Retaining Walls and

Chapter 730 Steep Reinforced Slopes

730.01 General
730.02 References
730.03 Design Principles
730.04 Design Requirements
730.05 Guidelines for Wall/Slope Selection
730.06 Design Responsibility and Process
730.07 Documentation

730.01  General
The function of a retaining wall is to form a nearly vertical face through confinement
and/or strengthening of a mass of earth or other bulk material. Likewise, the function
of a reinforced slope is to strengthen the mass of earth or other bulk material
such that a steep (up to 1H:2V) slope can be formed. In both cases, the purpose
of constructing such structures is to make maximum use of limited right of way.
The difference between the two is that a wall uses a structural facing, whereas a steep
reinforced slope does not require a structural facing. Reinforced slopes typically use
a permanent erosion control matting with low vegetation as a slope cover to prevent
erosion. (See the Roadside Manual for more information.)
To lay out and design a retaining wall or reinforced slope, consider the
following items:
• Functional classification
• Highway geometry
• Design Clear Zone requirements (see Chapter 1600)
• Amount of excavation required
• Traffic characteristics
• Constructibility
• Impact to adjacent environmentally sensitive areas
• Impact to adjacent structures
• Potential added lanes
• Length and height of wall
• Material to be retained
• Foundation support and potential for differential settlement
• Groundwater
• Earthquake loads
• Right of way costs
• Need for construction easements
• Risk
• Overall cost
• Visual appearance
If the wall or toe of a reinforced slope is to be located adjacent to the right of way
line, consider the space needed in front of the wall/slope to construct it.

WSDOT Design Manual  M 22-01.05 Page 730-1

June 2009
Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes Chapter 730

(1)  Retaining Wall Classifications

Retaining walls are generally classified as gravity, semigravity, nongravity cantilever,
or anchored. The various wall types and their classifications are summarized in
Exhibits 730-1 through 730-6.
(a) Gravity Walls
Gravity walls derive their capacity to resist lateral soil loads through
a combination of dead weight and sliding resistance. Gravity walls can be
further subdivided into rigid gravity walls, prefabricated modular gravity walls,
and mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) gravity walls.
Rigid gravity walls consist of a solid mass of concrete or mortared rubble,
and they use the weight of the wall itself to resist lateral loads.
Prefabricated modular gravity walls consist of interlocking soil or rock-filled
concrete, steel, or wire modules or bins (such as gabions). The combined weight
resists the lateral loads from the soil.
MSE gravity walls use strips, bars, or mats of steel or polymeric reinforcement
to reinforce the soil and create a reinforced soil block behind the face. The
reinforced soil block then acts as a unit and resists the lateral soil loads through
the dead weight of the reinforced mass. MSE walls may be constructed as fill
walls, with fill and reinforcement placed in alternate layers to create a reinforced
mass, or reinforcement may be drilled into an existing soil/rock mass using
grouted anchor technology to create a reinforced soil mass (soil nail walls).
(b) Semigravity Walls
Semigravity walls rely more on structural resistance through cantilevering action
of the wall stem. Generally, the backfill for a semigravity wall rests on part of the
wall footing. The backfill, in combination with the weight of the wall and footing,
provides the dead weight for resistance. An example of a semigravity wall is the
reinforced concrete wall provided in the Standard Plans.
(c) Nongravity Cantilever Walls
Nongravity cantilever walls rely strictly on the structural resistance of the wall
in which vertical elements of the wall are partially embedded in the soil or rock
to provide fixity. These vertical elements may consist of piles (such as soldier
piles or sheet piles), caissons, or drilled shafts. The vertical elements may form
the entire wall face or they may be spanned structurally using timber lagging
or other materials to form the wall face.
(d) Anchored Walls
Anchored walls derive their lateral capacity through anchors embedded in stable
soil or rock below or behind all potential soil/rock failure surfaces. Anchored
walls are similar to nongravity cantilevered walls except that anchors embedded
in the soil/rock are attached to the wall facing structure to provide lateral
resistance. Anchors typically consist of deadman or grouted soil/rock anchors.
Reinforced slopes are similar to MSE walls in that they also use fill and
reinforcement placed in alternate layers to create a reinforced soil mass.
However, the face is typically built at a 1.2H:1V to 1H:2V slope.

Page 730-2 WSDOT Design Manual  M 22-01.05

June 2009
Chapter 730 Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes

Rockeries (rock walls) behave to some extent like gravity walls. However,
the primary function of a rockery is to prevent erosion of an oversteepened
but technically stable slope. Rockeries consist of large, well-fitted rocks stacked
on top of one another to form a wall.
An example of a rockery and reinforced slope is provided in Exhibit 730-10.

730.02  References
(1)  Federal/State Laws and Codes
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296-155, Safety standards for
construction work

(2)  Design Guidance

Bridge Design Manual, M 23-50, WSDOT
Standard Plans for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (Standard Plans),
M 21-01, WSDOT
Plans Preparation Manual, M 22-31, WSDOT
Roadside Manual, M 25-39, WSDOT

730.03  Design Principles

The design of a retaining wall or reinforced slope consists of the following
principal activities:
• Develop wall/slope geometry
• Provide adequate subsurface investigation
• Evaluate loads and pressures that will act on the structure
• Design the structure to withstand the loads and pressures
• Design the structure to meet aesthetic requirements
• Ensure wall/slope constructibility
• Coordinate with other design elements
The structure and adjacent soil mass also needs to be stable as a system,
and the anticipated wall settlement needs to be within acceptable limits.

730.04  Design Requirements

(1)  Wall/Slope Geometry
Wall/slope geometry is developed considering the following:
• Geometry of the transportation facility itself
• Design Clear Zone requirements (see Chapter 1600)
• Flare rate and approach slope when inside the Design Clear Zone
(see Chapter 1610)
• Right of way constraints
• Existing ground contours
• Existing and future utility locations
• Impact to adjacent structures
• Impact to environmentally sensitive areas

WSDOT Design Manual  M 22-01.05 Page 730-3

June 2009
Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes Chapter 730

For wall/slope geometry, also consider the foundation embedment and type
anticipated, which requires coordination between the various design groups involved.
Retaining walls are designed to limit the potential for snagging vehicles by removing
protruding objects (such as bridge columns, light fixtures, or sign supports).
Provide a traffic barrier shape at the base of a new retaining wall constructed 12 feet
or less from the edge of the nearest traffic lane. The traffic barrier shape is optional at
the base of the new portion when an existing vertical-faced wall is being extended (or
the existing wall may be retrofitted for continuity). Depending on the application,
precast or cast-in-place Single Slope Concrete Barrier with vertical back or Type 4
Concrete Barrier may be used for both new and existing walls except when the
barrier face can be cast as an integral part of a new wall. Deviations may be
considered, but they require approval as prescribed in Chapter 300. For deviations
from the above, deviation approval is not required where sidewalk exists in front of
the wall or in other situations where the wall face is otherwise inaccessible to traffic.

(2) Investigation of Soils

All retaining wall and reinforced slope structures require an investigation of the
underlying soil/rock that supports the structure. Chapter 610 provides guidance on
how to complete this investigation. A soil investigation is an integral part of the
design of any retaining wall or reinforced slope. The stability of the underlying soils,
their potential to settle under the imposed loads, the usability of any existing
excavated soils for wall/reinforced slope backfill, and the location of the groundwater
table are determined through the geotechnical investigation.

(3) Geotechnical and Structural Design

The structural elements of the wall or slope and the soil below, behind, and/or within
the structure are designed together as a system. The wall/slope system is designed
for overall external stability as well as internal stability. Overall external stability
includes stability of the slope the wall/reinforced slope is a part of and the local
external stability (overturning, sliding, and bearing capacity). Internal stability
includes resistance of the structural members to load and, in the case of MSE
walls and reinforced slopes, pullout capacity of the structural members or soil
reinforcement from the soil.
(a) Scour
At any location where a retaining wall or reinforced slope can be in contact
with water (such as a culvert outfall, ditch, wetland, lake, river, or floodplain),
there is a risk of scour at the toe. This risk must be analyzed. Contact the HQ
Geotechnical Services Division and HQ Hydraulics Office to determine whether a
scour analysis is required.

(4) Drainage Design

One of the principal causes of retaining wall/slope failure is the additional hydrostatic
load imposed by an increase in the water content in the material behind the wall or
slope. This condition results in a substantial increase in the lateral loads behind the
wall/slope since the material undergoes a possible increase in unit weight, water
pressure is exerted on the back of the wall, and the soil shear strength undergoes a
possible reduction. To alleviate this, adequate drainage for the retaining wall/slope

Page 730-4 WSDOT Design Manual M 22-01.06

December 2009
Chapter 730 Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes

needs to be considered in the design stage and reviewed by the region Materials
Engineer during construction. The drainage features shown in the Standard Plans are
the minimum basic requirements. Underdrains behind the wall/slope need to daylight
at some point in order to adequately perform their drainage function. Provide positive
drainage at periodic intervals to prevent entrapment of water.
Native soil may be used for retaining wall and reinforced slope backfill if it meets the
requirements for the particular wall/slope system. In general, use backfill that is free-
draining and granular in nature. Exceptions to this can be made depending on the site
conditions as determined by the Geotechnical Services Division of the Headquarters
(HQ) Materials Laboratory.
A typical drainage detail for a gravity wall (in particular, an MSE wall) is shown in
Exhibit 730-11. Include drainage details with a wall unless otherwise recommended
to be deleted by the Region Materials Engineer or HQ Geotechnical Services Division.

(5) Aesthetics
Retaining walls and slopes can have a pleasing appearance that is compatible with the
surrounding terrain and other structures in the vicinity. To the extent possible within
functional requirements and cost-effectiveness criteria, this aesthetic goal is to be met
for all visible retaining walls and reinforced slopes.
Aesthetic requirements include consideration of the wall face material, top profile,
terminals, and surface finish (texture, color, and pattern). Where appropriate, provide
planting areas and irrigation conduits. These will visually soften walls and blend
them with adjacent areas. Avoid short sections of retaining wall or steep slope where
possible.
In higher walls, variations in slope treatment are recommended for a pleasing
appearance. High continuous walls are generally not desirable from an aesthetic
standpoint, because they can be quite imposing. Consider stepping high or long
retaining walls in areas of high visibility. Plantings may be considered between
wall steps.
Approval by the State Bridge and Structures Architect is required on all retaining
wall aesthetics, including finishes, materials, and configuration (see Chapter 950).

(6) Constructibility
Consider the potential effect that site constraints might have on the constructibility
of the specific wall/slope. Constraints to be considered include but are not limited to
site geometry, access, time required to construct the wall, environmental issues, and
impact on traffic flow and other construction activities.

(7) Coordination With Other Design Elements

(a) Other Design Elements
Retaining wall and slope designs are to be coordinated with other elements of
the project that might interfere with or impact the design or construction of the
wall/slope. Also consider drainage features; utilities; luminaire or sign structures;
adjacent retaining walls or bridges; concrete traffic barriers; and beam guardrails.
Locate these design elements in a manner that will minimize the impacts to the
wall elements. In general, locate obstructions within the wall backfill (such as

WSDOT Design Manual M 22-01.06 Page 730-5

December 2009
Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes Chapter 730

guardrail posts, drainage features, and minor structure foundations) a minimum

of 3 feet from the back of the wall facing units.
Greater offset distances may be required depending on the size and nature of
the interfering design element. If possible, locate these elements to miss
reinforcement layers or other portions of the wall system. Conceptual details
for accommodating concrete traffic barriers and beam guardrails are provided
in Exhibit 730-12.
Where impact to the wall elements is unavoidable, the wall system needs to
be designed to accommodate these impacts. For example, it may be necessary
to place drainage structures or guardrail posts in the reinforced backfill zone of
MSE walls. This may require that holes be cut in the upper soil reinforcement
layers or that discrete reinforcement strips be splayed around the obstruction.
This causes additional load to be carried in the adjacent reinforcement layers due
to the missing soil reinforcement or the distortion in the reinforcement layers.
The need for these other design elements and their impacts on the proposed wall
systems are to be clearly indicated in the submitted wall site data so the walls
can be properly designed. Contact the HQ Bridge and Structures Office (or the
Geotechnical Services Division for geosynthetic walls/slopes and soil nail walls)
for assistance regarding this issue.
(b) Fall Protection
Department of Labor and Industries regulations require that, when employees
are exposed to the possibility of falling from a location 10 feet or more above
the roadway (or other lower area), the employer is to ensure fall restraint or fall
arrest systems are provided, installed, and implemented.
Design fall protection in accordance with WAC 296-155-24510 for walls that
create a potential for a fall of 10 feet or more. During construction or other
temporary or emergency condition, fall protection will follow WAC 296-155-
505. Any need for maintenance of the wall’s surface or the area at the top can
expose employees to a possible fall. If the area at the top will be open to the
public, see Chapters 560, Fencing, and 1510, Pedestrian Design Considerations.
For maintenance of a tall wall’s surface, consider harness tie-offs if other
protective means are not provided.
For maintenance of the area at the top of a tall wall, a fall restraint system
is required when all of the following conditions will exist:
• The wall is on a cut slope.
• A possible fall will be of 10 feet or more.
• Periodic maintenance will be performed on the area at the top.
• The area at the top is not open to the public.
Recommended fall restraint systems are:
• Wire rope railing with top and intermediate rails of ½-inch-diameter
steel wire rope.
• Brown vinyl-coated chain link fencing.
• Steel pipe railing with 1½-inch nominal outside diameter pipe as posts
and top and intermediate rails.
• Concrete as an extension of the height of the retaining wall.

Page 730-6 WSDOT Design Manual M 22-01.06

December 2009
Chapter 730 Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes

A fall restraint system is to be 42 inches high, plus or minus 3 inches, measured

from the top of the finished grade, and capable of withstanding a 200 lb force
from any direction, at the top, with minimal deflection. An intermediate cable
or rail shall be halfway between the top rail and the platform. A toe board with
a minimum height of 9 inches will be provided. Post spacing is no more than
8 feet on centers. (See the Construction Manual and WAC 296-155 for fall
arrest and protection information.)
The designer is to contact maintenance personnel regarding fall protection and
debris removal considerations.
Contact the HQ Bridge and Structures Office for design details for any retrofit
to an existing retaining wall and for any attachments to a new retaining wall.

730.05 Guidelines for Wall/Slope Selection

Wall/slope selection is dependent on:
• Whether the wall/slope will be located primarily in a cut or fill (how much
excavation/shoring will be required to construct the wall or slope).
• If located in a cut, the type of soil/rock present.
• The need for space between the right of way line and the wall/slope or easement.
• The amount of settlement expected.
• The potential for deep failure surfaces to be present.
• The structural capacity of the wall/slope in terms of maximum allowable height.
• The nature of the wall/slope application.
• Whether or not structures or utilities will be located on or above the wall.
• Architectural requirements.
• Overall economy.

(1) Cut and Fill Considerations

Due to the construction technique and base width required, some wall types are
best suited for cut situations, whereas others are best suited for fill situations. For
example, anchored walls and soil nail walls have soil reinforcements drilled into
the in-situ soil/rock and are therefore generally used in cut situations. Nongravity
cantilevered walls are drilled or cut into the in-situ soil/rock, have narrow base
widths, and are also well suited to cut situations. Both types of walls are constructed
from the top down. Such walls are also used as temporary shoring to allow other
types of walls or other structures to be constructed where considerable excavation
will otherwise be required.
MSE walls and reinforced slopes, however, are constructed by placing soil
reinforcement between layers of fill from the bottom up and are therefore best suited
to fill situations. Furthermore, the base width of MSE walls is typically on the order
of 70% of the wall height, which requires considerable excavation in a cut situation.
Therefore, in a cut situation, base width requirements usually make MSE structures
uneconomical and possibly unconstructible.
Semigravity (cantilever) walls, rigid gravity walls, and prefabricated modular gravity
walls are free-standing structural systems built from the bottom up, but they do not rely
on soil reinforcement techniques (placement of fill layers with soil reinforcement) to
provide stability.

WSDOT Design Manual M 22-01.06 Page 730-7

December 2009
Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes Chapter 730

These types of walls generally have a narrower base width than MSE structures (on
the order of 50% of the wall height). Both of these factors make these types of walls
feasible in fill situations as well as many cut situations.
Reinforced slopes generally require more room overall to construct than a wall
because of the sloping face, but they typically are a feasible alternative to a
combination wall and fill slope to add a new lane. Reinforced slopes can also
be adapted to the existing ground contours to minimize excavation requirements
where fill is placed on an existing slope. Reinforced slopes might also be a feasible
choice to repair slopes damaged by landslide activity or deep erosion.
Rockeries are best suited to cut situations as they require only a narrow base width,
on the order of 30% of the rockery height. Rockeries can be used in fill situations,
but the fill heights they support need to be kept relatively low. It is difficult to get the
cohesive strength needed in granular fill soils to provide minimal stability of the soil
behind the rockery at the steep slope typically used for rockeries in a cut (such as
1H:6V or 1H:4V).
The key considerations in deciding which walls or slopes are feasible are the amount
of excavation or shoring required and the overall height. The site geometric constraints
are defined to determine these elements. Another consideration is whether or not an
easement will be required. For example, a temporary easement might be required for a
wall in a fill situation to allow the contractor to work in front of the wall. For walls in
cut situations, especially anchored walls and soil nail walls, a permanent easement may
be required for the anchors or nails.

(2) Settlement and Deep Foundation Support Considerations

Settlement issues, especially differential settlement, are of primary concern in the
selection of walls. Some wall types are inherently flexible and can tolerate a great
deal of settlement without suffering structurally. Other wall types are inherently
rigid and cannot tolerate much settlement. In general, MSE walls have the greatest
flexibility and tolerance to settlement, followed by prefabricated modular gravity
walls. Reinforced slopes are also inherently very flexible. For MSE walls, the facing
type used can affect the ability of the wall to tolerate settlement. Welded wire and
geosynthetic wall facings are the most flexible and the most tolerant to settlement,
whereas concrete facings are less tolerant to settlement. In some cases, after the wall
settlement is complete, concrete facing can be placed such that the concrete facing
does not limit the wall’s tolerance to settlement. Facing may also be added for
aesthetic reasons.
Semigravity (cantilever) walls and rigid gravity walls have the least tolerance to
settlement. In general, total settlement for these types of walls needs to be limited
to approximately 1 inch or less. Rockeries also cannot tolerate much settlement, as
rocks can shift and fall out. Therefore, semigravity cantilever walls, rigid gravity
walls, and rockeries are not used in settlement prone areas.
If very weak soils are present that will not support the wall and are too deep to be
overexcavated, or if a deep failure surface is present that results in inadequate slope
stability, select a wall type capable of using deep foundation support and/or anchors.
In general, MSE walls, prefabricated modular gravity walls, and some rigid gravity
walls are not appropriate for these situations. Walls that can be pile-supported, such
as concrete semigravity cantilever walls, nongravity cantilever walls, and anchored
walls, are more appropriate for these situations.

Page 730-8 WSDOT Design Manual M 22-01.06

December 2009
Chapter 730 Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes

(3)  Feasible Wall Heights and Limitations

Feasible wall heights are affected by issues such as the capacity of the wall structural
elements, past experience with a particular wall, current practice, seismic risk, long-
term durability, and aesthetics.
For height limitations, see Exhibits 730-1 through 730-6.

(4)  Supporting Structures or Utilities

Not all walls are acceptable to support other structures or utilities. Issues that are
to be considered include the potential for the wall to deform due to the structure
foundation load, interference between the structure foundation and the wall
components, and the potential long-term durability of the wall system. Using
retaining walls to support other structures is considered to be a critical application,
requiring a special design. In general, soil nail walls, semigravity cantilever walls,
nongravity cantilever walls, and anchored walls are appropriate for use in supporting
bridge and building structure foundations. In addition to these walls, MSE and
prefabricated modular gravity walls may be used to support other retaining walls,
noise walls, and minor structure foundations such as those for sign bridges and
signals. On a project-specific basis, MSE walls can be used to support bridge and
building foundations as approved by the HQ Bridge and Structures Office.
Consider the location of any utilities behind the wall or reinforced slope when
making wall/slope selections. This is mainly an issue for walls that use some type
of soil reinforcement and for reinforced slopes. It is best not to place utilities within
a reinforced soil backfill zone because it will be impossible to access the utility from
the ground surface without cutting through the soil reinforcement layers, thereby
compromising the integrity of the wall.
Sometimes utilities, culverts, pipe arches, and so on must penetrate the face of a wall.
Not all walls and facings are compatible with such penetrations. Consider how
the facing can be formed around the penetration so that backfill soil cannot pipe
or erode through the face. Contact the HQ Bridge and Structures Office for assistance
regarding this issue.

(5)  Facing Options

Facing selection depends on the aesthetic and structural needs of the wall system.
Wall settlement may also affect the feasibility of the facing options. More than
one wall facing may be available for a given system. Consider the available facing
options when selecting a particular wall.
(a) MSE Walls
For MSE walls, facing options typically include:
• Precast modular panels.
• In some cases, full height precast concrete panels. Full height panels are
generally limited to walls with a maximum height of 20 feet placed in areas
where minimal settlement is expected.
• Welded wire facing.
• Timber facing.
• Shotcrete facing with treatment options that vary from a simple broom finish
to a textured and colored finish.

WSDOT Design Manual  M 22-01.05 Page 730-9

June 2009
Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes Chapter 730

• Segmental masonry concrete blocks.

• Cast-in-place concrete facing with various texturing options.
Plantings on welded wire facings can be attempted in certain cases. The difficulty
is in providing a soil at the wall face that is suitable for growing plants and meets
engineering requirements in terms of soil compressibility, strength, and drainage.
If plantings in the wall face are attempted, use only small plants, vines, and
grasses. Small bushes may be considered for plantings between wall steps. Larger
bushes or trees are not considered in these cases due to the loads they can create
on the wall face.
Geosynthetic facings are not acceptable for permanent facings due to potential
facing degradation when exposed to sunlight. For permanent applications, use
some type of timber, welded wire, or concrete face for geosynthetic walls.
Shotcrete, masonry concrete blocks, cast-in-place concrete, welded wire,
or timber are typically used for geosynthetic wall facings.
(b) Soil Nail Walls
Soil nail walls can use either architecturally treated shotcrete or a cast-in-place
facia wall textured as needed to produce the desired appearance.
(c) Prefabricated Modular Gravity Walls
For prefabricated modular gravity walls, the facing generally consists of the
structural bin or crib elements used to construct the walls. For some walls, the
elements can be rearranged to form areas for plantings. In some cases, textured
structural elements might also be feasible. This is also true of rigid gravity walls,
though planting areas on the face of rigid gravity walls are generally not feasible.
The concrete facing for semigravity cantilever walls can be textured as needed
to produce the desired appearance.
(d) Nongravity Cantilevered Walls
For nongravity cantilevered walls and anchored walls, a textured cast-in-place
or precast facia wall is usually installed to produce the desired appearance.

(6)  Cost Considerations

Usually, more than one wall type is feasible for a given situation. Consider initial and
future maintenance costs throughout the selection process, as the decisions made may
affect the overall cost. For example, you may have to decide whether to shut down
a lane of traffic to install a low-cost gravity wall system that requires more excavation
room or use a more expensive anchored wall system that will minimize excavation
requirements and impacts to traffic. In this case, determine whether the cost of traffic
impacts and more excavation justifies the cost of the more expensive anchored wall
system. Consider long-term maintenance costs when determining wall type.
Decisions regarding aesthetics can also affect the overall cost of the wall system.
In general, the least expensive aesthetic options use the structural members of the
wall as facing (welded wire or concrete or steel cribbing or bins), whereas the most
expensive aesthetic options use textured cast-in-place concrete facias. In general,
concrete facings increase in cost in the following order: shotcrete, segmental masonry
concrete blocks, precast concrete facing panels, full height precast concrete facing
panels, and cast-in-place concrete facing panels. Special architectural treatments

Page 730-10 WSDOT Design Manual  M 22-01.05

June 2009
Chapter 730 Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes

usually increase the cost of any of these facing systems. Special wall terracing
to provide locations for plants will also tend to increase costs. Therefore, weigh the
costs against the value of the desired aesthetics.
Other factors that affect the costs of wall/slope systems include wall/slope size and
length; access at the site and distance to the material supplier location; overall size
of the project; and competition between wall suppliers. In general, costs tend to be
higher for walls or slopes that are high, but short in length, due to lack of room for
equipment to work. Sites that are remote or have difficult local access increase wall/
slope costs. Small wall/slope quantities result in high unit costs. Lack of competition
between materials or wall system suppliers can result in higher costs as well.
Some of the factors that increase costs are required parts of a project and are
therefore unavoidable. Always consider such factors when estimating costs because
a requirement may not affect all wall types in the same way. Current cost information
can be obtained by consulting the Bridge Design Manual or by contacting the
HQ Bridge and Structures Office.

(7)  Summary
For wall/slope selection, consider factors such as the intended application; the soil/
rock conditions in terms of settlement, need for deep foundations, constructibility,
and impacts to traffic; and the overall geometry in terms of wall/slope height and
length, location of adjacent structures and utilities, aesthetics, and cost. Exhibits
730-1 through 730-6 provide a summary of many of the various wall/slope options
available, including their advantages, disadvantages, and limitations. Note that
specific wall types in the exhibits may represent multiple wall systems, some or all
of which will be proprietary.

730.06  Design Responsibility and Process

(1)  General
The retaining walls available for a given project include standard walls, nonstandard
walls, and reinforced slopes.
Standard walls are those walls for which standard designs are provided in the
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Plans. These
designs are provided for reinforced concrete cantilever walls up to 35 feet in height.
The internal stability design and the external stability design for overturning and
sliding stability have already been completed for these standard walls. Determine
overall slope stability and allowable soil bearing capacity (including settlement
considerations) for each standard-design wall location.
Nonstandard walls may be either proprietary (patented or trademarked) or
nonproprietary. Proprietary walls are designed by a wall manufacturer for internal
and external stability, except bearing capacity, settlement, and overall slope stability,
which are determined by WSDOT. Nonstandard nonproprietary walls are fully
designed by WSDOT.
The geosynthetic soil reinforcement used in nonstandard nonproprietary geosynthetic
walls is considered to be proprietary. It is likely that more than one manufacturer can
supply proprietary materials for a nonstandard nonproprietary geosynthetic wall.
Reinforced slopes are similar to nonstandard nonproprietary walls in terms of their
design process.

WSDOT Design Manual  M 22-01.05 Page 730-11

June 2009
Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes Chapter 730

(a) Preapproved Proprietary Walls

Some proprietary wall systems are preapproved. Preapproved proprietary wall
systems have been extensively reviewed by the HQ Bridge and Structures Office
and the Geotechnical Services Division. Design procedures and wall details for
preapproved walls have already been agreed upon between WSDOT and the
proprietary wall manufacturers, allowing the manufacturers to competitively
bid a particular project without having a detailed wall design provided in the
contract plans.
Note that proprietary wall manufacturers might produce several retaining wall
options, and not all options from a given manufacturer have necessarily been
preapproved. For example, proprietary wall manufacturers often offer more
than one facing alternative. It is possible that some facing alternatives are
preapproved, whereas others are not preapproved. WSDOT does not preapprove
the manufacturer, but specific wall systems by a given manufacturer can
be preapproved.
It is imperative with preapproved systems that the design requirements for
all preapproved wall alternatives for a given project be clearly stated so that
the wall manufacturer can adapt the preapproved system to specific project
conditions. For a given project, coordination of the design of all wall alternatives
with all project elements that impact the wall is critical to avoid costly change
orders or delays during construction. These elements include drainage features,
utilities, luminaires and sign structures, noise walls, traffic barriers, guardrails,
or other walls or bridges.
In general, standard walls are the easiest walls to incorporate into project Plans,
Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E), but they may not be the most cost-
effective option. Preapproved proprietary walls provide more options in terms
of cost-effectiveness and aesthetics and are also relatively easy to incorporate
into a PS&E. Nonstandard state-designed walls and nonpreapproved proprietary
walls generally take more time and effort to incorporate into a PS&E because
a complete wall design needs to be developed. Some nonstandard walls (such
as state-designed geosynthetic walls) can be designed relatively quickly, require
minimal plan preparation effort, and only involve the region and the Geotechnical
Services Division. Other nonstandard walls such as soil nail and anchored wall
systems require complex designs, involve both the HQ Bridge and Structures
Office and the Geotechnical Services Division, and require a significant number
of plan sheets and considerable design effort.
The HQ Bridge and Structures Office maintains a list of the proprietary retaining
walls that are preapproved. The region consults the HQ Bridge and Structures
Office for the latest list. The region consults the Geotechnical Services Division
for the latest geosynthetic reinforcement list to determine which geosynthetic
products are acceptable if a critical geosynthetic wall or reinforced slope
application is anticipated.
(b) Experimental Wall Systems
Some proprietary retaining wall systems are classified as experimental by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The HQ Bridge and Structures Office
maintains a list of walls that are classified as experimental. If the wall intended

Page 730-12 WSDOT Design Manual  M 22-01.05

June 2009
Chapter 730 Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes

for use is classified as experimental, a work plan is to be prepared by WSDOT

and approved by the FHWA.
An approved public interest finding, signed by the State Design Engineer,
is required for the use of a sole source proprietary wall.
(c) Gabion Walls
Gabion walls are nonstandard walls that are to be designed for overturning,
sliding, overall slope stability, settlement, and bearing capacity. A full design for
gabion walls is not provided in the Standard Plans. Gabion baskets are typically
3 feet high by 3 feet wide, and it is typically safe to build gabions two baskets
high (6 feet) but only one basket deep. This results in a wall base width of 50%
of the wall height, provided soil conditions are reasonably good (medium-dense
to dense granular soils are present below and behind the wall).

(2)  Responsibility and Process for Design

A flow chart illustrating the process and responsibility for retaining wall/reinforced
slope design is provided in Exhibit 730-13a. As shown in the exhibit, the region
initiates the process except for walls developed as part of a preliminary bridge plan.
These are initiated by the HQ Bridge and Structures Office. In general, it is the
responsibility of the design office initiating the design process to coordinate with
other groups in the department to identify all wall/slope systems that are appropriate
for the project in question. Coordinate with the region and the HQ Bridge and
Structures Office, Geotechnical Services Division, and State Bridge and Structures
Architect as early in the process as feasible.
Headquarters or region consultants, if used, are considered an extension of the
Headquarters staff and must follow the process summarized in Exhibit 730-13a.
All consultant designs, from development of the scope of work to the final product,
are to be reviewed and approved by the appropriate Headquarters offices.
(a) Standard Walls
The regions are responsible for detailing retaining walls for which standard
designs are available.
For standard walls greater than 10 feet in height, and for all standard walls
where soft or unstable soil is present beneath or behind the wall, a geotechnical
investigation will be conducted, or reviewed and approved, by the Geotechnical
Services Division. Through this investigation, provide the foundation design,
including bearing capacity requirements and settlement determination, overall
stability, and the selection of the wall types most feasible for the site.
For standard walls 10 feet in height or less where soft or unstable soils are not
present, it is the responsibility of the region Materials Laboratory to perform the
geotechnical investigation. If it has been verified that soil conditions are adequate
for the proposed standard wall that is less than or equal to 10 feet in height, the
region establishes the wall footing location based on the embedment criteria in
the Bridge Design Manual, or places the bottom of the wall footing below any
surficial loose soils. During this process, the region also evaluates other wall
types that may be feasible for the site in question.

WSDOT Design Manual  M 22-01.05 Page 730-13

June 2009
Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes Chapter 730

The Standard Plans provides design charts and details for standard reinforced
concrete cantilever walls. The Standard Plans are used to size the walls and
determine the factored bearing pressure to compare with the factored bearing
resistance determined from the geotechnical investigation. The charts provide
maximum soil pressure for the LRFD service, strength, and extreme event limit
states. Factored bearing resistance for the LRFD service, strength, and extreme
event limit states can be obtained from the Geotechnical Services Division for
standard walls over 10 feet in height and from the region Materials Laboratory
for standard walls less than or equal to 10 feet in height. The Standard Plans
can be used for the wall design if the factored bearing resistance exceeds the
maximum soil pressure shown in the Standard Plans for the respective LRFD
limit states.
Contact the HQ Bridge and Structures Office if the factored bearing resistance
provided by the geotechnical investigation does not exceed the maximum soil
pressure shown in the Standard Plans for one or all of the LRFD limit states.
The wall is considered a nonstandard wall design and the Standard Plans cannot
be used.
If the standard wall must support surcharge loads from bridge or building
foundations, other retaining walls, noise walls, or other types of surcharge
loads, a special wall design is required. The wall is considered to be supporting
the surcharge load and is treated as a nonstandard wall if the surcharge load is
located within a 1H:1V slope projected up from the bottom of the back of the
wall. Contact the HQ Bridge and Structures Office for assistance.
The Standard Plans provide eight types of reinforced concrete cantilever walls
(which represent eight loading cases). Reinforced concrete retaining walls
Types 5 through 8 are not designed to withstand western Washington earthquake
forces and are not to be used in western Washington (west of the Cascade crest).
Once the geotechnical and architectural assessments have been completed, the
region completes the PS&E for the standard wall option(s) selected, including
a generalized wall profile and plan, a typical cross section as appropriate,
and details for desired wall appurtenances, drainage details, and other details
as needed.
Metal bin walls, Types 1 and 2, have been deleted from the Standard Plans and
are therefore no longer standard walls. Metal bin walls are seldom used due
to cost and undesirable aesthetics. If this type of wall is proposed, contact the
HQ Bridge and Structures Office for plan details and toe bearing pressures. The
applied toe bearing pressure will then have to be evaluated by the Geotechnical
Services Division to determine whether the site soil conditions are appropriate for
the applied load and anticipated settlement.
(b) Preapproved Proprietary Walls
Final approval of preapproved proprietary wall design, with the exception
of geosynthetic walls, is the responsibility of the HQ Bridge and Structures
Office. Final approval of the design of preapproved proprietary geosynthetic
walls is the responsibility of the Geotechnical Services Division. It is the region’s
responsibility to coordinate the design effort for all preapproved wall systems.

Page 730-14 WSDOT Design Manual  M 22-01.05

June 2009
Chapter 730 Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes

The region Materials Laboratory performs the geotechnical investigation for

preapproved proprietary walls 10 feet in height or less that are not bearing on soft
or unstable soils. In all other cases, it is the responsibility of the Geotechnical
Services Division to conduct, or review and approve, the geotechnical
investigation for the wall. The region also coordinates with the State Bridge and
Structures Architect to ensure that the wall options selected meet the aesthetic
requirements for the site.
Once the geotechnical and architectural assessments have been completed
and the desired wall alternatives selected, it is the responsibility of the region
to contact the suppliers of the selected preapproved systems to confirm in writing
the adequacy and availability of the systems for the proposed use.
Include a minimum of three different wall systems in the PS&E for any project
with federal participation that includes a proprietary wall system unless specific
justification is provided. Standard walls can be alternatives.
Once confirmation of adequacy and availability has been received, the region
contacts the HQ Bridge and Structures Office for special provisions for the
selected wall systems and proceeds to finalize the contract PS&E in accordance
with the Plans Preparation Manual. Provide the allowable bearing capacity and
foundation embedment criteria for the wall, as well as backfill and foundation
soil properties, in the Special Provisions. In general, assume that gravel borrow
or better-quality backfill material will be used for the walls when assessing
soil parameters.
Complete wall plans and designs for the proprietary wall options will not
be developed until after the contract is awarded, but will be developed by
the proprietary wall supplier as shop drawings after the contract is awarded.
Therefore, include a general wall plan; a profile showing neat line top and bottom
of the wall; a final ground line in front of and in back of the wall; a typical
cross-section; and the generic details for the desired appurtenances and drainage
requirements in the contract PS&E for the proprietary walls. Estimate the
ground line in back of the wall based on a nominal 1.5-foot facing thickness
(and state this on the wall plan sheets). Include load or other design acceptance
requirements for these appurtenances in the PS&E. Contact the HQ Bridge and
Structures Office for assistance.
It is best to locate catch basins, grate inlets, signal foundations, and the like
outside the reinforced backfill zone of MSE walls to avoid interference with
the soil reinforcement. In those cases where conflict with these reinforcement
obstructions cannot be avoided, indicate the location(s) and dimensions of the
reinforcement obstruction(s) relative to the wall on the plans. Contact the HQ
Bridge and Structures Office for preapproved wall details and designs for size
and location of obstructions and to obtain the generic details that are to be
provided in the plans. If the obstruction is too large or too close to the wall face,
a special design may be required to accommodate the obstruction, and the wall
is treated as a nonpreapproved proprietary wall.
A special design is required if the wall will support structure foundations, other
retaining walls, noise walls, signs or sign bridges, luminaires, or other types
of surcharge loads. The wall is considered to be supporting the surcharge load if
the surcharge is located within a 1H:1V slope projected from the bottom of the

WSDOT Design Manual  M 22-01.05 Page 730-15

June 2009
Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes Chapter 730

back of the wall. For MSE walls, the back of the wall is considered to be the back
of the soil reinforcement layers. If this situation occurs, the wall is treated as
a nonpreapproved proprietary wall.
For those alternative wall systems that have the same face embedment criteria,
the wall face quantities depicted in the plans for each alternative are to be
identical. To provide an equal basis for competition, the region determines
wall face quantities based on neat lines.
Once the detailed wall plans and designs are available as shop drawings after
contract award, the HQ Bridge and Structures Office will review and approve
the wall shop drawings and calculations, with the exception of geosynthetic
walls. They are reviewed and approved by the Geotechnical Services Division.
(c) Nonpreapproved Proprietary Walls
Final approval authority for nonpreapproved proprietary wall design is the same
as for preapproved proprietary walls. The region initiates the design effort for
all nonpreapproved wall systems by submitting wall plan, profile, cross section,
and other information for the proposed wall to the HQ Bridge and Structures
Office, with copies to the Geotechnical Services Division and the State Bridge
and Structures Architect. The HQ Bridge and Structures Office coordinates the
wall design effort.
Once the geotechnical and architectural assessments have been completed and
the desired wall types selected, the HQ Bridge and Structures Office contacts
suppliers of the selected nonpreapproved wall systems to obtain and review
detailed wall designs and plans to be included in the contract PS&E.
To ensure fair competition between all wall alternatives included in the PS&E,
make the wall face quantities identical for those wall systems subject to the same
face embedment requirements.
The HQ Bridge and Structures Office develops the special provisions and
cost estimates for the nonpreapproved proprietary walls and sends the wall
PS&E to the region for inclusion in the final PS&E in accordance with the
Plans Preparation Manual.
(d) Nonstandard Nonproprietary Walls
With the exception of rockeries over 5 feet high, nonproprietary geosynthetic
walls and reinforced slopes, and soil nail walls, the HQ Bridge and Structures
Office coordinates with the Geotechnical Services Division and the State Bridge
and Structures Architect to carry out the design of all nonstandard, nonproprietary
walls. The HQ Bridge and Structures Office develops the wall preliminary plan
from site data provided by the region, completes the wall design, and develops
the nonstandard nonproprietary wall PS&E package for inclusion in the contract.
For rockeries over 5 feet high, nonproprietary geosynthetic walls and reinforced
slopes, and soil nail walls, the region develops wall/slope profiles, plans,
and cross sections and submits them to the Geotechnical Services Division
to complete a detailed wall/slope design.
For geosynthetic walls and slopes and for rockeries, the region provides overall
coordination of the wall/slope design effort, including coordination with the
State Bridge and Structures Architect regarding aesthetics and finishes, and
the region or HQ Landscape Architect if the wall uses vegetation on the face.

Page 730-16 WSDOT Design Manual  M 22-01.05

June 2009
Chapter 730 Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes

The Geotechnical Services Division has overall approval authority for the wall
design. Once the wall design has been completed, the Geotechnical Services
Division, and in some cases the HQ Bridge and Structures Office, provides
geotechnical and structural plan details to be included in the region plan
sheets and special provisions for the PS&E. The region then completes the
PS&E package.
For soil nail walls, once the Geotechnical Services Division has performed the
geotechnical design, the HQ Bridge and Structures Office, in cooperation with
the Geotechnical Services Division, coordinates the design effort and completes
the PS&E package.

(3)  Guidelines for Wall/Slope Data Submission for Design

(a) Standard Walls, Proprietary Walls, Geosynthetic Walls/Slopes, and
Soil Nail Walls
Where Headquarters involvement in retaining wall/slope design is required
(as it is for standard walls and preapproved proprietary walls over 10 feet
in height, gabions over 6 feet in height, rockeries over 5 feet in height, all
nonpreapproved proprietary walls, geosynthetic walls/slopes, and all soil nail
walls), the region submits the following information to the Geotechnical Services
Division or HQ Bridge and Structures Office as appropriate:
• Wall/slope plans.
• Profiles showing the existing and final grades in front of and behind the wall.
• Wall/slope cross sections (typically every 50 feet) or CAiCE files that define
the existing and new ground line above and below the wall/slope and show
stations and offsets.
• Location of right of way lines and other constraints to wall/slope
construction.
• Location of adjacent existing and/or proposed structures, utilities,
and obstructions.
• Desired aesthetics.
• Date design must be completed.
• Key region contacts for the project.
Note that for the purpose of defining the final wall geometry, it is best to base
existing ground measurements on physical survey data rather than solely
on photogrammetry. In addition, the region is to complete a Retaining Wall/
Reinforced Slope Site Data Check List, DOT Form 351-009 EF, for each wall
or group of walls submitted.
(b) Nonstandard Walls, Except Geosynthetic Walls/Slopes and Soil Nail Walls
In this case, the region is to submit site data in accordance with Chapter 710.
Additionally, the region is to complete a Retaining Wall/Reinforced Slope Site
Data Check List, DOT Form 351-009 EF, for each wall or group of walls.

730.07  Documentation
For the list of documents required to be preserved in the Design Documentation
Package and the Project File, see the Design Documentation Checklist:
 www.wsdot.wa.gov/design/projectdev/

WSDOT Design Manual  M 22-01.05 Page 730-17

June 2009
Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes Chapter 730

Specific
Advantages Disadvantages Limitations
Wall Type
Steel soil Relatively low cost. Can tolerate little settlement; Applicable primarily to fill
reinforcement with generally requires high- situations; maximum feasible
full height precast quality backfill; wide base height is approximately
concrete panels width required (70% of 20 feet.
wall height).
Steel soil Relatively low Generally requires high- Applicable primarily to fill
reinforcement with cost; flexible quality backfill; wide base situations; maximum height
modular precast enough to handle width required (70% of of 33 feet; heights over
concrete panels significant wall height). 33 feet require a special
settlement. design.
Steel soil Can tolerate Relatively high cost; cannot Applicable primarily to fill
reinforcement large short-term tolerate long-term settlement; situations; maximum height
with welded wire settlements. generally requires high- of 33 feet for routine designs;
and cast-in-place quality wall backfill soil; wide heights over 33 feet require
concrete face base width required (70% a special design.
of wall height); typically
requires a settlement delay
during construction.
Steel soil Can tolerate Aesthetics, unless face Applicable primarily to fill
reinforcement large short-term plantings can be established; situations; maximum height
with welded wire settlements; generally requires high- of 33 feet for routine designs;
face only low cost. quality backfill; wide base heights over 33 feet require
width required (70% of a special design.
wall height).
Segmental Low cost; flexible Internal wall deformations Applicable primarily to fill
masonry concrete enough to handle may be greater for steel situations; in general, limited
block-faced walls, significant reinforced systems, but to a wall height of 20 feet
generally with settlement. are acceptable for most or less; greater wall heights
geosynthetic soil applications; generally may be feasible by special
reinforcement requires high-quality backfill; design in areas of low
wide base required (70% of seismic activity and when
wall height). geosynthetic products are
used in which long-term
product durability is well
defined. (See Qualified
Products List.)
Geosynthetic walls Very low cost, Internal wall deformations Applicable primarily to fill
with a shotcrete especially with may be greater than for situations; in general, limited
or cast-in-place shotcrete face; steel reinforced systems, to wall height of 20 feet
concrete face can tolerate but are still acceptable for or less unless using
large short-term most applications; generally geosynthetic products in
settlements. requires high-quality backfill; which long-term product
wide base width required durability is well defined.
(70% of wall height). (See Qualified Products
List.) For qualified products,
heights of 33 feet or more
are possible.

Summary of Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Gravity

Wall/Slope Options Available
Exhibit 730-1

Page 730-18 WSDOT Design Manual  M 22-01.05

June 2009
Chapter 730 Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes

Specific
Advantages Disadvantages Limitations
Wall Type
Geosynthetic walls Very low cost; can Internal wall deformations Applicable primarily to fill
with a welded tolerate large long- may be greater than for situations; in general,
wire face term settlements. steel reinforced systems, limited to wall height
but are still acceptable for of 20 feet or less unless
most applications; generally using geosynthetic products
requires high-quality wall in which long-term product
backfill soil; wide base durability is well defined.
width required (70% of (See Qualified Products
wall height). List.) For qualified products,
heights of 33 feet or more
are possible.
Geosynthetic walls Lowest cost of all Internal wall deformations Applicable primarily to fill
with a geosynthetic wall options; can may be greater than for situations; use only for
face tolerate large long- steel reinforced systems, temporary applications due
term settlements. but are still acceptable for to durability of facing; can
most applications; generally be designed for wall heights
requires high-quality backfill; of 40 feet or more.
wide base width required
(70% of wall height);
durability of wall facing.
Soil nail walls Relatively low cost; Allow adequate standup Applicable to cut situations
can be used in time for soil/rock to stand in only; not recommended
areas with restricted a vertical cut approximately in clean or water-bearing
overhead or lateral 6 feet high for at least sands and gravels,
clearance. 1 to 2 days; not feasible for in bouldery soils that
bouldery soils; may require can interfere with nail
an easement for the nails. installation, or in landslide
deposits, especially where
deep potential failure
surfaces are present;
maximum wall heights
of 35 feet are feasible,
though greater wall heights
are possible in excellent
soil/rock conditions. A
special design is always
required.

Summary of Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Gravity

Wall/Slope Options Available
Exhibit 730-1 (continued)

WSDOT Design Manual  M 22-01.05 Page 730-19

June 2009
Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes Chapter 730

Specific
Advantages Disadvantages Limitations
Wall Type
Concrete crib walls Relatively low cost; Aesthetics. Applicable to cut and
quantity of high- fill situations; reinforced
quality backfill concrete typically can be
required relatively designed for heights of up
small; relatively to 33 feet and unreinforced
narrow base concrete up to 16 feet; not
width, on the order used to support bridge
of 50 to 60% of the or building foundations.
wall height; can
tolerate moderate
settlements.
Metal crib walls Quantity of high- Relatively high cost; Applicable to cut and fill
quality backfill aesthetics. situations; can be designed
required relatively routinely for heights
small; relatively up to 35 feet; not used
narrow base to support bridge or building
width, on the order foundations.
of 50 to 60% of the
wall height; can
tolerate moderate
settlements.
Timber crib walls Low cost; minimal Design life relatively short; Applicable to cut and fill
high-quality backfill aesthetics. situations; can be designed
required; relatively for heights up to 16 feet; not
narrow base used to support structure
width, on the order foundations.
of 50 to 60% of the
wall height; can
tolerate moderate
settlements.
Concrete bin walls Relatively low Aesthetics. Applicable to cut and fill
cost; narrow base situations; can be designed
width, on the order routinely for heights
of 50 to 60% of the up to 25 feet; not used
wall height; can to support bridge or building
tolerate moderate foundations.
settlements.
Gabion walls Relatively narrow Relatively high cost, Applicable to cut and fill
base width, depending on proximity situations; can be designed
on the order to source of high-quality routinely for heights up
of 50 to 60% of the angular rock to fill baskets. to 15 feet, and by special
wall height; can design up to 21 feet; not
tolerate moderate used to support structure
settlements. foundations.

Summary of Prefabricated Modular Gravity Wall Options Available

Exhibit 730-2

Page 730-20 WSDOT Design Manual  M 22-01.05

June 2009
Chapter 730 Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes

Specific
Advantages Disadvantages Limitations
Wall Type
Mortar rubble Quantity of high- High cost; relatively wide Applicable mainly to fill
masonry walls quality backfill base width, on the order situations where foundation
required is relatively of 60 to 70% of the wall conditions consist of very
small. height; cannot tolerate dense soil or rock; due
settlement. to expense, only used in
areas where other mortar
rubble masonry walls are
present and it is desired
to match aesthetics;
typically can be designed for
maximum heights of 25 feet.
Unreinforced Quantity of high- High cost; relatively wide Applicable mainly to fill
concrete gravity quality backfill base width, on the order situations where foundation
walls required is relatively of 60 to 70% of the wall conditions consist of very
small. height; cannot tolerate dense soil or rock; due
settlement. to expense, only used in
areas where other gravity
walls are present and it is
desired to match aesthetics;
typically can be designed for
maximum heights of 25 feet.
Reinforced concrete Relatively narrow High cost; cannot tolerate Applicable to cut and fill
cantilever walls base width on much settlement; relatively situations; can be routinely
the order of 50 deep embedment might designed for heights up
to 60% of the wall be required on sloping to 35 feet.
height; can be used ground due to toe in front
to support structure of face wall.
foundations by
special design.
Reinforced concrete Relatively narrow High cost; cannot tolerate Applicable to cut and fill
counterfort walls base width on much settlement; relatively situations; can be routinely
the order of 50 deep embedment might be designed for heights up
to 60% of the wall required on sloping ground to 50 feet; proprietary
height; can be used due to toe in front of wall versions are typically 33 feet
to support structure face. maximum.
foundations by
special design.

Summary of Rigid Gravity and Semigravity Wall Options Available

Exhibit 730-3

WSDOT Design Manual  M 22-01.05 Page 730-21

June 2009
Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes Chapter 730

Specific
Advantages Disadvantages Limitations
Wall Type
Soldier pile wall Very narrow Relatively high cost. Applicable mainly to cut
base width; deep situations; maximum
embedment to get feasible exposed height
below potential is on the order of 10 feet;
failure surfaces; difficult to install in bouldery
relatively easy soil or soil with water-
to obtain. bearing sands.
Sheet pile wall Low to moderate Difficult to get embedment Applicable mainly to cut
cost; very narrow in dense or bouldery soils; situations in soil; maximum
base width. difficult to protect against feasible exposed height is
corrosion. on the order of 10 feet.
Cylinder pile wall Relatively narrow Very high cost. Applicable mainly to cut
base width; can situations; maximum
produce stable feasible exposed height is
wall even if deep on the order of 20 to 25 feet
potential failure depending on the passive
surfaces present. resistance available; can
be installed in bouldery
conditions, though cost
will increase.
Slurry wall Relatively narrow Very high cost; difficult Applicable mainly to cut
base width; can construction. situations; maximum
produce stable feasible exposed height is
wall even if deep on the order of 20 to 25 feet,
potential failure depending on passive
surfaces present. resistance available.

Summary of Nongravity Wall Options Available

Exhibit 730-4

Page 730-22 WSDOT Design Manual  M 22-01.05

June 2009
Chapter 730 Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes

Specific
Advantages Disadvantages Limitations
Wall Type
All nongravity Relatively narrow Very high cost; difficult Applicable only to cut
cantilever walls with base width; can to install in areas where situations; can be designed
tiebacks produce stable vertical or lateral clearance for heights of 50 feet
wall even if deep is limited; easements may or more depending on the
potential failure be necessary; installation specifics of the structure
surfaces present. activities may impact of the wall.
adjacent traffic.
All nongravity Relatively narrow Moderate to high cost; Applicable to partial cut/
cantilever walls with base width; can access required behind wall fill situations; can be
deadman anchors produce stable to dig trench for deadman designed for wall heights
wall even if deep anchor; may impact traffic of approximately 16 feet.
potential failure during deadman installation;
surfaces present. easements may be
necessary.

Summary of Anchored Wall Options Available

Exhibit 730-5

Wall/Slope Specific
Advantages Disadvantages Limitations
Classification Wall Type
Rockeries Only variations Low cost; narrow Slope needs Applicable to both cut and
are in rock sizes base width on to be at least fill situations; maximum
used and overall the order of 30% marginally stable feasible height in a cut,
wall dimensions. of the wall height without rockery even for excellent soil
required. present; cannot conditions, is approx.
tolerate much 16 feet and 8 feet in fill
settlement. situations.
Reinforced Only variations Low cost; can Room required Best suited to sloping fill
slopes are in tolerate large between the right situations; maximum height
geosynthetic settlements; of way line and limited to 30 feet unless
products can adapt well the edge of the geosynthetic products are
used and in to sloping ground shoulder to install used in which long-term
erosion-control conditions a 1H:1V slope. product durability is well
techniques used to minimize defined. Certain products
on slope face. excavation can be used in critical
required; high- applications and for greater
quality fill is not slope heights on the order
a requirement. of 60 feet or more, but
consider need, landscaping
maintenance, and the reach
of available maintenance
equipment.

Other Wall/Slope Options Available

Exhibit 730-6

WSDOT Design Manual  M 22-01.05 Page 730-23

June 2009
Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes Chapter 730

Typical Mechanically Stabilized Earth Gravity Walls

Exhibit 730-7

Page 730-24 WSDOT Design Manual  M 22-01.05

June 2009
Chapter 730 Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes

Typical Prefabricated Modular Gravity Walls

Exhibit 730-8

WSDOT Design Manual  M 22-01.05 Page 730-25

June 2009
Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes Chapter 730

Typical Rigid Gravity, Semigravity Cantilever,

Nongravity Cantilever, and Anchored Walls
Exhibit 730-9

Page 730-26 WSDOT Design Manual  M 22-01.05

June 2009
Chapter 730 Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes

Typical Rockery and Reinforced Slopes

Exhibit 730-10

WSDOT Design Manual  M 22-01.05 Page 730-27

June 2009
Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes Chapter 730

MSE Wall Drainage Detail

Exhibit 730-11

Page 730-28 WSDOT Design Manual  M 22-01.05

June 2009
Chapter 730 Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes

Retaining Walls With Traffic Barriers

Exhibit 730-12

WSDOT Design Manual  M 22-01.05 Page 730-29

June 2009
Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes Chapter 730

Retaining Wall Design Process

Exhibit 730-13a

Page 730-30 WSDOT Design Manual  M 22-01.05

June 2009
Chapter 730 Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes

Proprietary

Yes

No Yes
Preapproved

>10 ft  10 ft *
Wall Ht.**
Submit wall site data
with design request to
HQ Bridge Office, with a Geotech by region Materials
Submit wall site data with
copy to the Geotech Division Lab (1.5 to 3 months)
and the State Bridge and design request to Geotech
Structures Architect Division

Region evaluates potential

Geotech Division performs alternative wall systems to be
geotech design and Geotech Division performs used and coordinates with the
recommends wall geotech design and State Bridge and Structures
alternatives Architect for the final wall
as appropriate recommends wall
alternatives as appropriate section ***
(1.5 to 3 months)
(1.5 to 3 months)

HQ Bridge Office evaluates Region contacts proprietary

potential alternative wall wall suppliers to confirm
systems to be used and interest in being included in
coordinates with the State PS&E
Bridge and Structures
Architect and the region
for final wall selection No Preapproved Yes
(0.8 to 1.5 months) *** wall selected
Region prepares wall PS&E
(generalized wall plans,
profiles, and X-sections; other
site-specific details; and
HQ Bridge Office special provisions)
contacts proprietary wall
suppliers to obtain detailed
wall design
(2 to 4 months)

HQ Bridge Office and Geotech

Division review wall shop plans
HQ Bridge Office on contract (1 month)
prepares PS&E
(0.5 to 1 month)

Notes:
“HQ Bridge Office” refers to the WSDOT HQ Bridge and Structures Office.
“Geotech Division” refers to the WSDOT Geotechnical Division at Headquarters.
“State Bridge and Structures Architect” refers to the Architecture Section, HQ Bridge and Structures Office.
Regarding time estimates:
• Assumes no major changes in the wall scope during design.
• Actual times may vary depending on complexity of project.
• Contact appropriate design offices for more accurate estimates of time.
Legend:
Region provides courtesy copy of geotechnical report to Geotechnical Services Division.
*Assumes soft or unstable soil not present and wall does not support other structures.
**The preapproved maximum wall height is generally 33 feet. Some proprietary walls might be less. (Check with the
HQ Bridge and Structures Office.)
***If the final wall selected is a different type than assumed, go back through the design process to ensure that all the
steps have been taken.

Retaining Wall Design Process: Proprietary

Exhibit 730-13b

WSDOT Design Manual M 22-01. 07 Page 730-31

July 2010
Retaining Walls and Steep Reinforced Slopes Chapter 730

Page 730-32 WSDOT Design Manual M 22-01. 05

June 2009