Retaining wall stability is governed by 1807.2.3 (IBC 2018) which is a little more onerous than just the ASD load combinations and notes the use of nominal loads.
I wish…floating license for Autodesk Robot these threads give me some nice test cases to run.
the difference boils down to the effective moment arm for the cantilever moment between the two supports.
Best case the if you provide a single tie down at the far end of the cont. wall support it will tend to act like a propped cantilever for determination of the forces on the wall studs.
As @Greenalleycat noted if they get overzealous and start fastening it for uplift resistance at ever stud the...
the tension in the slab is only part of the load path need to terminate it somewhere
if relying on slab/ground friction you need to make sure you have enough building length and also discount a portion of weight within the active soil wedge.
What do you see as the load path for your slab on grade to provide lateral restraint to the top of the wall?
In my experience that generally won't end up working out so tend to design these conditions as true retaining walls.
My interpretation is they likely removed the stress language as most of the design methodologies now are based on LRFD so I believe the intent is a 5% increase in demand in whatever form that takes shear, moment, axial, torsion. To me this also doesn't mean directly allowing a demand/capacity...
For Le my interpretation has been:
Axial
Le = Ke L from section 3.7.1.2 and for a wall stud have taken Ke as 1.0, then using the A.11.3 to justify one side sheathed as bracing the narrow face so only need Le/d
Bending
When the compression is not braced and not taking advantage of 4.4.1
Le for...
Interesting I've never personally used section 4.4.1 to take CL as 1.0 but looks like a wall stud would qualify as long as you meet 4.4.1.2 and 4.4.1.3.
This and @EngDM post address axial compression buckling, Cp, for the wind suction case placing the wall interior stud face in compression neither option would be considered bracing for the computation of the CL factor.
Sheathing on one face is sufficient for axial bracing
For LTB from the wind pressure bending you'd need sheathing on the compression face of the stud or alternately blocking developed into the diaphragm.
Research Curved Bar Nodes: https://www.concrete.org/publications/internationalconcreteabstractsportal.aspx?m=details&id=19949
For these corners you are really sending the tension around the corner vs developing the bar tension into the corner.
For rooftop equipment you also use the mean roof height to determine the pressure vs parapet you use the top of parapet.
Rooftop equipment also can be reduced from 1.9 to 1 based on comparison to 0.1Bh which I imagine a screen wall gets down to 1.5 or below fairly quickly.
The deflections for the rims feels low.
Take a look at your moment and shear diagrams to see if things may have unintended fixity. Also plot the reactions and see if there are any spots with unintended support assignments.
