barriers

Typically show precast concrete barrier in front of walls. Detailing the barrier face as an integral part of a CIP wall is typically more time and labor intensive due to the control required to assure the barrier is located at the appropriate gutterline or top of barrier profile and more expensive due to the high costs of forming. The contractor may propose casting the face integral with the wall after the contract letting and would generally be acceptable provided it was at no additional cost to the state. See Appendix A3.2.8 for examples.
3.3
General Notes and Design Requirements
See Appendix A3.3 for example Detail Sheet.
3.4 3.4.1
Rigid Gravity and Semi-Gravity Retaining Structures ODOT Standard Cast-In-Place Concrete Gravity Retaining Wall
ODOT Standard Drawing BR720 is based on Rankine Theory.
3.4.2 ODOT Standard Cast-In-Place Reinforced Concrete Semi-Gravity (Cantilever) Retaining Wall
ODOT Standard Drawing BR705 is based on Rankine Theory. ODOT Standard Drawings XXXXX and YYYYY are based on Coulomb theory. See Commentary C3.4.2 for design commentary and assumptions.
3.4.3
ODOT Standard Masonry Semi-Gravity (Cantilever) Retaining Wall
(Under Development)
3.5 3.5.1 3.5.1.1
MSE Retaining Structures Geotextile Retaining Walls General
ODOT has generally used wrapped face geotextile retaining walls in temporary applications (e.g., stage construction). Permanent applications require the exposed geotextile face be protected (i.e., covered) to prevent degradation of the fabric due to ultraviolet (UV) light. Covers should be flexible (due to the walls deformation characteristics) yet durable. Shotcrete has been used as a protective cover, however, it is not a very flexible covering. Besides having a high initial construction cost, if the wall was to experience any significant deformation during its service life the shotcrete may fail creating additional maintenance costs.
3-6
Timber may be used as a covering. However, timber may not satisfy the typical 75 year design life. Prefabricated modular blocks are gaining popularity, however, like timber, also may not satisfy the typical 75 year design life due to low concrete strength and high absorption rates.
3.5.1.2
Facings
(Under Development)
3.5.1.3
Geotextile Material Properties
ODOT typically requires geotextile used in retaining structure applications to meet the following material and testing standards (reference ODOT construction specifications): Puncture Strength ......................................ASTM D 4833 Trapezoidal Tear........................................ASTM D 4533 Apparent Opening Size..............................ASTM D 4751 Permeability by Permittivity........................ASTM D 4491 Ultraviolet Stability......................................ASTM D 4355 Wide-Width Strip Tensile Strength ............ASTM D 4595 Another standard, Measuring the Soil-Geotextile System Clogging Potential by the Gradient Ratio, ASTM D 5101, should be considered on an application by application basis. This standard addresses permeability and clogging behavior of the fabric under unidirectional flow conditions caused by a fluctuating groundwater table or horizontal flowing (generally from the back of the retaining wall) groundwater in the reinforced soil zone. Discuss this particular standard with the Foundation Designer and include in the list of geotextile property values if warranted. The Geotechnical Fabric Report, published by GFR, may be referenced for specific geotextile products and their associated properties. (This publication may be obtained from the ODOT library. A copy is located in the Bridge Engineering, Foundations Unit.) Definitions of these properties can be found in most geosynthetic textbooks (e.g., Designing with Geosynthetics). Some general comments regarding a few of these properties are as follows:
3.5.1.3.1
Apparent Opening Size
The AOS corresponds to an International Test Sieve Number that have openings closest in size to the openings in the geotextile. The significance of specifying this property is to ensure a geotextile that has certain filtration properties. The maximum value of the AOS is set to ensure the retained soil does not migrate through the fabric. Therefore, the fabric will not become plugged with soil particles and trap water on top of the fabric. For retaining structure applications this property is generally specified as a range; the minimum value controlled by the permeability and the maximum value not to exceed a 425 mm Sieve.
3.5.1.3.2
Permeability by Permittivity
Permittivity is the ratio of the water permeability of the fabric divided by the fabric thickness. Permittivity may be specified if the designer was to specify a specific geotextile product. However, due to sole source issues for walls with federal funding, it is not recommended that the designer specify a single specific geotextile
3-7
product. Therefore, the designer typically does not know the fabric thickness (We generally specify a minimum tensile strength. See the following information regarding wide-width tensile strength). Because of this we typically specify a value representing the permeability which is significantly more permeable than the soil. The significance of specifying this property is to ensure that the geotextile does not impede the flow of water. For retaining structure applications this value (permeability) is generally specified as 0.01 cm/sec.
3.5.1.3.3
Wide-Width Strip Tensile Strength
The minimum wide-width strip tensile strength is determined by the designer to satisfy internal stability requirements (e.g., rupture).
3.5.1.4 3.5.1.4.1
Appurtenances Guardrail Posts
Guardrail posts can be installed through geotextile fabric. Generally this is accomplished by 1) digging out and cutting the fabric, 2) drilling or auguring through the fabric, or 3) driving or punching the post through the fabric. The contention supporting 2) and 3) is that the overlying soil layer will confine (i.e., hold in place) the geotextile fabric layer allowing for successful drilling or driving of the post through the fabric. Per AASHTO, it is recommended to locate the post a minimum horizontal clear distance of 3 from front face of the geotextile fabric to the back of the post.
3.5.1.5
Construction Specifications
Section 00350, Geotextile Installation, should NOT be used as the main specification for geotextile retaining walls. Section 00596, Retaining Walls, should be used for all retaining structures including geotextile retaining walls. Do not specify backfill material for geotextile retaining walls in Section 00350 - use Section 00596. Do not specify measurement and payment of geotextile retaining walls in Section 00350 - use Section 00596. At this time, Section 00350 should be referenced from Section 00596 for construction information only. Generally a polypropylene or polyester geotextile is specified. The designer should decide whether to include only one type (polypropylene or polyester) or both. A paragraph should be included in the contract specifications if only one type will be allowed. If both types are allowed, it may be necessary to specify two values for wide-width tensile strength; one for polypropylene, the other for polyester. The difference being a factor of 2 on the appropriate Factor of Safety for creep.
3.5.2
Leveling Pads
Unreinforced cast-in-place (CIP) concrete leveling pads are typically the leveling pad of choice by most designers. These leveling pads were introduced at the same time precast concrete panel MSE walls were introduced to the market. The unreinforced CIP concrete leveling pad is well suited for the size and weight of the approximate 5 ft. x 5 ft. x 6 in. precast concrete panels. Precast concrete leveling pads are an acceptable alternate to CIP concrete leveling pads provided they are placed in full contact with the foundation material.
3-8
Compacted gravel leveling pads may be specified for low-height conventional segmental gravity walls and medium-height segmental faced MSE walls. These leveling pads are well suited for the smaller facing units associated with segmental retaining walls. CIP concrete leveling pads are an acceptable alternate to compacted gravel for these walls. CIP unreinforced concrete leveling pads are recommended for taller segmental faced MSE walls. Listed below are some advantages and disadvantages of CIP concrete leveling pads vs. compacted gravel leveling pads. CIP concrete leveling pads Advantages: Ensured density Ensured level surface Disadvantages: May not be flexible enough for short to intermediate height walls using lighter weight facing elements (e.g., modular blocks) Layout of footing steps requires more attention and care Compacted gravel leveling pads Advantages: More flexible Freer draining Disadvantages: Possible wrong material or lesser quality placed Possible poor compaction (density) Possible not level
3.5.3
Soil Reinforcements
Reference AASHTO 5.8.1 - (MSE) Structure Dimensions: From the second paragraph, second sentence, delete and not less than 8 feet.
3.5.4
Copings
The designer should consider delaying the construction of rigid components (e.g., cast-in-place concrete barrier or sidewalk coping) on top of the reinforced soil mass if large short-term settlements of the foundation material below the reinforced soil mass is expected. MSE walls, by themselves, are quite flexible and are typically promoted for use in areas with anticipated large settlements. However, the addition of rigid components on, above, or attached to the face of the MSE wall could experience cracking, settlement, or failure if settlement is not properly addressed during design and construction. The designer should discuss foundation conditions with the foundation designer and, if warranted, include a note on the plans such as: Delay pours of cast-in-place concrete coping for ____ days after completion of MSE retaining wall to allow for anticipated settlement of underlying foundation material.
3-9
Note that `backfill` should not be substituted for `underlying foundation material` as the backfill in the reinforced soil zone, if properly compacted, should not, in itself, settle. If large long-term settlements are expected this note typically would not be applicable. If large long-term settlements are expected the designer should consider the issue in more detail and provide a more appropriate solution.
3.5.5
Seismic Design
(Past information that was included here is now included in the AASHTO specifications by the 1997 Interims.)
3.5.6
Bridge Abutments on MSE Retaining Walls
Reference AASHTO 7.5.4 - Abutments on Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls: Delete the last sentence of the first paragraph and substitute the following paragraph: The maximum allowable bearing (contact) pressure shall be 2.5 tsf (5.0 ksf) for Mechanically Stabilized Earth backfill heights greater than twice the effective width of the abutment spread footing. Backfill heights less than twice the abutment spread footing effective width will require a two-layer bearing capacity analysis. Delete from the fifth paragraph, last sentence, 6-inches and substitute 3 ft..
3.5.7
For MSE walls directly supporting roadways where deleterious deicers are used it is recommended that an impermeable membrane be placed below the road base and tied into a drainage system to mitigate the penetration of the deicer.. For MSE walls supporting permanent bridge abutments the permeation of deleterious deicers through bridge deck expansion joints could result in a chloride rich environment near the face panel connection for a significant percentage of the wall height. For this condition higher corrosion rates than assumed in the design could occur. One method to minimize this problem is to control this seepage through the use of an impermeable membrane and drainage system. For further details see the reference Reinforced Soil Structures, Vol. 1, Design and Construction Guidelines, FHWA-RD-89-043, pages 53-55.
Exposure to Deleterious Deicers
3.5.8
MSE Retaining Wall Details
See Appendix A3.5.7 for Standard Details.
3-10
3.6
Prefabricated Modular Retaining Structures
Note: AASHTO 5.2.1.5 has recently been revised to include gabions and segmentals, however AASHTO 5.9 still only relates to bins and cribs
3.6.1
Gabion Retaining Walls
3.6.1.1 Corrosion Protection

(Under Development - Zinc Coating, PVC Coating, & Blackwire)
3.6.1.2 Gabion Retaining Wall Details

See Appendix A 3.6.1.2 for Standard Details.
3.6.2
Conventional Segmental Retaining Walls
(Under Development)
3.6.3
ODOT designs using Lock-Block Retaining Wall Product
Designers making Category 3 In-House designs should consider the following: Read and understand the Lock-Block Design Manual. Read and understand the AASHTO Std. Specifications for Highway Bridges, Secs 4 and 5. Read and understand the ODOT Retaining Structures Manual. Consult foundation and geotechnical textbooks. (see ODOT Retaining Structures Manual, Section 2, References for suggested texts.) Obtain a Foundation Report. If a Foundation Report is not available at the very least discuss the site conditions with a Geotechnical Engineer. Ensure wall is able to deflect the amount required to achieve Active soil pressure. If not, ensure design soil pressure is representative of the anticipated wall deflection. Friction angle on back of wall should be for formed (smooth) concrete. Consider all possible sliding surfaces (block to block, block to leveling pad, leveling pad to soil, soil to soil). Neglect any soil cohesion properties. Account for increased lateral force due to compaction (e.g., apply lateral soil force at 0.4H instead of 0.333H). Provide positive drainage at the wall heel. Include other drain systems when appropriate. The Mononobe-Okabe method for calculating seismic loads on retaining walls does not account for the wall mass. Lock-Block walls are high-mass gravity structures and further investigation is recommended. DO NOT DETAIL INDIVIDUAL BLOCKS, KEYWAYS, ETC. ON PLANS. Only detail the general representation of the block on the Plan, Elevation, and Typical Section and call for the Lock-Block product in the special provisions.
3-11
SECTION 3: APPENDIX - DESIGN AND DETAILING PRACTICES

Section Contents:
A3.2.3 Batter A3.2.5 Shrinkage and Temperature Steel Reinforcement for Concrete A3.2.11 Concrete Barriers A3.3 General Notes and Design Requirements A3.5.8 MSE Retaining Wall Details A3.6.1.2 Gabion Retaining Wall Details
A3.2.3 Batter
Depiction of range of slopes for typical retaining wall frontface batters:
A3-1
A3.2.5 Shrinkage and Temperature Steel Reinforcement for Concrete

The following is a summary of the suggested shrinkage and temperature reinforcement: Thickness (in) 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 36 48 60 As per foot 2 (in ) 0.057 0.086 0.115 0.144 0.173 0.201 0.230 0.260 0.288 0.345 0.461 0.576 #4 #4 @ 18 #4 @ 18 #4 @ 18 #4 @ 17 #4 @ 14 #4 @ 12 #4 @ 10 #4 @ 9 BAR SIZE AND SPACING FOR ONE SURFACE #5 #6 #7
#5 @ 18 #5 @ 16 #5 @ 14 #5 @ 13 #5 @ 11
#6 @ 18 #6 @ 15 #6 @ 12 #6 @ 10
#7 @ 15 #7 @ 12
Since the amount of reinforcement is somewhat empirical, assume convenient spacings as shown in the above table. This recommended reinforcement is intended to be a minimum required for shrinkage and temperature only.
A3.2.11
Concrete Barriers
Examples of concrete barriers located in front of retaining walls:
A3-2
A3.3
General Notes and Design Requirements
(See following sheet)
A3-3
A3.5.8 MSE Retaining Wall Details

(See following sheets)
A3-4
A3.6.1.2
Gabion Retaining Wall Details
(See following sheets)
A3-5
SECTION 3: COMMENTARY - DESIGN AND DETAILING PRACTICES

Section Contents:
C3.1 Retaining Structure Types C3.2.1 Height C3.2.3 Batter C3.2.7.2 MSE Granular Backfill C3.4.2 ODOT Standard Cast-In-Place Reinforced Concrete Semi-Gravity (Cantilever) Retaining Wall C3.5.6 Bridge Abutments on MSE Retaining Walls
C3.1
Retaining Structure Types
Retaining structures may be divided into three basic types. This first division is made based on how the structure resists externally applied loads (primarily lateral earth loads). These three basic types of walls are: Gravity Walls Nongravity (Cantilevered) Walls Anchored/Soil Nailed Walls Gravity walls derive their capacity to resist externally applied loads from dead weight. Nongravity (Cantilevered) walls derive their capacity to resist externally applied loads from embedment of vertical elements. Anchored walls may be composed of either a gravity wall or a nongravity (cantilevered) wall with additional capacity to resist externally applied loads from one or more tiers of anchors. At this time nongravity (cantilevered) walls and anchored walls are not subdivided further. However, gravity walls are subdivided further based on how the gravity wall resists internal loads. This creates four sub-types of gravity walls: Rigid Gravity walls Semi-Gravity walls Mechanically Stabilized Earth walls Prefabricated Modular walls Rigid Gravity walls derive their capacity to resist internal loads from their relatively large mass. Rigid Gravity walls may be constructed of stone masonry or unreinforced cast-in-place concrete. Semi-Gravity walls derive their capacity to resist internal loads from a combination of their mass and steel reinforcement (classic reinforced concrete design). Semi-Gravity walls may be constructed of either cast-inplace or precast reinforced concrete. Semi-Gravity walls are typically known as "cantilever" or "counterfort/buttress" walls. Semi-Gravity walls may also include reinforced "Rigid Gravity" walls. Mechanically Stabilized Earth walls derive their capacity to resist internal loads from tensile soil reinforcements embedded in the soil mass. MSE walls are typically constructed of alternating layers of backfill material and tensile soil reinforcements.
C3-1
Prefabricated Modular walls including bins, cribs, gabions, and conventional segmental walls, are similar to Rigid Gravity walls in that they derive their capacity to resist internal loads from their confined mass. Prefabricated Modular walls may be constructed from interlocking modules which may be solid or filled with a specified backfill.
C3.2.1 Height
Several such references to retaining wall height limitations are known: conventional segmental --- 4' ft. CIP gravity --- 8 ft. gabions --- 15 ft. extensible MSE --- 15 ft. CIP semi-gravity cantilever --- 22 ft. inextensible MSE --- 40 ft. Some of these limitations have known origins conventional segmental due to "safe" capacity to resist externally applied loads CIP semi-gravity cantilever due to cost after which a counterfort becomes more feasible Height limitations on the other wall types are less known. It is anticipated that cost plays a major factor in most reasons. That is, a different wall type or a different solution to the problem becomes more appealing (i.e., less costly). This is strongly anticipated for the CIP gravity, gabion, and inextensible MSE type walls. A more refined design may be warranted for inextensible MSE walls over 40 ft., however, it is anticipated that past extensible MSE wall use as medium height landscape type walls is playing a part in this wall types perceived limitations for highway use.
C3.2.3 Batter
Under Coulomb Theory the use of larger batters will result in a reduction of the lateral earth pressure, however, be aware that for taller walls the use of larger batters can result in a substantial increase in right-of-way requirements. Consider the cost of any additional right-of-way required over that required for a vertical or near vertical structure when selecting acceptable wall types and/or products.
C3.2.7.2
MSE Granular Backfill
The Class A backfill gradation is essentially the same gradation ODOT has specified for many years. It originated with the inception of the steel soil reinforced MSE walls circa 1980. The Class B backfill gradation was created to meet industry recommendations for geosynthetic reinforced backfills. Particles larger than 19.0 mm are eliminated to minimize installation damage to the geosynthetic. The Class C backfill gradation was created internally to narrow the band of acceptable material that could be placed in the spread footing foundation zone of MSE walls supporting spread footing bridge abutments. This narrower band of more uniformly graded material is intended to facilitate the contractor in achieving 100% compaction in this zone. The rationale to require the spread footing foundation zone in MSE walls be compacted to 100% of relative maximum density is directly related to the requirements of bridge abutment spread footings on engineered
C3-2
fills. The typical engineered fill requires that that part of the fill directly beneath the bridge abutment spread footing to a depth of 2 times the footing width be composed of Granular Structure backfill and compacted to 100% of relative maximum density. We are basically implying that a MSE wall is analogous to an engineered fill and both should be treated in a similar manner.
C3.4.2 ODOT Standard Cast-In-Place Reinforced Concrete Semi-Gravity (Cantilever) Retaining Wall
ODOT Standard Drawings XXXXX and YYYYY have been developed based on the following assumptions, theories and methodologies.
General
The use of standard drawings greatly reduces the design time for generating plans for most CIP semigravity cantilever wall applications. The forthcoming set of standard drawings was designed to address the vast majority of situations encountered in the design of this type of wall. The purpose of this section is to clarify the assumptions, earth pressure theories, ranges of application, external and internal forces, and the modes of structure resistance to those forces. This commentary is to provide the designer with a thorough understanding of the design basis for the standard walls. Of course, situations will arise where the standard walls will not be suitable. For example, where right-of-way is severely limited, an L-shaped wall with little or no footing heel may be used. For situations where a special design is required, this section can serve as a design guide.
Global stability
Global stability refers to the stability of the larger landscape features of which the wall foundation, foreslope, backslope, and structure are all a part. The Foundation Unit personnel have the tools and expertise to evaluate the global stability of a particular wall geometry at a particular site. A statement regarding the level of global stability is included in the Foundation Report for wall projects.
Earth Pressure of Retained Soil Masses

The standard wall factors of safety for external stability are specified in the 1992 AASHTO specification as 1.5 for sliding, 2.0 for overturning on soil, and 3.0 for bearing. The earth pressure forces on the backfill side of the wall assume an active state of stress in the retained soil. The standards also assume the retained soil behaves as a cohesionless material. Cohesive effects are not considered in the design. The soil may exhibit some cohesion and still be treated as cohesionless for the purpose of using the standard wall drawings. If there is reason to suspect that cohesion may have a significant effect, discuss the relative importance of cohesive effects with the foundation designer. The active earth pressure theory to determine the earth pressure forces is the Coulomb Theory as specified in AASHTO section 5. An exception to the theory as presented in AASHTO is that the center of pressure is taken at 0.4(wall height). Tests have shown that the greater height predicts earth pressure conditions behind a cut wall with compacted backfill better than the theoretical value of 1/3 the wall height. The angle of application of the earth pressure force is a function of the soil properties and the vertical plane on which the earth pressure force is applied. For the standard walls, the angle is assumed to vary from those given in AASHTO Table 5.5.2B, at the back of stem to phi at the footing heel if the footing heel length is at least one half the stem height. Linearly interpolate angles of application for intermediate footing heel lengths. The concept is that
C3-3
the frictional interface between the wall and the backfill will gradually shift from a soil-concrete to a soil-soil interface as wall heels increase in length. The earth pressure for a given wall and backfill geometry is a function of the soil density and the angle of internal friction (phi) of the in-situ retained material. The assumption is that the location of the failure plane in the retained soils may or may not occur within the insitu retained material. If the failure plane occurs in the granular wall backfill material instead, that phi will be equal to or greater than the in-situ soil phi, resulting in a slight overdesign. Earth pressure forces are not factored when checking sliding, overturning, or bearing factors of safety.
Earth Pressure on Front Face

Determine the earth pressure for the passive force on the front of the wall, footing, and base key using the logarithmic-spiral failure surface where Kp is read from the nomograph shown in AASHTO Figure 5.5.2E. Be aware that to mobilize the full passive resistance requires translations that may not be acceptable in many cases, and are several times greater than the movement necessary to reach the active state of stress behind the wall. For calculating the stability of standard walls, the passive forces are based on 0.33Kp of the assumed in-situ foundation soil. This level of passive resistance roughly corresponds to the movement necessary to develop an active stress state in the retained material. Neglect passive force on the front of wall above the top of footing because toe fill materials may be removed, subjected to frost heave, or otherwise disturbed so that passive resistance is unreliable. Locate tops of footings a minimum of 2 ft. below the finish grade of the front face fill to ensure passive resistance on the footing toe and to keep the footing clear of possible subgrade construction. Walls should be stable without the mass of fill over the footing toes. Factors of safety for temporary construction or staging conditions are generally reduced. The reduced factors of safety to be used are at the discretion of the individual designers.
External Stability -- Wall Geometry Relations Sliding

Wall designs that have footing contact pressures that vary minimally from the toe to heel will not be governed by overturning. Minimal variation is in the range of +20% for the toe relative to the heel, which can arise from contact pressure resultant eccentricities in the range of 2 4 in. from the center of footing (minimal eccentricity). Heel pressure in excess of toe pressure indicates an inefficient design, and final designs should not reflect such conditions. Minimal eccentricity walls are suited for sites where there is a likelihood of differential settlement and should only be used if specifically recommended by the foundation designer. The geometric features that affect resistance to sliding include the footing width, the position of the stem on the footing, the presence of a base key, and to a lesser extent, the footing thickness. As the stem is moved forward on a given footing size, the total mass of the wall plus soil over the heel increases which increases the footing contact pressure and hence, the frictional resistance to sliding. A simultaneous effect is to increase the toe and heel pressures and to reduce the ratio of heel to toe pressure. The factor of safety for overturning approaches the minimum acceptable value of 2.0 (for walls on soil) when the heel pressure approaches zero, if the sliding factor of safety is held constant at 1.5. The result of this relation is that footings are smaller and the stems are closer to the toes for walls on suitable soils than for minimal eccentricity walls.
Base Keys
A base key will increase the sliding resistance in two ways. One is by providing more area for passive resistance and the other is by moving the plane of sliding of the base from the footing-soil interface to a
C3-4
soil-soil interface below the bottom of footing. The soil-soil interface has a higher shear resistance. The most effective location for a base key is as close as possible to the footing heel without affecting the area of backface subject to active pressure. Since the active plane occurs at an angle of (45 + phi/2) degrees, the back of the key should be at least 0.6(key depth) from the footing heel, for sites with retained material phi angles of 30 degrees or more. For level backfill walls there is no advantage to providing a base key for sliding. For walls with a triangular footing contact pressure distribution, (B/6 eccentricity walls), the FS of 1.5 for sliding, zero heel contact pressure with no uplift, and FS of 2.0 for overturning all occur at about the same geometric limits. If sliding controls, the sliding FS can be brought up to 1.5 by extending the heel slightly. The base key has some minimum depth before the shear plane is transferred to the soil mass, so it will probably require less material and construction costs to extend the heel a few centimeters rather than install a minimum depth base key. For 2h:1v sloped backfill walls, keys do provide sliding resistance that would otherwise be provided by substantially wider footings. The shear resistance in the foundation soil provided by the key is assumed to vary linearly from a function of delta to a function of phi as the key depth varies from 0 to the depth associated with a 15 degree angle from the bottom of key to the bottom of the footing toe.
Bearing
The suitability of a particular wall configuration at a specific site is implicit in the standard wall designs. The calculated average contact pressure is compared to the allowable bearing capacity. Both the average contact pressure and the allowable bearing capacity are functions of the effective footing width, the soil density and internal angle of friction, and the footing depth. The effective footing width is defined as Beff = B - (2e). If the soil at the prospective wall site lies within one of the phi - gamma ranges defined by the standard drawing, and the soil meets the cohesionless criterion, then the factor of safety for bearing is adequate.
Ranges of Application
The ranges of soil conditions addressed by the standard drawings include most sites where the CIP semigravity cantilever wall is an alternative. The standard walls for average soil, defined by phi ranging from 30 to 32 degrees and unit weight ranging from 125 to 140 pcf, are designed for the highest lateral earth pressure conditions resulting from any phi-gamma combination in the range. For the example above, the controlling parameters are phi = 30 degrees and gamma = pcf. The resulting wall is overdesigned for the lowest lateral earth pressure combination of phi =32 degrees and gamma = 125 pcf. by approximately 20%. A similar magnitude overdesign occurs for the lowest earth pressure combination for the good soil. For footings on rock or for retained soils with phi greater than 34 degrees, it may be economical to generate a specific design. Conversely, for retained soils with phi angles less than 30 degrees, for cohesive soils, or for wall surcharge loading significantly greater than 250 psf., the standard wall may be inadequate, and a specific design may be required. In any case, always perform a site specific analysis for situations that do not meet the design assumptions for the standard walls.
Internal Member Strength

Loading on individual wall members is by load factor design. Individual members are modeled as cantilever beam elements in pure flexure with fixed-free end conditions. Reinforcement is designed for specific wall heights by an iterative approach that considers the entire range of wall heights and the corresponding reinforcement for each 3 ft. interval of height. The objective is to design for the applied
C3-5
bending loads using a minimum of different bar sizes, but to maintain spacings that meet serviceability requirements and are convenient for layout and construction.
Stems
Vertical or near vertical walls may be perceived as tipping outward at the top. This perceived effect generally evokes a corresponding sentiment that the wall has an unappealing appearance. The stems incorporate a front face batter to eliminate this perception. The particular batter necessary to eliminate the tipping perception is not known with certainty and a range of batters is no doubt acceptable. The batter for the standard walls is 0.07h:1.0v or approximately 1h:14v. This batter will be slightly more economical than the 1h:12v of our previous unit system, but should still be enough to eliminate the tipping perception. Also, for a vertical fill face wall, the 0.07h:1.0v batter results in shear strength magnitudes that are greater than the applied shear force for the range of heights addressed by the standard wall. The moment arm for a right triangular pressure distribution is 1/3 of the length (height), however, observed wall behavior does not follow theoretical predictions when backfill is compacted into a confined region between the wall stem and the excavated slope. The center of pressure tends to move upward on the stem under these conditions. The deviation from theory is greater when shoring is used to produce a vertically walled backfill space. The stem moment arm is 0.4 x (stem height) to account for the compaction effect. Neglect the effects of toe fill on the stem moments and shears.
Footing
AASHTO section 5.5.6.1 states that The rear projection or heel of base slabs shall be designed to support the entire weight of the superimposed materials, unless a more exact method is used. When walls with B/6 eccentricity at service loads are subjected to factored loads, the footing heel undergoes uplift for a significant width of the footing. The vertical component of the active pressure acting on the vertical plane through the footing heel acts on the end of the footing heel as both a stabilizing force and a contributor to heel bending. The AASHTO guideline is reasonable for these walls. The standard wall design is based on a heel moment that includes the mass of superimposed materials, the vertical component of the active pressure and any footing contact pressure remaining with the factored load condition. Note however, that for 2h: 1v backfill walls, one cannot maintain complete theoretical consistency between the forces exerted on the entire wall and the forces exerted on the individual members. The inconsistency arises from the lateral force on a vertical plane through the footing heel compared to the lateral force on the stem and footing edge. The former influences the footing contact stresses and hence, the footing heel moment. The latter determines the stem moment and influences the sum of the moments acting on the combined wall members. The moment sum determined from member forces using the different lateral forces results in a net stabilizing moment, indicating wall rotation into the backfill. To mitigate this inconsistency, heel moments are limited to Mheel = Mstem + Vstem(.9T) +Mkey + Vkey(.1T) - Mtoe - Vtoe(S). However, Mheel(net) = Mheel - Mkey - Vkey(.1T) because the key is mounted on the footing heel. Solving for Mheel(net) = Mstem + Vstem(.9T) - Mtoe - Vtoe(S). The design heel moment is Mheel(net) for 2h: 1v backfill walls. Footing toes are designed for the moments and shears resulting from contact stresses associated with factored loads. Neglect the effects of toe fill.
Base Keys
Base Keys are designed for the moments and shears associated with the factored full passive pressure acting on the key assuming an overburden soil height to the proposed finish grade. Note that any frictional
C3-6
resistance that is assumed to act on a plane through the bottom of the key that resists wall sliding is also applied to the bottom of the key in addition to the passive earth force.
Wall Heights for Rebar

Reinforcing is designed for each 3 ft. interval of wall height. Reinforcing is selected for the greatest height in each 3 ft. range which means there is an excess of rebar except at those points on the wall where the height is a multiple of 3 ft.
Stem Facing Patterns

The stem mass, strength, and concrete volumes assume the use of an architectural facing. This feature may consist of form liners of various styles, patterns, and depths, board form vertical relief strips, or any other forming method that results in partial voids in the total stem thickness. The design accommodates a maximum 2.5 in. relief with a void ratio of the relief thickness of 25%. This allowance should accommodate all but the most extreme facing features.
Contractor Adjustments to Wall Geometry

The geometry and rebar tables attempt to simulate a linear progression in wall member sizes with steadily increasing bar sizes or decreasing spacing with increasing wall heights. The objective is to simplify the layout and construction of the wall. However, it is common for contractors to interpret these tables as a linear problem although wall forces are a function of the wall height to the second power. Sometimes shop drawing submittals linearly interpolate the wall geometry between vertical curve control points along a wall even when these points may vary in height by several meters. Be aware that this practice may constitute significant changes to the wall design. The only way to adhere to the standard as designed is to interpolate between any two sequential heights listed in the wall geometry tables. Interpolations over larger intervals are at the discretion and direction of the individual designers, and lie outside the range of conditions addressed by the standard drawings.
C3.5.6 Bridge Abutments on MSE Retaining Walls

It is believed that the reason the maximum allowable bearing pressure exerted on a MSE wall from a bridge abutment spread footing is limited to 2.5 tsf originates back to the earlier review and acceptance work between the FHWA and the proprietary retaining wall companies. It is anticipated that the proprietary retaining wall connections had some maximum design capacity to which the FHWA most likely added some additional factor of safety. Therefore, it may be possible to increase this maximum allowable bearing pressure on a case by case basis after further research has been performed with the proprietary companies anticipated to be listed in the special provisions to ensure a safe wall design.
C3-7
SECTION 4: ODOT STATUS OF RETAINING STRUCTURE PRODUCTS

Section Contents:
4.1 General 4.2 Product Table 4.2.1 Status 4.2.2 Proprietorship 4.3 Index Tabs
4.1
General
Retaining wall products will be referenced to at least one of the following classifications or wall types: 1 - Rigid Gravity 2 - Cantilever 3 - Counterfort / Buttress 4 - Prefabricated Gravity 5 - Gabion 6 - Bin 7 - Crib 8 - Block 9 - Mechanically Stabilized Earth - Extensible 10 - Mechanically Stabilized Earth - Inextensible Products that may be used in two or more wall types will be referenced and documented accordingly.
4.2
Product Table
The table of retaining wall products following page 4-2 is sorted according to 1) status and 2) wall type as listed in Section 4.1. The list includes the ODOT status of the product, the product name, a letter designation corresponding to the proprietorship of the product, and an Index Number for further product information.
4.2.1
Status
Refer to Section 1.4 of this Retaining Structures Manual for information regarding product status.
4-1
4.2.2
Proprietorship
The Proprietorship column notes the proprietorship of the product agreed to between ODOT and the vendor as documented on the Retaining Structures Product Data sheets, Attachment A. Category 1 = Non-Proprietary Category 2 = Proprietary Category 3 = A Proprietary product in which it is agreed that ODOT may prepare final designs (ergo, non-proprietary. Category 4 = A Non-Proprietary product in which the vendor is capable of providing final designs (ergo, proprietary. Refer to Section 1.5 of this Retaining Proprietary / Non-Proprietary Agreement. Structures Manual for information regarding the
Refer to the products Index Number for the actual proprietorship agreed to between ODOT and the vendor.
4.3
Index Tabs
Approved Product information is organized according to the wall types listed in Section 4.1. Products within a particular index tab are further organized by index numbers or point numbers. As an example; rigid gravity walls are index tab #1. There are three rigid gravity wall products currently listed under index tab #1, of which, the product ODOT Std. Concrete Gravity Retaining Wall, BR720 is index number 1.1. Product information included in this manual consists of: ODOT Retaining Structure Product Review Summary, and either a Product Brochure (for proprietary products) or a Design Example/Aid(s) (for non-proprietary products).
4-2
Products Query Approved-Prequalified
Status Approved-Prequalified Approved-Prequalified Approved-Prequalified Approved-Prequalified Approved-Prequalified Approved-Prequalified Approved-Prequalified Approved-Prequalified
General Type Rigid Gravity Rigid Gravity Rigid Gravity Cantilever Gabion MSE-inextens. MSE-inextens. MSE-inextens.
Product Name ODOT Std. Concrete Gravity Retaining Wall, BR720 ODOT Std. Concrete Barrier ODOT Single Slope Barrier ODOT Std. Concrete Cantilever Retaining Wall, BR705 Artweld Gabions Reinforced Earth - Cruciform Panel Welded Wire Wall Retained Earth - Square Panel Retaining Wall System
Category ID 1 1 1 1 1&4 2 3&4 2
Index No 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 5.1 10.1 10.4 10.7
Page 1
Products Query Approved-Conditional
Status Approved-Conditional Approved-Conditional Approved-Conditional Approved-Conditional Approved-Conditional Approved-Conditional Approved-Conditional Approved-Conditional Approved-Conditional
General Type Gabion Gabion Bin Bin Conv. Segmental MSE-extens. MSE-inextens. MSE-inextens. MSE-inextens.
Maccaferri Gabions Terra Aqua Bin-Wall Type 1 Bin-Wall Type 2 Anchor Diamond (Conventional Segmental) Mesa Retaining Wall System Reinforced Soil Embankment (Shadow Panel) Eureka Reinforced Soil Terratrel - Concrete Clad Face
Product Name
Category ID 1 1 (unknown) (unknown) 2 2 3&4 3&4 2
Index No 5.2 5.3 6.1 6.2 8.2 9.22 10.3 10.6 10.12
Page 2
Products Query Approved-Experimental
Status Approved-Experimental Approved-Experimental Approved-Experimental Approved-Experimental Approved-Experimental Approved-Experimental Approved-Experimental Approved-Experimental Approved-Experimental Approved-Experimental Approved-Experimental Approved-Experimental Approved-Experimental
General Type Rigid Gravity Prefab. Mod. Conv. Segmental Conv. Segmental Conv. Segmental MSE-extens. MSE-extens. MSE-extens. MSE-extens. MSE-inextens. MSE-inextens. MSE-inextens. MSE-inextens.
Product Name GeoWeb Geocell (Rigid Gravity Retaining Wall) Lock-Block Keystone (Conventional Segmental) Allan Block (Conventional Segmental) Anchor Vertica (Conventional Segmental) Anchor Diamond (MSE) Allan Block (MSE) GeoWeb Geocell (MSE Retaining Wall) ARES Reinforced Soil Embankment (Smooth Face Panel) Pyramid Modular Block (MSE) Keysystem 1 (MSE) MSE Plus
Category ID 1&4 3&4 1 2 2 2 2 1&4 2 3&4 2 2 2
Index No 1.4 4.6 8.1 8.4 8.11 9.2 9.3 9.12 9.19 10.5 10.11 10.15 10.20
Page 3
Products Query Evaluation
Status Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation
General Type Cantilever Counterfort Counterfort Prefab. Mod. Prefab. Mod. Prefab. Mod. Prefab. Mod. Bin Crib Conv. Segmental Conv. Segmental MSE-extens. MSE-extens. MSE-extens. MSE-extens. MSE-extens. MSE-extens. MSE-inextens. MSE-inextens. MSE-inextens. MSE-inextens.
Port-O-Wall The Nelson Retaining Wall C Wall T-Wall Cascade Walls Stresswall Concrete Gabions Doublewall Criblock Rockwood Corner Stone Nicolon Mirafi Geotextiles AMOCO Geotextiles Keysystem 2 (MSE) Tensar Geogrid Huesker Geogrid Anchor Vertica (MSE) ISOGRID Terratrel - Permanent Face Terratrel - Temporary Face Strengthened Soil
Product Name
Category ID 2 (unknown) 2 2 (unknown) (unknown) 3&4 (unknown) (unknown) (unknown) (unknown) 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2
Index No 2.2 3.1 3.3 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.7 6.3 7.1 8.3 8.5 9.4 9.5 9.11 9.16 9.17 9.18 10.8 10.13 10.14 10.23
Page 4
Products Query Known
Status Known Known Known Known Known Known Known Known Known Known Known Known Known Known Known Known Known Known Known Known Known Known Known Known Known Known Known Known Known Known Known Known
General Type Counterfort (blank) Prefab. Mod. Prefab. Mod. Gabion Crib Crib Conv. Segmental Conv. Segmental Conv. Segmental Conv. Segmental Conv. Segmental Conv. Segmental Conv. Segmental Conv. Segmental Conv. Segmental Conv. Segmental Conv. Segmental Conv. Segmental MSE-extens. MSE-extens. MSE-extens. MSE-extens. MSE-extens. MSE-extens. MSE-extens. MSE-inextens. MSE-inextens. MSE-inextens. MSE-inextens. MSE-inextens. MSE-inextens.
TechWall CGL PMRW Systems Evergreen Gravity Stone Gridlock Modular Gabions Permacrib Concrib Inter-Lok Loffelstein Living Walls Dynoblock Pisa II (Conventional Segmental) Porcupine Pyramid Gravity Retaining Wall Versa-Lok Slope Block Matterhorn T-Block (Conventional Segmental) StoneWall SELECT (Conventional Segmental) Terramesh Mesa Pisa II (MSE) Tensar Temporary Wall StrataGrid Geotech Hoechst Geotextiles StoneWall SELECT (Conventional Segmental) Strengthened Soil Retained Earth Retained Earth Retained Earth United Engineered Wall Systems T-Block (Conventional Segmental)
Product Name
Category ID 2 (unknown) (unknown) (unknown) (unknown) 2 3&4 (unknown) (unknown) (unknown) (unknown) (unknown) (unknown) 2 (unknown) (unknown) (unknown) 1&4 (unknown) (unknown) 2 (unknown) 2 1 (unknown) (unknown) 2 2 2 2 (unknown) 3&4
Index No 3.2 3.4 4.1 4.5 5.4 7.2 7.3 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.10 8.12 8.13 8.14 8.15 8.15 8.16 8.17 8.18 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.10 9.15 9.21 10.9 10.16 10.17 10.18 10.21 10.22
Page 5
Products Query Rejected
Status Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected
General Type Rigid Gravity Rigid Gravity MSE-inextens. MSE-inextens.
EnviroGrid Geocell Armater Geocell Ter-Voile Retained Earth - Full Height Panel
Product Name
Category ID 1 1 (unknown) 2
Index No 9.13 9.14 10.10 10.19
Page 6
Products Query Discontinued
Status Discontinued Discontinued Discontinued Discontinued
General Type MSE-inextens. MSE-extens. MSE-extens. Gabion
Product Name Retained Earth - Hexagon Panel Genesis Highway Retaining Wall Concrete GeoWall Tensar Gabions
Category ID 2 2 (unknown) (unknown)
Index No 10.2 9.1 9.6 5.5
Page 7
1.1 ODOT RETAINING STRUCTURE PRODUCT REVIEW SUMMARY Tradename: Company Name: Telephone: Status: Date: ODOT Std. Concrete Gravity Retaining Wall, BR720 Oregon DOT
Approved-Prequalified Rev. Date: 6/1/90
10/24/96
Print Date:
7/11/03
Proprietorship: Category 1 -- Non-Proprietary Category 2 -- Proprietary Product: Materials/Components: Concrete: per ODOT Std. Dwg. BR720 Steel Reinforcement: per ODOT Std. Dwg. BR720 Backfill: per ODOT Specifications Geometry & Applications:
Category 3 Non-Proprietary Category 4 -- Proprietary
Note: Unique geometry, applications or appurtenances not stated (e.g., terraced, back-to-back, narrow base or luminaire or sign support facilities) or critical applications other than bridge abutments (e.g., retaining structures supporting buildings, critical utilities or other facilities for which the consequences of poor performance or failure would be severe) require special investigation, review, and/or design by designer of record.
ft Height: 8 5 ft Width of Footprint: no limitations Horiz. Alignment: Vertical Alignment: no limitations Batter(s): frontface @ 12:1
Top of Wall: Backslope: level 1.75 (live load not applicable) sloping; V:H 1: broken-back (generally includes live load) Live Load: None = 80 psf (Pedestrian) = 120 psf (Auto) = 250 psf (Truck) Features: pedestrian facilities: sidewalk ped. rail roadway facilities: traffic barrier guardrail (posts)
fencing
Bottom of Wall: Foreslope: level sloping; V:H 1: Features: pedestrian facilities (if no sidewalk and live load present, consider as a roadway facility)
Data provided in this summary indicates the bounds of ODOTs most recently documented product review and acceptance. This data may or may not be the actual limits of the product. Retaining structure applications within the above limits do not require further review to specify. Applications outside these limits require further project specific investigation/review and documentation before being specified.
ODOT Std. Concrete Gravity Retaining Wall, BR720 roadway facilities (protect frontface from live load impact) Special Applications: vegetated face water earthquake bridge abutment marine
1.1
Remarks: The above noted top of wall features are acceptable, however standard details are not available at this time; engineer of record to provide design and details. Not intentionally designed for a vegetated face however can support the growth of some vines. Plant growth may effect durability and service life; increases maintenance efforts. Not intentionally designed for earthquake. Requires investigation for projects in which seismic loading is deemed necessary. Deformation: Vertical: 1 in uniform differential: not recommended where differential settlement is anticipated. Lateral: low unless improperly designed for sliding or overturning.
Utilities & Obstructions: Can readily accommodate utility lines or obstructions either in, through, or behind the wall; requires special design/detailing. Esthetics: Generally considered poor when exposed surface is finished flat. Scoring can help appearance. Formliners are most cost effective option to improve appearance. Adjust typical costs to include addition of any aesthetic treatments. Durability: high moderate low Relatively impermeable when constructed with high quality materials and competent workmanship. Constructibility: easy moderate difficult Does not require any special tools or labor. Does require extensive forming to contain poured concrete. Estimated Cost (per ft face): typical installed cost (range) typical materials only cost (range) typical equipment only cost (range) typical labor only cost (range)
2
$ $ $ $
Vendor n/a n/a n/a n/a
ODOT 28-37
1.2 ODOT RETAINING STRUCTURE PRODUCT REVIEW SUMMARY Tradename: Company Name: Telephone: Status: Date: ODOT Standard Median Barrier Oregon DOT
Approved-Prequalified Rev. Date: circa 1985
12/11/96
Print Date:
7/11/03
Proprietorship: Category 1 -- Non-Proprietary Category 2 -- Proprietary Product: Materials/Components: Standard Concrete Median Barrier Backfill: per ODOT Specifications Geometry & Applications:
Top of Wall: Backslope: level 2 (live load not applicable) sloping; V:H 1: broken-back (generally includes live load) Live Load: None = 80 psf (Pedestrian) = 120 psf (Auto) = 250 psf (Truck) Features: pedestrian facilities: sidewalk ped. rail roadway facilities: traffic barrier guardrail (posts) Bottom of Wall: Foreslope: level sloping; V:H 1: Features: pedestrian facilities roadway facilities
fencing
Remarks: For slopes greater than 1:2, clay foundation soils, and/or barrier placed on soil confer with Bridge Section for alternate details. Barrier shall be keyed into the roadway per standard details, however, it may be unanchored. Drain pipe, including drainage geotextile and granular drain backfill material, should be installed in the fill at the base of the concrete barrier to eliminate hydrostatic pressure.
1.3 ODOT RETAINING STRUCTURE PRODUCT REVIEW SUMMARY Tradename: Company Name: Telephone: Status: Date: ODOT Single Slope Barrier Oregon DOT
12/11/96
Print Date:
7/11/03
Proprietorship: Category 1 -- Non-Proprietary Category 2 -- Proprietary Product: Materials/Components: Standard Concrete Single Slope Barrier Backfill: per ODOT Specifications Geometry & Applications:
Top of Wall: Backslope: level 2 (live load not applicable) sloping; V:H 1: broken-back (generally includes live load) Live Load: None = 80 psf (Pedestrian) = 120 psf (Auto) = 250 psf (Truck) Features: pedestrian facilities: sidewalk ped. rail roadway facilities: traffic barrier guardrail (posts) Bottom of Wall: Foreslope: level sloping; V:H 1: Features: pedestrian facilities roadway facilities
fencing
Remarks: For slopes greater than 1:2, clay foundation soils, and/or barrier placed on soil confer with Bridge Section for alternate details. Barrier shall be keyed into the roadway per standard details, however, it may be unanchored. Drain pipe, including drainage geotextile and granular drain backfill material, should be installed in the fill at the base of the concrete barrier to eliminate hydrostatic pressure.
1.4 ODOT RETAINING STRUCTURE PRODUCT REVIEW SUMMARY Tradename: Company Name: Telephone: Status: Date:
GeoWeb Cellular Confinement System (Rigid Gravity Retaining Wall) Soil Stabilization Products Co. (800) 523-9992
Print Date: 7/11/03
Approved-Experimental Rev. Date: 10/4/96
Proprietorship: Category 1 -- Non-Proprietary Category 2 -- Proprietary
Product: Materials/Components: Soil Inclusions: 203 mm nominal dia. geocell Infill: project specific; determine and include in Special Provisions. For vegetated facings recommend exterior exposed cells be topsoil suitable for supporting plant growth and interior cells be sand, 19.0 mm granular backfill or controlled low density fill (lean concrete). Backfill: per ODOT Specifications Geometry & Applications:
ft Height: 6 0.5H Width of Footprint: no limitations Horiz. Alignment: Vertical Alignment: no limitations; geocell material may be cut to desired profile Batter(s): 1:6
Top of Wall: Backslope: level 2 (live load not applicable) sloping; V:H 1: broken-back (generally includes live load) Live Load: None = 80 psf (Pedestrian) = 120 psf (Auto) = 250 psf (Truck) Features: pedestrian facilities: sidewalk ped. rail roadway facilities: traffic barrier guardrail (posts) Bottom of Wall: Foreslope: level
fencing
GeoWeb Cellular Confinement System (Rigid Gravity Retaining Wall) sloping; V:H 1:
1.4
Features: pedestrian facilities (if no sidewalk and live load present, consider as a roadway facility) roadway facilities (protect frontface from live load impact) Special Applications: vegetated face water earthquake bridge abutment marine Remarks: (comment) Deformation: Vertical: In. uniform differential; (V:H) 1: Lateral: (comment)
Utilities & Obstructions: (comment) Esthetics: (comment) Durability: high moderate low (comment on effects of deleterious environmental factors, i.e., lechates, salts, corrosion, etc.) Constructibility: easy moderate difficult 2 approximate face area able to construct per day: ______ ft (____ man crew) (comment on required equipment, manpower, etc.) Estimated Cost (per ft face): typical installed cost (range) typical materials only cost (range) typical equipment only cost (range) typical labor only cost (range) Product Performance: good ODOT has (continue comments)
2
$ $ $ $ average
Vendor
ODOT
fair
General Remarks: Zoned walls not recommended at this time. Vendor: Construction Experience: Date of product inception: Quantity constructed worldwide (approx.): Date of product first use in Oregon (DOT): Quantity constructed in Oregon (DOT) (approx.): Supply Capability: Construction Support: good per average fair
ft
2 2
ft
2.1 ODOT RETAINING STRUCTURE PRODUCT REVIEW SUMMARY Tradename: Company Name: Telephone: Status: Date: ODOT Std. Concrete Cantilever Retaining Wall, BR705 Oregon DOT
Approved-Prequalified Rev. Date: 10/79
Print Date:
7/11/03
Product: Materials/Components: Concrete: per ODOT Std. Dwg. BR705 Steel Reinforcement: per ODOT Std. Dwg. BR705 Drain pipe, drain backfill & geotextile (if applicable): per ODOT Std. Dwg. BR705 Backfill: per ODOT Specifications Geometry & Applications:
ft (level backslope) Height: 24 16.6 ft (level backslope) Width of Footprint: no limitations Horiz. Alignment: Vertical Alignment: no limitations Batter(s): frontface @ 12:1
Top of Wall: Backslope: level 1.5 (live load not applicable) sloping; V:H 1: broken-back (generally includes live load) Live Load: None = 80 psf (Pedestrian) = 120 psf (Auto) = 250 psf (Truck) Features: pedestrian facilities: sidewalk ped. rail roadway facilities: traffic barrier guardrail (posts) Bottom of Wall: Foreslope: level sloping; V:H 1: Features:
fencing
ODOT Std. Concrete Cantilever Retaining Wall, BR705
2.1
pedestrian facilities (if no sidewalk and live load present, consider as a roadway facility) roadway facilities (protect frontface from live load impact) Special Applications: vegetated face water earthquake bridge abutment marine Remarks: The above noted top of wall features are acceptable, however standard details are not available at this time; engineer of record to provide design and details. Not intentionally designed for a vegetated face however can support the growth of some vines. Plant growth may effect durability and service life; increases maintenance efforts. Not intentionally designed for earthquake. Requires investigation for projects in which seismic loading is deemed necessary. Deformation: Vertical: 1 in uniform differential: not recommended where differential settlement is anticipated Lateral: low unless improperly designed for sliding or overturning
Utilities & Obstructions: Can readily accommodate utility lines or obstructions either in, through, or behind the wall; requires special design/detailing Esthetics: Generally considered poor when exposed surface is finished flat. Scoring can help appearance. Formliners are most cost effective option to improve appearance. Adjust typical costs to include addition of any aesthetic treatments. Durability: high moderate low Relatively impermeable when constructed with high quality materials and competent workmanship. Constructibility: easy moderate difficult Does not require any special tools or labor. Does require extensive forming to contain poured concrete. Estimated Cost (per ft ): typical installed cost (range) typical materials only cost (range) typical equipment only cost (range) typical labor only cost (range)
2
$ $ $ $
Vendor n/a n/a n/a n/a
ODOT 28-37
4.6 ODOT RETAINING STRUCTURE PRODUCT REVIEW SUMMARY Tradename: Company Name: Telephone: Status: Date: Lock-Block Ultrablock, Inc. 360-694-0141 Print Date: 7/11/03
Product: Materials/Components: Granular Wall Backfill: per ODOT Specifications Blocks: prefabricated solid concrete blocks 30 in x 30 in x 60 in. Specialty blocks available (see Retaining Structures Coordinator for product information). Remarks: Provide a positive drainage system behind wall (e.g., perforated drain pipe with filter). Include additional drainage systems (e.g., surface, chimney, foundation, etc.) when applicable. Geometry & Applications:
Ft. warrant no further review. Heights in excess of 12 ft. require project specific preapproval by ODOT engineer of record. Width of Footprint: design dependent (30 in. (one block width) min.) Horiz. Alignment: Radi 75 ft. for walls one block wide; larger for wider sections. Vertical Alignment: May place parallel to grade up to 5%, place level and step wall for grades > 5%. frost depth Min. Embedment: Batter(s): Typically between 6V:1H and 10V:1H. Short walls (H 7 ft.) may be set vertical. Height: Top of Wall: Backslope: level 1.5 (live load not applicable) sloping; V:H 1: broken-back (generally includes live load) Live Load: None = 80 psf (Pedestrian) = 120 psf (Auto) = 250 psf (Truck) Features: pedestrian facilities: sidewalk ped. rail roadway facilities: traffic barrier guardrail (posts)
12
fencing
Lock-Block Retaining Wall
4.6
Bottom of Wall: Foreslope: level 1.5 sloping; V:H 1: Features: pedestrian facilities (if no sidewalk and live load present, consider as a roadway facility) roadway facilities (protect frontface from live load impact) Special Applications: vegetated face water earthquake bridge abutment marine Remarks: Recommend using in applications where concrete strength, durability, and esthetics are not critical (see specific guidance below). Specific applications besides general gravity retaining wall may include but are not limited to slide repairs, culvert headwalls, and fish weirs. Effects of seismic forces, when deemed applicable, should be investigated for uses which could impact pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Deformation: Vertical: 1 in uniform differential; (V:H) 1:
300
Utilities & Obstructions: Utilities may pass through the wall. Accommodate using cast-in-place concrete in lieu of a prefabricated unit. Utilities may run parallel either in front of or behind the wall. Utilities behind the wall should be located a reasonable distance from the back of the wall to not compromise the wall design and ensure safe access in the future, if necessary. Esthetics: Can not ensure a long-lasting esthetically pleasing appearance due to the nature of the concrete in the blocks. Use should be limited to locations where esthetics is not critical. Consider specifying the Rockface Architectural Block. This facial finish better masks possible blemishes, deters graffiti, and provide a more all-around pleasing appearance. Durability: high moderate low Blocks are typically made from post-consumer waste concrete left over from commercial and residential structural or slab-on-grade projects. Concrete is not tested and actual strength is unknown (anticipate Class 3000 to 3600). Durability can not be ascertained; has potential to experience future surface degradation. Constructibility: easy moderate difficult 2 approximate face area able to construct per day: __1000__ ft (_3_ man crew) Blocks use an embedded cable as the lifting devise. Requires equipment capable of lifting and placing 4300 lb. blocks. Requires adequate space to deliver, maneuver, pick and place blocks. Estimated Cost (per m face): typical installed cost (range) typical materials only cost (range) typical equipment only cost (range) typical labor only cost (range)
2
$ $ $ $
Vendor 14-18 5.70-6.50 4.80-7.50 3.20-3.70
ODOT na
Lock-Block Retaining Wall Product Performance: good average fair (Sufficient performance history to assess this item is not available at this time.) General Remarks: Corners other than 90 are difficult to construct. Consider cast-in-place corners for corners other than 90. Recommend discussing corner requirements with manufacturer to ensure best design. Avoid acute angles. Corners with an interior angle < 70 will require special design to account for increased lateral earth pressure due to increased wall restraint. Vendor: Construction Experience: Date of product inception: 1983 2 Quantity constructed worldwide (approx.): 5,000,000 ft Date of product first use in Oregon (DOT): na Quantity constructed in Oregon (DOT) (approx.): 250,000 Supply Capability: 100 blocks per day
4.6
ft
Construction Support: good average fair (Sufficient performance history to assess this item is not available at this time.)
In-House design information - Designers making Category 3 In-House designs should consider the following: Read and understand the Lock-Block Design Manual. Read and understand the AASHTO Std. Specifications for Highway Bridges, Secs 4 and 5. Read and understand the ODOT Retaining Structures Manual. Consult foundation and geotechnical textbooks. (see ODOT Retaining Structures Manual, Section 2, References for suggested texts.) Obtain a Foundation Report. If a Foundation Report is not available at the very least discuss the site conditions with a Geotechnical Engineer. Ensure wall is able to deflect the amount required to achieve Active soil pressure. If not, ensure design soil pressure is representative of the anticipated wall deflection. Friction angle on back of wall should be for formed (smooth) concrete. Consider all possible sliding surfaces (block to block, block to leveling pad, leveling pad to soil, soil to soil). Neglect any soil cohesion properties. Account for increased lateral force due to compaction (e.g., apply lateral soil force at 0.4H instead of 0.333H). Provide positive drainage at the wall heel. Include other drain systems when appropriate. The Mononobe-Okabe method for calculating seismic loads on retaining walls does not account for the wall mass. Lock-Block walls are high-mass gravity structures and further investigation is recommended. DO NOT detail individual blocks, keyways, etc. on plans. Only detail the general representation of the block on the Plan, Elevation, and Typical Section and call for the LockBlock product in the special provisions.
5.1 ODOT RETAINING STRUCTURE PRODUCT REVIEW SUMMARY Tradename: Company Name: Telephone: Status: Date: Artweld Gabions Hilfiker Walls 800-762-8962 5/14/97 Print Date: 7/11/03
Product: Materials/Components: Welded Wire Basket: galvanized WWF 3 in. x 3 in. 0.1205 in. or 0.1483 in. wire Internal Connecting Wire: 0.1483 in., galvanized Fasteners: 0.0800 in. galv. tie wire or 0.1483 in. galv. Spiral Binders Gabion Basket fill: per ODOT Specifications Backfill: per ODOT Specifications Note: Subject to ODOT tying and alternate fastener details; to be shown in the contract plans and specified in the specifications.. Geometry & Applications:
ft Height: 15 0.5 H Width of Footprint: no limitations Horiz. Alignment: Vertical Alignment: no limitations; baskets may be cut to form desired top of wall profile. Batter(s): Frontface may be either stepped (backface flush) or flush (backface stepped). Either may be vertical or battered, typically 6
Top of Wall: Backslope: level 2 (live load not applicable) sloping; V:H 1: broken-back (generally includes live load) Live Load: None = 80 psf (Pedestrian) = 120 psf (Auto) = 250 psf (Truck) Features: pedestrian facilities: sidewalk ped. rail roadway facilities: traffic barrier guardrail (posts)
fencing
Artweld Gabions
5.1
Bottom of Wall: Foreslope: level 3 sloping; V:H 1: Features: pedestrian facilities (if no sidewalk and live load present, consider as a roadway facility) roadway facilities (protect frontface from live load impact) Special Applications: vegetated face water earthquake bridge abutment marine Remarks: Ped. rail and fencing should not be located at the frontface of the gabion basket; may be located within or behind the basket. CIP traffic barrier should be founded on a base slab; base slab may be founded on basket. Precast barrier should be pinned behind or near the backface of the basket. Guardrail posts should be located behind the baskets. Deformation: Vertical: 1 in. uniform differential; (V:H) 1: 50 Lateral: Welded wire fabric tends to withstand bulging better than mesh-type baskets.
Utilities & Obstructions: Utilities should not be located within baskets except pipes may pass perpendicular through the baskets. Esthetics: Generally desirable when unable to view. Generally undesirable when able to view within an urban setting. May be undesirable when able to view in a rural setting. Depends upon environment and community around the wall. Durability: high moderate low (comment on effects of deleterious environmental factors, i.e., lechates, salts, corrosion, etc.) Constructibility: easy moderate difficult 2 approximate face area able to construct per day: ______ ft (____ man crew) (comment on required equipment, manpower, etc.) Estimated Cost (per ft ): typical installed cost (range) typical materials only cost (range) typical equipment only cost (range) typical labor only cost (range) Product Performance: good ODOT has (continue comments) General Remarks: (comment)
2
$ $ $ $ average
Vendor 7-12 1.60-2.40 4.80-7.20 1.90-2.40 fair
ODOT
Artweld Gabions
5.1
Vendor: Construction Experience: Date of product inception: Quantity constructed worldwide (approx.): Date of product first use in Oregon (DOT): Quantity constructed in Oregon (DOT) (approx.): Supply Capability: Construction Support: good per average fair
Ft
2 2
ft
Maccaferri Gabions Maccaferri Gabions West Coast, Inc. (206) 445-1050 5/13/97
Print Date: 7/11/03
Approved-Conditional Rev. Date: circa 1985
Proprietorship: Category 1 -- Non-Proprietary Category 2 -- Proprietary Product: Materials/Components: Twisted wire baskets:
0.1205 mesh, 0.1483 in. selvage wires, major axis (maximum line dimensions) 4.75 in. Internal connecting wire: 0.0800 in. Fasteners: 0.0800 in. gauge tie wire Gabion Basket fill: per ODOT Specifications Backfill: per ODOT Specifications Note: Subject to ODOT tying and alternate fastener details; to be shown in the contract plans and specified in the specifications. SPENAX RING clamp-on ring type fasteners are not a globally preapproved feature of the Maccaferri Gabion Retaining Wall product. Spenax Rings are currently being used and evaluated for basket assembly only. The review of basket-tobasket connections using Spenax Rings will be dependent upon the success of basket assembly connections. If Spenax Rings can not be installed adequately the gabion basket must be laced with tie wire.
Geometry & Applications:
ft Height: 15 0.5 H Width of Footprint: no limitations Horiz. Alignment: Vertical Alignment: no limitations Batter(s): Frontface may be either stepped (backface flush) or flush (backface stepped). Either may be vertical or battered, typically 6.
Top of Wall: Backslope: level 2 (live load not applicable) sloping; V:H 1: broken-back (generally includes live load) Live Load: None = 80 psf (Pedestrian) = 120 psf (Auto)
Maccaferri Gabions = 250 psf (Truck) Features: pedestrian facilities: roadway facilities:
5.2
sidewalk traffic barrier
ped. rail guardrail (posts)
fencing
Bottom of Wall: Foreslope: level 3 sloping; V:H 1: Features: pedestrian facilities (if no sidewalk and live load present, consider as a roadway facility) roadway facilities (protect frontface from live load impact) Special Applications: vegetated face water earthquake bridge abutment marine Remarks: Ped. rail and fencing should not be located at the frontface of the gabion basket; may be located within or behind the basket. CIP traffic barrier should be founded on a base slab; base slab may be founded on basket. Precast barrier should be pinned behind or near the backface of the basket. Guardrail posts should be located behind the baskets. Deformation: Vertical: 1 ft uniform differential; (V:H) 1: Lateral: (comment)
50
Utilities & Obstructions: Utilities should not be located within baskets except pipes may pass perpendicular through the baskets. Esthetics: Generally desirable when unable to view. Generally undesirable when able to view within an urban setting. May be undesirable when able to view in a rural setting. Depends upon environment and community around the wall. Durability: high moderate low (comment on effects of deleterious environmental factors, i.e., lechates, salts, corrosion, etc.) Constructibility: easy moderate difficult 2 approximate face area able to construct per day: ______ ft (____ man crew) (comment on required equipment, manpower, etc.) Estimated Cost (per ft ): typical installed cost (range) typical materials only cost (range) typical equipment only cost (range) typical labor only cost (range) Product Performance: good ODOT has (continue comments)
2
$ $ $ $ average
Vendor
ODOT
fair
Maccaferri Gabions
5.2
General Remarks: (comments) Vendor: Construction Experience: Date of product inception: Quantity constructed worldwide (approx.): Date of product first use in Oregon (DOT): Quantity constructed in Oregon (DOT) (approx.): Supply Capability: Construction Support: good per average fair
ft
2 2
ft
Terra Aqua Gabions Terra Aqua Gabions (800) 736-9089 5/14/97

Print Date: 7/11/03
Proprietorship: Category 1 -- Non-Proprietary Category 2 -- Proprietary Product: Materials/Components: Twisted wire baskets:
0.1205 in. mesh, 0.1483 in. selvage wires, major axis (maximum line dimensions) 4.75 in. Internal connecting wire: 0.0800 in. Fasteners: 0.0800 in. tie wire or Tiger-Tite locking clips Gabion Basket fill: per ODOT Specifications Backfill: per ODOT Specifications Note: Subject to ODOT tying and alternate fastener details; to be shown in the contract plans and specified in the specifications.
Geometry & Applications:
ft Height: 15 0.5 H Width of Footprint: no limitations Horiz. Alignment: Vertical Alignment: no limitations Batter(s): Frontface may be either stepped (backface flush) or flush (backface stepped). Either may be vertical or battered, typically 6.
fencing
Terra Aqua Gabions
5.3
Bottom of Wall: Foreslope: level 3 sloping; V:H 1: Features: pedestrian facilities (if no sidewalk and live load present, consider as a roadway facility) roadway facilities (protect frontface from live load impact) Special Applications: vegetated face water earthquake bridge abutment marine Remarks: Ped. rail and fencing should not be located on the frontface of the gabion basket; may be located within or behind the basket. CIP traffic barrier should be founded on a base slab; base slab may be founded on basket. Precast barrier should be pinned behind or near the backface of the basket. Guardrail posts should be located behind the baskets. Deformation: Vertical: 1 In. uniform differential; (V:H) 1: 50 Lateral: (comment)
Utilities & Obstructions: Utilities should not be located within baskets except pipes may pass perpendicular through the baskets. Esthetics: Generally desirable when unable to view. Generally undesirable when able to view within an urban setting. May be undesirable when able to view in a rural setting. Depends upon environment and community around the wall. Durability: high moderate low (comment on effects of deleterious environmental factors, i.e., lechates, salts, corrosion, etc.) Constructibility: easy moderate difficult 2 approximate face area able to construct per day: ______ ft (____ man crew) (comment on required equipment, manpower, etc.) Estimated Cost (per ft ): typical installed cost (range) typical materials only cost (range) typical equipment only cost (range) typical labor only cost (range) Product Performance: good ODOT has (continue comments) General Remarks: (comments)
2
$ $ $ $ average
Vendor
ODOT
fair
Terra Aqua Gabions
5.3
ft
2 2
ft
Bin-Wall Retaining Wall Type 1 Contech Construction Products, Inc. (510) 945-7200
2/14/96 Print Date: 7/11/03
Product: Materials/Components: Stringers, spacers, connectors and other steel components: per ODOT Specifications Bin fill: per ODOT Specifications Backfill: per ODOT Specifications
Bin-Wall Retaining Wall Type 2 Contech Construction Products, Inc. (510) 945-7200
2/14/96 Print Date: 7/11/03
Product: Materials/Components: Stringers, spacers, connectors and other steel components: per ODOT Specifications Bin fill: per ODOT Specifications Backfill: per ODOT Specifications
Keystone (Conventional Segmental) Retaining Wall System Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. (800) 733-7470 12/11/96
Print Date: 7/11/03
Product: Materials/Components: Segmental Retaining Wall (SRW) Units: Name Height (in) Length (in) Width (in) Weight (lb) Standard Unit 8 18 21.5 95 International 8 18 12.25 84 Compac Unit Mini Unit 4 18 10.5 44 Angle Caps 4&8 ------Straight Side 4&8 ------Caps 4&8 ------90 Corner Units Planter Wall Unit 4 18 21 95 Shear Connectors: fiberglass pins: fv=6400psi, ft=110 ksi (2 pins per unit) Leveling Pad: compacted gravel, crushed rock or unreinforced concrete SRW Unit Fill: per ODOT Specifications Backfill: per ODOT Specifications Remarks: Two SRW unit styles: Sculptured Rock Face & Classic Straight Sculptured Rock Face. Colors: Gray (standard), Tan, & Brown. Custom colors by special order (contact vendor). Geometry & Applications:
HEIGHT (in) SRW Unit: Standard Unit International Compac Unit Batter: 128:1 8:1 128:1 8:1 Loading Cond.: Level backslope 54 70 30 38 & foreslope 1:2 backslope & 45.5 57.5 25.25 32.25 level foreslope Width of Footprint: SRW Unit length + 12 in. Horiz. Alignment: Convex curves 42 in. at top of wall. Concave curves 42 in. Standard angles = 45, 90, & 135. 90 corners use Corner Units.
Keystone (Conventional Segmental) Retaining Wall System Vertical Alignment: Batter(s): Top of wall stepped. Steps dependent on SRW unit height.
8.1
128:1, 16:1, 18:1; dependent on SRW unit/Shear Connector alignment
fencing
Bottom of Wall: Foreslope: level sloping; V:H 1: Features: pedestrian facilities (if no sidewalk and live load present, consider as a roadway facility) roadway facilities (protect frontface from live load impact) Special Applications: vegetated face water earthquake bridge abutment marine Remarks: Place SRW Units level. Foundation stepped based on SRW Unit height. Embed 12 in. minimum. Deformation: Vertical: 1 in. uniform differential; (V:H) 1: 200 Lateral: (comment)
Utilities & Obstructions: (comment) Esthetics: (comment) Durability: high moderate low (comment on effects of deleterious environmental factors, i.e., lechates, salts, corrosion, etc.) Constructibility: easy moderate difficult 2 approximate face area able to construct per day: ______ ft (____ man crew) (comment on required equipment, manpower, etc.)
Keystone (Conventional Segmental) Retaining Wall System
8.1
Estimated Cost (per ft ): typical installed cost (range) typical materials only cost (range) typical equipment only cost (range) typical labor only cost (range) Product Performance: good ODOT has (continue comments)
$ $ $ $ average
Vendor
ODOT
fair
General Remarks: See 9.11 for MSE-extensible product summary See 10.15 for MSE-inextensible product summary Vendor: Construction Experience: Date of product inception: Quantity constructed worldwide (approx.): Date of product first use in Oregon (DOT): Quantity constructed in Oregon (DOT) (approx.): Supply Capability: Construction Support: good per average fair
ft
2 2
ft
Anchor Diamond (Conventional Segmental) Retaining Wall Anchor Wall Systems (503) 669-7612 9/15/00
Print Date: 7/11/03
Approved-Conditional Rev. Date: 3/16/95
Product: Materials/Components: Segmental Retaining Wall (SRW) Units: Name Height (in) Width (in) Length (in) Weight (lb) Diamond 6 16 12 66 Beveled Unit Diamond 6 17.25 12 71 Straight Unit Diamond Cap 3 17.25 10 31 Unit Leveling Pad: compacted gravel, crushed rock or unreinforced concrete Backfill: per ODOT Specifications Remarks: Two SRW unit styles: Beveled & Straight, both Split Face pattern. Standard colors: Gray, & Tan. Custom colors by special order (contact vendor). Geometry & Applications:
ft for level backslope without surcharge. Height: 4 Remarks: Sloped backslopes will reduce these values and require calculation. Width of Footprint: SRW Unit length + 12 in. Horizontal curves dependent on SRW Unit; see table below. Standard Horiz. Alignment: angles = 45 & 90. RADII (in) SRW Unit: Diamond Beveled Unit Diamond Straight Unit Convex (outside) min. 24 (top course) 48 (top course) Concave (inside) min. 48 (first course) 96 (first course) Vertical Alignment: Top of wall stepped. Steps dependent on SRW unit height. Batter(s): 1.125 in. setback per SRW Unit ( 10)
Top of Wall: Backslope: level sloping; V:H 1:
(live load not applicable)
Anchor Diamond (Conventional Segmental) Retaining Wall broken-back (generally includes live load) Live Load: None = 80 psf (Pedestrian) = 120 psf (Auto) = 250 psf (Truck) Features: pedestrian facilities: roadway facilities:
8.2
fencing
Bottom of Wall: Foreslope: level sloping; V:H 1: Features: pedestrian facilities (if no sidewalk and live load present, consider as a roadway facility) roadway facilities (protect frontface from live load impact) Special Applications: vegetated face water earthquake bridge abutment marine Remarks: Place SRW Units level. Foundation steps = 152 mm. Embed 300 mm minimum. Deformation: Vertical: 1 in uniform differential; (V:H) 1: Lateral: (comment)
200
2
$ $ $ $ average
Vendor
ODOT
fair
Anchor Diamond (Conventional Segmental) Retaining Wall
8.2
General Remarks: See 9.2 for MSE-extensible product summary Vendor: Construction Experience: Date of product inception: Quantity constructed worldwide (approx.): Date of product first use in Oregon (DOT): Quantity constructed in Oregon (DOT) (approx.): Supply Capability: Construction Support: good per average fair
ft
2 2
ft
8.4 ODOT RETAINING STRUCTURE PRODUCT REVIEW SUMMARY Tradename: Company Name: Telephone: Status: Date: Allan Block (Conventional Segmental) Retaining Wall System Allan Block Corp. (800) 279-5309 Print Date: 7/11/03
Product: Materials/Components: Segmental Units: Name Height (in) Width (in) Length (in) Weight (lb) AB Original 7 16 12 65 AB Stones 8 18 12 75 AB Three 8 18 12 75 AB Rocks 8 18 12 71 AB Lite Stones 4 18 12 35 AB Lite Rocks 4 18 12 35 AB Junior 6 8 8 20 AB Capstone --------Unit Fill: per ODOT Specifications Backfill: per ODOT Specifications Remarks: See following height table for individual unit limitations. Units AB Three, AB Lite Stones and AB Junior may be combined to produce random pattern Ashlar style appearance. See Retaining Structures Coordinator for details. Geometry & Applications:
ft Height: ft Width of Footprint: (note curve limitations, corners, etc.) Horiz. Alignment: Vertical Alignment: (note grade limitations, tops of elements, etc.) Batter(s): (note batter or range of batters)
Top of Wall: Backslope: level (live load not applicable) sloping; V:H 1: broken-back (generally includes live load) Live Load: None = 80 psf (Pedestrian)
Allan Block (Conventional Segmental) Retaining Wall System = 120 psf (Auto) = 250 psf (Truck) Features: pedestrian facilities: roadway facilities:
8.4
fencing
Bottom of Wall: Foreslope: level sloping; V:H 1: Features: pedestrian facilities (if no sidewalk and live load present, consider as a roadway facility) roadway facilities (protect frontface from live load impact) Special Applications: vegetated face water earthquake bridge abutment marine Remarks: (comment) Deformation: Vertical: in uniform differential; (V:H) 1: Lateral: (comment)
Utilities & Obstructions: (comment) Esthetics: (comment) Durability: high moderate low (comment on effects of deleterious environmental factors, i.e., lechates, salts, corrosion, etc.) Constructibility: easy moderate difficult 2 approximate face area able to construct per day: ______ ft (____ man crew) (comment on required equipment, manpower, etc.) Estimated Cost (per ft ): typical installed cost (range) typical materials only cost (range) typical equipment only cost (range) typical labor only cost (range) Product Performance: good ODOT has (continue comments) General Remarks: (comment) Vendor: Construction Experience:
2
$ $ $ $ average
Vendor
ODOT
fair
Allan Block (Conventional Segmental) Retaining Wall System Date of product inception: Quantity constructed worldwide (approx.): Date of product first use in Oregon (DOT): Quantity constructed in Oregon (DOT) (approx.): Supply Capability: Construction Support: good per average fair
8.4
ft
2 2
ft
Anchor Vertica (Conventional Segmental) Retaining Wall Anchor Wall Systems (503) 669-7612 12/13/96
Print Date: 7/11/03
Product: Materials/Components: Segmental Retaining Wall (SRW) Units: Name Height (in) Width (in) Length (in) Vertica Pro Unit 8 18 22.25 Vertica Unit 8 18 11.5 Vertica Half-High 4 18 11.5 Unit Vertica Cap 4 17.25 10 Vertica Corner 8 18 9 Leveling Pad: compacted gravel, crushed rock or unreinforced concrete SRW Unit Fill: per ODOT Specifications Backfill: per ODOT Specifications Remarks: All SRW units are a Split Face pattern: Colors - contact vendor. Geometry & Applications:
Weight (lb) 115 86 44 40 99
Vertica Unit Loading Cond.: Level backslope & foreslope 54 30 Remarks: Sloped backslopes will reduce these values and require calculation. Width of Footprint: SRW Unit length + 12 in. Horiz. Alignment: Horizontal curves dependent on SRW Unit; see table below. 90 corners use Corner Units. RADII (in) SRW Unit: Vertica Pro Unit Vertica Unit Convex (outside) min. 66 (@ face) 42 (@ face) Level backslope & foreslope 48 (@ face) 48 (@ face) Vertical Alignment: Top of wall stepped. Steps dependent on SRW unit height. Batter(s): 4 ( 0.5 in. setback per SRW Unit)
SRW Unit:
HEIGHT (in) Vertica Pro Unit
Anchor Vertica (Conventional Segmental) Retaining Wall
8.11
fencing
Bottom of Wall: Foreslope: level sloping; V:H 1: Features: pedestrian facilities (if no sidewalk and live load present, consider as a roadway facility) roadway facilities (protect frontface from live load impact) Special Applications: vegetated face water earthquake bridge abutment marine Remarks: Place SRW Units level. Foundation steps = 6 in. Embed 12 in. minimum. Deformation: Vertical: 1 in uniform differential; (V:H) 1: Lateral: (comment)
200
Utilities & Obstructions: (comment) Esthetics: (comment) Durability: high moderate low (comment on effects of deleterious environmental factors, i.e., lechates, salts, corrosion, etc.) Constructibility: easy moderate difficult 2 approximate face area able to construct per day: ______ ft (____ man crew) (comment on required equipment, manpower, etc.)
Anchor Vertica (Conventional Segmental) Retaining Wall
8.11
Estimated Cost (per ft face): typical installed cost (range) typical materials only cost (range) typical equipment only cost (range) typical labor only cost (range) Product Performance: good ODOT has (continue comments)
$ $ $ $ average
Vendor
ODOT
fair
General Remarks: See 9.18 for MSE-extensible product summary . Vendor: Construction Experience: Date of product inception: Quantity constructed worldwide (approx.): Date of product first use in Oregon (DOT): Quantity constructed in Oregon (DOT) (approx.): Supply Capability: Construction Support: good per average fair
ft
2 2
ft
Anchor Diamond (MSE) Retaining Wall System Willamette Graystone (503) 669-7612
Print Date: 7/11/03
Product: Materials/Components: Segmental Retaining Wall (SRW) Units: Name Height (in) Width (in) Length (in) Weight (lb) Diamond 6 16 12 66 Beveled Unit Diamond 6 17.25 12 71 Straight Unit Diamond Cap 3 17.25 10 31 Unit Soil Reinforcement: Tensar geogrid or AMOCO 2044 geogrid Leveling Pad: compacted gravel, crushed rock or unreinforced concrete Backfill: per ODOT Specifications Remarks: Two SRW unit styles: Beveled & Straight, both Split Face pattern. Standard colors: Gray, & Tan. Custom colors by special order (contact vendor). Geometry & Applications:
ft Height: 8 0.7H Width of Footprint: Horizontal curves dependent on SRW Unit; see table below. Standard Horiz. Alignment: angles = 45 & 90. RADII (in) SRW Unit: Diamond Beveled Unit Diamond Straight Unit Convex (outside) min. 24 (top course) 48 (top course) Concave (inside) min. 48 (first course) 96 (first course) Vertical Alignment: Top of wall stepped. Steps dependent on SRW unit height. Batter(s): 1.125 in. setback per SRW Unit ( 10)
(live load not applicable)
Anchor Diamond (MSE) Retaining Wall broken-back (generally includes live load) Live Load: None = 80 psf (Pedestrian) = 120 psf (Auto) = 250 psf (Truck) Features: pedestrian facilities: roadway facilities:
9.2
fencing
Bottom of Wall: Foreslope: level sloping; V:H 1: Features: pedestrian facilities (if no sidewalk and live load present, consider as a roadway facility) roadway facilities (protect frontface from live load impact) Special Applications: vegetated face water earthquake bridge abutment marine Remarks: (comment) Deformation: Vertical: 1 in. uniform differential; (V:H) 1: 200 Lateral: (comment)
Utilities & Obstructions: Reinforced volume should not contain utilities Esthetics: (comment) Durability: high moderate low (comment on effects of deleterious environmental factors, i.e., lechates, salts, corrosion, etc.) Constructibility: easy moderate difficult 2 approximate face area able to construct per day: ______ ft (____ man crew) (comment on required equipment, manpower, etc.) Estimated Cost (per ft face): typical installed cost (range) typical materials only cost (range) typical equipment only cost (range) typical labor only cost (range) Product Performance: good ODOT has (continue comments)
2
$ $ $ $ average
Vendor
ODOT
fair
Anchor Diamond (MSE) Retaining Wall
9.2
General Remarks: See 8.2 for Conventional Segmental product summary Vendor: Construction Experience: Date of product inception: Quantity constructed worldwide (approx.): Date of product first use in Oregon (DOT): Quantity constructed in Oregon (DOT) (approx.): Supply Capability: Construction Support: good per average fair
ft
2 2
ft
Allan Block (MSE) Retaining Wall System Allan Block Corp. (800) 279-5309
Print Date: 7/11/03
Product: Materials/Components: Segmental Units: Name Height (in) Width (in) Length (in) Weight (lb) AB Original 7 16 12 65 AB Stones 8 18 12 75 AB Three 8 18 12 75 AB Rocks 8 18 12 71 AB Capstone --------Soil Reinforcement: Huesker Fortrac 35/20-20 geogrid; RFCR = ???, RFID = ???, RFD = ??? Unit Fill: per ODOT Specifications Backfill: per ODOT Specifications Geometry & Applications:
ft. Height: 8 0.7 H Width of Footprint: Horiz. Alignment: Convex curves 1220 mm at top of wall. Concave curves 1220 mm. 90 corners use Corner Units. Vertical Alignment: Top of wall stepped. Steps dependent on SRW unit height. Batter(s): 1.5 in. setback per block (12)
Top of Wall: Backslope: level (live load not applicable) sloping; V:H 1: broken-back (generally includes live load) Live Load: None = 80 psf (Pedestrian) = 120 psf (Auto) = 250 psf (Truck) Features:
Allan Block (MSE) Retaining Wall System pedestrian facilities: roadway facilities: sidewalk traffic barrier ped. rail guardrail (posts) fencing
9.3
Bottom of Wall: Foreslope: level sloping; V:H 1: Features: pedestrian facilities (if no sidewalk and live load present, consider as a roadway facility) roadway facilities (protect frontface from live load impact) Special Applications: vegetated face water earthquake bridge abutment marine Remarks: (comment) Deformation: Vertical: 1 in uniform differential; (V:H) 1: Lateral: (comment)
200
Utilities & Obstructions: Reinforced volume should not contain utilities. Esthetics: (comment) Durability: high moderate low (comment on effects of deleterious environmental factors, i.e., lechates, salts, corrosion, etc.) Constructibility: easy moderate difficult 2 approximate face area able to construct per day: ______ ft (____ man crew) (comment on required equipment, manpower, etc.) Estimated Cost (per ft face): typical installed cost (range) typical materials only cost (range) typical equipment only cost (range) typical labor only cost (range) Product Performance: good ODOT has (continue comments) General Remarks: (comment)
2
$ $ $ $ average
Vendor
ODOT
fair
Allan Block (MSE) Retaining Wall System
9.3
ft
2 2
ft
GeoWeb Cellular Confinement System (MSE Retaining Wall Facade) Soil Stabilization Products Co. (800) 523-9992
Print Date: 7/11/03
Product: Materials/Components: Soil Reinforcement: project specific geotextile design Facade: 8 in. nominal dia. geocell Infill: project specific; determine and include in Special Provisions. For vegetated facings recommend exterior exposed cells be topsoil suitable for supporting plant growth and interior cells be sand, 0.75 in. granular backfill or controlled low density fill (lean concrete). Backfill: per ODOT Specifications Geometry & Applications:
ft. Height: 30 0.7H Width of Footprint: in. for vegetated facings Width of Facade (geocell): 40 In. for non-vegetated facings Width of Facade (geocell): 32 no limitations Horiz. Alignment: Vertical Alignment: no limitations; geocell material may be cut to desired profile Batter(s): 1:6
fencing
GeoWeb Cellular Confinement System (MSE Retaining Wall Facade)
9.12
Bottom of Wall: Foreslope: level sloping; V:H 1: Features: pedestrian facilities (if no sidewalk and live load present, consider as a roadway facility) roadway facilities (protect frontface from live load impact) Special Applications: vegetated face water earthquake bridge abutment marine Remarks: (comment) Deformation: Vertical: in. uniform differential; (V:H) 1: Lateral: (comment)
2
$ $ $ $ average
Vendor
ODOT
fair
General Remarks: Zoned walls not recommended at this time.
GeoWeb Cellular Confinement System (MSE Retaining Wall Facade)
9.12
ft
2 2
ft
9.19 ODOT RETAINING STRUCTURE PRODUCT REVIEW SUMMARY Tradename: Company Name: Telephone: Status: Date: ARES Retaining Wall System Tensar Earth Technologies, Inc. 360-297-5181 Print Date: 7/11/03
Product: Materials/Components: Backfill: per ODOT Specifications Extensible geogrids; Tensar uniaxially drawn HDPE UX1600HS & Soil Reinforcements: UX1700HS Facade: Precast concrete facing panels; standard rectangular panel 5 ft x 9 ft x 5.5 in with embedded retention slot. Specialty panels cast as required. Neoprene bearing pads: (for use between panels) Filter Cloth: (for use behind precast concrete panels at joints) Leveling pad: 6 in. x 12 in. unreinforced cast-in-place (CIP) concrete Coping: Precast or CIP Remarks: Modify gradation of backfill immediately behind panels to create a rapid draining material, when applicable. Geometry & Applications:
ft. Height: 15 0.7H Width of Footprint: Curves chorded. Standard rectangular panels used for most large radius Horiz. Alignment: highway curves (Radii 210 ft.). Non-standard specialty panels cast for small radius curves (R < 210 ft.) and other atypical geometry conditions. Angle points can be accommodated through a range of angles (min. acute angle = 75) Vertical Alignment: Sloping top of wall profiles typically accommodated with CIP coping. Special panels may be cast if top of wall coping is not desired. 24 in. Min. Embedment: typically none; vertical Batter(s): Top of Wall: Backslope: level 2 (live load not applicable) sloping; V:H 1: broken-back (generally includes live load)
ARES Retaining Wall System
9.19
Live Load: None = 80 psf (Pedestrian) = 120 psf (Auto) = 250 psf (Truck) Features: pedestrian facilities: roadway facilities:
fencing
Bottom of Wall: Foreslope: level sloping; V:H 1: Features: pedestrian facilities (if no sidewalk and live load present, consider as a roadway facility) roadway facilities (protect frontface from live load impact) Special Applications: vegetated face water earthquake (See following Remarks) bridge abutment marine Remarks: Connection capacity may be a concern under earthquake loads for taller walls. Designer of Record should perform case by case review of each wall for which earthquake loads are deemed applicable. Deformation: Vertical: 1 in. uniform differential; (V:H) 1: 100 Lateral: (comment)
Utilities & Obstructions: MSE volume should not include utilities. Esthetics: Panels may be cast using a formliner to provide various aesthetic treatments. Durability: high moderate low Geogrid should be nearly inert in backfill meeting ODOT MSE Granular Backfill specifications and not subject to infiltration of deleterious lechates. Steel reinforcement in precast concrete panels is deemed most susceptible; it is located 1 in. from the panel surface. Corrosion of which could occur if panel damaged during construction or while in service or located in an aggressive environment (e.g., costal marine environment). Constructibility: easy moderate difficult 2 approximate face area able to construct per day: __1400_ ft (__6_ man crew) (comment on required equipment, manpower, etc.)
ARES Retaining Wall System
9.19
Estimated Cost (per ft face): typical installed cost (range) typical materials only cost (range) typical equipment only cost (range) typical labor only cost (range)
$ $ $ $
Vendor 18-24 9-14 n/p 9-14
ODOT n/a
Product Performance: good average fair ODOT does not have sufficient performance history to assess this item at this time. General Remarks: Combined Reduction Factor (RFCR*RFID*RFD) = 4.26 Pullout Interaction Coefficient limited to 0.75a for all cases. Vendor: Construction Experience: Date of product inception: 1996 Quantity constructed worldwide (approx.): 141,000 Date of product first use in Oregon (DOT): n/a Quantity constructed in Oregon (DOT) (approx.): 0 Supply Capability:
ft
2 2
ft
Panels precast at local yard. Production and supply dependent upon local precasters capability. Geogrid for projects will be shipped from Georgia (supply not a concern). Local stock (limited quantity) available in Hillsboro, OR.
Construction Support: good average fair ODOT does not have sufficient performance history to assess this item at this time.
9.22 ODOT RETAINING STRUCTURE PRODUCT REVIEW SUMMARY Tradename: Company Name: Telephone: Status: Date: Mesa Retaining Wall System Tensar Earth Technologies, Inc (360) 297-5181 Print Date: 7/11/03
Product: Materials/Components: Segmental Retaining Wall (SRW) Units: Standard & High Performance Units 8 inx12 inx18 in, 75 lb. and 8 inx12 inx16 in, 75 lb Shear Connectors: fiberglass pins shear strength exceeds geogrid Leveling Pad: Cast in Place concrete pad Soil Reinforcement: Tensar UX series geogrid; RFid = 1.25, RFcr = 2.65, RFd = 1.1 SRW Unit Fill: per ODOT Specifications Backfill: per ODOT Specifications Remarks: All units are a Split Face pattern. Colors contact vendor. Geometry & Applications:
ft. Height: 30 0.7 H Width of Footprint: Convex or Concave curves > 55 in., corners, etc. Horiz. Alignment: Vertical Alignment: Top of wall stepped. Steps dependent on SRW unit height. Batter(s): Vertical , 13:1; dependent on SRW unit/Shear Connector alignment
fencing
Mesa Retaining Wall System
9.22
Bottom of Wall: Foreslope: level 2 sloping; V:H 1: Features: pedestrian facilities (if no sidewalk and live load present, consider as a roadway facility) roadway facilities (protect frontface from live load impact) Special Applications: vegetated face water earthquake bridge abutment marine Remarks: The HITEC report does not include bridge abutments design. Deformation: Vertical: 1 in. uniform differential; (V:H) 1: 200 Lateral: (comment)
Utilities & Obstructions: Reinforced volume should not contain utilities Esthetics: (comment) Durability: high moderate low (comment on effects of deleterious environmental factors, i.e., lechates, salts, corrosion, etc.) Constructibility: easy moderate difficult 2 approximate face area able to construct per day: ______ ft (____ man crew) (comment on required equipment, manpower, etc.) Estimated Cost (per ft face): typical installed cost (range) typical materials only cost (range) typical equipment only cost (range) typical labor only cost (range) Product Performance: good ODOT has (continue comments)
2
$ $ $ $ average
Vendor 23 7.00 6.70 9.20 fair
ODOT
General Remarks: Note fiberglass pins are placed over geogrid. Maximum height of wall is 56 ft. with level backfill and no surcharge, 20 ft. height is a guideline for typical ODOT uses. Vendor: Construction Experience: Date of product inception: 1995 Quantity constructed worldwide (approx.): 1,000,000+ Date of product first use in Oregon (DOT): N/A Quantity constructed in Oregon (DOT) (approx.): 54,000
ft
2 2
ft
Mesa Retaining Wall System Supply Capability: Construction Support: 5000 good block per day fair
9.22
average
Reinforced Earth (Cruciform Panel) Retaining Wall System The Reinforced Earth Company (949) 587-3060 2/14/96
Print Date: 7/11/03
Product: Materials/Components: MSE Granular Backfill: per ODOT Specifications Soil Reinforcements: inextensible steel straps; 0.1570 in.(8 ga.) x 2 in. x design length Facade: precast concrete facing panels; standard cruciform panel 5 ft. x 5 ft. x either 5.5 in. or 7.5 in. with steel tie straps. Specially cut, bent or sloping panels manufactured as required by the geometry of the structure. Fasteners: 0.5 in. dia. structural galvanized bolts, nuts and washers Alignment pins: (for use to aid in precast concrete panel alignment) Rubber bearing pads: (for use between panels) Filter Cloth: (for use behind precast concrete panels at joints) Leveling pad: 6 in. x 12 in. unreinforced cast-in-place (CIP) concrete Coping: 12 in. x 24 in. precast or CIP Remarks: Modify gradation of backfill immediately behind panels to create a rapid draining material. Geometry & Applications:
ft. warrant no further review. Heights in excess of 40 ft. require project specific preapproval by ODOT engineer of record. 0.7H Width of Footprint: Horiz. Alignment: Radii: R 65 ft. for standard panel; R < 65 ft. requires special panel. Vertical Alignment: irregularities hidden by coping Height: Batter(s): none; vertical
40
Reinforced Earth (Cruciform Panel) Retaining Wall System = 250 psf (Truck) Features: pedestrian facilities: roadway facilities: sidewalk traffic barrier ped. rail guardrail (posts) fencing
10.1
Bottom of Wall: Foreslope: level Level foreslopes warrant no further review. Other foreslopes require project specific preapproval by ODOT engineer of record. sloping; V:H 1: Features: pedestrian facilities (if no sidewalk and live load present, consider as a roadway facility) roadway facilities (protect frontface from live load impact) Special Applications: vegetated face water earthquake bridge abutment marine Remarks: Attach rails and fencing to top of coping. Do not attach or allow transfer of load to facing elements; transfer load to top of MSE volume via base slab. Guardrail posts require project specific preapproval by ODOT Engineer of Record. Note seismic requirements on contract plans when applicable. Bridge abutment surcharge shall be limited to 5 ksf. Deformation: Vertical: 1 in. uniform differential; (V:H) 1: 100 Lateral: (comment)
Utilities & Obstructions: MSE volume should not include utilities unless special consideration has been taken to account for accessibility, effects of failure of drainage utilities or future needs. Luminaires and Sign Supports should not be attached to the facing panels. These appurtenances have been accommodated using CIP columns at the wall frontface, shaft foundations through the MSE volume, or base slabs (similar to traffic barrier designs) to transfer the load to the top of the MSE volume. Esthetics: Panels may be cast using a formliner to provide various aesthetic treatments. Several standard formliners provided by RECO at negligable additional cost. Durability: high moderate low (comment on effects of deleterious environmental factors, i.e., lechates, salts, corrosion, etc.) Constructibility: easy moderate difficult 2 approximate face area able to construct per day: ______ ft (____ man crew) (comment on required equipment, manpower, etc.)
Reinforced Earth (Cruciform Panel) Retaining Wall System
10.1
Estimated Cost (per ft face): typical installed cost (range) typical materials only cost (range) typical equipment only cost (range) typical labor only cost (range) Product Performance: good ODOT has (continue comments) General Remarks: (comment)
$ $ $ $ average
Vendor
ODOT
fair
ft
2 2
ft
10.3 ODOT RETAINING STRUCTURE PRODUCT REVIEW SUMMARY Tradename: Company Name: Telephone: Status: Date: Reinforced Soil Embankment (Shadow Panel) Hilfiker Walls 800-762-8962 2-14-96 Print Date: 7/11/03
Approved-Conditional Rev. Date: Circa 1985
Product: Materials/Components: MSE Granular Backfill: per ODOT Specifications Inextensible, galvanized; WWF 6x24 - W4.5xW7, W7xW7, Soil Reinforcements: W9.5xW9.5, W12xW9.5 or W14xW9.5 Precast Facing Panels: concrete; std. panel 2.0 ft. x 12.5 ft. x 4.5 in. Leveling Pad: precast or CIP concrete; 8 in. x 18 in. Cap: precast concrete; 11 in. x 11 in., sloped Fasteners: "Mat Bars" Bearing Pads Geometry & Applications:
ft. Height: 30 0.7H Width of Footprint: Horiz. Alignment: Vertical Alignment: stepped; limited by precast panel Batter(s): none; vertical
fencing
Data provided in this ODOT Product Summary indicates the bounds of the most recently documented product review. Conditions of Use and Limitations noted may or may not be the actual limits of the product. Retaining structure applications within the above Conditions of Use / Limitations do not require further review before specifying. Applications outside these Conditions of Use / Limitations require further project specific investigation/review and documentation before being specified.
Reinforced Soil Embankment (Shadow Panel)
10.3
Bottom of Wall: Foreslope: level sloping; V:H 1: Features: pedestrian facilities (if no sidewalk and live load present, consider as a roadway facility) roadway facilities (protect frontface from live load impact) Special Applications: vegetated face water earthquake bridge abutment marine Remarks: Ped. rail and fencing may be attached to wall coping. CIP traffic barrier should transfer load to MSE volume via a base slab; base slab should not load facing panels. Guardrail posts passing through any layer of soil reinforcement requires special consideration (obstruction design). Deformation: Vertical: 1 in. uniform differential; (V:H) 1: 300 Lateral: (comment)
Utilities & Obstructions: MSE volume should not contain any utilities unless special consideration has been taken to account for accessibility, effects of failure of drainage utilities, or future needs. Luminaires and Sign Supports should not be attached to the facing panels. These appurtenances have been accommodated using CIP columns at the wall frontface, shaft foundations through the MSE volume, or base slabs (similar to traffic barrier designs) to transfer the load to the top of the MSE volume. Esthetics: Panel shape provides columar appearance. Can not incorporate formliners. Durability: high moderate low (comment on effects of deleterious environmental factors, i.e., lechates, salts, corrosion, etc.) Constructibility: easy moderate difficult 2 approximate face area able to construct per day: ______ ft (____ man crew) (comment on required equipment, manpower, etc.) Estimated Cost (per ft face): typical installed cost (range) typical materials only cost (range) typical equipment only cost (range) typical labor only cost (range) Product Performance: good ODOT has (continue comments) General Remarks: (comment)
2
$ $ $ $ average
Vendor 20 25 12 16 5 3 fair
ODOT 25
Reinforced Soil Embankment (Shadow Panel)
10.3
ft
2 2
ft
10.4 ODOT RETAINING STRUCTURE PRODUCT REVIEW SUMMARY Tradename: Company Name: Telephone: Status: Date: Welded Wire Wall (18 in. or 24 in. Lifts) Hilfiker Walls 800-762-8962 2/7/96 Print Date: 7/11/03
Product: Materials/Components: MSE Granular Backfill: per ODOT Specifications inextensible, galvanized; WWF 6x9 W3.5xW3.5, W4.5xW3.5, Soil Reinforcements: W7xW3.5, W9.5xW4, or W12xW5 Stiffener Mats: galvanized; WWF 6x9 W7xW2.1 Backing Mat: galvanized; WWF 2x6 W2.1xW2.1 Hardware Cloth: galvanized; 0.25 in. mesh Geometry & Applications:
ft. Height: 30 0.7H Width of Footprint: (note curve limitations, corners, etc.) Horiz. Alignment: Vertical Alignment: (note grade limitations, tops of elements, etc.) Batter(s): 1:48 or 1:6
Top of Wall: Backslope: level (live load not applicable) sloping; V:H 1: broken-back (generally includes live load) Live Load: None = 80 psf (Pedestrian) = 120 psf (Auto) = 250 psf (Truck) Features: pedestrian facilities: sidewalk ped. rail roadway facilities: traffic barrier guardrail (posts) Bottom of Wall: Foreslope: level
fencing
Welded Wire Wall (18 in. or 24 in. Lifts) sloping; V:H 1:
10.4
Features: pedestrian facilities (if no sidewalk and live load present, consider as a roadway facility) roadway facilities (protect frontface from live load impact) Special Applications: vegetated face water earthquake bridge abutment marine Remarks: CIP traffic barrier should transfer load to MSE volume via a base slab; base slab should not directly load facing elements. Guardrail posts passing through any layer of soil reinforcement requires special consideration (obstruction design). Note seismic requirements on contract plans when applicable. Bridge abutment surcharge shall be limited to 239 kPa. Deformation: Vertical: 1 in. uniform differential; (V:H) 1: 50 Lateral: Facing elements may buckle if compaction of material directly behind facing elements is not adequately performed.
Utilities & Obstructions: MSE volume should not contain any utilities unless special consideration has been taken to account for accessibility, effects of failure of drainage utilities, or future needs. Luminaires and Sign Supports should not be attached to the facing elements. These appurtenances have been accommodated using CIP columns at the wall frontface, shaft foundations through the MSE volume, or base slabs (similar to traffic barrier designs) to transfer the load to the top of the MSE volume. Esthetics: Esthetically pleasing wire face for both urban and rural settings. Durability: high moderate low (comment on effects of deleterious environmental factors, i.e., lechates, salts, corrosion, etc.) Constructibility: easy moderate difficult 2 approximate face area able to construct per day: ______ ft (____ man crew) (comment on required equipment, manpower, etc.) Estimated Cost (per ft face): typical installed cost (range) typical materials only cost (range) typical equipment only cost (range) typical labor only cost (range) Product Performance: good ODOT has (continue comments) General Remarks: (comment)
2
$ $ $ $ average
Vendor 12 16 68 45 2-3 fair
ODOT 25
Welded Wire Wall (18 in. or 24 in. Lifts)
10.4
ft
2 2
ft
10.5 ODOT RETAINING STRUCTURE PRODUCT REVIEW SUMMARY Tradename: Company Name: Telephone: Status: Date: Reinforced Soil Embankment (Smooth Face) Hilfiker Walls 800-762-8962 Print Date: 7/11/03
Product: Materials/Components: MSE Granular Backfill: per ODOT Specifications inextensible, galvanized; WWF 6x12 - W4.5xW3.5, W7xW3.5 or Soil Reinforcements: W9.5xW4 Facade: precast concrete Facing Panels; std. panel 2.75 ft. x 12.5 ft. x 5 in. with D4 or D5 panel anchors. Nonstandard panels manufactured as required. Fasteners: W12 Connecting Pins Bearing Pads Alignment Pins: 0.75 in. dia. x 12 in. Filter Cloth Coping: precast or CIP concrete Leveling Pad: precast or CIP concrete; optional Geometry & Applications:
ft. Height: 15 0.7H Width of Footprint: (note curve limitations, corners, etc.) Horiz. Alignment: Vertical Alignment: special panels may be manufactured to chord top of wall profile. Batter(s): none; vertical
Top of Wall: Backslope: level 2 (live load not applicable) sloping; V:H 1: broken-back (generally includes live load) Live Load: None = 80 psf (Pedestrian) = 120 psf (Auto) = 250 psf (Truck) Features: pedestrian facilities: sidewalk ped. rail
fencing
Reinforced Soil Embankment (Smooth Face) roadway facilities: traffic barrier guardrail (posts)
10.5
Bottom of Wall: Foreslope: level sloping; V:H 1: Features: pedestrian facilities (if no sidewalk and live load present, consider as a roadway facility) roadway facilities (protect frontface from live load impact) Special Applications: vegetated face water earthquake bridge abutment marine Remarks: MSE volume should not contain any utilities unless special consideration has been taken to account for accessibility, effects of failure of drainage utilities, or future needs. Deformation: Vertical: 1 in. uniform differential; (V:H) 1: 300 Lateral: (comment)
Utilities & Obstructions: Standard panel is smooth concrete. Formliners may be incorporated to provide aesthetic treatment. Esthetics: (comment) Durability: high moderate low (comment on effects of deleterious environmental factors, i.e., lechates, salts, corrosion, etc.) Constructibility: easy moderate difficult 2 approximate face area able to construct per day: ______ ft (____ man crew) (comment on required equipment, manpower, etc.) Estimated Cost (per ft face): typical installed cost (range) typical materials only cost (range) typical equipment only cost (range) typical labor only cost (range) Product Performance: good ODOT has (continue comments) General Remarks: (comment)
2
$ $ $ $ average
Vendor 20 25 10 14 6 4 fair
ODOT
Reinforced Soil Embankment (Smooth Face)
10.5
ft
2 2
ft
10.6 ODOT RETAINING STRUCTURE PRODUCT REVIEW SUMMARY Tradename: Company Name: Telephone: Status: Date: Eureka Reinforced Soil Hilfiker Walls 800-762-8962 1/27/98 Print Date: 7/11/03
Product: Materials/Components: MSE Granular Backfill: per ODOT Specifications inextensible, galvanized; WWF 6x9 - W3.5xW3.5, W4.5xW3.5, Soil Reinforcements: W7xW3.5, W9.5xW4, or W12xW5 Stiffener Mats: galvanized; WWF 6x9 - W7xW3.5 Backing Mat: galvanized; WWF 6x3 - W5xW2.1 Hardware Cloth: galvanized; 0.25 in. mesh Geotextile Filter Fabric: (allowable with CIP Facing only) CIP Facing: Minor Structure Concrete per ODOT Specifications clamp connection consisting of angle, plate, nuts and bolts, and CIP Facing Anchors: anchor rod 0.5 in. to 0.75 in. coil rod and 10 in. x 10 in. x 6 in. anchor block. UNDER EVALUATION. MAY BE CONSIDERED ON A PROJECT Full-height Precast BY PROJECT BASIS. DISCUSS APPLICATION WITH Facing Panels: RETAINING STRUCTURES COORDINATOR. Geometry & Applications:
ft. Height: 30 0.7H Width of Footprint: (note curve limitations, corners, etc.) Horiz. Alignment: Vertical Alignment: (note grade limitations, tops of elements, etc.) Batter(s): vertical; other batters possible with CIP face.
Eureka Reinforced Soil = 250 psf (Truck) Features: pedestrian facilities: roadway facilities: sidewalk traffic barrier ped. rail guardrail (posts) fencing
10.6
Bottom of Wall: Foreslope: level sloping; V:H 1: Features: pedestrian facilities (if no sidewalk and live load present, consider as a roadway facility) roadway facilities (protect frontface from live load impact) Special Applications: vegetated face water earthquake bridge abutment marine Remarks: CIP traffic barrier should transfer load to MSE volume via a base slab; base slab should not load facing element. Guardrail posts passing through any layer of soil reinforcement requires special consideration (obstruction design). Note seismic requirements on contract plans when wall designed for earthquake. Bridge abutment surcharge shall be limited to 5 ksf. Deformation: Vertical: 1 in. uniform prior to placing CIP concrete facing differential; (V:H) 1: 50 Lateral: Facing elements may buckle if compaction of material directly behind facing elements is not adequately performed.
Utilities & Obstructions: MSE volume should not contain any utilities unless special consideration has been taken to account for accessibility, effects of failure of drainage utilities, or future needs. Esthetics: Formliners typically incorporated on CIP face. Durability: high moderate low (comment on effects of deleterious environmental factors, i.e., lechates, salts, corrosion, etc.) Constructibility: easy moderate difficult 2 approximate face area able to construct per day: ______ ft (____ man crew) (comment on required equipment, manpower, etc.) Estimated Cost (per m face): typical installed cost (range) typical materials only cost (range) typical equipment only cost (range) typical labor only cost (range) Product Performance: good ODOT has (continue comments)
2
$ $ $ $ average
Vendor 22 34 58 68 7 - 10 fair
ODOT
Eureka Reinforced Soil
10.6
General Remarks: (comment) Vendor: Construction Experience: Date of product inception: Quantity constructed worldwide (approx.): Date of product first use in Oregon (DOT): Quantity constructed in Oregon (DOT) (approx.): Supply Capability: Construction Support: good per average fair
ft
2 2
ft
10.7 ODOT RETAINING STRUCTURE PRODUCT REVIEW SUMMARY Tradename: Company Name: Telephone: Status: Date: Retained Earth (Square Panel) Retaining Wall System Foster Geotechnical (619) 688-2400 9/27/00 Print Date: 7/11/03
Product: Materials/Components: MSE Granular Backfill: per ODOT Specifications Inextensible, Welded Wire Reinforcement (Mesh) strips, typically W11, Soil Reinforcement: W15 or W20 precast concrete facing panels Square; 5 ft. x 5 ft. x 6.5 in. or 10 ft. x 10 ft. x 6.5 Facade: in. with 0.25 or 0.375 in. clevis connectors (loop embeds). Nonstandard panels manufactured as required. Soil Reinforcement Fasteners: Mesh Connector Pin Alignment Pins: 0.5 in. dia. steel pins (for use to aid in precast concrete panel alignment) Bearing Pads: (use between precast conrete panels) Filter Cloth: (for use behind precast concrete panels at joints) Coping: 12 in. x 24 in. precast or cast-in-place (CIP) concrete coping Leveling Pad: 6 in. x 12 in. unreinforced CIP concrete pad Geometry & Applications:
ft. Height: 40 0.7H Width of Footprint: Horiz. Alignment: Vertical Alignment: Batter(s): none; vertical
Top of Wall: Backslope: level 2 (live load not applicable) sloping; V:H 1: broken-back (generally includes live load) Live Load: None = 80 psf (Pedestrian) = 120 psf (Auto) = 250 psf (Truck)
Foster-Geotechnical Retained Earth (Square Panel) Retaining Wall System
10.7
Features: pedestrian facilities: roadway facilities:
fencing
Bottom of Wall: Foreslope: level sloping; V:H 1: Features: pedestrian facilities (if no sidewalk and live load present, consider as a roadway facility) roadway facilities (protect frontface from live load impact) Special Applications: vegetated face water earthquake bridge abutment marine Remarks: CIP traffic barrier should transfer load to MSE volume via a base slab; base slab should not directly load facing elements. Sidewalks should not be attached to or directly bear upon facing panels. Guardrail posts passing through any layer of soil reinforcement requires special consideration (obstruction design). Note seismic requirements on contract plans when applicable. Bridge abutment surcharge shall be limited to 5 ksf. Deformation: Vertical: 1 ft. uniform differential; (V:H) 1: 100 Lateral: (comment)
Utilities & Obstructions: MSE volume should not contain any utilities unless special consideration has been taken to account for accessibility, effects of failure of drainage utilities, or future needs. Luminaires and Sign Supports should not be attached to the facing elements. These appurtenances have been accommodated using CIP columns at the wall frontface, shaft foundations through the MSE volume, or base slabs (similar to traffic barrier designs) to transfer the load to the top of the MSE volume. Esthetics: Panels may be cast using a formliner to provide various aesthetic treatments. Durability: high moderate low (comment on effects of deleterious environmental factors, i.e., lechates, salts, corrosion, etc.) Constructibility: easy moderate difficult 2 approximate face area able to construct per day: ______ ft (____ man crew) (comment on required equipment, manpower, etc.) Estimated Cost (per ft face): typical installed cost (range) typical materials only cost (range) typical equipment only cost (range) typical labor only cost (range)
2
$ $ $ $
Vendor
ODOT
Foster-Geotechnical Retained Earth (Square Panel) Retaining Wall System Product Performance: good ODOT has (continue comments) General Remarks: (comment) Vendor: Construction Experience: Date of product inception: Quantity constructed worldwide (approx.): Date of product first use in Oregon (DOT): Quantity constructed in Oregon (DOT) (approx.): Supply Capability: Construction Support: good per average fair average fair
10.7
ft
2 2
ft
Pyramid Modular Block Retaining Wall System The Reinforced Earth Co. (714) 587-3060
Print Date: 7/11/03
Product: Materials/Components: MSE Granular Backfill: per ODOT Specifications inextensible, galvanized; Welded Wire Reinforcement W7 or W11 Soil Reinforcements: Segmental Retaining Wall (SRW) Units: Name Height (in) Width (in) Length (in) Weight (lb) Standard Unit 8 15.625 9.625 --Corner Unit 8 13.625 5.875 --Cap Unit --------Fasteners: W14.5 x 24 connector pins with W6 x 2 cross wire Note: Geogrid reinforced soil volume not reviewed at this time and is not acceptable. Geometry & Applications:
ft. Height: 20 0.7H Width of Footprint: 0 Horiz. Alignment: Radii: convex 5 ft., concave 5 ft. Corners require 90 corner unit. Vertical Alignment: Batter(s): none; vertical
Top of Wall: Backslope: level (live load not applicable) sloping; V:H 1: broken-back (generally includes live load) Live Load: None = 80 psf (Pedestrian) = 120 psf (Auto) = 250 psf (Truck) Features: pedestrian facilities: sidewalk ped. rail roadway facilities: traffic barrier guardrail (posts)
fencing
Pyramid Modular Block Retaining Wall System
10.11
Bottom of Wall: Foreslope: level sloping; V:H 1: Features: pedestrian facilities (if no sidewalk and live load present, consider as a roadway facility) roadway facilities (protect frontface from live load impact) Special Applications: vegetated face water earthquake bridge abutment marine Remarks: Proprietor recommends 24 in. min. embedment. Deformation: Vertical: 1 in. uniform differential; (V:H) 1: 200 Lateral: (comment)
Utilities & Obstructions: MSE volume should not include utilities unless special consideration has been taken to account for accessibility, effects of failure of drainage utilities or future needs. Esthetics: (comment) Durability: high moderate low (comment on effects of deleterious environmental factors, i.e., lechates, salts, corrosion, etc.) Constructibility: easy moderate difficult 2 approximate face area able to construct per day: ______ ft (____ man crew) (comment on required equipment, manpower, etc.) Estimated Cost (per ft face): typical installed cost (range) typical materials only cost (range) typical equipment only cost (range) typical labor only cost (range) Product Performance: good ODOT has (continue comments) General Remarks: (comment)
2
$ $ $ $ average
Vendor
ODOT
fair
Pyramid Modular Block Retaining Wall System
10.11
ft
2 2
ft
Terratrel (Concrete Clad Face) Retaining Wall System The Reinforced Earth Co. (714) 587-3060
Print Date: 7/11/03
Product: Materials/Components: MSE Granular Backfill: per ODOT Specifications inextensible ladders, galvanized or epoxy coated, W11 (0.374) or Soil Reinforcements: W7 (0.299) Wire facing elements: epoxy coated or galvanized; (Wire sizes in English): Type A W4.0xW8.0 9 ft. x 3.3333 ft. Type B W4.0xW8.0 9 ft. x 1.6667ft. Type P W4.0xW8.0 9 ft. x 4.1667 ft. Type Q W4.0xW8.0 9 ft. x 2.5 ft. Type L W4.0xW2.5 9 ft. x ? ft. (base unit) Facade: Minor Structure Concrete per ODOT Specifications; 9 in. min. thickness Connector: Handlebar connector (epoxy coated or galvanized) - Type B D14.5 Soil Retention Fabric: Matrex MX4 Geotextile; (for use behind facing elements) Geometry & Applications:
ft. Height: 25 0.7H Width of Footprint: Radii: no limitation. Note: change in batter effects change in radii which Horiz. Alignment: effects match-up of facing elements. No limitation to corners. Vertical Alignment: (note grade limitations, tops of elements, etc.) Batter(s): Face typically constructed with no batter; vertical, however battering the face is possible.
Top of Wall: Backslope: level 2 (live load not applicable) sloping; V:H 1: broken-back (generally includes live load) Live Load: None = 80 psf (Pedestrian) = 120 psf (Auto) = 250 psf (Truck)
Terratrel (Concrete Clad Face) Retaining Wall System
10.12
Features: pedestrian facilities: roadway facilities:
fencing
Bottom of Wall: Foreslope: level sloping; V:H 1: Features: pedestrian facilities (if no sidewalk and live load present, consider as a roadway facility) roadway facilities (protect frontface from live load impact) Special Applications: vegetated face water earthquake bridge abutment marine Remarks: Proprietor recommends 24 in. min. embedment. Do not attach or allow transfer of barrier or sidewalk coping loads to facing elements; transfer load to top of MSE volume via base slab. Guardrail posts require project specific preapproval by ODOT Engineer of Record. Deformation: Vertical: 1 in. uniform prior to placing CIP concrete facade differential; (V:H) 1: 50 Lateral: Facing elements may buckle if compaction of material directly behind facing elements is not adequately performed.
Utilities & Obstructions: MSE volume should not include utilities unless special consideration has been taken to account for accessibility, effects of failure of drainage utilities or future needs. Esthetics: Aesthetic concerns regarding the wire facing should consider that a permanent CIP concrete facing is required. The designer should consider the construction tolerance requirement of the wire facing (refer to construction spec) and the effects to the CIP concrete face. Durability: high moderate low (comment on effects of deleterious environmental factors, i.e., lechates, salts, corrosion, etc.) Constructibility: easy moderate difficult 2 approximate face area able to construct per day: ______ ft (____ man crew) (comment on required equipment, manpower, etc.) Estimated Cost (per ft face): typical installed cost (range) typical materials only cost (range) typical equipment only cost (range) typical labor only cost (range) Product Performance: good ODOT has (continue comments)
2
$ $ $ $ average
Vendor
ODOT
fair
Terratrel (Concrete Clad Face) Retaining Wall System General Remarks: (comment) Vendor: Construction Experience: Date of product inception: Quantity constructed worldwide (approx.): Date of product first use in Oregon (DOT): Quantity constructed in Oregon (DOT) (approx.): Supply Capability: Construction Support: good per average fair
10.12
ft
2 2
ft
10.15
ODOT RETAINING STRUCTURE PRODUCT REVIEW SUMMARY Tradename: Company Name: Telephone: Status: Date:
Keysystem 1 (MSE) Retaining Wall System Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. (800) 733-7470
Print Date:
6/11/01
Product: Materials/Components: Segmental Retaining Wall (SRW) Units: Standards & International Compac (Keysystem 1) Units 203x546x457, 43 kg and 203x305x457, 38kg Shear Connectors: 14 mm dia. Galv. Steel connector pins (at ladder reinforcements) 12 mm dia. Pultruded fiberglass alignment pins (at other locations) Leveling Pad: Cast in Place concrete pad Soil Reinforcement: inextensible ladders, galvanized, W6, W7.5, W9.5, W11 or W14 SRW Unit Strength: per ODOT Specifications (28 Mpa) Backfill: per ODOT Specifications Remarks: All units are a Split Face pattern. Colors contact vendor. Geometry & Applications:
m Height: 15 0.7H Width of Footprint: Horiz. Alignment: Convex or Concave curves > 1097 mm, corners 45, 90, etc. Vertical Alignment: Top of wall stepped. Steps dependent on SRW unit height. Batter(s): 128:1 (Near Vertical) and vertical Top of Wall: Backslope: level 2 (live load not applicable) sloping; V:H 1: broken-back (generally includes live load) Live Load: None = 3.8 kPa (Pedestrian) = 5.7 kPa (Auto) = 12.0 kPa (Truck) Features: pedestrian facilities: sidewalk ped. rail roadway facilities: traffic barrier guardrail (posts)
fencing
Keysystem 1 (MSE) Retaining Wall System
10.15
Bottom of Wall: Foreslope: level 2 sloping; V:H 1: Features: pedestrian facilities (if no sidewalk and live load present, consider as a roadway facility) roadway facilities (protect frontface from live load impact) Special Applications: vegetated face water earthquake bridge abutment marine Remarks: Recommended 900 mm min. embedments Seismic accelerations > 0.3g require special design for the upper 3m of wall. Deformation: Vertical: 25 mm uniform differential; (V:H) 1: 200 Lateral: Utilities & Obstructions: MSE volume should not include utilities unless special consideration has been taken to account for accessibility, effects of failure of drainage utilities or future needs. Esthetics: See vendor brochures for pictures
Durability: high moderate low (comment on effects of deleterious environmental factors, i.e., lechates, salts, corrosion, etc.) Constructibility: easy moderate difficult approximate face area able to construct per day: ______ m2 (____ man crew) (comment on required equipment, manpower, etc.) Estimated Cost (per m2 face): typical installed cost (range) typical materials only cost (range) typical equipment only cost (range) typical labor only cost (range) Vendor 250 77 73 100 ODOT
$ $ $ $
Product Performance: good average fair ODOT does not have sufficient performance history to assess this item at this time. General Remarks: No stray electrical currents, no utilities within the select fill volume. Verify calculations are per AASHTO: Use K=2.5 coefficient of lateral earth pressure at top of wall Use Steel Grid allowable 0.48Fy not Strip allowable 0.55Fy Use either Meyerhoff Method of Simplified Method of computing vertical earth pressures
Keysystem 1 (MSE) Retaining Wall System
10.15
Vendor: Construction Experience: Date of product inception: 2001 Quantity constructed worldwide (approx.): 100,000 + Date of product first use in Oregon (DOT): NA Quantity constructed in Oregon (DOT) (approx.): NA Supply Capability: Construction Support: 5000 Good block per day Fair
m2 m2
Average
10.20 ODOT RETAINING STRUCTURE PRODUCT REVIEW SUMMARY Trade name: Company Name: Telephone: Status: Date: MSE Plus SSL, LLC 831-430-9300 Print Date: 7/11/03
Approved - Experimental Rev. Date: 5/15/00
Product: Materials/Components: Backfill: per ODOT Specifications Facing Panels: 4.94 ft. X 5.94 ft. or 4.94 ft. X 11.88 ft. 6 in. thick or 7 in. thick 4000 psi or 5000 psi Reinforcement is #4 bars in each direction. Soil Reinforcements: W11X11, W11X15, W11X20 or W11X24. Shop prebent, hot dip galvanized. 0.75 in. HDPE bearing pad used on all horizontal joints. Filter fabric is placed behind the wall panels at all joints. Geometry & Applications:
Details are available for drains, coping, fencing and barriers on top of the wall. Panels are straight. Wall alignment must be a straight line. Horizontal angle points can be accommodated - any angle - at 4.94 ft. increments. Concrete leveling pad is horizontal. Vertical changes in grade should be handled in step fashion. Steps should be 15 in. or 30 in. Backfill at top of wall can be horizontal or sloping with a live load for pedestrians or vehicles. Fore slopes at bottom of wall can be accommodated within the limits specified by AASHTO. Walls can be constructed near water or marine environments. Walls can be designed for seismic loads and bridge abutments. ft. Height: 33 varies ft. Width of Footprint: Horiz. Alignment: No curves, angle points only. Vertical Alignment: No curves or slopes. Top of wall is level. Batter(s): No batter. Wall is typically constructed vertical.
Varies (live load not applicable)
MSE Plus Retaining Wall System broken-back (generally includes live load) Live Load: None = 80 psf (Pedestrian) = 120 psf (Auto) = 250 psf (Truck) Features: pedestrian facilities: roadway facilities:
10.20
fencing
Bottom of Wall: Foreslope: level Varies sloping; V:H 1: Features: pedestrian facilities (if no sidewalk and live load present, consider as a roadway facility) roadway facilities (protect front face from live load impact) Special Applications: vegetated face water earthquake bridge abutment marine Remarks: Durability is expected to be high. Constructability is expected to be moderate. 4man crew can construct about 1000 sq.ft. per day. Typical installed cost (to ODOT) is $20 $29/sq.ft. Deformation: Vertical: Lateral: in. See Geotechnical Engineer. uniform 100 differential; (V:H) 1:
Utilities & Obstructions: MSE volume not to include utilities unless special consideration has been given to account for accessibility, effects of failure of drainage utilities and future needs. Esthetics: Different architectural treatments available. Durability: high moderate low
Constructibility: easy moderate difficult 2 approximate face area able to construct per day: 1000 ft ( 4 man crew) Estimated Cost (per ft face): typical installed cost (range) typical materials only cost (range) typical equipment only cost (range) typical labor only cost (range)
2
$ $ $ $
Vendor
ODOT 25
Product Performance: good average fair ODOT has not yet constructed a wall using the MSSE Plus system. General Remarks:
MSE Plus Retaining Wall System
10.20
Vendor: Construction Experience: Three walls have been constructed as of August 1999. Date of product inception: 1997 2 Quantity constructed worldwide (approx.): 540,000 ft Date of product first use in Oregon (DOT): 2 Quantity constructed in Oregon (DOT) (approx.): ft Supply Capability: 3800 square feet of panel per day. Construction Support: good per average fair
O.D.O.T. Bridge Section
List of Retaining Wall Cost Charts

File Name RWCST1-2 RWCST1-2 RWCST1-2 RWCST1-2 RWCST1-2 RWCST1-2 RWCST3 RWCST4 RWCST5 RWCST6 RWCST7 RWCST8 RWCST9 RWCST10 RWCST10 RWCST12 RWCST13& RWCST13& RWCST15& RWCST15& RWCST17& RWCST17& RWCST19& RWCST19& RWCST21& RWCST21& RWCST23& RWCST23& RWCST25& RWCST25&
2
Costs/S.Q. FT. Costs/Lin.FT. Cost Formula
RW Cost Reference ODOT Drawing Number and Type of Retaining Wall Sheet No. Cost Chart 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Std Dwg 45409 -- RC Gravity RW -- Cost/SF Std Dwg 45409 -- RC Gravity RW -- Cost/SF Std Dwg 45409 -- RC Gravity RW -- Cost/SF Std Dwg 45409 -- RC Gravity RW -- Cost/LF Std Dwg 45409 -- RC Gravity RW -- Cost/LF Std Dwg 45409 -- RC Gravity RW -- Cost/LF Std Dwg 34949 -- RC Cantilever RW -- level backfill -- Cost/SF Std Dwg 34949 -- RC Cantilever RW -- level backfill -- Cost/LF Std Dwg 34949 -- RC Cantilever RW -- 2:1 backfill -- Cost/SF Std Dwg 34949 -- RC Cantilever RW -- 2:1 backfill -- Cost/LF Std Dwg 34949 -- RC Cantilever RW -- 1.5:1 backfill -- Cost/SF Std Dwg 34949 -- RC Cantilever RW -- 1.5:1 backfill -- Cost/LF Std Dwg 34948 -- RC Cantilever RW -- level backfill -- Cost/SF Std Dwg 34948 -- RC Cantilever RW -- level backfill -- Cost/LF Std Dwg 34948 -- RC Cantilever RW -- 2:1 backfill -- Cost/SF Std Dwg 34948 -- RC Cantilever RW -- 2:1 backfill -- Cost/LF Std Dwg 34948 -- RC Cantilever RW -- 1.5:1 backfill -- Cost/LF Std Dwg 34948 -- RC Cantilever RW -- 1.5:1 backfill -- Cost/SF Proj Dwg 37313 -- RC Cantilever RW -- level backfill -- Cost/SF Proj Dwg 37313 -- RC Cantilever RW -- level backfill -- Cost/LF Proj Dwg 37313 -- RC Cantilever RW -- 2:1 backfill -- Cost/SF Proj Dwg 37313 -- RC Cantilever RW -- 2:1 backfill -- Cost/LF Proj Dwg 38713 & 36623 -- RC Cantilever L RW -- Cost/SF Proj Dwg 38713 & 36623 -- RC Cantilever L RW -- Cost/LF Proj Dwg 41095 -- RC Countefort RW -- level backfill -- Cost/SF Proj Dwg 41095 -- RC Countefort RW -- level backfill -- Cost/LF Proj Dwg 42542 -- RC Countefort RW -- level backfill -- Cost/SF Proj Dwg 42542 -- RC Countefort RW -- level backfill -- Cost/LF ODOT Project Industry Stds -- MSE RW -- level backfill -- Cost/SF ODOT Project Industry Stds -- MSE RW -- level backfill -- Cost/LF
Cost/Ft = [1.867*H + 16.531(Level Sl.)] 2 Cost/Ft = [3.535*H + 5.677(2:1 Sl.)] 2 Cost/Ft = [4.3897*H + 4.239(1:75 Sl.)] Cost/Ft = [35.435*H - 40.368(Level Sl.)] 2.703 Cost/Ft = [H + 23(2:1 Sl.)] 0.372H Cost/Ft = 18e (1.75:1 Sl.)] 2 (0.038H) Cost/Ft = 19.26e (1.431LnH + 2.536) Cost/Ft = e 2 Cost/Ft = 1.6698H + 16.633 1.4927 Cost/Ft = 11.493H 2 Cost/Ft = 2.234H + 13.225 1.51 Cost/Ft = 11.93H 2 (0.038H) Cost/Ft = 18.19e 1.41 Cost/Ft = 12.18H 2 Cost/Ft = 1.478H + 15.5 1.46 Cost/Ft = 11.36H 2 Cost/Ft = 1.9726H + 14.713 1.5592 Cost/Ft = 10H 2 Cost/Ft = 1.5H(<10') + 44; 2.1527H(=or>10') + 7.26 2.25 Cost/Ft = H + 145 2 (0.039H) Cost/Ft = 25.5e 2.29 Cost/Ft = H + 170 2 Cost/Ft = 1.85H + 15.81 2.3 Cost/Ft = H + 88 2 Cost/Ft = 1.5345H + 29.66 Cost/Ft = 134.997H - 1746.14 2 Cost/Ft = 1.07H + 22.744 Cost/Ft = 93.426H - 1131.96 2 4 3 2 Cost/Ft = 0.000051H - 0.00735H + 0.3576H - 6.95H + 82.54 Cost/Ft = 29.89H + 120.6
04/12/96 1:19PM COSTHIS1.XLS GDa
Page 1

Retaining Structures Manual

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Retaining Structures Manual

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

RETAINING STRUCTURES MANUAL OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MARCH 1998

Oregon DOT Retaining Structures Manual March 1998

RETAINING STRUCTURES PROGRAM POLICY

Oregon DOT Retaining Structures Manual March 1998

Oregon DOT Retaining Structures Manual March 1998

DESIGN AND DETAILING PRACTICES

Oregon DOT Retaining Structures Manual March 1998

ODOT STATUS OF RETAINING STRUCTURES PRODUCTS

APPENDIX A - RETAINING WALL COST CHARTS - 1995

Oregon DOT Retaining Structures Manual September 2000

Oregon DOT Retaining Structures Manual September 2000

Oregon DOT Retaining Structures Manual September 2000

REVISING THE MANUAL

Oregon DOT Retaining Structures Manual March 1998

SECTION 1: RETAINING STRUCTURE PROGRAM POLICY

Oregon DOT Retaining Structures Manual March 1998

Oregon DOT Retaining Structures Manual March 1998

1.3 Responsibilities 1.3.1 Vendor

1.4 Design Requirements

Review Procedure for Retaining Wall Materials, Products and Systems

Oregon DOT Retaining Structures Manual March 1998

EVALUATION KNOWN DISCONTINUED

Oregon DOT Retaining Structures Manual March 1998

Proprietary / Non-Proprietary Product Agreement

Oregon DOT Retaining Structures Manual March 1998

ODOT Contract Document Preparation Contract Plans

Material Specification Requirements

Oregon DOT Retaining Structures Manual March 1998

Proprietor Prepared Working Drawings and Design Calculations

Oregon DOT Retaining Structures Manual March 1998

Oregon DOT Retaining Structures Manual March 1998

TRADE NAME: COMPANY: Proprietor Supplier Manufacturer Engineering Firm

Brief description of product or components of system:

(Attachment B) (Attachment C) Yes No

Can Company provide a field representative at start of wall construction?

NA State: Fax: Zip:

NA State: Fax: (units) per Zip:

SUPPLIER: Representative: Address: City: Phone: Supply Capability: (quantity)

State: Fax: (units) per

FOR ODOT USE ONLY Index #:

REFERENCES: Name:: Address: City: Description: Phone: State: Zip:

Name:: Address: City: Description:

Phone: State: Zip:

Name:: Address: City: Description:

Phone: State: Zip:

Name:: Address: City: Description:

Phone: State: Zip:

(Attach separate sheet for additional References)

Signature: Company Name: ODOT Retaining Structures Coordinator initials:

Signature: Company Name:

Signature: Company Name:

Oregon DOT Retaining Structures Manual March 1998

SECTION 1: APPENDIX - RETAINING STRUCTURE PROGRAM POLICY

REFERENCES - (Available from the Retaining Structures Coordinator)

Oregon DOT Retaining Structures Manual March 1998

Oregon DOT Retaining Structures Manual March 1998

Task Relationship Diagram

Oregon DOT Retaining Structures Manual March 1998

Review Procedure for Retaining Wall Materials, Products or Systems

REFERENCES - (Available from the Retaining Structures Coordinator)

Oregon DOT Retaining Structures Manual March 1998

SECTION 2: DESIGNER GUIDELINES

General Design Guidance References

Oregon DOT Retaining Structures Manual March 1998