Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Stability Analysis For Shallow Foundations - Eurocode 7 and The New Generation of DIN Codes
Stability Analysis For Shallow Foundations - Eurocode 7 and The New Generation of DIN Codes
Stability analysis for shallow foundations Eurocode 7 and the new generation of DIN codes
B. Schuppener
Federal Waterways Engineering and Research Institute, Karlsruhe, Germany
U. Smoltczyk
Bblingen, Germany
ABSTRACT: The relevant features of Eurocodes 0 and 7 the concept of limit states and the partial
factor method are described. In particular it is shown how the factors of safety are to be introduced
in the three approaches proposed by the new version of Eurocode 7 for the verification of ultimate
limit states. The approach adopted in the new generation of geotechnical DIN codes and the basic
principles of the new DIN 1054 are then presented. The main features are that the partial factors on the
actions of the ground and of the structure have the same value and only one single calculation is required to verify a limit state. Moreover Germany favours the approach, in which the partial factors are
neither applied to or c nor directly to the actions but to the action effects and the characteristic
values of the resistances in the last step of the verification of the ultimate limit states of geotechnical
structures. Based on a long tradition three design situations are introduced to account for different
probabilities of failure and the need for different safety levels. The procedures and results of the three
approaches specified in Eurocode 7 are compared taking the dimensioning of the width of the foundation of a cantilever stem wall as an example.
INTRODUCTION
In future, verification of ultimate limit states by calculation will be performed in accordance with the
partial factor concept throughout the entire construction sector in Europe. To put it simply, the concept
states that it must be verified that the design value Rd of the resistance is greater than the design value
Ed of the actions or the action effects:
Rd Ed
However, it turned out that the member states were unable to reach a consensus of opinion on the
implementation of this limit state equation in geotechnical design in the draft of Part 1 of Eurocode 7
(ENV 1997-1, 1994). The principal criticism expressed not only by Germany but also by other European countries concerned the intended procedure for verifying the stability of foundations by calculation. The procedure involves the use of two different stability analyses the investigation of cases B
and C. Firstly, this attracted criticism as it would have doubled the amount of effort required to verify
the stability of foundations by calculation after implementation of EC 7. Secondly, the safety philosophy on which the procedure was based was strongly criticised in Germany and other member states
(Gudehus and Weissenbach, 1996, Schuppener et al., 1998, Stocker, 1997, Weissenbach et al. 1999).
After lengthy discussions, a compromise was reached by which the new version of EC 7 would in
future not specify a single procedure only but would give member states a choice of three different
approaches to verifying the stability of foundations by calculation. Each state would then have to
specify, in a National Application Document (NAD), which of the three approaches was to be applied.
In a NAD the suggested partial safety values of EC7 will either have to be confirmed or altered if necessary according to national experience.
-1-
The revised EC 7 and the new versions of the German geotechnical codes are based on Eurocode 0
(prEN 1990, draft July 2000) which contains provisions that are applicable to all areas of building and
civil engineering and thus do not have to be specified again separately in each Eurocode. In particular,
this includes the definition of the limit states for which verification is required in building and civil
engineering and how the partial factors are to be applied in stability analyses and introduced into limit
state equations. There are two possible approaches when determining the design values of resistances
and actions of the ground:
In the Material Factor Approach the partial factors m are applied to the characteristic values of the
material properties of the structure or the ground to determine the design value of the resistance Rd of
the structure or the ground or the design value of the action of the ground Ed. Thus the following
equations are derived for resistances and actions of the ground:
Rd = R {(tan k) / m, ck / m}
Ed = E {(tank) / m, ck / m}
where:
R is a function describing the resistance of the ground - e.g. passive earth pressure, bearing capacity
or sliding resistance of a footing - determined with factored values of the characteristic shear parameters k and ck,
E is a function describing the action of the ground - e.g. active earth pressure - determined with factored values of the characteristic shear parameters k and ck,
m is the partial factor for the shear parameters of the ground taking account of the possibility of unfavourable deviations of the shear parameters from their characteristic values and uncertainties in
modelling the resistance and/or actions.
In the Resistance and Action Factor Approach the design values of the resistances Rd and actions Ed
are determined by applying the partial factors R and E to the characteristic values of the resistance Rk
and of the actions or action effects Ek of the structure or the ground:
Rd = Rk / R
Ed = Ek E
where
R is the partial factor for the resistance of the ground, taking account of the possibility of unfavourable deviations of the shear parameters from their characteristic values and uncertainties in modelling the resistance,
E is the partial factor for the actions or action effects taking account of the possibility of unfavourable
deviations of the shear parameters from their characteristic values and uncertainties in modelling
the resistance and/or actions.
The Material Factor Approach was the only approach specified in the previous version of EC 7
(ENV 1997-1 (1994)). As the Resistance and Action Factor Approach has now been introduced in
EC 0 (prEN 1990, draft July 2000) for building and civil engineering as a whole, there are no longer
any obstacles to applying it in geotechnical engineering and including it in the new version of EC7.
This now enables two other verification approaches to be included as alternatives to the methods used
hitherto in Case B and Case C (see table 1).
-2-
Table 1: Sets of partial factors for the approaches 1 to 3 to verify ultimate limit states of foundations
and retaining structures according to EC0 and EC7 1
Approach
1 Case B
Case C
2
3
of the ground
= 1.00, c = 1.00
= 1.25, c = 1.25
Ep = Gb =1.40, Sl = 1.10
=1.25, c =1.25
Apart from the basic concepts specified in EC0 and EC7, priority has been given in German geotechnical coding to the principle that the concept applied in the verification of geotechnical limit states
should be as similar as possible to that applied in the verification of structural limit states. In most
cases the same engineer will perform the geotechnical as well as the structural verifications for foun-
-3-
dations and retaining walls, so switching from one concept to another must be avoided. This meant
that
- the values of the partial factors on the actions of the ground and those of the structure should be the
same (see table 2) and
- only a single calculation based on the characteristic values of the actions and the resistances should
suffice to verify a limit state instead of the two Cases B and C proposed in the draft of EC7 published in 1994.
Moreover, Germany favoured the Resistance and Action Factor Approach in which the safety factors are neither applied to or c nor directly to the actions but to the characteristic action effects
(internal forces, bending moments, etc.) and the characteristic values of the resistances in the last step
of the verification of the ultimate limit state.
Design Situations to account for different probabilities of failure and the need for different safety
levels constitute the fourth important feature of German geotechnical coding (also see prEN 1990) in
accordance with a long tradition of design situations in geotechnical DIN codes and other geotechnical
recommendations. There are Design Situation 1 (DS1) for permanent situations, Design Situation 2
(DS2) for the stage of construction or transient structures and Design Situation 3 (DS3) for accidental
situations concerning both actions and resistances (see table 2 and 3).
Table 2: Proposed partial safety factors on action effects Ek
Actions
Symbol
DS1
DS2
DS3
G
Q
1.35
1.50
1.20
1.30
1.00
1.00
Symbol
DS1
DS2
DS3
Ep, Gb
Sl
Pc
Pt
A
, c
1.40
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.20
1.30
1.30
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.15
1.20
1.20
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.10
1.10
Experience in Germany has shown that the former global safety concept has hitherto ensured that
foundations could be designed economically and with an adequate degree of safety. It is for this reason
that the safety level used hitherto in the global safety concept has been selected as a base quantity and
the partial factors of the new partial safety concept calibrated against it. This was done by splitting
up the global factor in two partial factors R for the resistance and G,Q a mean value for permanent
and variable actions and action effects:
= R G,Q
(1)
The partial factors for the resistance of the ground R were then determined by means of equation
(1), inserting the value of the old global safety concept and the prescribed partial safety factors G,Q
for permanent and variable actions specified in Eurocode 0 (ENV 1990, draft October 1999):
R = / G,Q
The steps of the design procedure proposed by the German geotechnical DIN codes are very similar to
those put forward by structural engineers:
1. Estimated sizing and assessment of the static design system of the geotechnical structure (footing,
retaining wall, strutted sheet pile wall, piles etc).
2. Determination of the characteristic actions of the structure and of the soil, i.e. the most realistic and
probable actions.
-4-
3. Determination of the characteristic action effects Eki, e.g. strut-, anchor- or supporting-forces, the
resultant characteristic forces in the base level of a footing or in the earth pressure support of a wall
etc.
4. Determination of the characteristic resistances Rki e.g.:
- for structural elements: the characteristic bending moment or the characteristic compressive
strength according to the standards for the considered material,
- for soil: the characteristic bearing capacity of shallow foundations, the characteristic passive
earth pressure or the characteristic bearing capacity of piles, anchors and nails determined by
calculations, tests or comparable experience.
5. Verification of the ultimate limit state in every relevant cross section of the structure and in the
soil:
The design effects of the actions Edi are obtained by multiplying the characteristic effects Eki of
the actions by partial safety factors e.g. for permanent structures with G = 1.35 for permanent
actions and Q = 1.50 for variable actions (see table 2)
The design resistances Rdi are obtained by dividing the characteristic values Rki by their corresponding safety factors for the structure (e.g. for steel see Eurocode 2 (EN 1992 (1991)), for
concrete see Eurocode 3 (EN 1992 (1992)) and for soil (see table 3).
The basic equation:
Rdi Edi
is verified in the final step of the ultimate limit state analyses. If it is not fulfilled the sizing shall be
improved.
The merits of this concept for the geotechnical and structural verifications of foundations and retaining walls are:
1. As this calculation works with characteristic values of actions, which are also used for the verification of the serviceability limit state, no separate calculation is necessary for the input of the determination of the displacements.
2. The concept is open for all analytical methods of verification. Steps 3 and 4 allow for the classical
methods, the theory of elasticity, ultimate load method, spring models, the finite element method
and cinematic element method.
3. The procedure corresponds to the concept of the Eurocodes for structural engineering (EN 1992
Eurocode 2 (1991), EN 1993 Eurocode 3 (1992). Thus geotechnical engineering does not need a
separate concept as proposed in the 1994 version of Eurocode 7. The procedure can therefore easily
be understood and adopted by students and practising engineers, which makes it very user-friendly.
-5-
1)
pk = 5 kN/m
= 20
Fictitious wall to
determine the
action due to
active earth
pressure
h = 6,0 m
1)
0,95 m 0,7 m
B=?
Figure 1: Cantilever stem wall, dimensions and loads
4.2 Design according to Approach 1
Each of the calculations Case B and Case C - is performed with design values. Owing to the stabilising moment, the action due to the self-weight of the soil acting on the foundation slab is assumed to
be favourable (G,fav = 1.00) in Case B - while the action due to the self-weight of the retaining wall is
unfavourable (G = 1.35). Determination of the design ground bearing resistance is based on the vertical and horizontal components and the eccentricity of the design value of the resultant action effect in
the base level of the foundation. The results of both analyses are shown in table 4. The calculation
demonstrates that Case C is relevant for the design of the foundation width B in approach 1. Owing to
the higher design values of the shear parameters, the design bearing resistance RGb,d of Case B is
nearly three times higher than in Case C while in both cases the vertical components Vd of design
value of the resultant action effects differ only to a small extent.
4.3 Design according to Approach 2
In Approach 2 the calculations to determine the resultant action effect at the base level of the foundation are performed with characteristic values. The determination of the characteristic ground bearing
resistance is then based on the characteristic values of the vertical and horizontal components and the
eccentricity of the resultant action effect at the base level of the foundation. The partial factors are not
introduced until the final step of the calculation when the limit state equations for bearing resistance
failure and sliding are verified. No distinction is made between favourable and unfavourable permanent actions, in accordance with DIN 1054, a single partial factor G = 1.35 being applied to all permanent action effects instead. If a distinction between favourable and unfavourable permanent actions is
to be made in accordance with EC 7 the determination of the bearing resistance must be based on the
design value of the resultant action effect in the base level of the foundation. The results of both analyses are given in table 4.
4.4 Design according to Approach 3
In Approach 3, all calculations are performed with design values as in approach 1. The action due to
the self-weight of the soil acting on the foundation slab is taken to be favourable (G,fav = 1.00) owing
to the resultant stabilising moment while the action due to the self-weight of the retaining wall is unfavourable (G = 1.35). Determination of the design ground bearing resistance is based on the vertical
and horizontal components and the eccentricity of the design value of the resultant action effect in the
base level of the foundation. The results are shown in table 4.
-6-
Approach
3
4,90
773
0.37
767
1.01
422
306
0.73
-7-
gree of safety, it is also considerably more economical, as the comparison with the other approaches
has illustrated.
The detailed numerical calculations according to the three approaches can be ordered from the
author by email: bernd.schuppener@baw.de.
5
REFERENCES
DIN 4017-100 (1996) Berechnung des Grundbruchwiderstandes von Flachgrndungen Teil 100:
Berechnung nach dem Konzept mit Teilsicherheitsbeiwerten, Beuth, Berlin
DIN 4085-100 (1996) Berechnung des Erddrucks Teil 100: : Berechnung nach dem Konzept mit
Teilsicherheitsbeiwerten, Beuth, Berlin
DIN 1054 (1999) Standsicherheitsnachweise im Erd- und Grundbau, Draft February 2000, Beuth,
Berlin
ENV 1997-1 Eurocode 7 (1994): Geotechnical design, Part 1: General rules. European Committee for
Standardisation (CEN) Brussels
EN 1997-1 Eurocode 7 (2000): Geotechnical design, Part 1: General rules. European Committee for
Standardisation (CEN) Brussels, draft April 2000
prEN 1990 Eurocode 0 - Basis of design (1999), European Committee for Standardisation (CEN)
Brussels, draft July 2000
EN 1992 Eurocode 2 (1991) Design of concrete structures, European Committee for Standardisation
(CEN) Brussels
EN 1993 Eurocode 3 (1992) Design of steel structures, European Committee for Standardisation
(CEN) Brussels
Gudehus, G. & Weienbach, A. (1996) Limit state design of structural parts at and in the ground,
Ground Engineering
Schuppener, B., Walz, B., Weienbach, A., Hock-Berghaus, K. (1998), EC7 A critical review and a
proposal for an improvement: a German perspective, Ground Engineering,
Simpson, B. & Driscoll, R. (1998) Eurocode 7 a commentary. Construction Research Communications Ltd., London
Stocker, M. (1997) Eurocode 7 all problems solved? European Foundations, a Ground Engineering
Publication
Weienbach, A., Gudehus, G. and Schuppener, B. (1999) Proposals for the application of the partial
safety factor concept in geotechnical engineering, geotechnik special issue: German contributions
to European standardization
-8-