×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Horizontal ties at Change in retaining wall thickness

Horizontal ties at Change in retaining wall thickness

Horizontal ties at Change in retaining wall thickness

(OP)
http://ladbs.org/LADBSWeb/LADBS_Forms/PlanCheck/PC...

The link above is to Los Angeles City's standard grading plan check list.

Item G. 2 (on page 5 of 6) states "Provide retaining wall details on plans, show: surface drains, subsurface drains, slope of backfill, tie at change in wall thickness and reinforcement."

What is meant by "tie at change in wall thickness and reinforcement"?

Please see attached sketch. The ties drawn in that are what the plan checker is requesting - I have never seen these and do not know what purpose they could serve. Anyone have any idea?

RE: Horizontal ties at Change in retaining wall thickness

It could be some sort of confinement tie for the top of the wall, but I am not sure as i have never seen that before.

RE: Horizontal ties at Change in retaining wall thickness

I wouldn't normally do it... but, like chicken soup... can't hurt!

RE: Horizontal ties at Change in retaining wall thickness

Actually, I have done this as common practice on my own for many years to limit the lateral splitting force of the top rebar to the top of the lower wall below., particularly where PS planks sit on top of a wall with a concrete stem wall above.

I didn't know any of my details got to California! lol

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

RE: Horizontal ties at Change in retaining wall thickness

(OP)
Thanks for the responses.

My initial thought was the plan check list is poorly worded and these ties are not the intent, as so far no one can provide a code reference.

The item starts out very general. "Provide retaining wall details on plans," then mentions a few key things these details should show. I think the "tie" part is a really bad way to say "show the required embeds/laps where wall thickness changes."

The plan checker says it's in the UBC masonry code, but they have an example worked out with 12" o/ 8" block with no mention of these ties (though that example may only use a single layer of reinforcement in the 12" stem).

My only contact with the plan checker is through a third party, as he won't respond to my phone calls or emails directly.

RE: Horizontal ties at Change in retaining wall thickness

Those responses above make sense, because there may be diminished shear capacity at the joint between the 8" and 12" CMU, plus this is California, seismic.

RE: Horizontal ties at Change in retaining wall thickness

(OP)
How would those ties add shear capacity between the stems?

RE: Horizontal ties at Change in retaining wall thickness

The ties are preventing the verts from the 8" CMU form splitting the 12" CMU, as pointed out by Mike.
Therefore in a sense, you get more shear capacity, although it is impossible to calculate the actual shear capacity in the case you don't have those ties.

Likewise, it is impossible as far as I know to calculate the contribution of the ties. All I know is those ties should prevent the 8" CMU from shearing off the 12" CMU - something I never worried about here in AZ, but probably an issue there in CA.

RE: Horizontal ties at Change in retaining wall thickness

ps - if the grout the 12" CMU all the way to the top of the block (in error) there will be a lot of shear capacity reduction. Make sure they hold the grout down 2"

RE: Horizontal ties at Change in retaining wall thickness

(OP)
AELLC - we hold down 1.5"

Just got off the phone with the plan checker. The ties aren't in any code because he's simply referring to tying the vertical bars in place.

RE: Horizontal ties at Change in retaining wall thickness

I do a lot of things that the code does not require. Not being required does not mean that it is not needed.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

RE: Horizontal ties at Change in retaining wall thickness

As AELLC mentioned... , i am guessing this is something that cannot be calculated by a general equation but is rather something developed through testing/experience post failures. And if it is in a standard detail by a requirement it is my opinion that it is overkill but it serves a real purpose. And if it is required for LA County then it is required and the owner has to foot the cost of installing it.

RE: Horizontal ties at Change in retaining wall thickness

Now if the plans checker is saying they aren't required by Code, the are just holding the bars in place, that is easier done with prefab wire bar holders put in the joint of the bottom of that 12" CMU top course. I would at least put in #3 Z-bars anyways for the reasoning expressed by Mike.

RE: Horizontal ties at Change in retaining wall thickness

(OP)
That's what the plan checker said. I'm planning on showing the ties and referring to our specs that call for securely tying vert steel in place.

RE: Horizontal ties at Change in retaining wall thickness

If the plans checker wants the rebar positioners near the top of the 12" wall, why doesn't he need them near the bottom?

RE: Horizontal ties at Change in retaining wall thickness

(OP)
My guess: there's no "change in wall thickness"

Our note specifies top and bottom of wall and at 8' on center.

RE: Horizontal ties at Change in retaining wall thickness

Long time reader, first time poster.

This retaining wall detail with an "offset splice" between the flexural reinforcing bars is problematic. My company has had a bad experience (partial collapse) in a very similar situation with a cast-in-place concrete retaining wall with stepped changes in thickness on the non-exposed face (the flexural tension face of the wall). If this wall were concrete, ACI 318 requires that non-contact lap splices be not spaced transversely farther apart that the smaller of one-fifth the required lap splice length and 6 inches. The offset is permitted to be transverse only (i.e. in the plane of the wall) since splitting will be resisted by the plane of the wall itself. Offset splices in the "out-of-plane" direction are not specifically addressed by the code. In this detail, there is a compression strut that develops between the bars, unfortunately, there is no "tie" to complete a strut-and-tie system and thus the detail is prone to splitting failure before the bars can be developed. Draw a free-body diagram with the flexural tension on each of the bars and you can see that the eccentricity between the flexural tension bars is unresolved unless confining ties are present.

See the attached article on tests that were performed by the Washington State DOT on offset splices at bridge column shaft to caisson interfaces. Their conclusion is that splitting occurs prior to yielding of the bars unless the splice is confined with ties.

As it is uncommon to have confinement ties in wall construction and I believe that this detail should be avoided.

RE: Horizontal ties at Change in retaining wall thickness

Good post ESse. Please come back, as we need more contributions like yours. The inherent defect of this detail is probably not apparent to many of us, and in concrete walls, it probably exists infrequently. It could be a lot more prevalent in CMU walls. The lack of anecdotal evidence of failures of this detail may be due to conservative assessment of soil pressures or some other factors.

RE: Horizontal ties at Change in retaining wall thickness

(OP)
Update and new question:

RE: Horizontal ties at Change in retaining wall thickness

(OP)
There's no way to edit posts here?

Anyway, the update is that the plan checker was apparently not asking for vertical bar ties. Instead, he wants the top horizontal bars (wherever we use two layers of reinforcement) tied together with seismic hooks each side.

RE: Horizontal ties at Change in retaining wall thickness

Again, I agree with the plan checker as the horizontal bars will be resisting the breakout force from the stem wall steel.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

RE: Horizontal ties at Change in retaining wall thickness

(OP)
I believe this was posted earlier but how is the top of the 12" section a problem but the bottom of the 8" section fine?

RE: Horizontal ties at Change in retaining wall thickness

If you look at the new masonry code you will find that they have provisions for the confining properties of longitudinal bars. If there is a serious concern over the CMU splitting through it's width and the bars losing their bond, you might look at the provisions for sizing and locating those longitudinal bars.

I don't have the code in front of me, but I think using the longitudinal bars for confinement can cut your splice/embedment length by up to half. It also changes the nature of the failure, making it less sudden and brittle. All music to the code official's ears.

Is the upper bar offset on purpose or does it just look that way in the sketch? If it's too close to the face shell you might not be able to develop the bar properly. Maybe the bar's location and propensity to be misaligned in the field is a concern to the plan reviewer.

RE: Horizontal ties at Change in retaining wall thickness

(OP)
I believe the 8" stem needed offset bars for moment capacity but yeah my mspaint sketch is probably exaggerated. Can you do me a favor and give me a reference for that (even though topic is now on tying the horizontal bars)? I'd appreciate it.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources