HomeMy WebLinkAboutMS 2021-0003; RACEWAY INDUSTRIAL; KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN CALCULATIONS; 2021-09-28Keystone Retaining Wall
Design Calculations
For
Project:
Raceway Industrial
SEC of Melrose Drive & Lionshead Avenue
Carlsbad, California
Project No. M21-33
Prepared for the exclusive use of:
MOUNTAIN MOVERS ENGINEERING CO.
545 E. Mission Road
San Marcos, CA 92069
760-510-9019
760-510-9018 Fax
Engineering Project Manager:
Joe Henson
jhenson@mountainmoverseng.com
Lyver Engineering & Design, lie
7950 SE I 06th
Portland, OR 97266
Phone: (503) 705-5283 fax: (503) 482-7449
troy@Lyyer-EAD.com
Date: September 28, 2021
Troy D. Lyver
No. S4656, EXPIRES 12/31/2022
Engineer does not take any responsibility for construction, or control of the job. Engineer's responsibility is solely limited to the design of
the structural members included herein. Any changes to design, structural members or configuration shall void calculations.
Supervision may be contracted for assurance of proper construction.
Page 1 of 55
Page 2 of 55
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
PURPOSE ................................................................................ 4
KEYSTONE STATIC DESIGN METHOD .................................................... 4
KEYSTONE GRAVITY STATIC DESIGN METHOD .......................................... 4
SEISMIC DESIGN METHOD ............................................................... 4
ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................... 4
WALL CONFIGURATIONS ................................................................ 5
ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 5
RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 5
REFERENCES ............................................................................ 6
CLOSURE ............................................................................... 6
APPENDIX A -KEYW ALL OUTPUT ...............•........................................ 7
KEYW ALL LOADING DIAGRAM AND LEGEND ...................................... 8
KEYSTONE WALL CASES 1 -4 & 6 -7 ST AND ARD CALCULATIONS ................... 9
KEYSTONE WALL CASE 5 DETAILED CALCULATIONS .............................. 15
APPENDIX B-SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION .......................................... 23
ICC LEGACY REPORT ESR-2113 .................................................... 24
KEYSTONE -UNIT DRAINAGE FILL OPTIONS ...•.................................. 35
MIRAFI MIRAGRID DATA SHEET .................................................. 36
CAL TRANS SEISMIC MEMORANDUM .............................................. 37
APPENDIX C -ENGINEERED FENCE POST SEGMENT AL WALL ANCHORING SYSTEM ...... 38
Page 3 of 55
PURPOSE: The purpose of these calculations is to provide a basis for the design of the Keystone retaining
walls to be built at the Raceway Industrial project, at the Southeast comer of Melrose Drive and
Lionshead A venue, Carlsbad, California.
KEYSTONE STATIC DESIGN METHOD:
The method of analysis presented in reference 1 is used to determine the static internal and external
stability of the reinforced soil retaining wall system. The computer program Keywall developed by
Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. is used to complete the analysis. The program is based on the
methods presented in reference 1. The results of the analysis are included in Appendix A.
Keywall allows the selection of several different design methodologies. This design is based on the
AASHTO simplified methodology. The AASHTO methodology is described in the Keystone manual
(reference 1) and in the help file of Keywall software (reference 2).
KEYSTONE GRAVITY DESIGN METHOD:
The NCMA-Coulomb method of analysis is used to determine the static internal and external stability
of the gravity retaining wall system (reference 1 & 8). The analysis was performed utilizing
spreadsheet calculations. The results of the analysis are included in Appendix A.
SEISMIC DESIGN METHOD:
The seismic internal stability of the Keystone Walls was explored using Keywall. The methodology
used is described in reference 3, Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, Seismic Design Methodology.
Reference 3 describes the steps required to apply the Mononobe-Okabe analytical model to
mechanically stabilized earth retaining walls.
Per the Geotechnical Report (reference 9), PGAM = 0.48g. Per Caltrans Section 5-5 Design Criteria of
Standard Earth Retaining System, April 2014 (reference 6 & 7), kh = 1/3 PGA = 0.16g. Per AASHTO
Division 1, Chapter 5 kh (ext)= 0. 16g and kh (int)= 0. 16g.
ASSUMPTIONS:
Site Soils
Based on soil properties provided in the Geotechnical Reports (reference 9), we have chosen to
use the following minimum strength parameters for the design of the MSE and DSM retaining
walls, which should be verified in field by the project geotechnical engineer.
Keystone Parameters for Geosynthetic Reinforced Walls (GSR)
Reinforced Soils:
<I>= 30°
C = 0 psf
y = 120 pcf
Retained Soils: Foundation Soils:
<I> =28°
C = 0 psf
y = 120 pcf
<I> =28°
C = 100 psf
y = 120 pcf
Page 4 of 55
. ., ___ .. ____________________ _
WALL CONFIGURATIONS:
Based on the plans provided (reference 5), the Keystone walls will be located, as shown on the plans.
The walls have been designed to support various load scenarios. See structural calculations in
Appendix A for detailed information. The Keystone calculations assume 18" deep Standard III units
weighing approximately 85 lbs. each with a near-vertical wall batter (front pin alignment). The walls
will be reinforced with Mirafi 3XT. See typical wall sections and profile sheets for reinforcement
placement and length.
ANALYSIS:
The following target factors of safety were used in the analysis of the design:
KEYSTONE STATIC ANALYSIS:
Fsliding= 1.5
Fovertuming= 2.0
Funcertainties= 1.5
Fbearing= 2.0
Fpull-out= 1.5
GRAVITY ANALYSIS:
F sliding= 1.5
Fovertuming= 1.5
Funcertainties= 1.5
F bearing= 2. 0
KEYSTONE SEISMIC ANALYSIS:
F sliding= 1.1
Fovertuming= 1.5
F uncertainties= 1.1
Fbearing= 1.5
Fpull-out= 1.1
Note: Seismic safety factors are 75% of static per NCMA Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls
Section 8.3 (reference 8).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
• The walls shall be constructed per the details and profiles based on the design calculations provided in this
report, typical sections, and construction notes.
• Foundation soil conditions and properties of the backfill should be verified before construction.
• The Keystone walls shall be constructed per the manufacturer's recommended procedures for installation of
Keystone blocks and fiberglass pins.
• The temporary excavation back-cut, grading, ground improvements, sub-drain, and surface drainage system
for the Keystone walls shall be per the plans.
• The Project Soils Engineer shall review the design parameters used herein for conformance with their
recommendations.
Page 5 of 55
REFERENCES:
1. Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. 2011, Keystone Design Manual and Keywall Operating Guide,
4444 West 78th Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435, 2011.
2. Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc., Keywall, Version 3.7.1, 4444 West 78th Street, Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55435.
3. Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc., May 10, 1995, revised November 30, 2001, Seismic Design
Methodology for Keystone Retaining Wall Systems by Craig Moritz, P.E., 4444 West 78th Street,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435.
4. ICC ESR-2113: Report for Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, Reissued August 2021.
5. Thienes Engineering, Inc., Grading Plan, Raceway Industrial, Carlsbad, California, CAD File Received
June 14, 2021, 14349 Firestone Boulevard, La Mirada, California 90638, (714) 521-4811.
6. California Department of Transportation, Memo to Designers, Section 5-5 Design Criteria of Standard
Earth Retaining Systems, April 2014, 1801 30th Street, Sacramento, California, 95816,
(916) 227-8396.
7. California Department of Transportation, Memorandum: Seismic Design and Selection of Standard
Retaining Walls, June 13, 2013, 1801 30th Street, Sacramento, California, 95816, (916) 227-8396.
8. National Concrete Masonry Association, Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls, Third Edition,
13750 Sunrise Valley Drive, VA 20171, (703) 713-1900.
9. Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc, Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed
Warehouse Development, SEC Melrose Drive and Lionshead Ave, Carlsbad, California, Project No.
700086702, April 16, 2021, 18575 Jamboree Road, Suite 150, Irvine, California 92612, (949) 561-9200.
CLOSURE:
We have employed accepted engineering procedures, and our professional opinions and conclusions are made
in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices. This standard is in lieu of all
warranties, either expressed or implied.
Page 6 of 55
APPENDIX A -KEYW ALL OUTPUT
Page 7 of 55
qi qd
~ W6
I
W1
W3
H l
KEYWALL LEGEND:
H -Design Height
W1 -Force of Block Area
W3 -Force of Reinforced Area
WS -Force of Slope Area
W6 -Force of Broken Back Slope Area
qi -Live Load Area
qd -Dead Load Area
Page 8 of 55
,-STONE ~ ~RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS RETAINING WALL DESIGN
KeyWall_20 12 Version 3.7.2 Build 10
Project: Raceway Industrial
Project No: M2/-33
Date: 9/27/2021
Designer: JG/-1
Case: /
Design Method: NCMA 3rd Edition (parallelogram soil interface)
Design Parameters
Soil Paramete,·s:
Retained Zone
Foundation Soil
Unit Fill:
~
28
.£...fil!.
0
Y....Q£f.
120
120 28 JOO
Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus
Seismic Design A=0.12 g, Kh(Ext)=0.060, Kh(lnt)=0.160, Kv=0.000
Minimum Design Factors of Safety (seismic are 75% of static)
sliding: 1.5011.13 pullout: 1.5011.1 3
overturning: 1.5011.13 shear: i.5011.1 3
bearing: 2.0011.50 bending: 1.5011.1 3
Design Preferences
Vert Comp in Ext Design Professional Mode
Analysis: Case: 1
2. 7' Section with 2: 1 Slope
Unit Type: Standard fil 18 I 120.00 pcf
Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone
Wall Ht: 2.70 ft
BackSlope: 26.57 deg. slope,
unce1tainties:
connection:
Serviceability:
1.5011.1 3
1.5011.13
1.00 /NA
Wall Batter: 0.00 deg
embedment: 1.00 ft
40.00 ft long
Surcharge: LL: 0 psfuniform surcharge
Load Width: 0.00 ft
DL: 0 psf uniform surcharge
Load Width: 0.00 ft
Results: Sliding
Factors of Safety: 1.8611.43
Calculated Bearing Pressure: 470 I 470 I 606 psf
Eccentricity at base: 0.29 ft/0.45 ft
Overturning
2.1211.51
Bearing
14.14/10.44
Page 9 of 55
Shear
NIA
Bending
NIA
1'fftsTONE ~ ~~A■.SWAllSYSTDIS
Project: Raceway Industrial
Project No: M2/-33
Case: 2
RETAINING WALL DESIGN
KeyWall_2012 Version 3.7.2 Build 10
Design Method: AASHTO-Simplified (vertical soil inte,face)
Design Parameters
Soil Parameters:
Reinforced Fill
Retained Zone
Foundation Soil
Reinforced Fill Type:
Unit Fill:
~
30
28
28
Sand, Silt or Clay
.£.....fil[_
0
0
JOO
Crushed Stone, I inch minus
Y.....l!£f.
120
120
120
Date: 9/27/2021
Designer: JGH J
/
I ------/ -------
//
--,---------------/
Seismic Method: Division I, Chapter 5, Min Displacement A=0.12 g, Kh(Ext)=0.160, Kh(lnt)=0./60 , Kv=0.000
Minimum Design Factors of Safety (seismic are 75% of static)
sliding: l.50/1.13 pullout: 1.50/ 1. I 3
overturning: 2.00/1.50 shear: l.50/1.1 3
bearing: 2.00/1 .50 bending: 1.50/1 .1 3
Design Preferences
Professional Mode
Reinforcing Parameters: Mirafi XT Geogrids
Tutt RFcr RFd
uncertainties:
connection:
Serviceability:
l.50/1.1 3
l.50/1.1 3
1.00 /NA
FS Tai Ci
3.>.T 3500 1.58 1.10
RFid LTDS
I.JO 1831 1.50 1220/ * 0.80
Cds
0.80 * See Tai below
Analysis: Case: 2
5.4' Section with 2:1 Slope
Unit Type: Standard 1II 18 I 120. 00 pc/
Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone
Wall Ht: 5.40 fl
BackS!ope: 26.57 deg slope,
Surcharge: LL: 0 psf uniform surcharge
Load Width: 0. 00 fl
Results: Sliding Overturning
4.5613.25 Factors o/Safety: 1.65/1.26
Calculated Bearing Pressure: 973 /973 I 1150 psf
Eccentricity at base: 0.1 I ft/0.53 ft
Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft)
Cale.
Layer Height Length Tension Reinf. Ty(!e
2 4.00 7.0 218 /372 3XT
1.33 7.0 500 I 728 3Xf'
Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included):
3XT 1.56 sy/ft
Wall Batter: 0.00 deg
embedment: 1.00 fl
40.00 fl long
DL: 0 psf uniform surcharge
Load Width: 0. 00 fl
Bearing
11.46/8.97
Allow Ten
Tai
1220/1919 ok
1220//839 ok
Shear
9.12/6./4
Pk Conn
Tel
985/1050 ok
1263/1347 ok
Bending
4.9711.69
Serv Conn
Tse
1162/ NIA ok
1260/ NIA ok
Page 10 of 55
Pullout
FS
5.85/2. 74 ok
6.1713.39 ok
RETAINING WALL DESIGN
KeyWall_2012 Version 3.7.2 Build 10
Project: Raceway Industrial
Project No: M2 l-33
Case: 3
Design Method: AASHTO-Simplified (vertical soil interface)
Design Parameters
Soil Parameters:
Reinforced Fill
Retained Zone
Foundation Soil
Reinforced Fill Type:
Unit Fill:
~
30
28
28
Sand, Silt or Clay
£...Jlli..
0
0
JOO
Crushed Stone, I inch minus
Y...J&
120
120
120
Date: 9/27/2021
--------/ -----/
II
7'---------------
Seismic Method: Division I, Chapter 5, Min Displacement A=0. /2 g, Kh(Ext)=0. /60 , Kh(lnt)=0. /60 , K v=0.000
Minimum Design Factors of Safety (seismic are 75% of static)
sliding: l.50/1.1 3 pullout: l.50/1.13
overturn ing: 2.00/l.50 shear: l.50/1.1 3
bearing: 2.00/1 .50 bending: l.50/1.13
Design Preferences
Professional Mode
Reinforcing Parameters: Mirafl XT Geogrids
Tuft RFcr RFd
3XT 3500 1.58 I.IO
Analysis: Case: 3
7.67' Section with 2:1 S lope
RFid
1.10
LTDS
1831
Unit Type: Standard lll 18 I I 20. 00 pc/
l eveling Pad: Crushed Stone
Wall Ht: 7.67 ft
BackSlope: 26.57 deg. slope,
uncertainties:
connection:
l.50/1.1 3
1.50/ 1. I 3
1.00 /NA Serviceability:
FS
1.50
Tai Ci
1220/ * 0.80
Cds
0.80
Wall Batter: 0.00 deg
embedment: 1.00ft
40.00 ft long
• See Tai below
Surcharge: LL: 0 psf uniform surcharge
l oad Width: 0. 00 fl
DL: 0 psf uniform surcharge
load Width: 0. 00 ft
Results: Sliding
Factors of Safety: l.52/1.13
Overturning
3.76/2.51
Calculated Bearing Pressure: 1473 I 1473 I 1891 psf
Eccentricity at base: 0.36 ft/1.08 ft
Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft)
Cale.
Layer Height Length Tension Rcinf. Ty~e
3 6.67 8.5 200/ 35/ 3XT
2 4.00 8.5 495 /721 3XT
1.33 8.5 779 I 1079 3XT
Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included):
3XT 2.83 sy/fl
Bearing
8.25/5.66
Allow Ten
Tai
1220/1934 ok
/220/1839 ok
1220/1812 ok
Page 11 of 55
Shear
6.2514.47
Pk Conn
Tel
943//006 ok
1222//303 ok
1500/1600 ok
Bending
4.51/2.96
Serv Conn
Tse
1147/ NIA ok
/246/ NIA ok
1344/ NIA ok
Pullout
FS
6. 94/3.15 ok
6.57/3.61 ok
7.5614.37 ok
1,atSTONE ~ ~~llllllGWAU.SfflEIIS
Project: Raceway Industrial
Project No: M21-33
Case: 4
RETAINING WALL DESIGN
KeyWall_20 12 Version 3.7.2 Build I 0
Design Method: AASHTO-Simplified (vertical soil interface)
Design Parameters
Soil Parameters:
Reinforced Fill
Retained Zone
Foundation Soil
Reinforced Fill Type:
Unit Fill:
~
30
28
28
Sand, Silt or Clay
£...filf.
0
0
100
Crushed Stone, I inch minus
Y...J!£f.
120
120
120
Date: 9/27/2021
Designer: JGH
Seismic Method: Division I, Chapter 5, Min Displacement A=0.12 g, Kh(Ext)=0. /60 , Kh(lnt)=0. /60 , Kv=0.000
Minimum Design Factors of Safety (seismic are 75% of static)
sliding: 1.50/ 1.13 pullout: l.50/1.13
overturning: 2.00/1 .50 shear: I .50/1.1 3
bearing: 2.00/1.50 bending: I .50/1.13
Design Preferences
Professional Mode
Reinforcing Parameters: Mirafi XT Geogrids
Tull RFcr RFd
uncertainties:
connection:
Serviceability:
1.50/ 1. I 3
1.50/ l.1 3
1.00 /NA
FS Tai Ci
3XT 3500 1.58 I.JO
RFid lTDS
1.10 1831 1.50 1220/ * 0.80
Cds
0.80 * See Tai below
Analysis:
Results:
Case: 4
7. 67' Section with Second Tier Surcharge
Unit Type: Standard lll 18 I I 20. 00 pcf
l eveling Pad: Crushed Stone
Wall Ht: 7.67 ft
l evel Backfill Offiet: 2.67 ft
Surcharge: ll: 0 psf uniform surcharge
l oad Width: 0. 00 ft
Sliding
Factors of Safety: 1. 75/1.35
Overturning
4.4113.23
Calculated Bearing Pressure: 1563 I 1563 I 1752 psf
Eccentricity at base: 0.40 ft/0.8 1 ft
Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft)
Cale.
Layer Height Length Tension Reinf. Tyue
3 6.67 8.5 137/260 3XT
2 4.00 8.5 655 I 836 3XT
1.33 8.5 944 I 1185 3XT
Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included):
3XT 2.83 sy/ft
Wall Bauer: 0.00 deg
embedment: I. 00 ft
DL: 973 psf uniform surcharge
l oad Width: 40. 00 ft
Bearing
7.72/6.42
Allow Ten
Tai
1220/1967 ok
1220/1768 ok
1220/1759 ok
Shear
5.0814.03
Pk Conn
Tel
943//006 ok
1222/1303 ok
1500/1600 ok
Bending
3.83/2.88
Serv Conn
Tse
1147/ NIA ok
1246/ NIA ok
13441 NIA ok
Page 12 of 55
Pullout
FS
> 10/9.60 ok
8.8215.52 ok
9. 76/6.22 ok
,'fflsTONE ~ ~~AIIINWAU.SYSTDIS
Project: Raceway Industrial
Project No: M2!-33
Case: 5
RETAINING WALL DESIGN
KeyWall_2012 Version 3.7.2 Build I 0
Design Method: AASHTO-Simplified (vertical soil interface)
Design Parameters
Soil Parameters:
Reinforced Fill
Retained Zone
Foundation Soil
Reinforced Fill Type:
Unit Fill:
U!£g_
30
28
28
Sand, Silt or Clay
£..Jill..
0
0
100
Crushed Stone, I inch minus
l'.....I!£f.
120
120
120
Date: 9/27/2021
Designer: JGH
Seismic Method: Division I, Chapter 5, Min Displacement A=0.12 g, Kh(Ext)=0.160 , Kh(lnt)=O. 160 , Kv=0.000
Minimum Design Factors of Safety (seismic are 75% of static)
sliding: l.50/1.13 pullout: l.50/1.1 3
overturning: 2.00/1.50 shear: l.50/1.1 3
bearing: 2.00/1.50 bending: l.50/1.13
Design Preferences
Professional Mode
Reinforcing Parameters: Mirafl XT Geogrids
Tull RFcr RFd
JXT 3500 1.58 1.10
A nalysis: Case: 5
RFid
1.10
LTDS
/831
6.33' Section with Second Tier Surcharge
Unit Type: Standard JJ/ I 8 1 120. 00 pc/
leveling Pad: Crushed Stone
Wal/Ht: 6.33ft
level Baclifi/1 Offset: 2.67 ft
uncertainties:
connection:
1.50/ 1.13
l.50/1.13
1.00 /NA Serviceability:
FS
1.50
Tai Ci
1220/ • 0.80
Cds
0.80
Wall Batter: 0.00 deg
embedment: 1.00ft
* See Tai below
Surcharge: LL: 0 psf uniform surcharge
Load Width: 0. 00 fl
DL: 1563 psf uniform surcharge
Load Width: 40.00ft
Results: Sliding
Factors of Safety: 2.63/2.11
Overturning
10.6618.25
Calculated Bearing Pressure: 1756 I 1756 I 1756 psf
Eccentricity at base: 0.00 ft/0.00 ft
Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft)
Cale.
Layer Height Length Tension Reinf. Tyl!e
2 4.67 11.5 168 I 355 3XT
1 2.67 11.5 830 /1046 3XT
Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included):
3XT 2.56 sy/fi
Bearing
9.0419.04
Allow Ten
Tai
/220/2018 ok
1220/1761 ok
Page 13 of 55
Shear
12.14/8.64
Pk Conn
Tel
1012/1080 ok
1221/1302 ok
Bending
7.3212.55
Serv Conn
Tse
I /71/ NIA ok
/245/ NIA ok
Pullout
FS
>IOI> 10 ok
>IOI> JO ok
DETAILED CALCULATIONS
Project: Raceway Industrial
Project No: M2 l-33
Case: 5
Design Method: AASHTO-Simplified (vertical soil inlet.face)
Soil Parameters: ~
Reinforced Fill 30
Retained Zone 28
Foundation Soil 28
Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone
Modular Concrete Unit: Standard Ill 18
Depth: 1.50 ft In-Place Wt: 120 pc/
Geometry
£...filf..
0
0
100
Y...filf.
120
120
120
Internal Stability
(Horizontal geometty)
Height: 6.33 ft
BackSlope:
External Stability
(Hor,izonta/ geometry)
Height: 6.33 ft
Angle: 0. 0 deg
Height: 0. 00 ft
Batter: 0. 00deg
Surcharge:
Dead load: I 563. 00 psf
Live Load: 0. 00 psf
Base width: 11. 5 ft
Earth Pressures:
sin1(a+9) k4=------;:--~:=::::::::=:=:=:=:;z
[
sin(9+0) sin(;-/ti il· sin2 asin(a-o) l+ ,_,, sin( a -o) sin( a+ /J)
Internal Externa
4> = 30 deg 4> = 28 deg
a = 90.00 deg a = 90.00 deg
~ = 0.00 deg ~ = 0.00 deg
() = 0.00 deg () = 0.00 deg
H = 6.33 ft
ka = 0.333 ka = 0.361
Hinge Height: Hinge Ht= I 0000 ft
Angle: 0.00 deg
Height: 0.00 ft
Batter: 0. 00deg
...
Dead load: I 563. 00 psf
Live load:0.00 psf
Page 14 of 55
Date: 9/27/2021
Designer: JGH
-p
Reinforcing Parameters: Mira.fl XT Geogrids
Tuft RFcr RFd
3XT 3500 1.58 1.10
RFid
1.10
Connection Parameters: Mirafi XT Geogrids
Frictional I
3XT Tel= Ntan(4!.00) + 1258
Tse= Ntan(JJ.60) + I JJ0
Unit Shear Data
Shear = N tan(40. 00)
LTDS
1831
Inter-Unit Shear Shear = N tan(32. 00) + I 500. 00
Calculated Reactions
effective sliding length = J 1.50 ft
Pa := 0.5H·(-r·H ·ka -2c-./fa)
P8h :-Pa· cos(o)
P8Y := Pa· sin(o)
Reactions are:
Area
WI
W3
qd
Pa h
Pqd_h
Sum V =
SumH =
P4 := q·H·ka
PC31i. :--P 4 -cos(o)
PCiv := P4 -sin(o)
Force Arm-x
1139.40 [0.750}
7596.00 [6.500}
11456.79 [7.835}
867.97 11.500
3571.99 11.500
20192.19
4439.96
FS Tai Ci Cds
0.80 1.50 1220/ * 0.80
Break Pt
1950
2600
• Pa
Arm-y
3./65
3. 165
6.330
[2.110}
[3.165}
Sum Mr =
Sum Mo =
Frictional 2
Tel= Ntan(5.50) + 2765
Tse= Ntan(2.00) +/553
q qa
W6
J
Moment
854.55
49374.00
89763.95
-1831.42
-/ I 305.35
139992.49
-13136.77
Page 15 of 55
* See Tai Page I
Calculate Sliding at Base
For Sliding, Vertical Force = Wl+W2+W3+W4+W5+W6+qd
The resisting force within the rein. mass , Rf_l
The resisting force at the foundation, Rf_2
The driving forces, Of, are the sum of the external earth pressures:
Pa_h + Pql_h + Pqd_h
the Factor of Safety for Sliding is Rf_ 1/Df
Calculate Overturning:
Overturning moment: Mo = Sum Mo
Resisting moment: Mr = Sum Mr
Factor of Safety of Overturning: Mr/Mo
Page 16 of 55
= 20192
= N tan(30)
= 11658
= N tan(28) + ( I 1.50 x I 00.00)
= 11886
= 4440
= 2.63
= -13137
= 139993
= 10.66
Calculate eccentricity at base: with Surcharge/ without Surcharge
Sum Moments = 126856 I 126856
Sum Vertical= 20192/20192
Base Length = 11.50
e = 0.000 I 0.000
Calculate Ultimate Bearing based on shear:
where:
Nq = 14.72
Ne= 25.80
Ng= 16.72 (ref. Vesic(l973, 1975) eqns)
Quit= 15881 psf
Equivalent footing width, B' = L -2e = 11.50 / 11.50
Bearing pressure = sum V /B' = 1756 psf / 1756 psf [bearing is greatest without liveload]
Factor of Safety for bearing= Quit/bearing= 9.04
Calculate Tensions in Reinforcing:
The tensions in the reinforcing layer, and the assumed load at the connection,
is the vertical area supported by each respective layer, Sv.Column [7] is '2c sqrt(ka)'.
Table of Results ppf
[l] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
Layer Degth zi hl ka/rho Pa (Pas+Pasd} £ (5+6}cos(d}-7
2 1.66 1.33 0.333/60 142 26 0 168
3.66 4.50 0.333/60 660 170 0 830
Calculate sliding on the reinforcing:
The shear value is the lessor of base-shear or inter-unit shear.
[l] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
Layer Degth zi N Li Cds ...1.. RF ka Pa Pas+Pasd
2 1.66 13453 10.00 0.80 1687 7901 0.361 60 939
1 3.66 15853 10.00 0.80 1912 9234 0.361 291 2067
Page 17 of 55
[9] [10] [11]
Ti Tel Tse
168 1012 1171
830 1221 1245
[11] [12]
DF FS
999 7.91
2358 3.92
Calculate pullout of each layer
The FoS (R*/S*) of pullout is calculated as the individual
layer pullout (Rf) divided by the tension (Df) in that layer.
The angle of the failure plane is: 30.00 degrees from vertical.
[I] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
Layer De12th zi Le SumV Ci POi Ti FS PO
2 1.66 7.31 12421 0.80 11474 168 68.41
1 3.66 8.46 15833 0.80 14626 830 17.63
Check Shear & Bending at each layer
Bending on the top layer is the FOS of overturning of the Units
(Most surcharge loads need to be moved back from the face.)
{l] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
Layer De{2.th zi Si DM Pv RM FS b DS RS FS Sh
2 1.66 1.66 31 299 225 7.32 55 1687 30.49
Seismic 1.66 1.66 88 299 225 2.55 121 1687 13.96
1 3.66 2.00 74 479 614 8.25 157 1912 12.14
Seismic 3.66 2.00 107 479 614 5.76 221 1912 8.64
Page 18 of 55
EXTERNAL ST ABILITY
Horizontal Acceleration
Vertical Acceleration
Am= (1.45-A)A
Kh(ext) = Am
Kh(int) = Am
Inertia Force of the Face:
Wis
Inertia Forces of the soil mass:
= 0.12g
= O.OOg
= 0.160
=0.160
= 0.160
= H x Wu x gamma= 1139.40 ppf
W2s = H x (H2/2 -face depth) * gamma
= 6.33 X 1.66 X 120.00
= 1264.73 ppf
Pif = WI * kh(ext) = 1139.40 x 0.160 = 181.85
Pir = W2s * kh(ext) = 201.85
Seismic Thrust , Pae
D Kae =Kae -Ka= 0.473 -0.361 = 0.112
Pae
Pae h/2
Paeqd
Paeqd_h/2
= 0.5 x gammax sqr(H2) xD_Kae = 0.5 x 120.00 x sqr(6.33) x 0.112 = 269.22
= Pae x cos(delta)/2 = 134.61
Calculated Reactions
effective sliding length = 11.50
= qd x H2 x D _Kae = 1563.00 x 6.33 x 0.112 = 1107.94
= Paeqd x cos(delta)/2 = 553.97
ft
Reactions for Seismic Calculations
Area Force Arm-x Arm-y Moment
WI 1139.40 [0. 750} 3.165 854.55
W3 7596.00 [6.500} 3.165 49374.00
qd I 1456.79 [7.835} 6.330 89763.95
Pa h 867.97 I 1.500 [2.110} -1831.42
Pqd_h 3571.99 11.500 [3.165} -11305.35
Pir 201.85 2.332 [3.165] -638.86
Pif 181.85 0.750 [3.165} -575.55
Pae h/2 134.61 3.165 [3.798} -511.25
Paeqd_h/2 553.97 3.165 {3.798} -2103.98
Sum V= 20192.19 Sum Mr= 139992.49
SumH= 5512.24 Sum Mo= -16966.41
Page 19 of 55
Sliding Calculations
Pa h
Pae h/2
PIR
= 867.97 ppf
= 688.58 ppf
= 383.70 ppf
= (Wl + W2) tan(phi) Resisting Forces, RF
Reinforced fill
FS
= 20192.19 x tan(30.00) =l 1657.97
= RF/(Pa_h + Pae_h/2 + P _ir)
Overturning Calculations
Overturning moment: Mo = Sum Mo
Resisting Moments Mr = Sum Mr
Factor of Safety of Overturning = Mr/Mo
Calculate eccentricity at base:
Sum Moments
Sum Vertical
Base Length
e
Calculate Ultimate Bearing based on shear:
where:
Nq = 14.72
Ne= 25.80
Ng= 16.72 (ref. Vesic(l973, 1975) eqns)
Quit= 15881 psf
Equivalent footing width, B' = L -2e
Bearing pressure= sumV/B'
= 2.11
= -16966
= 139993
= 8.25
= 123026
= 20192
= 11.50
= 0.000
= 11.50
Factor of Safety for bearing= Quit/bearing
= 1756 psf
=9.04
INTERNAL ST ABILITY
kh(int) = (1.45-A) A
= (1.45 -0.12) 0.12
Inertia Forces
= 0.160
Wl = 1.50 x 6.33 x 120.00 x kh_int) = 181.85 ppf
Wedge= Wedge x kh_int [for failure plane angle of 60.00deg.]
= 1388.03 X 0.16 = 221.53 ppf
Dead Load = = 0.00 ppf
Total Additional Internal Dynamic Loading
221.53 + 181.85 + 0.00 = 403.38 ppf
Tension in Reinforcing
Layer Le ( ft)
2 7.31
8.46
Tension
167.74
829.62
Dyn Tension
186.92
216.46
Total Tension( ppf)
354.65
1046.08
Page 20 of 55
FoS Pullout
25.88
11.19
APPENDIX B -SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Page 21 of 55
ICC-ES Evaluation Report
www.icc-es.org I (800) 423-6587 I (562) 699-0543
DIVISION: 32 00 00-EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS
Section: 32 32 00-Retaining Walls
Section: 32 32 23-Segmental Retaining Walls
REPORT HOLDER:
KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS, LLC
EVALUATION SUBJECT:
KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS
ADDITIONAL LISTEE:
RCP BLOCK AND BRICK, INC.
1.0 EVALUATION SCOPE
Compliance with the following codes:
■ 2018, 2015, 2012 and 2009 International Building Code®
(IBC)
■ 2018, 2015, 2012 and 2009 International Residential
Code® (IRC)
■ 2013 Abu Dhabi International Building Code (ADIBC)t
1The ADIBC is based on the 2009 IBC. 2009 IBC code sections referenced
in this report are the same sections in the ADIBC.
Properties evaluated:
Physical properties
2.0 USES
The Keystone Retaining Wall Systems (Keystone SRWs)
consist of modular concrete units for the construction of
conventional gravity-or geogrid-reinforced-soil retaining
walls, respectively, with or without a mass of reinforced soil,
stabilized by horizontal layers of geosynthetic reinforcement
materials.
3.0 DESCRIPTION
3.1 Keystone Units:
Keystone concrete units are available in four configurations:
Standard Ill, Compac Ill, Compac II, Country Manor I
Stonegate. See Figure 1 for dimensions and nominal
weights. Standard Ill, Compac Ill, Compac II units and
corresponding cap units have either a straight or three-plane
split face. Country Manor / Stonegate units have a straight
face. Cap units are half-height units without pin holes in the
top surface. The nominal unit weights, noted in Figure 1, are
to be used in design.
ESR-2113
Reissued August 2021
This report is subject to renewal August 2023.
A Subsidiary of the International Code Councl1®
Standard Ill, Compac Ill and Compac II units have four
holes each for installation of two fiberglass connection pins.
Country Manor I Stonegate units have six holes for
installation of two fiberglass connection pins. The Small
Country Manor I Stonegate Unit has three holes, for
installation of one fiberglass connection pin. The underside
of each unit has a slot to receive the connection pin. See
Figure 1 for typical unit configurations.
All units are made with normal-weight aggregates, and
comply with ASTM C1372, including having a minimum
28-day compressive strength of 3,000 psi (21 MPa)
[minimum of 24 MPA is required under ADIBC Appendix L,
Section 5.1.1] on the net area. In areas where repeated
freezing and thawing under saturated conditions occur,
evidence of compliance with freeze-thaw durability
requirements of ASTM C1372 must be submitted to the
code official for approval prior to construction.
3.2 Fiberglass Pins:
Pultruded fiberglass pins provide alignment of the units
during placement, positive placement of the geogrid
reinforcement, and inter-unit shear strength. The connection
pins are 0.5 inch (12.7 mm) in diameter and 5.25 inches
(133 mm) long, and have a minimum short beam shear
strength of 6,400 psi (44 MPa).
3.3 Unit Core Drainage Fill:
Unit core drainage fill must be½ inch to¾ inch (13 mm to
19 mm), clean, crushed-stone material that is placed
between and behind the units. The unit core fill provides
additional weight to the completed wall section for stability,
local drainage at the face of the structure, and a filter zone
to keep the backfill soils from filtering out through the space
face between units.
3.4 Geogrid:
The geogrid materials listed in Tables 1, 2A and 28 are
proprietary materials used to increase the height of the
Keystone Wall System above the height at which the wall is
stable under its self-weight as a gravity system. Geogrids
are synthetic materials specifically designed for use as soil
reinforcement.
4.0 DESIGN AND INSTALLATION
4.1 Design:
4.1.1 General: Structural calculations must be submitted
to the code official for each wall system installation. The
system must be designed as a conventional gravity or
reinforced-soil retaining wall that depends on the weight
Page 22 of 55
and geometry of the concrete units and soil to resist lateral
earth pressures and other lateral forces. Lateral earth
pressures are determined using either Coulomb or Rankine
earth pressure theory. The design must include evaluation
of both external and internal stability of the structure, and
include consideration of external loads such as surcharges
and seismic forces, as applicable.
External stability analysis must be similar to that required
for conventional retaining walls, and must consider base
(lateral) sliding, overturning, bearing capacity (and
excessive settlement), and overall (deep-seated) slope
stability. Internal stability analysis of SRWs without geogrid-
reinforced soil must consider movement between courses.
Internal stability analysis of the SRWs with geogrid-
reinforced soil must consider the maximum allowable
reinforcement tension, pull-out resistance of reinforcement
behind the active failure zone (excessive movement of
geosynthetic material through the reinforced soil zone), and
the connection strength of geosynthetic reinforcement
material to the SRW concrete units or blocks, and
movement between courses.
Minimum safety factors used in design (for external
stability check) for SRWs, with and without a geogrid-
reinforced soil mass, must be 1.5 for deep-seated
(global) stability and 2.0 for bearing capacity. The minimum
safety factors must be 1.5 for lateral sliding and 2.0 for
overturning for SRWs with a geogrid-reinforced soil mass.
The minimum safety factors against lateral sliding and
overturning must be 1.5 (I8C Section 1807.2.3, or IRC
Section R404.4, as applicable}, for SRWs without a
reinforced soil mass. Minimum safety factors used in design
(for internal stability) must be 1.5 for peak connection
strength between the geosynthetic material and SRW units,
and for peak shear strength between SRW units with or
without geosynthetic material. Seismic safety factors for all
limit states related to SRW design may be
75 percent of the corresponding minimum allowable static
safety factors.
A site-specific soils investigation report in accordance with
I8C Section 1803, or IRC Section R401.4, as applicable, is
required. The soils investigation report must provide a global
slope stability analysis that considers the influence of site
geometry, subsoil properties, groundwater conditions, and
existing (or proposed) slopes above and below the
proposed retaining wall. The soils investigation report must
also specify the soil-reinforcement and interaction
coefficients, including the coefficient of interaction for pullout
and coefficient of direct sliding; and include derivation of the
ultimate tensile strength of the geogrid material (according
to ASTM 04595), and the applicable safety factors for the
determination of the ultimate tensile strength, long-term
design strength and allowable tensile strength of the
geogrid. The soils investigation report must also specify
safety factors for tensile rupture and pullout of the geogrid.
Where the wall is assigned to Seismic Design Category
(SOC) C, D, E or F, the site-specific soils report must include
the information as required by I8C Section 1803.5.11.
Where the wall is assigned to Seismic Design Category
(SOC) D, E or F, the site-specific soils report must include
the information as required by I8C Section 1803.5.12. The
design of the Keystone wall is based on accepted
geotechnical principles for gravity and soil-reinforced
structures. Specifics of design recommended by the
manufacturer are found in the Keystone Design Manual
dated February 2011.
4.1.2 Conventional Gravity Retaining Walls: The gravity
standard engineering principles for modular concrete
retaining walls. The maximum height of retaining walls
constructed using Keystone Standard Ill, Compac Ill,
Compac II and Country Manor I Stonegate units is shown in
Figure 2 for different soil and back slope combinations.
Typical design heights are 2.5 to 3 times the depth of the
unit being used. Inter-unit shear capacity equations are
provided in Table 1.
4.1.3 Geogrid-reinforced Retaining Walls:
4.1.3.1 General: The geogrid reinforced soil system relies
on the weight and geometry of the Keystone units and the
reinforced soil mass to act as a coherent gravity mass to
resist lateral earth pressures. The design of a reinforced soil
structure is specific to the Keystone unit selected, soil
reinforcement strength and soil interaction, soil strength
properties, and structure geometry. Inter-unit shear capacity
equations are provided in Table 1. Grid-to-block pullout
resistance values/equations are provided in Tables 2A and
28. The maximum practical height above the wall base is
approximately 50 feet (15 m). Figure 3 shows typical
component details.
4.1.3.2 Structural Analysis: Structural analysis must be
based on accepted engineering principles, the Keystone
Design Manual dated February 2011, and the I8C. The
analysis must include all items noted in Sections 4.1.1,
4.1.3.2.1 and 4.1.3.2.2 of this report, and must follow the
design methodology of the Keystone Design Manual dated
February 2011. All contact surfaces of the units must be
maintained in compression.
4.1.3.2.1 External Stability Analysis:
1. The minimum length of the reinforced mass is
0.6 times the height of the wall (as measured from the
top of the leveling pad to the top of the wall) or as
required to satisfy a safety factor of 1.5 on sliding at the
base, whichever is greater.
2. The minimum safety factor for overturning the
reinforced mass is 2.0, considering the mass as a rigid
body rotating about the toe of the wall.
3.
4.
Global stability analysis must be provided for walls with
slopes below the toe of the wall, walls on soft
foundations, walls that will be designed for submerged
conditions, or tiered walls.
After completion of the internal stability analysis and
geogrid layout, sliding along each respective geogrid
layer must be checked, including shearing through the
connection at the wall face.
4.1.3.2.2 Internal Stability Analysis:
1. Geogrid spacing must be based on local stability of the
Keystone units during construction. Vertical spacing is
typically limited to 2 times the depth of the unit.
2.
3.
4.
Tension calculations for each respective layer of
reinforcing must be provided. Tension is based on the
earth pressure and surcharge load calculated from
halfway to the layer below to halfway to the layer
above. Calculated tensions must not exceed the
allowable geogrid strength.
Connection capacity must be checked for each
geogrid-to-Keystone connection (see Tables 2A and
28). The calculated connection capacity must be equal
to or greater than the calculated tension for each layer.
wall system relies on the weight and geometry of the
Keystone units, without the contribution of geog rids, to r~ist 23 f 55 lateral earth pressures. Gravity wall design is based im,e 0
A calculation check must be made on pullout of the
upper layers of geogrid from the soil zone beyond the
theoretical Coulomb or Rankine failure plane. The
pullout capacity must be equal to or greater than the
calculated tension after applying the applicable geog rid
interaction and sliding coefficient adjustment factors.
4.2 Installation:
The wall system units are assembled in a running bond
pattern, except for the Country Manor I Stonegate units,
which are assembled in a random bond pattern. The wall
system units are assembled without mortar or grout, utilizing
high-strength fiberglass pins for shear connections,
mechanical connections of reinforcing geogrid, if applicable,
and unit alignment. The system may include horizontal
layers of structural geogrid reinforcement in the backfill soil
mass. Requirements for installation of the Keystone
Retaining Wall System are as follows:
1. Excavate for leveling pad and reinforced fill zone.
2. Inspect excavations for adequate bearing capacity of
foundation soils and observation of groundwater
conditions by a qualified geotechnical engineer.
3. Install a 6-inch-thick (152 mm) leveling pad of crushed
stone, compacted to 75 percent relative density as
determined by ASTM D4564. (An unreinforced
concrete pad in accordance with IBC Section 1809.8,
may be utilized in place of the crushed stone pad.)
4. Install the first course of Keystone units, ensuring units
are level from side to side and front to back. Adjacent
Keystone units are placed so pin holes are
approximately 12 inches (305 mm) on center.
5. Install the fiberglass pins in the units to establish the
angle of wall inclination (batter). The pin placement and
resulting batter for given units are as follows:
• Standard Ill, Compac Ill and Compac II Units:
Placing the pin in the rear pin holes in every course
provides a minimum wall inclination of 7.1 degrees
from vertical toward the backfill [1 inch (25.4 mm)
minimum setback per course]. Pin placement
alternating between the front and rear pin holes on
vertically adjacent rows provides a wall inclination of
approximately 3.6 degrees from vertical toward the
backfill [½ inch (13 mm) minimum setback per
course]. The pin placement during assembly in the
front pin hole provides a wall inclination of
approximately 0.5 degree from vertical toward the
backfill [1/a inch (3 mm) minimum setback per
course].
• Country Manor I Stonegate Units: Placing the pin in
the rear pin holes in every course provides a wall
inclination of approximately 9.5 degrees from
vertical toward the backfill (1 inch (25.4 mm) setback
per course]. Placing the pin in the middle pin hole
provides a wall inclination of approximately 0.5
degree from vertical toward the backfill [1/s inch
(3 mm) minimum setback per course].
6. Fill the unit cores with unit core drainage fill described
in Section 3.3 of this report. The unit core drainage fill
is required for all installations and must extend back a
minimum of 2 feet (610 mm) from the outside or front
face of the wall. See Figure 3.
7. Clean the top surface of the units to remove loose
aggregate.
9. Pull taut to remove slack from the geogrids before
placing backfill. Pull the entire length taut to remove
any folds or wrinkles.
10. Place and compact backfill over the geog rid reinforcing
layer in appropriate lift thickness to ensure compaction.
11. Repeat placement of units, core fill, backfill, and
geogrids, as shown on plans, to finished grade.
12. Backfill used in the reinforced fill mass must consist of
suitable fine-grained or coarse-grained soil placed in
lifts compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum
dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 (95 percent
per ASTM D698). The backfill soil properties, lift
thickness, and degree of compaction must be
determined by the soils engineer based
on site-specific conditions. In cut-wall applications, if
the reinforced soil has poor drainage properties,
a granular drainage layer of synthetic drainage
composite should be installed to prevent buildup of
hydrostatic pressures behind the reinforced soil mass.
Provisions for adequate subsurface drainage must be
determined by the soils engineer.
13. Stack and align units using the structural pin
connection between vertically adjacent units at the
design setback batter. The completed wall is built with
alignment tolerances of 1.5 inches (40 mm) in 10 feet
(3048 mm) in both the horizontal and vertical
directions.
14. When required by the design, geogrid reinforcement is
placed at the elevations specified in the design. The
reinforced backfill must be placed and compacted no
lower than the top unit-elevation to which geogrid
placement is required.
4.3 Special Inspection:
Special inspection must be provided in accordance with
2018, 2015 and 2012 IBC Sections 1705.1.1, 1705.4 and
1705.6 (2009 IBC Sections 1704.15, 1704.5 and 1704.7).
The inspector's responsibilities include verifying the
following:
1. The modular concrete unit type and dimensions.
2. Keystone unit identification compliance with ASTM
C1372, including compressive strength and water
absorption, as described in Section 3. 1 of this report.
3. Product identification, including evaluation report
number (ESR-2113).
4. Foundation preparation.
5. Keystone unit placement, including proper alignment
and inclination.
6. Fiberglass pin connections, including installation
locations, proper fit within the blocks, and installation
sequence with respect to the geogrid placement.
7. Geosynthetic reinforcement type (manufacturer and
model number), location and placement.
8. Backfill placement and compaction.
9. Drainage provisions.
5.0 CONDITIONS OF USE
8. At designated elevation per the design, install geogrid
reinforcing. All geogrid reinforcement is installed by The Keystone Retaining Wall· Systems described in this
placing it over the fiberglass pin. Check to ensure the report comply with, or are suitable alternatives to what is
proper orientation of the geogrid reinforcement is used spe?ified in, those c_odes list~? in Section 1.0 of this report,
so the strong direction is perpendicular to the face. subJect to the following cond1t1ons:
Adja?ent rolls are placed side by side; no overla~ is 5.1 The systems are designed and installed in accordance
required. age 24 of 55 with this report; the Keystone Design Manual, dated
February 2011; the manufacturer's published
installation instructions; and accepted engineering
principles. If there is a conflict between this report and
the manufacturer's published installation instructions,
this report governs.
5.2 The Keystone Design Manual, dated February 2011, is
submitted to the code official upon request.
5.3 The wall design calculations are submitted to, and
approved by, the code official. The calculations must
be prepared by a registered design professional where
required by the statutes of the jurisdiction in which the
project is to be constructed.
5.4 A site-specific soils investigation in accordance with
IBC Section 1803, or IRC Section R401.4, as
applicable, as noted in Section 4. 1. 1 of this report,
must be provided for each project site.
5.5 In areas where repeated freezing and thawing under
saturated conditions occur, evidence of compliance
with freeze-thaw durability requirements of ASTM
C1372 must be furnished to the code official for
approval prior to construction.
5.6 Special inspection must be provided for backfill
placement and compaction, geogrid placement (when
applicable), and block installation, in accordance with
Section 4.3 of this report.
5.7 Details in this report are limited to areas outside of
groundwater. For applications where free-flowing
groundwater is encountered, or where wall systems
are submerged, the installation and design of systems
must comply with the recommendations of the soils
engineer and the appropriate sections of the NCMA
Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls, and
must be approved by the code official.
5.8 Under the 2018 and 2015 IBC, project specifications
for soil and water conditions that include sulfate
concentrations identified in ACI 318-14 Table 19.3.1.1
as severe (S2) or very severe (S3), must include mix
designs for the concrete, masonry and grout that
comply with the intent of ACI 318-14 Table 19.3.1.1.
See 2018 and 2015 IBC Section 1904.
5.9 Under the 2012 IBC, project specifications for soil and
water conditions that include sulfate concentrations
identified in ACI 318-11 Table 4.2.1 as severe (S2) or
very severe (S3), must include mix designs for the
concrete, masonry and grout that comply with the
intent of ACI 318-11 Table 4.3.1. See 2012 IBC Section
1904.
5.10 Under the 2009 IBC, project specifications or soil and
water conditions that have sulfate concentrations
identified in ACI 318-08 Table 4.2.1 as severe (S2) or
very severe (S3), shall include mix designs for concrete
and masonry and grout that comply with the intent of
ACI 318-08 Table 4.3.1. See 2009 IBC Section 1904.5.
5.11 As to the geogrid reinforcement material, this report
evaluates only the connection strength of the geogrid
material when attached to the concrete units. Physical
properties of the geog rid material or its interaction with
the soil have not been evaluated.
6.0 EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Data in accordance with the ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria for
Segmental Retaining Walls (AC276), dated October 2004
(editorially revised January 2018).
7.0 IDENTIFICATION
7 .1 Each pallet of concrete units is identified with the
manufacturer's name (RCP Block and Brick) and
address, the name of the product, the unit type, and
the evaluation report number (ESR-2113). Fiberglass
pins are provided with each shipment of blocks, with a
letter of certification by Keystone.
7.2 The report holder's contact information is the following:
KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS, LLC
4444 WEST 78TH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55435
www.keystonewalls.com
7.3 The Additional Listee's contact information is the
following:
RCP BLOCK AND BRICK, INC.
8240 BROADWAY
LEMON GROVE, CALIFORNIA 91945
Page 25 of 55
TABLE 1-INTER-UNIT SHEAR RESISTANCE1
PEAK CONNECTION SERVICEABILITY
STRENGTH CONNECTION STRENGTH
UNIT (pounds/linear foot) (pounds/linear foot)
Equation Maximum Equation Maximum
WITHOUT GEOGRID
Compac II F = 1376 1783 F = 1263 1618 + 0.14 N + 0.12 N
Country Manor/ Stonegate F = 1536 1536 F= 92 + 1124 0.81 N
Compac Ill F = 1543 4138 F = 649 + 3206 + 0.74 N 0.73 N
Standard Ill F = 2437 5084 F = 1524 4528 + 0.53 N +0.6N
WITH GEOGRID
Miragrid P=1711+ 4456 P = 1464 3614 3XT 0.55 N + 0.43 N
Standard Ill
Miragrid P = 2197+ 4447 P = 1977 3133 8XT 0.45N + 0.23 N
Miragrid P = 1271 3539 P=543+ 2953 3XT + 0.65 N 0.69 N
Compac Ill
Miragrid P = 1282 P = 706 +
8XT + 0.56 N 3223 0.3N 1591
For SI: 1 lb/linear foot= 14.6 N/m.
1The inter-unit shear resistance, F [lb/linear foot (Nim)], of the Keystone units at any depth is a function of the pin strength and superimposed normal (applied)
load, N [lb/linear foot (N/m)].
TABLE 2A-GEOGRID-TO-BLOCK PULLOUT RESISTANCE EQUATIONS
GEOGRID
PEAK CONNECTION STRENGTH (lbs/ft) SERVICEABILITY CONNECTION STRENGTH (lbs/ft)
Equation Maximum Equation Maximum
KEYSTONE COMPAC II UNIT
Strata Systems
Stratagrid P = 798 + 0.34 N 1576 P = 593 + 0.27 N 1184 SG150
Stratagrid P = 707 + 0.93 N 1754 P = 928 + 0.10 N 1250 SG200
Stratagrid P = 626 + 1.15 N 2000 P = 770 + 0.42 N 1705 SG500
TC Mirafi
Miragrid 2XT P = 800 + 0.29 N 1452 P = 800 + 0.29 N 1452
Miragrid 3XT P = 811 + 0.36 N 1617 P = 571 + 0.45 N 1593
Miragrid 5XT P = 1200 + 0.38 N 2050 P = 691 + 0.55 N 1941
Miragrid 7XT P = 1173 + 0.40 N 2222 P = 622 + 0.47 N 1948
Miragrid 8XT P = 960 + 0.84 N 2490 P = 691 + 0.73 N 2280
KEYSTONE COUNTRY MANOR/ STONEGATE UNIT
Strata Systems
Stratagrid P = 377 + 0.47 N 950 P = 327 + 0.48 N 932 SG150
Stratagrid P = 550 + 0.43 N 1238 P = 311 + 0.38 N 903 SG200
Tensar
BX1200 P = 474 + 0.42 N 1142 P = 494 + 0.36 N 1045
For SI: 1 lb/linear ft. = 14.6 Nim.
'Where N = superimposed normal (applied) load (lb/linear foot).
Page 26 of 55
TABLE 28-GEOGRID-TO-BLOCK PULLOUT RESISTANCE VALUES
Peak Connection Strength (lbslft) Serviceability Connection Strength (lbs/ft)
C 'C c":-'C c~ C 'C C ";" 'C c~
E .5! ~ ca 0 D. ca 0 D. E .5! ~ ca 0 D. ca 0 D. 0 0 0 0 BX1202 :, ... _ ...J .... ti~ ...JN ti~ :, .. ·-...J ti~ ...JN ti~ E u u Eu u .... ell ca mn. ell,-ca CL ell,-ell ca "iiiCL, ell,-'iii 11. ell,-]~ 2 g, cu CU :~ 2 g, CU CU e-C ca e-C ca e-C ca e-C ca
~00 .. 0 c.. .. 0 c.. ~ 0 0 .. 0 c.. .. 0 c..
0 0 o ca 0 o ca 0 0 o ca 0 o ca z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0
KEYSTONE COMPAC III UNIT
Strata Systems
Stratagrid 1070.00 2493.00 2179.96 6000.00 2179.96 412.65 2493.00 1659.42 6000.00 1659.42 SG200
Stratagrid 1150.00 1700.00 2735.28 3502.00 3409.02 897.82 3502.00 1562.70 6000.00 1562.70 SG550
Tencate Mirafi
Miragrid 3XT 1345.22 2500.00 2020.24 6000.00 2020.24 398.97 2500.00 1374.18 6000.00 1374.18
Miragrid 8XT 1226.00 2710.00 2919.40 6000.00 2919.40 750.46 3498.00 1659.67 6000.00 1659.67
Huesker
Fortrac 35T 900.00 1500.00 1372.95 6000.00 1372.95 842.82 2493.00 892.86 6000.00 892.86
Fortrac BOT 856.00 1700.00 1798.33 3500.00 2006.59 844.00 3500.00 1524.33 6000.00 1524.33
KEYSTONE STANDARD Ill UNIT
Strata Systems
Stratagrid 1823.21 3002.00 1973.18 6000.00 1973.18 889.70 3002.00 1189.87 6000.00 1189.87 SG200
Stratagrid 2322.00 2000.00 4060.57 5002.00 4402.61 955.00 2000.00 1682.94 6000.00 1524.33 SG550
Tencate Mirafi
Miragrid 3XT 1398.00 1100.00 2197.20 3000.00 2566.52 484.00 1200.00 1069.28 3000.00 1484.84
Miragrid 8XT 1911.00 1600.00 3161.06 5053.00 4556.16 843.00 3800.00 2614.97 6000.00 2614.97
Huesker
Fortrac 35T 1082.00 1000.00 1204.78 6000.00 1204.78 636.00 1800.00 985.88 2956.00 1087.02
Fortrac 85T 1600.00 2000.00 2367.73 5022.00 2420.48 894.00 2000.00 1467.49 5022.00 1625.87
For SI: 1 lb/linear ft. = 14.6 N/m.
1Minimum Connection Capacity is the connection strength when the normal load is O lbs.
21P-1 is the last point (in a linear relationship between the normal load (X-axis) and the Connection Strength (Y-axis)) before it changes its linear relationship of the
normal load and connection strength.
2500
2000
!i:' .2:
B 1500 0 u.
C 0 i 1000
C C 0 u
500
0
0 500 1000 1500
IP-1
2000
Normal Force (plf)
Page 27 of 55
2500
I
IP-2
3000 3500 4000
Standard Ill Unit
92 lb. (42 Ira)
Come@C II Unit
121b. (37"9)
............ I 1111" >-... MIiii)
Figl,n 1 • ~WIii Unlll
Page 28 of 55
Compec Ill Unit
72 lb. (33 kg)
Counby Manor I stonegate Uni
2MO bt. (12 • 27 Ira)
Three Plane Cap Unit
45 lb. (20 kg)
Unlversal Cap Unit
51 lb. (23 kg)
-t:t.,7t,.-..,.>-...__ ....
., "'-•(tO;t, ,. .... )
> H.1•
10.s rnun>
(267
stone Wall Units (Continued) Figure 1 -Key
Page 29 of 55
I 1 I 1 r ,==,, Slope Ii· Slope -"--
'--:"" Retained Soil Type Retained SOil Type Height -Height
--.e
--,:
1 ... , I
NEAR VERTICAi.. WALL ONE INCH SETBACK WALL
(Minimum setback per unit) (1" min setback per unit)
STANDARD 11121"/18" UNITS STANDARD 11121"/18" UNITS
Max. Hgt. Bac:kslope Max. Hgt. Backslope
Soil Type l..ew!I 4H:1V 3H:1V 2H:1V Soil Type Leval 4H:1V 3H:1V 2H:1V
SancliGrawl 5.1114.3' 4.313.7' 4.31'3.7' 3.713.0' SancllGrawl G.3J5.7' 5.71511 5.715.0' 5.014.3'
Silly Sand 4.313.7' 3.7/3.0' 3.7/3.0' 3.0/3.0' SitySand 5.7/5.0' 5.0/4.3' 5..0/4.3' 4.313.7'
SiM.eanClay 3.7/3..7' 3.7/3.0' 3.0/3.0' 2.311.7' Silll'-ean Clay 5.014.3' 4.313.7' 3.713.0' 2.312.3'
COMPAC 11/111 UNITS COMPAC llnll UNITS
Max. Hgt. Backllope Max.Hgt. Bacltslope
SoilTp Lewi 4H:1V 3H:1V 2H:1V Soil Type Leval 4H:1V 3H:1V 2H:1V
Sand.lGrawl 3.0' 2.3' 2.3' 2.3' SandlGravel 3.7' 3.0' 3.0' 2.3'
Silly Sand 2.3' 2.3' 1.7' 1.7' Silly Sand 3.0' 3.0' 2.3' 2.3'
sat/Lean Cay 2.3' 1.7' 1.7' 1.0' Si1111\.eml Clay 3.0' 2.3' 2.3' 1.0'
COUNTRY MANOR/ STONEGATE UNITS COUNTRY MANOR/ STONEGATE UNITS
Max.Hgt. Beckslope Max.Hgt. Badtslope
Soil Type l-' 3H:1V Sci Type law! 3H:1V
Sand'Gravel 2.25' 1.75' SandlGr-' 3.2!5' 2.2!5'
SiltySand 1.75' 1.2!1' SitySand 2..25" 1.75'
Silt/Lea, Clay 1.75' 1.25' Silt/l-,Clay 1.75' 1.25'
Noles; Calc&alions auumit .a moist ri weight d 120 lbsfcffor all 1110111.. Assumed 9 qes forw1h ~
cak:uta1iDn5 -= San4"Gravei = 34•, Silly Sand ,. 311'. and Siltllean Clay ,. 20'.
An.alysis for nan-aitical sa'UClln5 with FS lt 1.50. ND .addilianal surdia,ge loadings -induded.
Surdlalges or special lollding ccnlilicns wil r9duce m&ldrmm wall heights.
Sliding ca1cula1illf1 as!IUl'IES a 6" c:,ushed Rlnlt litwling pad as~ foundation mall!riaL
For SI: 1 foot= 304.8 nm
AGURE 2 -GRAVITY WALL CHARTS
Page 30 of 55
Total
Wall
Total
Wal Height
Keystone Gravity Wall
I
I
Low PenneabiHty Soi
•-.:•--------.. I ··~-·: (Reinforced Sail Zane) ,'
_, --I ~ I
• I
~•• I
/~ __ !flt ; c Retained Sail Zane)
II --/ . ~' •,, , ·•:•.;:..,;• '
--..... --ft"'--t......, ____ ,': :, } ... 'ff.. : '-l.imltof Excavalion
•:• Q~ :,.{":•~ Unit Core FM>rait Fil (Rough Cut)
·~ Drainaiige Coleclion Pipe (when A!quired)
Keystone Wall with Soil Reinforcement
FIGURE 3 -TYPICAL WALL SECTIONS
Page 31 of 55
-----------·--------------------·--
ICC-ES Evaluation Report ESR-2113 CBC and CRC Supplement
Reissued August 2021
This report is subject to renewal August 2023.
www.icc-es.org I (800) 423-6587 I (562) 699-0543 A Subsidiary of the International Code Council®
DIVISION: 32 00 00-EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS
Section: 32 32 00-Retaining Walls
Section: 32 32 23-Segmental Retaining Walls
REPORT HOLDER:
KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS, LLC
EVALUATION SUBJECT:
KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS
1.0 REPORT PURPOSE AND SCOPE
Purpose:
The purpose of this evaluation report supplement is to indicate that Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, described in ICC-ES
evaluation report ESR-2113, have also been evaluated for compliance with the code noted below.
Applicable code edition:
■ 2019 California Building Code® (CBC)
For evaluation of applicable chapters adopted by the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development
(OSHPD) and Division of State Architect (DSA), see Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 below.
■ 2019 California Residential Code® (CRC)
2.0 CONCLUSIONS
2.1 CBC:
The Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, described in Sections 2.0 through 7.0 of the evaluation report ESR-2113, comply with
CBC Chapter 18, provided the design and installation are in accordance with the 2018 International Building Code® (IBC)
provisions noted in the evaluation report and the additional requirements of the CBC Chapters 16, 17 and 18 as applicable.
2.1.1 OSHPD:
The applicable OSHPD Sections of the CBC are beyond the scope of this supplement.
2.1.2 DSA:
The applicable DSA Sections of the CBC are beyond the scope of this supplement.
2.2 CRC:
The Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, described in Sections 2.0 through 7.0 of the evaluation report ESR-2113, comply with
CRC Chapters 4, provided the design and installation are in accordance with the 2018 International Residential Code® (IRC)
provisions noted in the evaluation report and the additional requirements of CRC Chapters 3 and 4 as applicable.
This supplement expires concurrently with the evaluation report, reissued August 2021.
Page 32 of 55
... ,. -----·--------------------
9124101
A C~'IICH COMPANY
Unit Drainage Fill Options
Placement of unit drainage fill in conjunction with different unit sizes and different backfill
drainage and filtration requirements can result in some special combinations that have been
utilized successfully in the past. There are some construction alignment considerations with
different approaches that must be evalua by the contractor. Acceptable variations are
indicated below:
Keystone
Compac
Units
Unit Drainage Fill/Select Backfill
Keystone
Standard
Units
-. . . .
'!"~
• •,~: -Unit •. -
Draihage
-..-1 '· Fill . • -. '-:I' • " • ,.I .
,:· :, Geoiextile
, j Sepai:ator , ~ ,: ':"' . .. ~~ • ''=' •
.i"t-i ,. -~h,
A. Select Backfill -When the reinforced bac 1 1 matena 1s a se ec gr n a m e a
drains easily, a geotextile separator may be used to contain the drainage fill within the Keystone
unit allowing placement of select backfill first followed by the drainage fill within the units.
Keystone
Standard
Units :\: :,':• LIJlit • • ·-· . : Dtainage .. ·-·::
~2'm;n.-~
Keystone
Standard
Units ::·-:·.-:. ·.·: ·., .-Unit • _..-. Draiitage
., I Fill
Non
aining
ackfill
Unit Drainage Fill/Non-Select Backfill Unit Drainage Fill/Non-Select Backfill
B. Non Select Backfill -Keystone Standard units may be utilized with a geotextile separator
against the tail of the units in lieu of the full 24" drainage zone in most applications to improve
construction efficiency without significantly reducing drainage capability. The backfill can be
placed against the geotextile first followed by the drainage fill within the units.
Page 33 of 55 0 2000 Keystone Re1aining Wall Systems
Miragrid® 3XT SOIL REaORCEMENT
Miragrid® 3XT geogrid is composed of high molecular weight,-high tenacity polyester multifilament yarns
woven in tension and finished with a PVC coating. Miragrid® 3XT geog rid is inert to biological degradation
and resistant to naturally encountered chemicals, alkalis, and acids.
Miragrid® 3XT geogrid is used as soil reinforcement in MSE structures such as; segmental retaining walls,
precast modular block walls, wire faced walls, geosynthetic wrapped faced walls and steepened slopes.
Miragrid® 3XT is also used in MSE stabilized platforms for voids bridging, embankments on soft soils,
landfill veneer stability, reducing differential settlement and for foundation seismic stability.
TenCate Geosynthetics Americas is accredited by Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute -Laboratory
Accreditation Program (GAi-LAP).
Mechanical Properties Test Method Unit Machine Direction Value
Tensile Strength@ Ultimate (MARV1) ASTM D6637 lbs/ft (kN/m) 3500 (51 .1) (Method B)
Tensile Strength@ 5% strain (MARV1) ASTM D6637 lbs/ft (kN/m) 1056 (15.4) /Method B)
Creep Rupture StrenQth2 ASTM D5262/D6992 lbs/ft (kN/m) 2431 (35.5)
Long Term Design Strength3 lbs/ft (kN/m) 2104 (30.7)
'Minimum Average Roll Values (MARV) shown above are based on QC Testing per a defined lot not to exceed 12 months. Testing
Frequency follows ASTM D4354, Table 1.
2 75-year design life based on NTPEP Report REGEO-2016-01-063.
3 Long Term Design Strength for sand, silt, clay. RFcR = 1.44; RF10 = 1.05; RFo = 1.1
(Installation damage reduction factor for other soils available upon request).
Physical Properties Unit
Mass/Unit Area (ASTM D5261) oz/yd2 (Q/m2)
Roll Dimensions4 (width x length) ft (m)
Roll Area yd2 (m2)
Estimated Roll Weight lbs (kg)
• Special order roll lengths are available upon request.
Miragrid• 3XT and Tensile Strength direction are continuously printed in white on the edge of the roll.
Roll Characteristic
7.4 (251)
6 X 300 (1.8 X 91)
12 X 150 (3.6 X 46)
12 X 1000 (3.6 x 305)
200 (167)
200 (167)
1333 (1114)
115 (52)
115 (52)
670 (304)
Disclaimer: TenCate assumes no liability for the accuracy or completeness of this information or for the ultimate use by the purchaser. TenCate disclaims any and
all express, implied, or statutory standards, warranties or guarantees, including without limitation any implied warranty as to merchantability or fitness for a particular
purpose or arising from a course of dealing or usage of trade as to any equipment, materials, or information furnished herewith. This document should not be
construed as engineering advice.
Miragricf' is a registered trademark of Nicolon Corporation. Copyright 10 2020 Nicolon Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
Page 34 of 55 GAI-LAP-25-97
To:
From:
S1a1e of California
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Memorandum
ALL STAFF
Geotechnical Services
Division of Engineering Services
PHILIP J. STOLARSKI b)A ~
State Materials Engineer \ ..J
Deputy Division Chief
Materials Engineering and Testing Services
and Geotechnical Services
Division of Engineering Services
Business, Trrnsportation and Housing Agency
Flex your power!
Be energy efficient!
Date: June 13, 2013
Subject: Seismic Design and Selection of Standard Retaining Walls
When providing geotechnical recommendations for type selection of retaining walls during
planning and design phases, the job site should be evaluated to ensure seismic design criteria
used for development of the LRFD standard plans are applicable.
According to standard plan sheets dated April 2012, the seismic criteria thre:shold for standard
retaining walls are; Coefficient of Horizontal Acceleration, kh = 0.2 and Coefficient of Vertical
Acceleration kv = 0.0, except for concrete retaining walls supporting soundwalls where kh = 0.3
and kv= 0.0 are used. The kh = 0.2 is roughly based on using 1/3 Peak Ground Acceleration
(PGA), therefore, at sites where the PGA is equal to or less than 0.6g, the retaining walls shown
in the Standard Plans are applicable. For sites with PGA greater than 0.6g, the standard plans are
not applicable, and DES/Structure Design should design the retaining walls as special design
walls. Include the seismic assessment in geotechnical reports to the District Project Engineer as
early as possible during planning or design phases of the project development process, so that
appropriate functional units can be notified and resources be allocated.
c: Barton Newton, Deputy Division Chief, Structure Policy& Innovation, Division of
Engineering Services
Lam X. Nguyen, Acting Deputy Division Chief, DES-Program/Project & Resource
Management
Michael D. Keever, Deputy Division Chief, DES-Structure Design
Susan E. Hida, Supervising Bridge Engineer, DES-SP&I-Office of State Bridge
Engineer
Tom Ostrom, Supervising Bridge Engineer, DES-SP&I-Office of Earthquake
Engineering
··cultra11s improve.v mobility across California··
Page 35 of 55
APPENDIX C -ENGTNEERED FENCE POST SEGMENTAL WALL ANCHORTNG SYSTEM
Page 36 of 55
POST-iN Retaining
When Every Inch
~~fl~~·Fencing System for
SRWs utiliz es the large hollow
cores of the wall blocks for steel
or wood fence posts. The
cantilevered Post In/concrete slab
and the soil behind the wall,
resists the overturning pressure of
the lateral loads. By placing the
fence on top of the wall, you can
maximize use of property and
reduce maintenance behind the
wall.
Page 37 of 55
SPECIFICATIONS
Height 18" ( 450mm)
Width 12" (305mm)
Length 36" (915mm)
Weight = 7 Lbs (3.17
Kg)
MAXIMIZE
Every Inch of Property behind the
ft~MINATE
Cumbersome Landscape
INCREJf(SE
Safety and Security on Top of
SWJIPLIFY
Installation of Steel and Wood Fence
rmbUC
E Costs
ENGINEERED
Fencing System for
SRWs
TYP. CONCRETE SLAB
SIZES
12"xl2"
18"xl8"
24"x24"
30"x30"
(305x305mm)
( 457x457mm)
(610x610mm)
(762x762mm)
'CONCRETE SLAB NOT
~N°tL~iWEIGHT TO BE DETERMINED
BY ENGINEER
18" High (450mm)
POST-iN Retaining
Wall
Base for Concrete
Slab
/
Post as Required and
Approv,ed concrete Core
Fill Filter Fabric
Cornerstone Retaining
Wall
CROSS SECTION
DETAIL
Page 38 of 55
POST-iN
Concrete Slab
as Approved
Approved
Backfill
Project No: [M21-33
Project Name: Raceway Industrial
Location: Carlsbad, California
Description: tSafety Railing
Resisting Moment from POST-iN System
Concrete Weight, 7 c =
Pad Dimensions
Length, Pl=
Width, Pw =
Depth, Pd=
Volume, Pv = Pl x Pw x Pd =
Weight, Pw = Pv x 7 c =
Soil Unit Weight, 7 µ =
Soil Mass Dimensions
Depth to Concrete Pad, Sd
POST-iN System
Overturning Analysis
Area of Concrete Pad, Pa = Pl x Pw =
Area of Soil Mass at Surface (2V:1 Projection from Pad),
SMa = (Pl+ Sd) x (Pw + Sd)
Volume, SMv = [(SMa + Pa)/ 2] x Sd =
Weight of Soil Mass, SMw = SMv x 7 µ =
Total Weight of Resisting Mass, W = Pw + SMw =
Distance from Face of Wall to Tail of Post-iN, D =
Resisting Moment Arm, Xw = D -(PW/ 2)
Resisting Moment, RM = W x Xw =
Driving Moment from Fence
Height of Fence, H =
Width of Fence Panel/Post Spacing, W =
Area of Fence, A = H x W =
Wind Speed, V =
Pressure, P = Ce x Cq x Qs x lw
Combined Height, Exposure and Gust Factor, Ce =
Pressure Coefficient, Cq =
Wind Stagnet Factor, Qs = 0.00256* V2 =
Importance Factor, lw =
Force, F = A x P
Overturning Moment Arm, Mo=
Date: 9/27/2021
By: JGH
FSot:I 1.5
12.00"
12.00"
1.50"
22.00"
45.00"
60,00 II
108.00"
140.00 pcf
1.00 I
1.00 I
0.13 I
0.13 cf
17.50 lbf
120.ooi pcf
1.83 I
1.00 sf
8.03 sf
8.28 cf
993.06 lbf
1010.56 lbf
3.75'
3.25 I
3284.31 ft-lbf
5.00 I
9.00 I
45.00 sf
60.00 mph
0.84
2.001
9.22 psf
1.001
696.73
2.50 I
Driving Moment, DM = F x Mo= 1741.824 ft-lbf
Note: A driving moment exceeding 450 ft-lbf will meet CBC 1607.8 requirements.
I_Factor of Safety for Overturning, DM / RM = 1.885555 OK
Page 39 of 55
-u .• •·
0)
(0
........... •·
: CORNERSTONE ~ 100
0,
0,
POST-IN-
DETAIL
$TEEL Sl!_fJ>ORT
FRAME··· · ... -···
---··--· CONCRETE PAD:
12~·12, 18x18,
24x24,36x36
S T E E L P I PiE F O R
FENCEPOST
POST-IN
SOIL BLOCK EXTENDS FROM CONCRETE BLOCK TO
THE SURFACE.
SIZE IS THE BLOCK BASE, WIDTH AT TOP OF 2V:IH
ANGLE FROM THE BASE.
"1J Q) co ro
~
S?.
01 01
I!
POST-
i:i.
SOIL MASS IS A 2V: 1H MASS ABOVE
THE BASE CONCRETE STONE.
SLEEVE-IT®
by STRATA
Strata Systems, Inc.
1831 N. Park Avenue
Burlington, NC 27217
SLEEVE-IT® SDl
Technical Summary
2018
Page 42 of 55
Phone: 800-680-7750
www.geogrid.com
INTRODUCTION
Sleeve-lt®SD-1 is a pre-engineered fence post anchoring solution for enhancing below-grade foundational
stability in fences placed on top of a segmental retaining wall (SRW}. Sleeve-It's patent-pending design
allows stable fence footings to be integrated into the support structure of the SRW while it is being
constructed. Because of its cantilevered form and other properties, using Sleeve-It during the SRW build
permits a code-compliant fence to be constructed eliminating the 36" offset requirements of IBC 1015.2.
Code as defined for the purposes of this document refers to IBC 1015.2, IBC 1607.8.1, and ASCE 7 4.5.1.
SET POSITION OF
SLEEVE IMMEDIATELY
BEHIND TOPMOST SRW
UNIT.
CAP UNIT
SRWUNIT
FENCE
POST' SLEEVE-IT
12"0X24" DEEP
SET FENCE POST,
FIU SLEEVE WITH
CONCRETE (3,000
psi at 28 daya),
BACKFUANO
COMPACT TO TOP OF
SLEEVE BEFORE
SETTING POST ANO
CONCRETE
CUT THE GEOGRIO
AROUND THE
SLEEVE-IT SYSTEM
AS NECESSARY
GEOGRIO
Figure No. 1 : Detail of Fence Post Installation Using Sleeve-It SD 1
SlEEYE-IT.
Page 43 of 55 ~STMTA
CODE REQUIREMENTS
/BC 201 B Load Requirements
Load Bearing
IBC 2018 references load requirements in severa l sections. The following sections relate directly to
bearing on handrails and guards:
• Guards-1015.2-Guards shall be located along open-sided walking surfaces, including
mezzanines, equipment platforms, aisles, stairs, ramps and landings that are located more
than 30 inches measure vertica lly to the floor or grade below any point within 36 inches
horizontally to the edge of the open side. Guards shall be adequate in strength and attached
in accordance with Section 1607.8.
• Live Loads-1607.8.1-Handrails and guards shall be designed to resist a linear load of 50
pounds per linear foot in accordance with Section 4.5.1.1 of ASCE 7. Glass handrail assembles
and guards shall comply with Section 2407.
Deflection
Deflection for fence systems, although a common concern, is not usually defined in building codes.
IBCSectlon 1604.3 addresses the serviceability requirements of structural members in general.
ASCE/SEI 7-16
Chapter 4: Live Loads
4.5.1 Loads on Handrail and Guardrail Systems:
All handrail and guardrail systems shall be designed to resist a single concentrated load of 200 lb
(0.89 kN) applied in any direction at any point on the handrail or top rail to produce the maximum
load effect on the element being considered and to transfer this load through the supports to the
structure. Further, all handrail and guardrail systems shall be designed to resist a load of 50 lb/ft
(pound-force per linear foot) (0.73 kN/m) applied in any direction along the handrail or top rail. This
load need not be assumed to act concurrently with the load specified in the preceding paragraph,
and this load need not be considered for the following occupancies:
1. one-and two-family dwellings, and
2. factory, industrial, and storage occupancies, in areas that are not accessible to the public and
that serve an occupant load not greater than 50.
Intermediate rails (all those except the handrail or top rail) and panel fillers shall be designed to
withstand a horizontally applied normal load of 50 lb (0.22 kN) on an area not to exceed 12 in. by 12
in. (305 mm by 305 mm) including openings and space between rails and located so as to produce
the maximum load effects. Reactions due to this loading are not required to be superimposed with
the loads specified in either preceding paragraph.
SlEEVE-IT.
Page 44 of 55
~STRATA
TESTING OVERVIEW
The purpose of the load testing is to show that Sleeve-It meets and exceeds the relevant compliance
standards required by IBC and that the new Sleeve-It design outperforms the old unit. All of the testing
was performed by a retaining wall company and monitored by SGI Testing Services, LLC for the entirety of
the testing process.
The Fence Post Anchoring System components:
• Fence post
• Concrete
• Sleeve-It SDl
• Soil
• Wall
Testing Set-Up
FENCE
POST
~---;· ·1 I
Dial Gauge
load Cell
Reader
load Cell Hydraulic Jack . •:
1 : ••
.•. ..
Fill SLEEVE WITH
CONCRETE, SET
FENCE POST.
REINFORCED
BACKFILL ZONE
· ...
Figure No. 2: Testing Set-Up
Concrete Wall
COMPACT TO 95% MOD PER ASTM
0698 .
GEOGRID
SlEEVE-IT.
Page 45 of 55
by STRATA
TESTING PROCEDURE
Concentrated Load
Figure No. 2 illustrates the testing set-up. The following is a summary of the testing procedure
performed:
1. Applied a horizontal force on the fence post by means of a hydraulic jack equipped with a load
cell and corresponding readout apparatus. Resistance to the hydraulic jack was created by a
concrete wall.
2. Displacement {deflection) of the modular block retaining wall was measured at the top of the
upper block by means of a dial gauge.
3. Measurement of the displacement was taken at regular intervals of horizontal load application.
Displacement measurement was discontinued (ie, end of test) when the horizontal load could no
longer be sustained.
Span Loading (5-ft Spacing)
1. Applied a horizontal force at the midpoint of two fence posts by means of a hydraulic jack
equipped with a load cell and corresponding readout apparatus. In this case, the fence posts
were 5 feet apart. Resistance to the hydraulic jack was created by a concrete wall.
2. Displacement (deflection) of the modular block retaining wall was measured at the top of the
upper block by means of a dial gauge.
3. Measurement of the displacement was taken at regular intervals of horizontal load application.
Displacement measurement was discontinued {ie, end of test) when the horizontal load could no
longer be sustained.
Fence Post Foundation Systems
For the purposes of this testing, the following fence post foundation systems were used. These are:
1. Sleeve-It® SDl Fence Post Foundation System, and
2. Sleeve-It® 1224R Fence Post Foundation System.
Both systems were placed directly behind the modular block retaining wall and founded within the
reinforced soil zone at a depth of approximately 2 feet. The reinforced backfill is a soil which is commonly
found in many areas of United States. It is a silty sand with fines {<No. 200 sieve) content of
approximately 35% and is non-plastic. It was compacted in place to at least 95% of its Standard Proctor
Dry Density {ASTM D698).
Soils commonly used for reinforced backfill in the construction of modular block retaining walls were
used.
SLEEVE-IT
Page 46 of 55
by STRATA
TESTING RESULTS
The results of the testing program are presented on the graphs on Figure No. 3 and Figure No. 4.
Sleeve-It® SD 1
The graph on Figure No. 3 illustrates the load-displacement behavior of the new Sleeve-It®. The
displacement of the modular block retaining wall increases as the horizontal load increases. Also
indicated on the graph is the displacement of the retaining wall at the IBC load requirement (200 lbs).
The displacement measured at this load is less than 0.1 inch. Also shown is the displacement (<0.3 inch)
at 400 lbs horizontal load. Under the testing conditions, this load level is significant because it
corresponds to a Factor of Safety (FoS) of 2. FoS is a term describing the load carrying capacity of a
system beyond the expected or actual loads. Most civil engineering structures require safety factors to
ensure confidence that the structure will behave better than intended.
SLEEVE-IT 5D1
800
700
600
500
-;;
~
"ti -400 0 0 ...I
300
200
Minimum Code Requirement
100
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Displacement (inches)
Figure No. 3: Load -Displacement Curve for Sleeve-It
SlEEVE-IT
~STRATI\
Page 47 of 55
TESTING RESULTS
Original Sleeve-It®
The graph on Figure No. 4 illustrates the load-displacement behavior of the original Sleeve-It®. As
expected, the displacement of the modular block retaining wall increases as the horizontal load increases.
Also indicated on the graph is the displacement of the retaining wall at the IBC load requirement (200
lbs). The displacement measured at this load is 0.12 inch. Also shown is the displacement (<0.4 inch) at
400 lbs horizontal load.
SLEEVE-IT 1224R
800 -.------------------------,
700
600
500
-;;, ~
-0 400 0 0 _.
300
Minimum Code Requirement
200 •·••·········•··························"····•4 ••···· .. ·· .. ···················· ................................................................. , ..................... .
0 +-.,.......,,......:...--.---r-~.,.......,--,-"""T""--r-....-.,.......,--,-......,...--r-....-......... --.---.---r-~
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Displacement (inches)
Figure No. 4: Load -Displacement Curve for Sleeve-It 1224R
SlEEVE-1~
by STRIITA
Page 48 of 55
TESTING RESULTS
Span Loading (5-ft Spacing)
The code requires t hat the posts be able t o withstand a load of 50 lbs/lin ft. A horizontal force at
the midpoint of two fence posts was applied. In this case, the fence posts were 5 feet apart. The results
of this test are presented in Figure No. 5. Clearly, Sleeve-It 5D1 complied with the code requirements. For
a FoS = 2, the displacement is well under 0.25 inch.
5 FOOT SPAN
1400 --------------------,-280
1200 2"0
1000 200
7' 800 8 ~ 160 ~ ~ ! 0 0 ...,
:,
600 120 .::
-400 80
Minimum Code Requirement -50 lb / lin ft
200 -40
0
0.0 0.2 0.-4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Displacement (in)
Figure N o. 5: Load -5 Foot Span
SlEEVE-IT.
Page 49 of 55 bySTRAT1'
TESTING CONCLUSIONS
The results of the Fence Post Foundation Systems testing program is summarized on the graph
on Figure No. 6. The conclusions drawn from the testing are as follows:
1. Both the Sleeve-It SD1 and Sleeve-It 1224R Fence Post Foundation Systems meet the
requirements of the Code.
2. Sleeve-It SD1 Fence Post Foundation System out-performed Sleeve-It 1224R.
COMPARISON
800 ,------------------------,
700
600
500
FoS • 2
-Sleeve-It 5D1
300 -Sleeve-It 1224R
Minlraum Cod• ltequirlofner,f
200
100
0 +-~.--.~.....,....-.-........ ~~ .......... --.--,--.--.-~~.--.----,,-,--.-~....---1
00 02 04 06 08 1~
Di,placement (inchu)
Figure No. 6: Load -Comparison
SLEEVE-IT
Page 50 of 55 ~ STRATA
ADDENDUM
Introduction
As a follow-up to the Sleeve-It® testing summarized in the preceding Technical Summary, Strata
Systems, Inc. conducted a comparative testing with one of the most basic fence post installation
systems -a concrete-filled 6-inch cardboard tube placed up to 6 inches behind the wall facing
with a layer of geog rid reinforcement. The results and analysis of this testing, described in the
following Addendum, demonstrate how Sleeve-It SDl outperforms this basic system. All of the
testing was performed by an independent, third-party retaining wall contractor and monitored by SGI
Testing Services, LLC for the entirety of the testing process.
Testing Set-Up
Additional testing was carried out on a standard 2-inch fence post with 6-inch diameter
cardboard tubing foundation located directly behind the modular block retaining wall and 6
inches behind the modular block retaining wall. The cardboard tubing was placed 24 inches
below the surface and filled with concrete. A layer of geogrid reinforcement was also placed at a
depth of 12-inches below the surface. Soil parameters and installation conditions were virtually
identical to previous testing.
For the purposes of this testing, the Basic Fence Post Anchoring System was comprised of the following
components:
• Fence post
• Concrete
• 6-in Cardboard Tube
• Soil
• Wall
Testing Procedure -Concentrated Load
Figure No. 7 illustrates the testing set-up. The following is a summary of the testing procedure
performed:
1. Applied a horizontal force on the fence post by means of a hydraulic jack equipped with a load
cell and corresponding readout apparatus. Resistance to the hydraulic jack was created by a
concrete wall.
2. Displacement {deflection) of the modular block retaining wall was measured at the top of the
upper block by means of a dial gauge.
3. Measurement of the displacement was taken at regular intervals of horizontal load application.
Displacement measurement was discontinued {i.e., end of test) when the horizontal load could
no longer be sustained.
SlEEVE-IT.
Page 51 of 55
by STAAT/\
ADDENDUM
NOTE: Tubing plaoed directly
behind moduar block AND 6
inches behind moduar block
for testing
FENCE
POST
Load Cell Hydraulc Jack ConaeteWal
GEOGRIO
COMPACT TO 95% MOD PER ASTM
'---------'....,..""""-_:::;0698.
Figure No. 7: Testing Set-Up -Cardboard Tube
Page 52 of 55
ADDENDUM
Results
Initially, both the horizontal load and the displacement of the modular block retaining wall increased.
However, at a load of 100 lbs, the deflection of the cardboard tube increased without any increase in
horizontal load. The results demonstrate that the fence post did not sustain a load greater than 100 lbs.
The results of the testing are presented on Figure No. 8.
SLEEVE-IT SD 1 VS. CARDBOARD TUBE
800..---------------------,
700
600
7 500 ~
"ti
-Sleeve-It -O" from fence
-CB Tube -6" from fence
_g 400 -CB Tube -O" from fence
300
Minimum Code hquiremenl
200
100
0 q--.--..--.---.---,,---,.---.----.----,--r---,--.--.--.,...... .............................. ...,
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Displacement (inches)
Figure No. 8: Displacement Curve Comparison for Cardboard Tube
SlEEVE-IT.
Page 53 of 55 ~STRATA
ADDENDUM
Conclusion
The 6-inch diameter concrete-filled carboard tube fencing foundation system did not meet the
Code. The specified 200-lb concentrated load was not achieved, even with a geogrid
reinforcement element included at a depth of 12 inches. Figure No. 9 shows the comparison to
Sleeve-It SD1 and the cardboard tube fencing foundation. The results indicate that the
performance of Sleeve-It SDl is superior to that of the cardboard tube in terms of the
concentrated load.
SLEEVE-IT SDl VS. CARDBOARD TUBE
800 ..----------------------.
700
600
-;;, 500 -Sleeve-It • 0" from fence g -CB Tube • 6" from fence "'ti 0
..9 400 -CB Tube • O" from fence
300
Minimum Code Requirement 200 ... · .............................................................................................................................................................. ..
0 Q-~...--...--...--...--..--..--..--..--....-....-....-....-,--,--,--,--,--.----1
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Displacement (inches)
Figure No. 9: Displacement Curve Comparison for Sleeve-It SD 1 vs. Cardboard Tubes
SLEEVE-IT.
Page 54 of 55
by STRATA
REFERENCES
Chapter 4 Live Loads. (July, 2016). In ASCE Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for
Buildings and Other Structures. Retrieved April 1, 2018, from
https://codes. iccsafe.org/public/docu ment/I BC2018/cha pter-16-structu ra I-design
Chapter 10 Means of Egress. (August, 2017). In 2018 International Business Code. International
Code Council. Retrieved April 1, 2018, from
https://codes.iccsafe.org/public/document/lBC2018/chapter-10-means-of-egress
Chapter 16 Structural Design. (August, 2017). In 2018 International Business Code. International
Code Council. Retrieved April 1, 2018, from
https ://codes. iccsafe .org/pu blic/docu ment/I BC2018/cha pter-16-structu ra I-design
Yuan, Z. (2018, April 15). Sleeve.Test-4-15-2018 [PDF].
Yuan, Z. (2018, June 14). Sleeve.Test-6-14-2018 [PDF].
Page 55 of 55