Evaluation of Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design
Evaluation de l’Eurocode 7: Calcul géotechnique
T.L.L. Orr
Trinity College Dublin, Ireland

U. Bergdahl

R. Frank
École Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées, Paris

G. Scarpelli
Technical University of the Marche Region, Ancona, Italy

B. Simpson
Arup Geotechnics, London, UK

ABSTRACT This paper presents the outcome of an International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7 that was held in Trinity College, Dublin in March/April 2005. The background to the Workshop was the publication in November 2004 of Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design – Part 1: General rules. Prior to the Workshop, ten geotechnical design examples were distributed to European engineers to prepare solutions to Eurocode 7. A large number of solutions with a range of values were received. The authors reviewed these solutions to evaluate Eurocode 7 and identify the reasons for the scatter in the results which included: different assumptions and calculation models, different interpretations of Eurocode 7, different Design Approaches, and calculation errors. Other aspects of Eurocode 7 and limit state design, such as the use of finite element analyses and serviceability limit state design, were also considered during the Workshop. RÉSUMÉ Cet article présente les résultats d’un Atelier International pour l’Evaluation de l’Eurocode 7 tenu à Trinity College, Dublin en mars-avril 2005. La base de cet Atelier fut la publication, en novembre 2004, de l’Eurocode 7: Calcul géotechnique – Partie 1 : Règles générales. Avant la tenue de l’Atelier, 10 exemples de calcul avaient été distribués aux ingénieurs européens, afin qu’ils préparent des solutions conformes à l’Eurocode 7. De nombreuses réponses furent reçues. Les auteurs examinèrent les réponses pour identifier les raisons de la dispersion des résultats. Ces raisons sont des hypothèses et des modèles de calcul différents, différentes interprétations de l’Eurocode 7, différentes Approches de Calcul et des erreurs de calcul. D’autres aspects de l’Eurocode 7 et du calcul aux états limites, tels les calculs aux éléments finis et les états limites de service furent également abordés durant cet Atelier. Keywords: Eurocode 7, design examples, foundations, piles, retaining walls, uplift, heave, embankment 1 INTRODUCTION Research and Development, and Technical Committee 23 – Limit State Design of the ISSMGE. The background to the Workshop was the publication in November 2004 by CEN, the European Committee for Standardization, of the European Standard EN 1997-1: Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design – Part 1: General rules. In order to implement EN 1997-1, each CEN member state has two years following publication of the EN to publish the national standard version with a national annex giving the values of the nationally determined parameter

This paper presents the outcome of an International Workshop to evaluate Eurocode 7 that was held in Trinity College, Dublin in March/April 2005 (Orr, 2005a). The Workshop was organised by European Regional Technical Committee 10 – Evaluation of the Application of Eurocode 7 of the International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering in association with Work Package 2 of GeoTechNet, the European Geotechnical Network for

values to be used with the Eurocode in that country; for example Eurocode 7 Part 1 is published in Ireland as IS EN 1997-1 with the Irish National Annex. Schuppener and Frank (2006) have explained this implementation process. 2 EUROCODE 7 DESIGN METHOD

Eurocode 7, like the other Eurocodes for structural design using materials such as concrete or steel, is based on the limit state design method set out in EN 1990 - Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design. This design method involves checking that the occurrence of all ultimate limit states (ULSs) and serviceability limit states (SLSs) is sufficiently unlikely. ULSs are checked using calculations involving the application of partial factors to characteristic parameter values or resistances and to characteristic actions or action effects so as to achieve a certain target reliability. Due to different ground conditions and design traditions throughout Europe, different ground investigation techniques and calculation models have evolved that embody much experience of local conditions. In order to have Eurocode 7 accepted by all CEN members as a European standard for geotechnical design it was necessary to accommodate this valuable local experience within the framework of Eurocode 7 (Orr, 2006). Eurocode 7 achieves this in two ways: firstly, Eurocode 7 is not a prescriptive code with regard to the calculation model for any design situation but provides the design principles and factors to be considered, and secondly, different ways of applying partial factors in geotechnical design are accommodated by adopting the following three Design Approaches (DAs) for ULSs in permanent and transient design situations: • DA 1, which has two combinations: Combination 1, where partial factors are applied to the actions while soil strength parameters are not factored, and Combination 2, where partial factors are applied to the ground strength parameters while permanent actions are not factored and a smaller partial factor than in Combination 1 is applied to variable actions. In principle both combinations need to be checked and hence two calculations are required, but in practice it is often obvious which combination controls the design • DA 2, which has partial factors applied both to the actions or effects of the actions and to ground resistances • DA 3, which is similar to DA 1, Combinations 1 and 2 combined since, as in Combination 1, partial actors are applied to the actions or action effects and, as in Combination 2, partial factors are applied to the ground strength parameters. Thus only one calculation is required. Also, there are two sets of partial factors for actions, depending on whether actions are structural or geotechnical.

Note that in DA 1, Combination 2, for the design of piles and anchorages, partial factors are applied to pile and anchor resistances and sometimes to ground strength parameters. In DA 2, in the design of slopes and overall stability analyses, partial factors are applied to the resulting effect of the actions on the failure surface. In DA 3, in the design of slopes and overall stability analyses, actions on the soil, for example structural loads and traffic, are treated as geotechnical rather than structural actions, making it the same as DA 1, Combination 2. 3 DESIGN EXAMPLES

In order to evaluate Eurocode 7, 10 geotechnical design examples, involving 5 different areas of geotechnical design, were distributed, prior to the Workshop, to the members of ERTC 10, GeoTechNet WP2 and TC23 to design according to Eurocode 7. The design examples, presented by Orr (2005a) in the Workshop Proceedings, include 2 spread foundations, 2 pile foundations, 3 retaining walls, 2 designs against hydraulic failure and a road embankment on soft ground. The parameters required in these examples are listed in Table 1 and six of the examples are shown in Figures 1(a) – 1(f). Altogether 98 sets of solutions were received for these design examples, which were prepared by geotechnical engineers from 12 countries, and it was found that there was generally a considerable scatter in the solutions. The ranges in the ULS solutions received for the examples are presented in Table 1, based on Orr (2005b), in the form of the difference between the maximum and minimum values from their mean, expressed as a percentage of their mean. Note that the ranges of values presented in Table 1 are based solely on the extreme values. The average values of all the solutions received are shown in brackets. The least range of solutions, 5%, was obtained for the pile designed from pile load test results, a medium range of 24% was obtained for the two spread foundation examples, while the greatest range, 62%, was obtained for the pile designed from soil parameter values with high values also obtained for the anchored retaining wall (51%) and the heave design examples (45%). 4 REVIEWS OF THE SOLUTIONS

4.1 Reviewers The solutions received were sent to five reviewers who were asked to review them and identify the reasons for the ranges in the solutions and determine if this scatter was due to different interpretations of Eurocode 7 or other reasons. The reviewers who prepared reports on the examples were: G. Scarpelli

Gk = 900 kN Qk = 600 kN Till: cuk = 200 kPa o c'k = 0, φ'k = 35 γ = 22 kN/m3 GWL

GWL 7.0 m

0.8 m

H=? Sand γ = 20 kN/m3

Water

1.0 m 3.0 m

Figure 1(a) Example 1 – Spread foundation with vertical load Figure 1(e) Example 9 – Failure by hydraulic heave Qhk = 400 kN Gk = 3000 kN, Qvk = 2000 kN Sand: o c'k = 0, φ'k = 32 γ = 20 kN/m3 E'k = 40 MPa Surcharge 10 kPa 4.0 m Slope 1:2 Fill: o c’k = 0, φ'k = 37 , γ = 19 kN/m3 H=? 13 m

0.8 m

Clay: cuk = 15 kPa, γ = 17 kN/m3 Figure 1(f) Example 10 – Road embankment on soft clay

Figure 1(b) Example 2 – Spread foundation with an inclined and eccentric load

Table 1: Ranges and averages of solutions for design examples Example 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Required parameter Range of solutions (average value) B - foundation width 1.4 – 2.3m (1.9m) B - foundation width 3.4 – 5.6m (3.9m) L - pile length 10.0 – 42.8m (20.5m) N – number of piles 9 – 10 (9) B – base width 3.1 – 5.2m (4.3m) D - embedment depth 3.9 – 6.9m (5.4m) D - embedment depth 2.3 – 7.0m (4.7m) T - slab thickness 0.42 – 0.85m (0.60m) H - hydraulic head 3.3 – 8.8m (4.9m) H - embankment height 1.6 – 3.4m (2.4m) % Range ± 24% ± 24% ± 62% ± 5% ± 37% ± 28% ± 51% ± 33% ± 45% ± 36%

Gk = 1200 kN Qk = 200 kN GWL Sand: o c' k = 0, φ'k = 35 3 γ = 21 kN/m SPT N = 25 Concrete: γ = 24 kN/m3 2.0 m

L=? 0.6 m

Figure 1(c) Example 3 – Bored concrete pile

Surcharge 15 kPa 20 0.4 m 6.0 m
o

and V.M.E. Fruzzetti on shallow foundations, R. Frank on pile foundations, B. Simpson on retaining structures, T. Orr on designs against hydraulic failure and U. Bergdahl on an embankment on soft ground. The main findings in these reports and the reasons for the ranges in the solutions received are presented in the following sections. 4.2 Examples 1 and 2 - Spread foundations Scarpelli and Fruzzetti (2005) found that the spread in the solutions for Example 1 could be explained partly by the different Design Approaches adopted to analyse the ULS condition, and, it appeared, partly by some minor misinterpretations of the problem itself. In the case of Example 2, the following reasons were identified for the spread of the solutions in this example: - only a few of the solutions received could be described as being fully in agreement with Euro-

Fill: o c'k = 0, φ'k = 38 3 γ = 20 kN/m

0.75m Sand: o c'k = 0, φ'k = 34 3 γ = 19 kN/m B=?

Figure 1(d) Example 4 – Cantilever gravity retaining wall

Krebs Ovesen. He stated that if the characteristic value is 5-10% lower than the mean value. G and Fruzzetti. T. For the φ’k values in the examples.heights than bearing capacity calculations.. The main conclusion that has been drawn from the reviews of the solutions received for the examples designed to Eurocode 7 is that a wide range of solutions was obtained. T. London. which are not specified in Eurocode 7. M. and Schuppener B. World Scientific. these differences are generally within the ranges of solutions obtained using national standards and are due more to different calculation models and design assumptions.L. being based on limit state concepts. R. (2005) Embankment design according to Eurocode 7. Bauduin. U.4 is high enough to give a stable foundation on clay without creep deformations and if there should not be a rule in Eurocode 7 that the bearing capacity model should be used for embankment design. (2005) Eurocode 7 Workshop – Retaining wall examples 5-7. However. T. Taipei 2006. cuk is assessed. N. Orr T. Bergdahl’s view is that the higher design embankment heights ought not to be accepted as these correspond to too low factors of safety and could lead to failure or unacceptable deformations in the ground and embankment. T.8 is necessary to avoid creep deformations for structural foundations. who prepared the 92 solutions for the design examples that were reviewed for the Workshop. (2005a) Design examples for the Eurocode 7 Workshop. R.. is that the design height of the embankment depends partly on how the characteristic soil strength value. Consequently. Designer's guide to EN 1997-1 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design . (2006) Eurocode 7 for geotechnical design – Basic Principles and implementation in the European Member states. World Scientific. B. than to differences in the interpretation of Eurocode 7 or to use of the different Design Approaches. while an overall safety factor of 1. Structural and Environmental Engineering. it will . p127-146* • These references were all published in the Proceedings of International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7. Kavvadas. seismic design of retaining structures. B. Taipei 2006.. then the overall safety factor will be about 1.L. the use of finite elements in limit state design.L. Department of Civil. He questioned if the partial factor value γcu = 1. the treatment of favourable and unfavourable loads. 5 CONCLUSIONS take some time for geotechnical engineers to develop experience with using Eurocode 7 so as to fully understand it and become comfortable with using it. particularly since Eurocode 7. p147-158* Orr. This is due partly to the inclusion of the shearing resistance in the embankment itself in the overall stability calculations but not in the bearing capacity calculations.M. representing 12 countries.General rules. and DA 1 and DA 2 generally gave designs between these. Proceedings International Symposium on New Generation Design Codes for Geotechnical Engineering Practice. p27-28 and CD – pp16 Scarpelli. (2005c) Evaluation of Uplift and Heave Designs to Eurocode 7. V. p117-125* Orr. (2005) Evaluation of Eurocode 7 – Two pile foundation design examples. Proceedings International Symposium on New Generation Design Codes for Geotechnical Engineering Practice.5 which is acceptable for embankments but will result in some shear deformations in the ground with time. pp216 Frank. p159163* Frank. (2005b) Review of Workshop on the Evaluation of Eurocode 7.L. p67-74* Orr. (2004). As with the introduction of any new code. Dublin March-April 2005. Another issue raised by Bergdahl.L. The Workshop did not investigate how variations in φ’k affect the solutions obtained using the different Design Approaches since φ’k was constant for each example. reliability analyses and serviceability limit state design. (2005).L. Thomas Telford. a number of papers were presented at the Workshop on general aspects of designs to Eurocode 7 and limit state design including papers on the Eurocode 7 design philosophy. (2006) Development and Implementation of Eurocode 7. p1-10* Orr.. and Frank.E. p9-10 and CD – pp18 Schuppener. DA 2* the least conservative designs. Trinity College Dublin. Bergdahl’s opinion is that the bearing capacity model is the correct one to use in this design situation. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank all those geotechnical engineers. but one that did not arise in Example 10 as presented.L. REFERENCES Bergdahl. In addition to the reports on the solutions to the examples. A compilation of different solutions on Example 10 – Road Embankment.6 to 1. differs from most existing geotechnical codes. R. R. it was found that DA 3 gave the most conservative designs. Evaluation of Eurocode 7 – Spread Foundation design. Driscoll. p109-116* Simpson. C.L..

for both a) undrained conditions and b) drained conditions. 2. – Concrete weight density = 24 kN/m3. B to satisfy both ULS and SLS. SPT N = 40. The allowable settlement is 25mm. Ultimate Limit State Designs Bearing resistance failure. Rd is calculated using the equations given in Annex D of Eurocode 7 and using the partial factors on actions (γF) or the effects of actions (γE) from Table A. – Variable vertical load = 600kN. the value of the vertical bearing resistance is calculated using Equation D. mvk = 0. The minimum footing size is checked for each Design Approach and for both short term and long term design situations (2. 77 . Characteristic values of actions: – Permanent vertical load = 900kN + weight of foundation. which is a GEO ultimate limit state.Pad Foundation with a Vertical Central Load 1.3. Rd/A = ((π + 2) cu. Description of the problem Gk = 900kN.5. 2 mvk = 0.Model Solution for Example 1 . ϕ'k = 35 .8 m GWL B=? Soil: Stiff till . the partial factors for soil parameters (γM) from Table A.d sc + qd) /γ R where sc = 1. c'k = 0kPa. and since the base of the foundation is horizontal. Ground Properties: o – Overconsolidated glacial till.8m embedment depth. SPT N = 40. c'k = 0kPa.1(1)P): Vd ≤ Rd where Vd is the design vertical load and Rd is the design bearing resistance. Since the load is applied at the centre of the pad and no moment acts on it. Qk = 600kN d = 0.015m /MN.0.cuk = 200kPa. the following inequality needs to be satisfied (6. When using calculations to design for this ultimate limit state.d bc sc ic + qd) /γR = ((π + 2) cu. is the relevant ultimate limit state to be considered for the design of the pad foundation in this example.0.2. 0. γ = 22kN/m3. i.5. bc = 1.e. cuk = 200kPa. Require foundation width. a) Undrained Conditions For undrained conditions. The value of the design vertical bearing resistance.4 and the partial factors for resistances factors (γR) from Table A.2(1)P).2 for a square foundation and qd is the design total vertical stress at the founding level. groundwater level at base of foundation. the effective area A’ is equal to the nominal area A and ic = 1. • Design Situation: – Square pad foundation for a building.1 of Annex D.015m2/MN • • • o . ϕ'k = 35 γ = 22kN/m3.

1) tanφ' = 2(33.81) x 0.3 = 17. then in accordance with 6.49 • sγ = 0. – Design value of the vertical action Vd = 1.292(9.57 + 0.57 + 0.57 • sγ = 0.3x1.30 • Nγ = 2(Nq .1 kN < 1748.1 kN < 2195.872) + 1.0 and 2. Assuming the till is clay soil.3 = 1.2 kN • • Design Approach 1 – Combination 2 The requirement Vd ≤ Rd is checked for a 2.08x17.3.292) + 1.9 kN < 2174.8 x 1.5x12.9.6 kN The ULS design requirement Vd ≤ Rd is fulfilled as 2168.87x45.4 kN Design Approach 2 The requirement Vd ≤ Rd is checked for a 1.84x0.0 = 2203. Vk is calculated and the values presented in Table 1. These values are 2. the foundation widths for Combination 1 for both undrained and drained conditions are greater than those for Combination 2 and the design width for Design Approach 1 is 1. 2.3tan2(π/4 + 29.75x16.3 – 1) tan35 = 45.8 x 2. – Design value of the vertical action Vd = 1. the ratio of the bearing capacity of the ground at its initial undrained shear strength.9 kN – Bearing resistance factors: • Nq = eπtanφ'tan2(π/4 + φ'/2) = eπtan35tan2(π/4 + 35.2(16).0/2) = 33.082) + 1.49 + 0.082(9.1) tanφ' = 2(17.49 • sγ = 0.92x1.75m.7)/1.0 – 1) tan29. the foundation widths for drained conditions are always greater than for undrained and therefore control the designs.1 kN – Bearing resistance factors: • Nq = eπtanφ'tan2(π/4 + φ'/2) = eπtan29. In the case of Design Approach 1.1) tanφ' = 2(17.19x2.92x1.1 kN The ULS design requirement Vd ≤ Rd is fulfilled as 2203. for the given loading and soil conditions. Summary of the Ultimate Limit State Designs The design foundation widths for the three design approaches for undrained and drained and drained conditions calculated above are presented in Table 1.19x1.4 = 2174.3tan2(π/4 + 29.5γ’B’Nγsγ)/γR = 2.4 kN 3.49 + 0.0 – 1) tan29. Ruk to the applied serviceability loading.92 • Nγ = 2(Nq .57 sγ = 0.92 • Nγ = 2(Nq .75x33.2 kN The ULS design requirement Vd ≤ Rd is fulfilled as 2155.81)x 0. – Design value of the vertical action Vd = 1.7 Rd = q’ Nq sq + 0.6.75x16. Design Approach 3 gives the largest foundation width at 2.5 x 600 = 2168.7)/1.3/2) = 16.35 (900 + (24 – 9.84x0.23x0.84 • sq = 1 + sinφ' = 1 + sin29.0 = 1748.5x12.9 79 .0 (900 + (24 .4 kN The ULS design requirement Vd ≤ Rd is fulfilled as 1729.29 m pad.0 = 2158.3 = 17.35 (900 + (24 – 9.4 kN – Bearing resistance factors: • Nq = eπtanφ'tan2(π/4 + φ'/2) = eπtan29.5x12.08 m x 2.3 = 1.5 x 600 = 2195.5γ’B’Nγ sγ)/γR = 1.87 m x 1.75x33.81) x 0.87m.84 • sq = 1 + sinφ' = 1 + sin29.39m while Design Approach 2 gives the smallest design width at 1.3/2) = 16.sq = 1 + sinφ' = 1 + sin35 = 1.29x17.62x45.5γ’B’Nγsγ)/γR = 1.08 m pad.7)/1.29 m x 2.23 • sq = 1 + sinφ' = 1 + sin35 = 1.6 kN Design Approach 3 The requirement Vd ≤ Rd is checked for a 2.7 Rd = A (q’ Nqsq + 0.23x0.19x2.3 x 600 = 1729.2 kN < 2158.872(9.622(9.7)/1. The controlling design widths are shown in bold type.7 Rd = A (q’Nqsq + 0.3x1.5x12.19x1.8 x 2. The results in Table 1 show that.87 m pad.5 γ’ B’ Nγ sγ = 2.7 Rd = A (q’Nqsq + 0.

i. The smallest ULS design foundation width was obtained for Design Approach 2. Since the soil is overconsolidated. h is the thickness of the layer and ∆σ ' is the increment in vertical effective stress in the layer due to the net bearing pressure.29 OFS = Ruk/Vk 2. it is not necessary to take non-linear stiffness effects in the ground into account 4. Net bearing pressure: p = (G’pad.62 1.0m thick. Hence: Consolidation settlement: so = Σ mv h ∆σ ’ = 0. the maximum allowable settlement which is 25mm. 1. but.39 2.015 m2/MN (assumed constant in each layer for the relevant stress level).Table 1: Design widths for different Design Approaches and design conditions Design Approach DA1 (Combination 1) DA1 (Combination 2) DA2 DA3 Foundation width (m) Undrained conditions Drained 1.015 x 1.9 and. Serviceability Limit State Design To check the serviceability limit state the following inequality must be satisfied: Ed ≤ Cd where Ed is the calculated design value of the effect of the actions.6 kPa Immediate settlement: so = p (1-νυ2) B f /Eu = 430. The consolidation settlement is calculated by dividing the ground below the foundation into layers and summing the settlement of each layer using the following equation: s1 = Σ mv h ∆σ ’ where mv is the coefficient of volume compressibility = 0. and f is a settlement coefficient whose value depends on the nature of the foundation and its stiffness (for the settlement at the centre of a flexible square pad f = 1. The following two components of settlement are considered in this calculation: – s0: immediate settlement.56 2. therefore SLS requirement is satisfied.8 x (24 – 22) + 900 + 600) / 1. the design is controlled by the ULS and not the SLS requirement.e. ∆σ ’ at centres of layers due to foundation are estimated from Fadum Chart to be: 362. Conclusion The largest settlement for the design widths is ≈ 19mm for the DA2 width. 5. In this example.87m. νu is Poisson’s ratio (equals 0.8 + 11.52) 1.4 ≈ 16mm < 25mm.08 1. since they are not less than 2. Increases in vertical stress.0 2.87 1. – s1: consolidation settlement.8 mm Consolidation settlement: Soil below foundation is divided into 4 layers.3 2.57 1. 80 . and Cd is the limiting design value of the effect of the actions. which is less than the allowable settlement of 25mm.32 1. for this example.4 mm Total settlement s = so + sc = 4. 258.2 / 150 = 4. 86 and 52 kPa. i.2): so = p (1-νυ2) B f /Eu where p is the net SLS bearing pressure induced at the base level of the foundation.872 x 0. therefore.4(5)P). The immediate settlement is evaluated using elasticity theory (Annex F. as the direct method is used.e.872 = 430.87 x 1. settlement calculations should be carried out. for B = 1.6 x (1 – 0.0 x (362 + 258 + 86 + 52) = 11. i. as they are less than 3.e.5 for undrained conditions). The SLS loads are obtained from the characteristic loads as the SLS partial factors are all equal to unity.12). Eu is the Young’s modulus. the settlement due to the SLS loads. assume Eu = 750cu = 750 x 200 = 150 MPa. a settlement calculation is used to check the serviceability limit states (6. B is the foundation width. SLS check The serviceability limit state is checked for the smallest ultimate limit state design foundation width as this gives the largest settlement.k +Gk + Qk) / A = (1.

63 0.814 1.50 0.00 4.61 20 16 1.588 11.00 1.43 0.97 6425.00 320.84 3.25 1.70 3000.43 600 2880 0.00 4.00 23.00 1.00 1.18 600 32.00 3344. δd may be assumed equal to the design value of the effective critical state angle of shearing resistance φ'cv.854 1.99 3302.95 20 16 1.00 1.840 1.50 0.00 400.00 1.94 520 26.715 1.00 1.557 0.00 1.25 1.98 1.94 852.35 1.0 2002. According to 6.35 1.36 4.773 1.00 400.50 1. DA2 V unfav.56 12.784 6614.d.77 2.pad depth γc – conc.584 3272. wt density Gpadk = pad weight Vd Qhd Bearing Resistance Md e Check B/3 – e > 0 B' = B-2e L' = B A' = B’ x L γ q at foundation level γφ γc γR φ'k φ'd Nq Nγ sq sγ m iq iγ Rd Vd Check Rd-Vd > 0 Sliding Resistance Vd= γGGk Hd = γQQh δd = φ'd Rhd = Vtanδ/γR Rd-Vd > 0 3.00 3272.00 3203.49 860.70 3000.780 6494.569 0.5.35 1.00 4.80 24.50 1.00 32 26.36 6425.580 0.50 0.55 20 16 1.00 1.35 1.756 0. In this example it is assumed the foundation was cast-in-situ.709 0.00 1.83 20 16 1.00 2000.18 3272.588 11.49 2.94 5123.588 11.177 27.00 4.77 1.673 0.00 400.80 24..pad width γG-Structural (unfav.639 3302.35 1.80 24.64 2.(fav.00 1.00 1.70 3000.25 1.00 1.570 0.00 0.49 3230.25 1.63 3320.00 1.77 7.d = φ'd.36 3.6 1651.26 6494.35 1.18 0.00 2000.70 3000.30 0.98 3.762 1.00 0.00 2000.448 0.46 5.25 1.50 1.716 0.56 12.) γQ-Geotech (unfav.862 0.177 27.758 0.972 600 32.64 1418.827 1.) Ψ0-Comb.00 400.70 3000.0 1452.00 344.36 0. for cast-in-situ concrete foundations and equal to 2/3 φ'cv.653 0.00 303.00 3230.00 1.00 0.880 0.68 3.867 0.00 2000.70 3000.00 0.00 2000.591 3320.777 6425.585 1.760 5123.491 600 32.94 520 2496 0.773 1.00 3.66 1071.46 3.99 520 2496 0.00 4.00 4.00 3320.09 9.70 3000.845 0. 83 .3(10).60 0.00 23.715 1.37 2.857 0.338 0.35 0. so that δd=2/3 φ'cv.64 3.18 600 2880 0.36 600 2880 0.06 20 16 1.585 1.277 0.487 0.57 2.30 1. 3.25 1.355 0.65 1.443 0.63 600 2880 0.00 302.00 400.00 1.585 1.70 3000.00 23.50 1.30 1.00 3302.00 32 32.00 0.00 0.02 6614.) γQ-Structural (unfav.97 1.00 400.6 1671.177 27. DA3 V unfav.00 1.80 24.00 1.) γG-Structural (fav.00 1.00 1.00 1.99 520 26.03 600 26.62 1131.62 Vfav.94 Vfav. factor Gvk Qvk Qhk h .23 20 16 1.25 1.98 11.49 0.23 1.00 0.99 0.26 1.585 1.70 20 16 1.00 2000.76 3.715 1.) γG-Geotech (unfav.80 24.00 3.00 32 26.617 0.35 1.94 0. 4.26 600 32.00 230.06 DA1(C2) Vfav.635 0.401 0. 3.30 0.851 0.50 1.25 1.06 1402.783 1.63 3320.257 0. 3.00 1.97 1059.height of Qh d .00 1.49 600 2880 0. and it was assumed that φ'cv.00 32 26.56 12.00 3303.97 where δd is the design friction angle between the base of the foundation.715 1.d .60 6494.00 272.892 0.00 32 32. Vunfav.43 6614.384 0.00 1.18 3272.6 600 2880 0.00 1.23 14.80 24.d for smooth precast foundations”.00 23.00 1.25 1.78 20 16 1..6 1659.35 1.26 7. V unfav.0 1460.00 400.97 9.00 4.282 0.15 1131.) γG-Geotech.00 2000.56 12.15 3.00 4.0 2018.49 3230.49 4.35 0.00 400.00 2000.99 3302.588 11.177 27.40 32 32.00 0.25 1.00 32 26.50 0.257 0.94 5123.00 3255.35 1.Table 1: Ultimate limit state design of pad foundation Parameter DA1(C1) Vfav.09 1.00 203.35 4.435 0.65 10.80 24.63 600 26.26 1.35 1.577 3230.6 1651.66 B .25 1.00 255.00 1.46 1.40 32 32.859 0.80 24.50 1.25 1.

the partial factor on tanφ’ is unity so that partial factors greater than unity are applied to the loads and the calculated resistance is divided by γR. the settlement is calculated using the following elastic equation (Poulos and Davis.ν 2 ) I t = 27.77 = 28. the foundation design in this example is controlled by the severe SLS requirement that the tilt should not exceed 1/2000.2(15). the maximum allowable settlement which is 25mm or the maximum allowable tilt.4mm > 25mm As s = 28. the tilt is: M k (1 .3 2 ) 40000 x 1. the following inequality must be satisfied: Ed ≤ Cd where Ed is the calculated design value of the effect of the actions.1 – Settlement As the soil is sand and only the Young’s modulus.For DA1 and DA3. In this example.3 and βz is a coefficient whose value is 1.9(1 .0m.77m for DA2 gives: s= 5272.e. References Poulos H. the tilt SLS condition is satisfied when B = 7. Serviceability limit state design To check that serviceability limit states are not exceeded.0. ν is Poisson’s ratio and is assumed to be 0. (15) the tilting of an eccentrically loaded foundation should be estimated by assuming a linear bearing pressure distribution and then calculating the settlement at the corner points of the foundation.77 x 3.6.1 for a square foundation. 3.7 = 0.3 2 ) 3.G. the settlement SLS condition is not satisfied for any of the ULS design widths. using the vertical stress distribution in the ground beneath each corner point As an alternative to this application rule. as the direct method is used. (1974) Elastic solutions for soil and rock mechanics. the tilt is calculated using the elastic equation (Poulos and Davis. 3. Wiley 84 . 1974): s= Vk (1 . i.0 2 x 7. E is given.4(5)P).1 3. 1974) so that this design solution is not claimed to be wholly in accordance with EC7 (1. a settlement calculation and a tilt calculation are used to check the serviceability limit states (6.H. while for DA2. The parameters values to check the sliding resistance are presented in Table 1 and the results show the foundation widths to ensure stability against bearing failure also to ensure the foundation is stable against sliding failure for all the design approaches and loading conditions.0 Since θ = 1/2122 < 1/2000. Substituting the relevant values in the above equation for the smallest ULS design width of 3.4mm > 25mm. and Cd is the limiting design value of the effect of the actions. the settlement or tilt.0.7 for a square foundation when B = L.000471 = 1/2122 < 1/2000 40000 x 7. As B = 7.0m is larger than the ULS and settlement design widths.6mm > 25mm EB2 L θ= 400 x 4.8 x (1 . which is 1/2000 = 0.ν 2 ) Eβ z BL where Vk is the net characteristic bearing pressure on the foundation due to the vertical loads. For B = 7.0 so that the partial factors greater than zero are applied to tanφ’ and the loads. & Davies E.2 – Tilt According to 6. i.e.4(4)): θ= where Mk is the unfactored moment on the foundation base and It is a factor whose value is 3.0m. γR = 1. 3.0005.

d where Fc.1 – General Compressive. γ = 21kN/m3 SPT N = 25 Actions . The characteristic resistances may be obtained either from Equation 7. Ultimate limit state design 2.2.6 in Clause 7. To demonstrate that the pile will support the design load.d + Rs.Characteristic permanent load Gk = 1200kN .k /γb + Rs.0. resistance failure is the ultimate limit state failure mechanism considered for the design of the pile for the building. In this example.5 is used. it is assumed that this is the appropriate characteristic value for calculating both the base and the shaft resistances.Pile length.Bored pile for a building. Since no profiles of tests are provided but the characteristic φ’ value is provided. Description of the problem Gk = 1200kN Qk = 200 kN • 2. which involves correlation factors x whose values depend on the number of profiles of tests. Rb. and γb and γb are the relevant partial resistance factors.1 (P)): Fc. the design compressive resistance is given by: Rc. 2.9.k are the characteristic base and shaft resistances. Since the partial resistance factors for Design Approach 3 are equal to 1.2 – Design Action The design vertical action. the values of the partial factors γb and γb may need to be corrected by a model factor.Groundwater level at depth of 2m below the ground surface Soil conditions .0m GWL Design situation . o Since only one φ’k value. 35 . i.d = Rb.k and Rs.d = γG Gk + γQ Qk where Gk = 1200kN.Characteristic variable load Qk = 200kN .e.Sand: c'k = 0.d is given by: Fc. when the alternative approach is used.Model Solution for Example 3 . the characteristic resistances are calculated using Equation 7. 600mm diameter .d are the design base and shaft resistances.d = Rb. the following inequality must be satisfied (7. φ'k = 35o. As stated in the Note to Clause 9.1(2). 2 and 3.Pile Foundation Designed from Soil Parameter Values 1.d ≤ R c.d is the design resistance of the pile. where qbk and qsk are the characteristic base resistances and shaft friction obtained from the ground parameters and Ab and As are the areas of the pile base and pile shaft. Qk = 200kN and the values of γG and γQ depend on the Design Approach being used.3(8). Fc.6.2 – Ultimate compressive resistance from ground test results Using Equation 7. or from Equation 7.3 (3). 2.2.d and Rs.d is the design action (load) and Rc. The design pile length is determined for Design Approaches 1. the design resistance for DA3 is obtained by applying the partial 85 .2.Weight density of concrete = 24kN/m3 Require .6. γR to be set by the National Annex.k /γs where Rb.2.8.6. the value of γR = 1.6. L • L=? Sand φ'k = 35o γ = 21kN/m3 • • 2. bearing. is provided. which is Rbk = Abqbk and Rsk = Asqsk.9. The weight of the pile is ignored as it is assumed that the pressure at the toe due to the pile weight is similar to the overburden pressure at that depth (7.

.3 kN. These show DA1.0 + (L-2)(21.3x50/(1.S. (1961) relationship o o between Nq and φ’ with Nq = 50 for φ’k = 35 and Nq = 17 for φ’k = 29. Kristoforov V. OFS defined as Rc.3(9)P) which is used to obtain the design resistances as shown below.35 x 1200 + 1.d Design Approach 2 The requirement Fc.1463.6x1.k /(γb x γR) + Rs.5x(1-sin35)x186.d = γG Gk + γQ Qk = 1. Department of Civil.6 2.6x14.5x(1-sin35)x176.1 + 529.d = Rb.6x14.0xtan35)/(1. DA2 gives the least DA!.d = 1405.d ≤ R c. σv0’ = (19.d is checked for a 14.0) = 176. March-April 2005. Trinity College Dublin 86 .6 = . therefore Fc.3)x205. together with the Approach overall factors of safety.35 x 1200 + 1. (1961) Load bearing capacity and deformation of piled foundations.0 x 1200 + 1.d is checked for a 14.d Design Approach 1 – Combination 2 The requirement Fc.62 + 11.5) Rc. L using φ’k with the three Design Design L OFS Approaches are given in Table 1 in bold.d is checked for a 16. and the shaft resistance is given by qsk = Σσh’tanδ = ΣK0σv’tanδ = 0.5(1-sinφ’)σv0’tanφ’/(γb x γR) (πx0.7)x0. Dublin. σv0’ = (19.5 x 200 = 1920 kN Rc.d ≤ R c.d + Rs. Fc.k/Fk.d ≤ R c.3 x 200 = 1460 kN Rc.5x17 + (πx0.9)x0.1923.9 + 385.2 kN Since 1920 < 1926.7 16.4 kN Fc.C2 14. σv0’ = (19.62/4)x186. (2005) Evaluation of Eurocode 7 – Two pile foundation design examples. In this example.0 kN. 2. Fc. Since no information is given about the pile settlement or ground stiffness.4xtan35/(1.6m long pile.k /(γb x γR) = Abσv0’Nq/(γb x γR) + As0.91) = 19.62/4)x205.0)x0.19x16. R.0 the most conservative design.62 + 11.k /(γb x γR) + Rs.9) = 186.4 conservative design (least L and lowest OFS) while DA3 gives DA2 2.62/4)x183.1x1.19x14.5) + (πx0.4 14.1x1.N.6) = 183.5(1-sinφ’)σv0’tanφ’/(γb x γR) (πx0.5) = 1510.19L.6x14.0x50/(1.d = Abσv0’Nqd + As0.k/Fk = Since 1920 < 1924. and Golubkov V.3 14.5 + 931. pL and the French design rules is given by Frank (2004).k /(γb x γR) = Abσv0’Nq/(γb x γR) + As0. It is assumed the base bearing resistance is given by qbk = σv0’Nq.d ≤ Rc.7 value with a correlation between N and the pressuremeter limit pressure.C1 is critical for DA1.5(1-sinφ’)σv0’tanφ’/(γb x γR) (πx0.k /(γb x γR) + Rs.d ≤ R c.d is checked for a 14.d = 1077.6.k /(γb x γR) = Abσv0’Nq/(γb x γR) + As0. References Berezanysev V. σvo’ = 2γ + (L-2)(γ-γw) = 2x21.3 (7.5xtan29. Proceedings V International Conference on Soil mechanics and Foundation Engineering.d = Rb.62 + 11.62/4)x176.5 kN.5 x 200 = 1920 kN Rc.3 = .5 x 200 = 1920 kN Rc. therefore Fc.8 kN OFS = Rc.d = γG Gk + γQ Qk = 1.0x1. therefore Fc. therefore Fc.9 = .d = Rb.d ≤ R c.1 = 1926.19x14.6x16. when δ = φ’ and there is a single layer of soil.35 x 1200 + 1. where σv0’ is the vertical effective stress at the pile base and using the Berezantzev et al.d Design Approach 3 The requirement Fc. Conclusions Table 1: ULS design of pile using φ’ The ULS design pile lengths.7m long pile.3) Rc.d = γG Gk + γQ Qk = 1.5(1-sin35)x183.9 that DA1.25x1. no SLS check has been carried out.5(1-sinφ’d)σv0’tanφ’d (πx0.material factor γM = 1.1931.5(1-sinφ’)σv0’tanφ’.19x14.62 + 11.4 + 420. Design Approach 1 – Combination 1 The requirement Fc.25 to tanφ’k to obtain φ’d = 29. σv0’ = (19.2.C1 2.7) = 205.3 . A ULS design using the given N DA3 2.3 kN Since 1920 < 1931. 11-15 Frank. Proceedings of International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7.d ≤ R c.d = Rb.3x1.5) Rc.5) + (πx0. Fc.5 kN Since 1460 < 1463.0m long pile.6)x0.4x50/(1.5x(1-sin29.d ≤ R c.0-9.9m long pile.d = 992.G.62+11.d = γG Gk + γQ Qk = 1.5) + (πx0. Paris.3xtan35/(1.d o 3. Structural and Environmental Engineering.

i.k/γR 2.The number of piles is determined for Design Approach 1 (Combinations 1 and 2) and Design Approach 2.: Rc.d ≤ Rc.m)min = 5. Fc.693 kN.k = min  . the design ultimate compressive resistance is: Rc.m ) mean ( Rc.m)mean and (Rc. because γR = 1 for DA3.077kN Since the piles do not transfer load from strong to weak piles.k/γR = 9 x 4. Design Approach 3 is not used because it is only relevant when designing using soil strength parameters. Rc.600)/2 = 5.693 kN The requirement Fc. 2.2 (8)P):  ( Rc.6.077kN (Rc.  ξ1 ξ2   where (Rc. If there are N piles. Qk = 5000kN and the values of γG and γQ depend on the Design Approach being used.2 from Table A. γR from Table A.d = N Rc.000 kN and P2 = 5.000 + 1.3 and ξ2 = 1.167kN Thus the characteristic compressive resistance is the minimum of these two values.d = γG Gk + γQ Qk where Gk = 20000kN. not measured resistances such as the pile resistance.3 = 4.2 = 4.m)min / ξ2 = 5000/1. The measured limit loads are obtained from the pile load test results at s = 40mm.000 = 34. As the piles are driven piles.m ) min  Rc.0 = 35.600 kN.d = γG Gk + γQ Qk = 1.300 kN (Rc.5 x 5. they act independently and there is no group effect.k = 4.m)mean / ξ1 = 5300/1. 2.d is given by: Fc.2.000 + 5.6 to Rc.3 – Ultimate compressive resistance from static load test The results of two static pile load tests are plotted in the figure above.500 kN ≤ 36.m)min are the mean and the lowest values of the measured compressive resistance.000 kN Since two piles were tested.077 / 1. 88 .35 x 20.d ≤ Rc.d is fulfilled as 34.4 – Design Approach Calculations Design Approach 1 – Combination 1 Checking the requirement Fc. Hence the mean and lowest measured pile loads are: (Rc. n = 2 and hence ξ1 = 1.m)mean = (5. respectively and the ξ factors are correlation factors whose values depend on the number of tested piles. giving P1 = 5.500 kN Design compressive resistance: Rc.e. The characteristic compressive resistance of the piles.d for 9 piles.9 of EC7 so that (Rc.2 – Design Action The design vertical action. – Design vertical action: – Fc.k is obtained using the following equation (7.d = N Rc. the design resistance of the piles is obtained by applying the partial resistance factor.k.

3 = 3611 kN From the mean load-settlement curve. Note: To satisfy the ultimate limit state requirement.3 = 28.Design Approach 1 – Combination 2 Checking the requirement Fc.500 kN Design compressive resistance: Rc.064 kN. from the mean pile loadsettlement graph as the settlement at PSLS.k/γR = 10 x 4. 3.d = N Rc.064 kN The requirement Fc.k/γR = 9 x 4.d ≤ Rc.d = Pk ξ1 = 2778 x 1.d = γG Gk + γQ Qk = 1.000 + 20.000 = 34. The design value of the effect of the actions is the settlement of each pile under the characteristic load. 89 . i.d is fulfilled as 26. the maximum allowable settlement which is given as 10mm. Pk by the appropriate correlation factor.5 x 5. the following inequality must be satisfied: Ed ≤ Cd where Ed is the design value of the effect of the actions.d.e.d ≤ Rc. If there are N piles.000 + 1.d is fulfilled as 34. and Cd is the limiting design value of the effect of the action.000 = 26.500 kN ≤ 28. PSLS.d for 9 piles.35 x 20.d ≤ Rc.d ≤ Rc.000 + 20. the settlement.000) /9 = 2778 kN PSLS.d (no partial factors are involved since in SLS the partial factor is unity): PSLS. in this example. Pk = (5.225 kN The requirement Fc.1 = 37. sd = 11mm > 10mm.e. For 9 piles. i.d = Pk ξ1 The design SLS settlement is then obtained. Design Approach 2 Checking the requirement Fc. – Design vertical action: – Fc. the characteristic load in each pile is found from: Pk = (Gk + Qk) /N = (5. ξ to obtain the design SLS load.d = N Rc.500 kN Design compressive resistance: Rc.d for 10 piles.0 x 20.500 kN ≤ 37.225 kN.077 / 1.d = Pmean. hence SLS condition is not satisfied. Serviceability Limit State Design To check that serviceability limit state requirement is not exceeded.e.d = γG Gk + γQ Qk = 1. i.077 / 1.000 + 1. – Design vertical action: – Fc. by multiplying the characteristic load. 10 piles are required according to Design Approach 2 and 9 piles according to Design Approach 1.000) /N The SLS design settlement due to this characteristic load is obtained from the load settlement curve in the reverse of the way that the design load is determined for the ultimate limit state design.3 x 5.

90 . For the serviceability test requirement. while according to Design Approach 2. the ULS and SLS designs are the same. Pk = (5. Conclusions To satisfy the ultimate limit state requirement. hence SLS condition is satisfied. 4. 10 piles are required.3 = 3250 kN From the mean load-settlement curve.000 + 20. 9 piles are required.000) /10 = 2500 kN Pav = Pk ξ1 = 2500 x 1. sd = 9mm < 10mm. Thus the SLS controls the design if Design Approach 1 is used while with Design Approach 2. 10 piles are required.For 10 piles. according to Design Approach 1.

6m high cantilever gravity retaining wall. φ'k = 38 . Description of the problem Surcharge 15kPa 20 o 6m 0.Width of wall foundation.4m Fill 0.Fill behind wall: c'k = 0. . M.40m.The wall is embedded 0. γ = 19 kN/m3 o .75m Sand B=? • Design Situation: . γ = 20 kN/m3 o .Model Solution for Example 5 – Gravity Retaining Wall 1. and bending moment. φ'k = 34 .2(2)P): . o .The ground behind the wall slopes upwards at 20 3 . the following ultimate limit states need to be considered (9. 91 .bearing resistance failure of the soil below the base.Groundwater level is at depth below the base of the wall.Friction angle between base of wall and soil: φ'k = 30 (additional information provided after the Workshop • Actions: . S. in the wall 2.γconcrete = 25 kN/m (additional information provided after the Workshop) • Soil Conditions: o Sand beneath wall: c'k = 0.Design shear force.Characteristic surcharge behind wall 15kPa • Require: . .75m below ground level in front of the wall.Wall and base thicknesses 0. Ultimate limit state design using analytical calculations 2.1 – General For the design of a gravity retaining wall. . B .

95 90.k*H/3 M Qh-vb γQ* Qvvb.29 238.21 1.Table 5.00 1.48 -215.00 38 34 32.66 197. friction angle for sand Design friction angle for fill Design friction angle for sand β/φ Actions (Loads) W1 = Base characteristic weight W2 = Wall characteristic weight W3 = Rect.30 6. W unfav.30 6.50 484.30 59.48 0.50 587.23 -99.35 1.20 62.21 0.25 1.65 30.75 25 20 19 15 1.75 25 20 19 15 1.32 140.35 0.72 301.18 -27.k = Wqk Eh Evk Qh-vb Qv-vb Vk Vd H Hd Hd/Vd Base width 3.33 63.00 1.44 11.94 280.k Wwall.26 36.36 828.26 63.79 271.12 885.00 1.30 1.70 1.40 20.69 0.38 0.00 8.72 -36.79 0.00 1.87 -44.40 20. friction angle for fill Char.50 459.00 1.00 34. W unfav.13 3.04 682.14 0.32 0.25 1.75 25 20 19 15 1.08 607.59 -67.35 48.75 197. part of fill char.65 615.00 34.91 15.40 20.00 38 34 32.66 52.09 -96.50 6.26 42.40 38 34 38.50 6.00 38 34 38.28 16.00 1.40 0.64 0. γG-fav.97 0.49 244.39 -28.51 66.62 0.30 -17.83 1.20 599.00 7.00 1.40 0.37 52.53 0.40 0.40 20.89 203.00 0.35 0.97 587.50 77.40 109.70 0.26 38.72 -52.46 599.30 63.50 -75.00 1.88 -117.69 -50.35 0.40 20.50 562. W fav.89 0.37 271.24 630.51 0.81 89.00 8. W unfav.53 0.40 0.50 437.97 43.74 11.53 0.40 0.00 34.20 556.00 187.40 -87.62 0.95 0.36 574.35 1.61 44.57 60.00 248.50 6.85 1.35 0.63 3.28 -128.99 931.63 0.80 33.40 0.00 0.89 0.40 20.40 38 34 38.d δ/φ Kad Wpad.56 4.back Vert surcharge load on virtual back = ΣW (W1+W2+W3+W4)*γG+W5*γQ Eh + Qh-vb Eh*γG + Qh-vb*γQ Moments about centre of base γG*W1*(B .00 38 34 38.46 Wall stem height Wall stem width Base depth Slope of ground (o) Height of effective back: hw+D+(Bw)tanβ Soil depth before wall Concrete weight density Fill weight density Soil weight density Characteristic surcharge Char.35 50. weight W5 = Characteristic surcharge load 0.00 1.52 -33.38 121.k Wfillf.84 0.41 562.85 -227.35 1.01 28.01 28.16 -33.31 124.46 63.53 0.00 172.63 31.18 744.88 890.60 43.77 585.86 942.70 0.00 1.75 25 20 19 15 1.94 0.39 0.72 -149.00 1.22 306.36 654.74 -112.68 0.39 -32.12 188.10 43.63 699. W fav.58 47.00 166.22 11.53 0.17 2.35 1.25 1. hw w D β H d γc γf γ qk γφ γc γR φ'f.94 71.97 -157.29 141.25 1.99 -39.82 197.35 0.00 0.00 1.07 12.00 8.98 917.1: Values used to calculate the load eccentricity and effective foundation width Parameter Description/Calculation DA1(C1) DA1(C2) = DA3 DA2 no q above q above no q above q above no q above q above heel heel heel heel heel heel W fav.15 -15.80 0.38 57.d φ's.w)/2 Mwall γG*W3*w/2 Mfill rect Mfill sloping γG*W4*(B/6 + w/3) γG*Eh*H/3 M Eh γG*Ev *B/2 M Ev γG*W5*w/2 Mq γQ*Qhvb.22 2.62 0.k φ'f.00 1.21 1.13 3.50 410.51 589. weight W4 = Sloping fill char.00 1.k*B/2 M Qv-vb ΣM Md Load eccentricity e e/B Effective width B' = B-2e 93 .03 1.00 1.07 0.67 31.35 0.14 3.00 193.00 242.00 8. B γG-unfav.00 1.75 25 20 19 15 1.k = Wfillf.00 7.18 37.35 0.76 681.27 0.19 63.50 6.35 0.94 5.k φ's.19 2.71 293.82 259.14 682.00 0.75 25 20 19 16 1.04 178.26 40.86 0.36 0.55 717.35 -13.14 63.34 146. γQ-unfav.64 4.48 158.5*Kad*γf*H2 Ehd*tanδ Hor surcharge load on virtual .60 288.40 0.72 164.43 0.23 -112.00 34.61 -178.00 0.

25 0 0 29.50 15.25 0 0 29.00 384.462 0.37 1.282 0.12 828.16 38.430 30. for the foundation widths obtained when designing against bearing failure.71 0.89 4.37 301.00 1.16 38.00 1. 94 . However.0 0.00 2. These show that.00 30.243 0.00 30.75 931.502 30.3 4.56 271.84 181.485 931.25 0 0 29.7 417.66 681.30 26.83 14.64 178.37 1.00 1.5 436.472 30. the load lies outside the middle third of the foundation and hence it is advisable to check the settlement.0 0.48 218.44 42.3kNm Mmax = 425.70 121.0 0.43 1.362 0.424 942.43 1.00 2. The calculations to check the sliding resistance are also shown in Table 5.30 26.00 24.25 0 0 15.30 14.03 14. B Base width Bearing resistance 3.5Kadqdhw2 (C6.0 0.44 42.89 744.2.51 104. W fav.389 0.Table 5. S and bending moment.2kN Mmax = 436.472 0.390 890.40 112. W unfav.324 0.07 27.19 280.3 – Shear Force (S) and Bending Moment (M) in the wall The maximum shear force.00 2.314 0.16 38. W fav.60 942. as e/B in DA2 is greater than 0. as in the case of the foundation width. DA1 is more conservative than DA2 for this design situation.0kNm Thus.66 0.00 1.85 14. It assumed that the maximum earth pressure for the design of the wall is the active earth pressure used to design against sliding and bearing resistance.25 0 0 29.462 30. Assuming active earth pressure.37 1.00 30.11 3.00 24. W unfav.362 30. 2.00 1.12 0. even when assuming no passive resistance in front of the wall. sufficient resistance is provided against sliding failure as all the Rh values well exceed the Hd values.00 2.2 425.00 1.17.00 2.75 0.70 14.86 3.79 435.2: Values used to calculate resistances. the maximum shear force and bending moments are calculated to be: Design Approaches 1(C2) and 3: Design Approach 2: Smax = 184.00 1.00 1.356 0.00 1.00 307.0 0.4 qk Overburden pressure c'k c'd Nq Nc Nγ sq sγ sc mB iq iγ ic Design bearing resistance Rd Design vertical load Vd Check Rd-Vd Sliding resistance δκ = φ's.44 42.12 259.5kN Smax = 181.00 1.50 15.25 0 0 15.k δδ Rhd Hd Rhd-Hd > 0 Sax Mmax base/sand friction angle Vdtanδ/γR Maximum SF and BM in wall γG0.00 478.502 0. The greatest values occur when there is surcharge on the surface above the heel.368 744.00 30.00 1. shear force and bending moment Parameter Description/Calculation DA1(C1) DA1(C2) = DA3 DA2 no q above q above no q above q above no q q above heel heel heel heel above heel heel W fav.79 411.37 1.00 2.453 828.60 0.71 890.00 393.40 306.48 184.44 42.5Kadγfhw2 + γQKadqdhw γG(1/6)Kadγfhw3+γQ0.25 271.00 1.5. As for bearing resistance.5 5.339 681.389 30.89 0.89 133.16 38.430 0.21 14. A higher value may be chosen if the fill behind the wall is compacted and if the wall does not move sufficiently to mobilise the active pressure.218 0.0 0.4(1)P). W unfav. M occur at the base of the wall. the critical condition for sliding is when there is no surcharge above the heel.

M in the wall are assessed for Design Approaches 1. Failure by rotation of the wall about the toe is considered first and then the wall is checked for vertical equilibrium. Since no structural loads are involved in this example. – Table A. Ultimate Limit State Design 2. Design Approach 3 is the same as Design Approach 1. the following ultimate limit states need to be considered (9. For each failure mechanism.5m below ground surface behind wall and at the ground surface in front of wall Require . using the following partial factors from EN 1997-1: – Table A.1 – General For the design of an embedded retaining wall.0m Design situation .Characteristic variable surcharge behind wall 10kPa .Design bending moment in the wall. γ = 20kN/m3 Actions .13 – Partial resistance factors (γR) for retaining structures. 2 and 3.failure by rotation of the wall.Depth of wall embedment. 95 . Description of the problem 10kPa • 1.failure by lack of vertical equilibrium.4 – Partial factors for soil parameters (γM).5m 3.2(2)P): .7. The design depth of embedment of the retaining wall. the following inequality needs to be satisfied (2.4. D and the design bending moment.3.1(1)P): E d ≤ Rd where Ed is the design value of the effect of actions and Rd is the design value of the resistance to the actions.Embedded sheet pile retaining wall for a 3m deep excavation with a surcharge on the surface behind the wall - • • Sand D= ? Soil conditions Sand: c'k = 0. M • 2. – Table A.Model Solution for Example 6 – Embedded Retaining Wall 1. D . .3 – Partial factors on actions (γF) or the effects of actions (γE).Groundwater level at depth of 1. Combination 2. φ'k = 37o.

For each failure mechanism.φ'k = 35 . the following inequality needs to be satisfied (2.Gravelly sand .Model Solution for Example 7 – Anchored Retaining Wall 1. D Design bending moment. Ultimate Limit State Design 2.4 – Partial factors for soil parameters (γM).0m h = 8.failure by rotation of the wall. 2 and 3. Failure by rotation of the wall about the anchor is considered first and then the wall is checked for vertical equilibrium. M in the wall Sand D=? • 2.3m between the water in front of the wall and the water in the ground behind the wall. Soil conditions o .4. γ = 18kN/m3 (above water table) and 20kN/m3 (below water table) Actions Characteristic surcharge behind wall 10kPa 3m depth of water in front of the wall and a tidal lag of 0. 99 .failure by lack of vertical equilibrium. The design depth of embedment of the retaining wall.2(2)P): .0m • • • - Design situation Anchored sheet pile retaining wall for an 8m high quay using a horizontal tie bar anchor. Require Depth of wall embedment.3.1 – General For the design of an embedded retaining wall. Description of the problem 10kPa a = 1.1(1)P): E d ≤ Rd where Ed is the design value of the effect of actions and Rd is the design value of the resistance to the actions.5m Tie bar anchor GWL Water j = 3.7. the following ultimate limit states need to be considered (9.3 – Partial factors on actions (γF) or the effects of actions (γE). M in the wall are assessed for Design Approaches 1.3m i = 3. – Table A. . using the following partial factors from EN 1997-1: – Table A. D and the design bending moment.

60m 3. it can be seen from the figures in Table 6. Since φ’k = 35 . The maximum bending moment for DA1(C1) for the embedment length of 2. However.30 and Kp = 4. The depth at which S = 0 is obtained for each Design Approach. in the case of DA1(C2) and by 10.e. o o are: Ka = 0. Design Approach 3 is the same as Design Approach 1. φ’d = tan (tan35/1. and hence determine the design maximum bending moment. Hence.8kN. the horizontal components of the coefficients of active and passive earth pressure. assuming free earth support at the toe with full active pressure behind the wall and full passive pressure in front of the wall. groundwater and free water pressures on the wall about the anchor. j above the excavation level behind the wall and in front of the wall the water is at a height i above the excavation level.60m is not relevant since the design embedment length of the wall for DA1 is 3.25) = 29. It is assumed that the earth pressure is at an angle δ = 0.e.. ht is given by (2D+j)(D+i-OD)/L. vertical equilibrium may be ensured either by taking account of the end bearing of the sheet piles or by reducing the angle δ on the active side of the wall slightly more below 0. as shown in Table 6. The maximum design bending moment in the wall occurs where the shear force. Combination 2 (shown in bold) controls for DA1. Moment equilibrium was established by taking moments about the anchor of the triangular and rectangular pressure diagrams due to the horizontal active and passive earth pressures.– Table A. gives a slightly longer wall.8 for φ’d = 29. Thus.2 that the vertical downward earth pressure force on the wall exceeds the upward resisting force by 10. i. 100 .3 . 12%. and Ka = 0.5m on this side.1 for φ’ = 35 .24 and Kp = 7. obtained from the relevant graphs in Figures C.67m.2.2 – Failure by Rotation The depth of embedment. D required for stability against rotation were calculated to be: Design Approaches 1(C1): Design Approaches 1(C2) and 3: Design Approach 2: 2. The depths. for the conditions in this example. D of the wall is calculated for stability against rotation is examined by considering moments due to the earth. an interaction analysis using a spring model for the soil or a finite element analysis to redistribute the earth pressures is required to determine the maximum bending moment in the wall for DA1(C1). An overdig. for Design Approach 1. 2. and DA2 is very slightly more conservative than DA2.64m given by DA1(C2). The DA2 maximum bending moment is slightly greater than the DA1 design bending moment.64m. i. 10%. The maximum bending moments for the design embedment lengths obtained for the Design Approaches are: Design Approaches 1(C2) and 3: Design Approach 2: 341 kNm 370 kNm.1 of EN 1997-1.4. This has not been carried out in this example.2.5φ’ as noted in 9.3 .3kN.13 – Partial resistance factors (γR) for retaining structures. the surcharge pressure and the water pressures on the wall.1 and C2.1(3). 2.e.1. where L is the length of the seepage path around the wall.5m is assumed on the excavation side of the wall so that the ground and water levels are reduced by 0. The data used to determine the depth of embedment for moment equilibrium are presented in Table 6. Thus. The difference in hydraulic head between the two sides of the wall is assumed to dissipate uniformly about around the wall so that the hydraulic head at the toe. OD of 0. S is zero. Since the wall is not at limiting equilibrium for DA1(C1) when the wall has the DA1(C2) design embedment length of 3.1 and the data used to assess the vertical stability and calculate the depth at which the shear force is zero. Combination 2. surcharge. in the case of DA2. Since no structural loads are involved in this example. The design anchor forces are calculated to be 134kN for DA1 and 143kN for DA2. for the conditions in this example. A limiting equilibrium model is used. The groundwater level is at a height.5 φ’ to the normal on the rear o of the wall and = (2/3) φ’ on the front of the wall. i. are presented in Table 6. Combination o -1 2.2 – Vertical Equilibrium Checking vertical equilibrium.64m 3.

89 0.55 0.71 DA1(C2) = DA3 3.36 1.60 1.44 0. the design embedment length of 3. In this design example.53 -307.71 -12.03 64.00 6.68 12.44 3.64 41.67m.86 Horizontal Equilibrium for Anchor Force Pa:DA13 Anchor force = P1+P2+P3+P4+P5-P6:DA13-P71-P72-P73 Pa:DA2 Anchor force = P1+P2+P3+P4+P5-P6:DA13-P71-P72-P73 Find where S =0 to locate maximum bending moment.55 3.41 36.Table 6.5*Kad*γ1*dgwl2 P2M = γGunfav*Kad*γ1*dgwl*(ds-dgwl) P3M = γGunfav*0.64m 3.00 2.5*γw*(ds-dgwl-(j-i))2 l1 l2 l3 l4 l5 l7 la S:DA13=P1+P2+P3+P4+P5-P6:DA13-Pa:DA13 S-DA2 Lever Arms for Mmax ds-2*dgwl/3 (ds-dgwl)/2 (ds-dgwl)/3 ds/2 (ds-dgwl)/3 (ds-dgwl-(j-i))/3 ds-a Maximum Bending Moment . Mmax ds Depth where shear force = 0 Pah-soil-1 Pah-soil-2 Pah-soil-3 Pqh Paw Pphwater1 S P1M = γGunfav*0.61 3.23 0. 341 kNm 370 kNm.6 3.60m) 3.21 0.41 142.60 -12.88 0. 2.60 64.83 0.Mmax P1M*l1+P2M*l2+P3M*l3+P4M*l4+P5M *l5-P7M*l7-Pa:DA13*la P1M*l1+P2M*l2+P3M*l3+P4M*l4+P5M *l5-P7M*l7-Pa:DA13*la Mmax:DA13 Mmax:DA2 3.67 134.00 6.33 3.55 0. this is the only example where Design Approach 2 is more conservative than Design Approach 1.85 -341.5*γw*ht*(ds-dgwl) P71M = γGunfav*0. For the design conditions in the GEO examples.26 8.96 0.00 6.82 129.67 ΣV = 0 :DA13 ΣV = 0 :DA2 -10.5*Kad*(γ2*(ds-dgwl)-gw*hsb)*(ds-dgwl) P4M = γQunfav*Kad*qk*ds P5M = γGunfav*0.17 0.26 0.67m obtained using Design Approach 2 is slightly greater than the design embedment length of 3.98 6.45 4.64 -10.52 4.28 -10.55 3.76 4.41 45.45 4.2: Values used to check vertical equilibrium and determine maximum design bending moment Parameter D Embedment Depth Check Vertical Equilibrium P6:DA13* tanδpd – Σ(P1 to P4)*tanδad P6:DA2* tanδpd –Σ(P1 to P4)*tanδad Description/Calculation DA1(C1) 2.64m obtained using Design Approaches 1 and 3. 102 . for the conditions in this example. Conclusions Thus.35 59.28 1.66 0.01 0. the design embedment lengths are: (Design Approaches 1(C1): Design Approaches 1(C2) and 3: Design Approach 2: The design maximum bending moments are: Design Approaches 1(C2) and 3: Design Approach 2: The design anchor forces are: Design Approaches 1(C2) and 3: Design Approach 2: 134 kN 143 kN.03 1.34 4.4 -369.18 0.35 1.2 3.82 0.28 DA2 3.

γ = 20kN/m3 (below water table) • Actions . the additional resistance.Model Solution for Example 8 – Uplift of a Deep Basement 1.4.7.0m 2. Rd may also be treated as a stabilising permanent vertical action.d ≤ Gstb.4. Description of the problem Design situation .d = 0.8) 3. Rd.stb (γc.3m • Require .d = γG. Gstb.4(1)): Vdst.Characteristic structural loading gk = 40kPa .d = γG.81 x (5 + 0. and. Value of the Stabilising Vertical Action The design value of the stabilising permanent vertical action is given by the sum of the design value of the stabilising permanent vertical action. Rd (2.4. Gstb. The stabilising permanent vertical action is given by: Gstb.d and the design value of any additional resistance to uplift. According to Clause 2.4(2).d and the additional resistance to uplift.d + Qdst. ϕ'k = 35 . as there is no variable destabilising action so that Qdst. The required thickness of the base slab.dst γw (H + D) B = 1.Thickness of base slab.d.7.81 kN/m3. Destabilising Vertical Action Assuming the groundwater level is at the ground surface and treating the upward water pressure on the bottom of the basement as a permanent action (Clause 2. designing against the ultimate limit state of uplift (UPL) is carried out by checking that the design value of the combination of destabilising permanent and variable vertical actions.Concrete weight density γ= 24kN/m3 .0m D B = 15.Sand – c'k = 0. due to friction on the sides of the basement.60) x 15 = 824.d is less than or equal to the sum of the design value of the stabilising permanent vertical actions.d This general inequality is applied when checking the stability of submerged structures against uplift failure and the stability against uplift of impermeable layers in excavations.d + Rd where Vdst.0 kN/m where the weight density of the water = 9.60m. the design value of the destabilising vertical action per metre length of the basement for D = 0.56 m is given by: Vdst. with a 5m deep basement . Vdst. D is assumed to be 0. Ultimate Limit State Design According to Eurocode 7. 15m wide.2(16)P).Groundwater level can rise to the ground surface • Soil Conditions o .d = Gdst.Long structure. 4.d ≤ Gdst.0 x 9.k (2 t H + B D) + gk B) 103 . Gstb.Wall thickness = 0. D for safety against uplift • Structural loading gk = 40kPa H = 5. (2.

the basement is stable against uplift.24 x 28. Hence the characteristic resistance.4 kN/m while the destabilising vertical action Vdsb. Also assuming that δ = (2/3)φ’k.d + Rd Vdst.5(5 + 0. This indicates that. Hence. Stability against Uplift The stability of the basement against uplift is checked by substituting the values above in Equation 2. London.5 . Kad and δd values to obtain Rd gives: Rd = 2 (H + D) Kd σv’ tanδd.81) = 28. using 1/γM as a partial action factor.d ≤ Gstb. R.30 and δd = o (2/3)29.8: Vdst. K is increased with the result that Rd is slightly greater than Rk.74m. = 2 (5 + 0.d = 824.d ≤ Gstb.0 ≤ Gstb.0 kN/m o Applying the partial factor γM to reduce tanφ’k gives φ’d = tan-1(tan35/1.24.d = 824.5 = 33.3 .d + Rd.25 = 26.2 % of the total design stabilising action. References Frank. As Rd = 26.e. then the thickness of the base needs to be increased to 0.5 kPa is the vertical effective stress at the mid-height of the side walls and δ is the angle of shearing resistance between the soil and the side walls.2 kN/m The additional resistance between the soil and basement side walls. Rd is calculated as follows: Rd = Rk/γM = 33. Thomas Telford Ltd. For this reason. (2004).9 x (24 x (2 x 0.5 x tan23.5(H + D)(γ – γw) = 0. it is assumed o that Kk = Kak.k is the characteristic weight density of the concrete and t is the thickness of the basement walls.4(2).25) = 29.9 kN/m Hence. Rk may be obtained by assuming that R = 2 (H + D) Kσv’ tanδ.5 tan19. 104 .60)(20 – 9. the thickness of the base is sensitive with regard to whether the soil resistance on the side walls is ignored or included.30 x 28. since the partial factor on weight density is unity: Gstb. in accordance with Clause 2. 2.1 is = 0.4% more than the thickness obtained when the side resistance is included. Taking a conservative approach. where K is the lateral earth pressure.4 kN/m 5. Rd provides only 3. Note 1. et al. Thus the stability is almost entirely determined by the weight of the basement.3 = 19.4.where γc. as recommended by Frank et al.2 + 26.General Rules. If the side resistance is ignored. = 2 (5 + 0.6 Since Vdst.9 x (72 + 216 + 600) = 799. Rk has been treated as a favourable action.3 = 33. and. applying the partial factor γM to reduce tanφ’k provides no margin of safety on Rd because. Using these φ’d. Hence for the requirement for stability against uplift is satisfied if D ≥ 0. i.60) 0. the value of Kak for 35 from Figure C1.7. in this example. Rk is: Rk = 2 (H + D) Kak σv’ tanδk.0 kN/m. it needs to be increased by 23.60m. (2004) Designers' Guide to EN 1997 -1 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design . in this example.6) 0. for this design situation. σv’ = 0.60) + 40 x 15) = 0.d = 0.d + Rd = 799.3 x 5 + 15 x 0.0/1. although tanδ is reduced.4 = 825. Kad = 0.

d at the base of the column of soil in front of the wall must not exceed the design stabilising total stress.2).stbγ'V. where ik = hk/d is the characteristic hydraulic gradient in front of the wall.1(6)P) and hence assess the appropriate design values for the hydraulic gradient.dstγw(hk/d)V. however.d = γG.9b) Using this equation with the partial action factors γG.2.d Using this equation with γG. this will not be the case and the designer will need to assess the most unfavourable combination of soil layers and pore pressures that could occur (2. γw(d + dw). . In practice.dstuk = γw(d + dw + hk) and σstb.0m d = 3.17 applied to the characteristic total pore water pressure and the total stress.e. (2.4. when heave failure is a real danger. γ and γ' are the soil total and effective weight densities and γw = 9.e. above ground surface in front of the wall.81kN/m3 is the water weight density.d = γG. when Equation 2. the hydrostatic pore water pressures on either side of the equation cancel and Equation 2. it becomes udst. and G’ = γG.9a or Equation 2. i.1(3)P). dw = depth of water above ground surface in front of wall.0m • • 2. is multiplied by different factors on either side of the equation. Sdst. Hence: γG.k = γwhk.d ≤ σstb. Ultimate Limit State Design The objective in this example is to determine H.6.stb(γ .d (2. It is assumed that the ground consists of ideal uniform sand with uniform permeability. 105 .9b.9a becomes the same as Equation 2. design against hydraulic heave failure (HYD) may be carried out using either Equation 2.9a states that the design destabilising total pore water pressure.dstγw(hk/d)V ≤ γG.stb((γ’ + γw)d + γwdw).stbσk = (γd + γwdw) = γG. and to the effective stress. γ’d.9b.stbγ' Equation 2.stb in Table A.dstγwhk/d ≤ γG. udst.9b.9a is used in this way the hydrostatic pore water pressure.stbγ'V or γG. It is assumed that the ground surface level in front of the wall is reliably controlled so that no allowance is required for overdig (9.d on the column of soil in front of the wall must not exceed the design stabilising submerged weight.γw)V = γG. σstb. which is not logical. to ensure safety against hydraulic heave H=? Water Sand dw = 1. the height of the groundwater level behind the wall to avoid heave failure in front of the wall. pore-water pressures and seepage forces (10.stb in Table A. where.0 m above ground surface in front of wall Require Maximum height H of water behind the wall. hk = characteristic hydraulic head at the wall toe and d = wall embedment depth. which is destabilising action. Hence: γG. G’stb.d of the column of soil in front of the wall.d.9a) udst.17 of EN 1997-1 for a column of soil of depth d and volume V gives Sdst. i.Model Solution for Example 9 – Failure by Hydraulic Heave 1.dstγw(d + dw + hk) ≤ γG.stb(γ’d + γw(d + γwdw)) As can be seen from this equation. According to Eurocode 7.dst and γG.3.dst and γG. which states that the design destabilising seepage force.dstγwikV = γG.: Sdst.d = γG. Description of the problem • • 7. Considering first Equation 2. If the partial factors are just applied to the excess pore water pressure uh.d ≤ G’stb.0m Design situation Seepage around an embedded sheet pile retaining wall Soil conditions Sand: γ = 20 kN/m3 Actions Groundwater level 1.

0 + 2.9a than using Equation 2.9b is satisfied for H ≤.81 x 2.81) = 9.0) ) Hence.k and σstb. even for uniform soils. Proceedings of International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7.stb to udst.9a with HYD partial action factors applied to udst.9 x (20.d = γG.0 – 9. Dublin March-April 2005.0) = 2.k Assuming H = 6.Harbours and Waterways. The hydraulic gradient inside a cofferdam is often much higher than outside.84m.γw) = 0. 8th edition.0 = 9.2 kN Thus Sdst. 3.stb(γd + γwdw) = 0.0) ) Hence.0 x 3.k and σstb. taking account of the hydraulic gradients around the wall and particularly in front of the wall. uh.8 kPa Thus udst.9b with HYD partial action factors applied to Sdst. as shown by Orr (2005).d = γG.8 kPa σstb.9a and 6. it predicts that hk decreases as the depth of the water above the ground in front of the wall increases.k and the effective stress.Hydraulic head at toe of wall In order to determine the value of H. (2005) Evaluation of uplift and heave designs to Eurocode 7. Berlin: Ernst & Sohn Orr T.2 kN G’ = γG.0 + 2.2.d = σstb.0 + 1.9a is satisfied for H ≤.35 x 9. as noted by Orr (2005).stb are applied to Sdst.k in Equation 2.9a and the hydrostatic pore water pressure should not be factored. Structural and Environmental Engineering.84) + 3.d = γG.0m and dw = 1.dst and γG.78m.dst and γG.d and G’stb in Equation 2. Applying γG.78m when γG. these partial factors need to be applied to just the hydraulic head.k Assuming H = 2. assuming uniform soil conditions in this example and using the equation in EAU (2004) for the hydraulic head at the toe of the wall.78) + 3.0 + 1. the value of hk calculated using the above equation is: hk = ((3.84m. References EAU (2004) Recommendations of the Committee for Waterfront Structures .74) = 62.0) 3.35 x 9.78m.81 (3.dstγw(d + dw+ hk) = 1. a linear loss of hydraulic head around the wall is often assumed when designing the embedment depth of embedded retaining walls.9b.84m when γG.6.0 + 1.0 + 6.0 + 1.9b.08/3.stb with Equations 2. 106 . Thus applying the partial factors in this way in Equation 2.dst and γG.0 − (3. udst.0 − (3.81 x 1. for a unit volume of soil: Sdst.0 + 9.k and G'stb.9a not only gives a more conservative result but it is not logical since different partial factors are applied to the hydrostatic pore water pressure on each side of the equation with the result that.0) = 0. Trinity College Dublin. σ’ = γ’d in Equation 2.9 x (20.0) 3. Design using Equation 2. However.dstγwhk/d = 1. For clay soils and low seepage gradients.stb are applied to udst. the maximum design height of the groundwater level behind the wall for design against hydraulic heave was found to be 2.0 + 1.d and hence Equation 2.k and σstb.d = G’ and hence Equation 2.stb(γ .08m ( 3. To obtain the same result using γG.78) 3.9b.84 + (3.0) = 62.0m in this example.L.dst and γG. Conclusions When designing against heave failure it is important not to assume uniform conditions but to determine the most unfavourable combination of soil layers and pore pressures that could occur.0 + 2.9a results in a much more conservative design using Equation 2.L. Department of Civil. the value of hk at the toe is calculated using the above equation as: h= ((3. This results in an underestimate of hk and hence an overprediction of H and thus an unconservative design.k in Equation 2.9a and 2.0 + 0. A higher estimate of the hydraulic head at the toe of the wall may be obtained from the following equation in EAU (2004): hk = ((d + d w ( ) d + H + (d + H ) d − (d + d w ) d+H + d ) ) Design using Equation 2.0 + 6.74m ( 3.0 + 6. and for d = 3.78 + (3. it is necessary to assess the value of hk. as γ = 20kN/m3.84) 3.

5. As the ground is homogeneous. o 3 ϕ'k = 37 and γ = 19 kN/m H? Clay: cuk = 15kPa and γ = 17kN/m3 • Design Situation . γE in Table A. 107 . In slope stability analyses. circular failure surfaces are assumed (C10.4 and the partial resistance factors.2(2)) using the partial factors for actions. Ultimate Limit State Design The maximum height is assessed for each Design Approach and for undrained conditions for the ultimate limit state of overall stability (C12.Traffic load on embankment: qk = 10kPa Require .6 ) Soil conditions o . To overcome this difficulty. the partial factors for soil parameters. γM in Table A.3. H.1 is difficult because neither the actions nor the resistances are calculated explicitly and it is not appropriate to factor the weight density as the partial factor on weight density given in Eurocode 7 is unity. γR for slopes and overall stability in Table A.e. i. The characteristic and design values of actions and ground strength parameters used for the three Design Approaches (DA) are presented in Table 1. γ = 19kN/m3 . of embankment • • • 2.Fill for embankment: Granular soil c'k = 0. Description of the problem Surcharge 10kPa 13 m 1:2 Embankment fill: ck = 0.1(5)). Embankment is 13m wide at the top o and has side slopes at 1:2 (26. factoring the actions due to the weight of the ground in DA1-C1 and DA2 by the partial factor γM = 1.14 in Annex A of Eurocode 7. Stability analyses were carried out with different circular slip surfaces to determine the slip circle giving the critical slip circle.Maximum height. The ultimate limit state analysis of the overall stability is performed using the Bishop Simplified method of slices. ϕ'k = 37 .35 or factoring the resistances by γR = 1. γF or the effects of actions. γ = 17kN/m3 Characteristic values of actions . the circle giving the minimum F value (factor of safety).A road embankment is to be constructed over soft clay. the procedure recommended by Frank et al.Soil beneath embankment: Clay cuk = 15kPa.Model Solution for Example 10 – Road Embankment on Soft Ground 1.

R. N.0 γQ used in analyses = (γQ/γQ) γφ’ γcu γcu DA1-C1 1. Thus. qk (kPa) Design surcharge. Driscoll.0 1. the aim is select an embankment height that will provide F = 1.25 1. Krebs Ovesen. 3.0 1.47 11.Designers’ Guide to EN 1997-1.3 1.0 37.4 1.15 1. 2.49..35 * 1.0 10 DA1-C2 1.4 1.0 10. References Frank. B. 2. 2. which is less than the height obtained using DA1 and DA3. Thomas Telford. γk (kN/m3) Fill design weight density. C. The design height for DA2 is 2.0 1. and Schuppener. London 108 .0 1.5/1.90 - 13 19 19 37..49 2.1 19 19 37.35 1.7 1. Conclusions From the results in table.11 at the start of the analysis and in the DA1-C1 analysis. DA2 is more conservative than DA1 or DA3.7 1.0 1. M. Orr. R. therefore DA1-C2 determines the design for DA1.35 * 1.15m.0 10 DA2 1. γd (kN/m3) φ’k φ’d Clay Soil Clay characteristic weight density.11 1.0 1.5 1.35 = 1. γk (kN/m3) Clay design weight density. in this example.47 (2004) is adopted whereby the variable unfavourable action (traffic) load) is factored by γQ/γG at the start of the analysis and the analysis is then carried out to achieve a calculated factor of safety F = γG γR.1 17 19 15.. soil parameters and results in the embankment designs Parameter Partial factors γG γQ γG used in analyses = γG/γQ = 1.25 1. while in the DA2 analysis.40 1.0 2..53.0 15.0 37.53 13 19 19 37..1 = 1. qd (kPa) Fill characteristic weight density.0 17 17 15.35 1.35. γd (kN/m3) cuk cud Embankment Design Target F value in analyses = γG γR Design embankment height.0 17 17 15.4m.3 1.40 1. The design height for DA3. the aim is to achieve F = 1. giving an overall factor of 1. it is seen that the height obtained using DA1-C1.0 2. Bauduin.0 = 1. Thus in DA1-C1 and DA2.0 10.3 1. compared to 1.0 1.47 using DA1 and DA3.0 1.0 31. as shown in Table 1.11 1. (2004) .1 19 19 37.0 1.Table 1: Partial factors. the variable load is multiplied by 1. Kavvadas.0 15 1.0 1.0 10 Embankment Characteristic surcharge. T.4m is the same as for DA3 because the variable traffic loading is treated as a geotechnical action rather a structural action and hence the partial factors for DA3 are the same as those for DA1C2.1 10 DA3 1. is greater than that obtained using DA1-C2.3 1. actions.9m.5 1.0 31.1 17 17 15.35 2.0 1. H Overall safety factor using characteristic values 11.

if the factors are applied to the excess pore water pressure and effective stress in Equations 2. UPL is also relevant when the uplift force on the structure is not due to water pressure but due to some other force.L. then the same design is obtained using both Equations 2.Evaluation of Uplift and Heave Designs to Eurocode 7 T. or excessive seepage forces causing heave failure. Ireland ABSTRACT The equations in Eurocode 7 to design against the ultimate limit states of uplift and heave are presented and examined. Dublin University. Much of the difference between the solutions received for the examples was due to the use of different calculation models and design assumptions. The application of the HYD partial action factors in Eurocode 7 to the characteristic total pore water pressure and total stress in Equation 2.9b. The HYD ultimate limit state is “hydraulic heave. In this situation the static water pressure causes a destabilising uplift force on the structure.9b. termed HYD.9a. which is resisted mainly by the self-weight of the structure. Orr Trinity College. However.9b are factored. The solutions received to the uplift and heave design examples are compared and it is found that. or if the hydraulic head is treated as a geometrical property and increased by an appropriate margin.9b rather than Equation 2.L. there was little agreement regarding how the side wall resistance should be treated. either by excessive pore water pressure causing uplift.1 Ultimate Limit States The principal ultimate limit states with which Eurocode 7 is concerned are those where “the strength of the ground is significant in providing resistance”.9a. rather than due to different interpretations of Eurocode 7. The solution to the heave example was found to be particularly sensitive to the assumption regarding the hydraulic gradient around the wall. The UPL ultimate limit state is “loss of equilibrium of a structure or the ground due to uplift by water pressure (buoyancy) or other vertical actions”. the same design is obtained as when the factors are applied in Equation 2.9a is shown to be very conservative and not logical. Alternatively. internal erosion and piping in the ground caused by hydraulic gradients”. In these ultimate limit states. The principles for designing against these ultimate limit states are provided in Section 11 of EN 1997-1 on hydraulic failure. if just the excess pore water pressure in Equation 2. for example the tensile force from the cable for a suspended structure acting on an anchor block foundation. termed UPL. in the heave example. the resistance to the destabilising action is principally provided by the self-weight of the structure or the ground. but there may also be some resistance from the ground around the structure due to the strength of the ground.9a and the hydraulic gradient in Equation 2. Eurocode 7 is also concerned with two other ultimate limit states where the strength of the ground is not significant in providing resistance. there was a general preference to use Eurocode 7’s Equation 2. in the uplift example. The most common UPL ultimate limit state is when static water pressure causes uplift of a structure with a deep basement.9a and 2. these are known as GEO ultimate limit states. 1 GENERAL 1. for example the bearing failure of shallow foundations and piles. These are the ultimate limit states where the forces or pressures due to pore water cause failure. However. Thus while UPL is for static groundwater at 147 . whereas.

or Sdst.2 Equilibrium Equations for Design Against Uplift and Heave Failure In designs against uplift failure or UPL ultimate limit states.25 1. EN 1997-1 only provides HYD partial factors on stabilising favourable and destabilising unfavourable actions.5 1.9a is the only equilibrium equation in Eurocode 7 presented in terms of stress. Rd between the soil and the structure.dst γG.25 1.Table 1 Partial factors for UPL and HYD ultimate limit states Partial factors Actions γG. the resistance to the disturbing force is provided entirely by the weight of the soil and the strength of the ground is not considered to be involved at all in resisting the force of the seeping water.d (2. These partial factors are presented in Table 1.8) where the design destabilising action.d can be a permanent and/or a variable uplift force and the equation number in italic is the number of the equation in EN 1997-1.5 for both uplift and heave.35 in the case of heave. EN 1997-1 states in 2.9b) where Sdst. The design stabilising action is the design self-weight of the structure.d is the design total vertical stress at the base of the column.d (2. It should be noted that partial factors for ground strength parameters and resistances are only provided in the case of uplift and not for heave since heave does not involve any strength of the ground. 1.d = Gdst. the partial factor on destabilising unfavourable permanent actions is 1.d is the design total pore water pressure at the base of the relevant column of soil whose equilibrium is being analysed and σstb. while for designs against heave failure.4 1.0 0.d is the design seepage force due to the seeping water on the relevant column of soil and G'stb. It is noted that Equations 2. The partial factor on stabilising favourable permanent actions is 0. all the other equilibrium equations are presented in terms of actions and resistances that are forces.1(1)P).4(1) that the equilibrium equation to be satisfied is: Vdst.4 1.4.4 1. Gstb. while the partial factor on destabilising variable actions is 1. Also Equation 2.5(1)P that either of the following two equilibrium equations may be used: udst.d.d is the design effective weight of the column. EN 1997-1 provides UPL partial factors on stabilising and destabilising actions.stb γQ.7. and there may also be some additional design resistance. plus partial factors on material parameters and resistances. 148 .9a) where udst.9 1.9 1.9a and 2.9 for both uplift and heave. However.d ≤ G'stb. This situation is also known as boiling (Clause 10.t γa 1.0 in the case of uplift and 1.9b only involve actions and no soil resistance and hence no soil strength.dst Soil Parameters and Resistances γφ' γc’ γcu γσ. In this situation. In designs against heave failure or HYD ultimate limit states.4. Vdst.7. In the case of uplift due to groundwater pressure.3 Partial Factors Provided for Designs against Uplift and Heave For designs against heave failure.d + R d (2. 1.5 UPL HYD hydrostatic pressure.35 0. EN 1997-1 states in 2.d ≤ Gstb.d ≤ σstb. which is a permanent load. HYD is when hydraulic gradients cause failure by the force of the upward seeping water exceeding the weight of the soil. this may be interpreted as the groundwater pressure having a permanent and a variable component.d + Qdst.

9b gives: Sdst.dst and γG.7. Sdst.∆h Standpipe hk hd Design hydraulic head Water level above ground surface Ground level dw Design effective weight.stbG'stb.5(2)P states that the design destabilising and stabilising actions in Equations 2. 2.stb in Designs Against Heave When designing against heave.d Design total vertical stress.k ≤ γG. the design destabilising and stabilising actions in Equation 2.k + γQ.dst/γG. the characteristic average hydraulic gradient through the column is ik = hk/d. Applying the partial factors in Table 1 to the characteristic stabilising and destabilising actions in Equation 2. Vdst. ud Figure 1: Design forces and pressures on soil column subjected to seepage 1. the overall factor of safety. The characteristic seepage force is Sdst. σd Design total pore water pressure. from Equation 2.d ⇒ γG. However.k/Vdst.d ⇒ γG.11 (1) In practice there will normally be some additional ground resistance and this will increase the OFS value above 1. no examples are given in EN 1997-1 showing the use of γG.8 when designing against uplift are obtained by applying the UPL partial action factors in Table 1 to the characteristic stabilising and destabilising actions as follows: Vdst.k (2) ⇒ γG.8.d ≤ Gstb. Taking Equation 2.k.9 = 1. 1. which.dst γw ikV ≤ γG. G’stb.9b shall obtained using the HYD partial action factors γG.stb in Equations 2.k = γG.dst and γG.k = γwikV.k (2.9a and 2. In the case of uplift. OFS is the ratio of the characteristic permanent stabilising action.8) For an uplift situation where there are only permanent stabilising actions and no additional ground resistance.d ≤ G'stb. the destabilising action is the uplift force due to the hydrostatic water pressure acting on the buried structure. as shown in Figure 1.d Relevant soil column.stbGstb.9b. is given by: OFS = Gstb.4 Use of Partial Factors in Designs Against Uplift Ignoring the side resistance on a buried structure.stb in Table 1.dst and γG.stb γ' V (3) 149 . and considering a soil column of depth d and volume V with a depth dw of water above the ground.k to the characteristic permanent destabilising action.k = γG.5 Use of Partial Factors γG.dstSdst.9a and 2. volume V d Design seepage force.9b first.4.sbt = 1. Gstb.dstGdst.0/0. and with a characteristic hydraulic head at the base of the column equal to hk.dstQdst.11.

stb are applied to udst. assuming this is a permanent destabilising action. the characteristic excess hydraulic head.stb are applied to Sdst.d and G'stb.9b. Eventually.35/0. but that it should be analysed using Equation 2.9 = γ'd/(1. applying γG.dst(γw(d + dw) + γwhk) ≤ γG. Equation 4. Considering the same column of soil as analysed using Equation 2.35 ik hk γ ' d + γ w (d + d w ) = = = 1. gives the following equation for OFS: OFS = ic/ik = 1. γw(d + dw).9 = 1.dstγwhk ≤ γG.stb 0.d ⇒ γG. is given by: hk = icd/1. is the equation often used in traditional designs against heave failure when OFS is normally in the range 1. this occurs when dw ≥ d. i.dstγw(d + dw) + γG. shown in bold. and the characteristic total stress at the base of the column to obtain the design destabilising and stabilising actions in Equation 2.dst = 1.d in Equation 2.k γ G .5γw) – (1. then. derived from Equation 2. As may be seen from Equation 8.stb(γ'd + γw(d + dw)) (7) Rearranging Equation 6 as the characteristic total stress over the characteristic total pore water pressure and substituting for the terms and using the partial factor values from Table 1 gives: + σ stb. gives the overall factor of safety against heave: OFS = Gstb. when dw increased to (2γ'/γ-1)d.stb = 1.9a and the total weight density of the soil.stbγ'd + γG.9b.9b.0. the characteristic hydraulic head at the toe of the wall when γG. as well as on ik As dw is increased with d kept constant.dst/γG.5γw) (5) Equation 2.35 on one side and by γG.dst and γG. hk decreases according to Equation 8. from Equation 4 and substituting ik = hk/d.stbγw(d + dw) (10) This equation has the hydrostatic static water pressure. However a number of those at the Workshop were of the view that it was not appropriate to analyse heave failure using the Equation 2.k) ≤ γG. Equation 2.5 (4) as the ratio of the critical hydraulic gradient ic = γ'/γw.dstudst.9b.e.Rearranging Equation 2 as the characteristic stabilising force over the characteristic destabilising force.stb in Table 1 are applied to udst.9a gives the overall factor of safety: udst. hk at the toe of the retaining wall to avoid hydraulic failure for a particular embedment depth d.9a is much more conservative than Equation 2.9)(d+dw)/0.5γw) = 0 and hence the ground is predicted to be unstable against heave for no hydraulic head! If γ' = γw = 10 kPa.k ⇒ γG.9b and the effective weight density of the soil.dst(us + uh. which is not logical. but multiplied by the partial factor γG.dst and γG. for a given d value.stb 150 .dst and γG.9 γ w hk + γ w (d + d w ) 1+ h k ic (d + d w ) (8) Rearranging Equation 8 to obtain the characteristic hydraulic head at the toe of the wall gives: (9) hk = γ'd/(1.d ≤ σstb.k in Equation 2.k and σstb.k γ G .5 = = OFS = (d + d s ) σ dst .k = γG.k to obtain the design destabilising and stabilising actions in Equation 2.k ≤ γG.5 While rearranging Equation 3.5γw) – (d +2γ'd/γ-d)/3 = γ'd/(1. Multiplying out Equation 7 gives: γG.9a depends on the values of d and dw.35-0. Substituting for these terms in Equation 6 gives: γG. on both sides of the equation.dst 1.5 to 2.stb in this way.dst and γG.9b was the equation chosen by most of those who submitted solutions to Design Example 9. the OFS value obtained when γG.9 = 1. then: hk = γ'd/(1.k = γwhk is the excess pore water pressure and σ’ = γ' d is the effective stress.k and σstb. If the column of soil represents the ground in front of a retaining wall.5γw) – (d+dw)/3 Thus.5 = γ'd/(1.5γw) – γ'd/(1.k/Gdst. and applying the HYD partial action factors in Table 1 to the characteristic total pore water pressure at the base of the column.stb(σ’ + us) (6) where us = γw(d + dw) is the hydrostatic pore water pressure. to the average hydraulic gradient through the column ik. uh.35/0. at which the characteristic upward seepage force just balances the effective weight of the soil and boiling occurs.9a is (d+dw)/3 less than the value obtained when γG.stbσstb.

As noted in the previous section. the hydraulic gradient does not conform to the definition of an action given in 2.4. Using Equation 2.d ⇒ us + γG.6 Use of a Single Partial Factor γF in Designs Against Heave Instead of applying the partial action factors in Table 1 to both the stabilising and destabilising characteristic actions in Equations 2.. Also.k and udst. and therefore γG.9a and 2.k consists of the effective stress. the characteristic pore water pressure and characteristic total stress both consist of two components: the total pore water pressure udst. the hydraulic gradient.dst only to the excess pore water pressure and the effective stress components of udst.9a and applying the partial action factor.d ≤ G'stb.k in Equation 2. gives: γG. However.k causing the heave is the excess pore pressure uh.k. Starting again with Equation 2.stbσ' (11) Substituting uh.9b and applying γF to ik. and applying no partial factor to the action due to the effective weight.9a is similar to Design Approach 2.stb and γG.d ⇒ γw idV ≤ γ'V ⇒ γw γF ikV ≤ γ'V ⇒ γw γF hk/d ≤ γ' (12) ⇒ hk = γ'd/γFγw By comparing Equation 12 with Equation 5 it can be seen that to obtain the same design when using γF as a partial action factor on the characteristic hydraulic gradient as when using the partial action factors γG. treating ik as the destabilising action. is similar to the application of the partial resistance factor.dst should only be applied to these components when using Equation 2.dst and γG.d and σstb.k = γw ikV. γF could be applied to just the destabilising components of udst.9a.5.d results in the same designs against heave as when applying these partial factors to Sdst.stbσ' + us Cancelling the hydrostatic pore water pressure.k and Sdst. applying the partial factors γG. γG. Hence.stbγ'V which is the same as Equation 2. the component of this action causing the heave may be considered to be ik.stb and γG. multiplying by V and substituting ik = hk/d.9 on the other side.7.k ≤ γG. as shown by Equation 6. us plus the excess pore water pressure uh.k and σdst. then γF must equal 1. not just to the excess pore water pressure.= 0.stb in Table 1 are applied to the full characteristic pore water pressure and the full characteristic total stress in Equation 2. the application of different partial action factors to the characteristic actions due to the weight of the water coming from the same source on opposite sides of Equation 2. the destabilising component causing heave. gives: Sdst. γM to the soil strength.k are the excess pore water pressure and the effective stress. nor is it listed as an action in 2. Since Sdst.4. a single partial action factor.dst should not be applied to this component.k.dst to the total characteristic pore water pressure in Equation 2.9b. while the total stress.4.dst in Table 1 on the stabilising and destabilising actions in Equation 2.dsγwikV ≤ γG.k and applying no partial factor to the actions due to the soil effective stress or the hydrostatic pore water pressure. The problems noted above occur because γG. The stabilising and destabilising components of σdst.k consists of the hydrostatic pore water pressure.2(4). σ’ plus the hydrostatic pore water pressure. but a neutral action and hence the partial factors γG. σdst.9a. γR to the total resistance in the case of Design Approach 2 in GEO ultimate limit states rather than applying the partial material factor.9a as follows: udst. although 2. uh.dstuh.k ≤ γG.9b.e.stb and γG. γF to the characteristic excess pore water pressure.k. as in the case of Design Approach 1. this equation reduces to: γG. This is contrary to the single source principle of applying the same factor to actions from the same source. The application of the destabilising partial action factor. However. the component of udst. i. 1. us.1(1)P refers to “heave…caused by hydraulic gradients”.k causing the heave. The hydrostatic pore water pressure component of udst.d ≤ σstb. σ' = γ’d.dstuh.9b.k is neither a stabilising nor a destabilising action with regard to heave.9b. gives: 151 .stb and γG.k and G'stb. while applying no partial factor to actions due to the total or effective weights of the soil on the stabilising side.1(1)P. uh.k = γwhk.

5. 2. resulting in a lower hk value and hence a more cautious design that takes account of the soil density. and Equation 17 is used. The ranges in the values of D in these solutions received were as follows: .2.7kN/m3.k and σstb.2(2). d and not the soil effective weight density. which is equivalent to treating the uplift force as a permanent action. subject to a maximum of 0.dst to obtain udst. which states that.1. as shown above. However.11m = average value ± 46% .dst = 1. the uplift force was treated as an accidental action. “an allowance ∆a.4.2.81) = d/5.9a. The ranges of values of D when using Eurocode 7 and the National Standards are similar.47m and 5.0 was used.dst are applied to udst. taking account of the uncertainty and variability in γ’ or γ. in the case of cantilever retaining walls.35m = average value ± 41%. σstb. Design Situation and Solutions Obtained The design situation in Example 8 for the Eurocode 7 Workshop consisted of a structure with a 5m deep basement. However. if the mean groundwater level were known. giving rise to very large base thicknesses of 3.k for designs against heave using Equations 2.stb and γG. for this situation.Range of D values from National Standards: 0. and it may be appropriate to select the values of the actions directly rather than to rely on prescribed factors since it is difficult for code drafters to foresee what sort of factors or margins are relevant and realistic in practical design cases. Thus Equation 17 is recommended for use in design. When designing against heave.0.2(1)P). The design hydraulic head is given by: hd = hk + γ 'd 3γ w (19) The design values of γ’ or γ. should be made”. However design values of actions may also be determined directly rather than by the application of partial action factors (2. equal to 10% of the wall height above the excavation level. including variations in permeability.41 to 1.26m. 153 .dst = 1. One solution stated out that. rather than γG.d and G’dst. Partial factors on the Uplift Force In most of the solutions to Example 8.Range of D values from Eurocode 7: 0.57 to 1.9a and 2.k in Equation 2. the uplift force from the groundwater pressure was treated as a permanent action and thus the partial factor γG. The advantage of using ∆a in designs against heave. 2 UPLIFT DESIGN EXAMPLE 2.6. In another solution. it is necessary to take account of all unfavourable conditions (10.Designing against heave failure using ∆h = d/3 from Equation 18 only involves a geometric term.5m.4.dst = 1. this causes problems when the γG.3(2)P). The design involving determining the thickness of the concrete base slab.6.1(1)P). Equation 18 is similar to the allowance for the ground level in front of retaining walls given in 9. Sdst. D to ensure safety against uplift failure.81)d/(3x9. and the presence of any soil layers with low weight densities. is that the safety element is applied to the source of the uncertainty at the start of the calculation and it is not necessary first to calculate the excess pore water pressure or to apply partial factors to any terms involving the weight densities of either the soil or the water.dst or γF.d. which are normally assessed directly (2. There are a number of reasons for the range of D values obtained using Eurocode 7 and these are discussed in the following sections.stb and γG. It should be noted that Eurocode 7 only provides the partial factors γG. if the weight density of the soil is low. as shown in Figure 2. with γG. Equation 17 provides a much more cautious value for ∆h than d/3. in some solutions the uplift force was treated as a variable action with γQ. for example if γ = 15.9b.3. 12 solutions were received to this example based on Eurocode 7 and 2 solutions were received based on National Standards. γ’. since. the uplift force due to the groundwater at this mean level could be treated as a permanent action and the uplift force due to the difference between the mean groundwater level and the higher nominal groundwater level could be treated as a variable action. should be appropriately assessed. Thus.d . then ∆h = γ’d/(3γw) = (15 –9.stb and γG.

However.stb to it as an action. Regarding the application of partial factors to tanφ’ and tanδ or to Ktanδ. with a 5m deep basement . all of which may be considered to be in accordance with EN 1997-1.3. as a stabilising permanent vertical action in accordance with 2.Sand – c'k = 0. results in an overall factor of safety of 1.Uplift of a deep basement 2. different assumptions were made in the solutions regarding the values of K and δ and regarding what partial factors should be applied to obtain the design values of the combined parameter Ktanδ.Long structure. which is an additional resistance to uplift.96. which is the ratio of the characteristic Katanδ value to the design Katanδ value. This results in an overall factor of safety for Katanδ of 0. with R being treated as both a resistance and an action.e. The main features of the different ways of applying the factors and the resulting overall factor of safety. Since σv' is calculated from the weight density of the soil. D for safety against uplift • Figure 2: Example 8 .7.Characteristic structural loading gk = 40kPa .4(2) and applying the action factor γG. while the others used δ = φ’. Applying the factor γφ' to reduce φ’ and reduce δ. σv' is the vertical effective stress. assuming K = Ka. The problem with this method is that there is double factoring. i.103. as set out in Table 2.Wall thickness = 0.stb resulting in an overall factor of safety of 1. less than 1. K the solutions were evenly divided between those who chose K0 = (1 – sinφ’) and those who chose the more conservative Ka value.3m • Require .Groundwater level can rise to the ground surface • Soil Conditions o . Ground Resistance on Buried Structure The main differences between the solutions arose due to different assumptions regarding the resistance between the sand and the side walls of the basement. causes δ to reduce but causes Ka to increase. 15m wide.11.5. τ given by an equation of the form τ = Kσv'tanδ. some resistance was assumed and this was determined from the shear stress. The wall friction angle.0m Design situation .ktanδk/(Katanδ)d.0m D 15. may be summarised as follows: 1.Thickness of base slab.0 and hence no safety because the design Katanδ value using this method is 0. i.e.1 of EN 1997-1 taking account of the wall friction angle. Ka.Concrete weight density γ = 24kN/m3 . which is greater than the characteristic value. which is the value that may be assumed for concrete cast against soil. The problem with this method is that it treats what is 154 . and δ is the friction angle against between the soil and wall. The first row in this table is when no factors are applied and provides the characteristic Ktanδ value. and the overall factor of safety is low 3. in accordance with the maximum value stated in 9. no assumptions were required to calculate it and no partial factors were applied to it. where K is the coefficient of horizontal earth pressure and is a function of φ’.08. mostly obtained from Figure C1. δ was set equal to (2/3)φ’ in the majority of the solutions. which is unconservative. γ = 3 20kN/m (below water table) • Actions . OFS. 2.4. Applying the factor γφ' to reduce φ’ and δ and then treating the resulting side friction force. In all the solutions based on Eurocode 7.1(6) for precast concrete walls. Regarding the coefficient of earth pressure. φ'k = 35 . there are 5 different possible ways this can be done. Treating the characteristic side friction force as an action and applying γG.Structural loading gk = 40kPa 5.

so as to reduce Ka and hence provide a cautious estimate of σh’. clearly a resistance as an action and.11 1/1.431 (Katanδ)d 0. γφ' applied to reduce φ' and δ and also γG. and assumptions regarding Ktanδ 0.25.103 0.354 0.08 1. 5.4.3 Ka 0.0 41.0 1.25 4. Only γφ' applied to reduce φ' and δ 2. however.25 35. Kktanδk treated as an action and only γG.9 1.0 29.3(10)P which stated that “For ultimate limit states in which soil strength acts in an unfavourable manner.099 OFS 1.29 0. Naturally this results in an overall factor of safety of 1.25 1.0 to be applied to a characteristic soil strength value so as to increase the soil strength. there was a clause 2.5 0.5 0. is to treat γφ' as a resistance factor and apply it to the characteristic Katanδ value.0 35.2(1)P allowing for a partial material factor γM less than 1.(2004). as it does in this example when φ’ is used to calculate Ka. Kktanδk treated as a resistance and only γ φ' applied as a resistance factor γφ' γδ γG.stb applied 4.23 tanδ 0.0 23. Only γ φ' applied to increase φ' and reduce δ 5. the partial factor is applied differently to δ and φ’.9 1. Conclusions Regarding Uplift The examination of the solutions the uplift design example show that most of the variations in the solutions were due to assumptions made regarding the soil resistance on the side walls of 155 .4.0 1.0”.Table 2: Different methods for obtaining the design resistance on a buried structure Method No.3 19. This may be justified on the basis that the soil close to the wall providing the δ value is different from the general mass of the soil providing the Ka value and hence it is appropriate to treat δ and φ’ differently.25 0. Applying the factor γφ' to reduce δ but to increase φ’.65.stb applied 3. results in an overall factor of safety of 1.23 0. The problem with regard to EN 1997-1 is that there is no provision in 2. Another fifth method.25 1. In the ENV version of Eurocode 7.431 0. 2.079 1.4. With regard to this method.431 0.6.2 5 1.25 1. does not appear to be logical.stb γR φ' 35.29 0.092 1.354 0.17 0. although δ is originally considered to be a function of φ’.3 0.23 0.0 0.0 1. which is the largest obtained by all the methods. although permitted.089 1.3 19. Also the overall factor of safety is low.0 1.354 0.0 23.0 29.0 1.2 19.060 1.65 1.25 1. it should be noted that.3 0.0 δ 23.0 1.96 1. not specifically mentioned in EN 1997-1 but proposed in the case of the side resistance on a pile in the Designers’ Guide to Eurocode 7 by Frank et al. the value of γM adopted shall be less than 1. φ’ when it acts unfavourably. No factors 1.5 0.

Seepage around an embedded sheet pile retaining wall • Soil Conditions . The wall penetrates 3m into the ground beneath the excavation and the design involves determining the maximum height. 2. if the resistance is calculated assuming the friction on the side walls is calculated from Ktanδ. the seepage force was generally treated as a permanent action with a partial factor γG. 3 HEAVE EXAMPLE 2. then applying a factor γM to reduce φ’ (Method 1).74m. Treating γM as a resistance factor and applying it to the characteristic value of Ktanδ (Method 5) provides a reasonable factor of safety of 1. then as shown in the Model Solution for Example 8 (Orr.35 applied to it. where δ and K are both functions of the same φ’. 2.9b.0m 3. with the calculated design heights of the water level behind the wall ranging from 4. the resistance on the side walls is calculated to be only 3. is shown in Figure 3.25 on the resistance.11m for the submitted solutions. and hence reduce Ka. If the side resistance is ignored. H to which the water level in the ground behind the wall may rise above the level of the ground in front of the wall to avoid heave failure when there is 1m of water above the ground surface in front of the wall. which is the height of the retaining wall.1m exceeds the height of the retaining wall. H of water behind wall above ground surface in front of the wall to ensure safety against hydraulic heave • Figure 3: Example 9 – Failure by hydraulic heave the basement.7 to 8. These values lie within the range of values of 0. the seepage force was 156 .1m.Maximum height. the required thickness of the base slab is calculated to be 0.(Method 4). although in one example. which consists of an embedded sheet pile retaining wall supporting a 7m deep excavation in sand. Choice of Partial Factors In the submitted solutions.Groundwater level 1. whereas applying γM to reduce δ and increase φ’.3.0m Design situation . provides a greater factor of safety of 1.2% of the design stabilising action and the thickness of the base slab is calculated to be 0.1. Choice of Equilibrium Equation and Range of Solutions Obtained Most of the solutions received for this example were based on Equation 2.0m above ground surface in front of wall • Require .dst = 1. As shown in Table 2.41m to 1. Thus the solution with the water height of 8.0m H=? Water Sand γ = 20kN/m3 1.GWL 7.2.60m.1 of EN 1997-1.65. which is consistent with the ENV version of Eurocode 7.γ = 20kN/m3 • Actions . which is equal to the average of these values ± 26% and with one solution stated as being an unspecified height greater than 7m. Design Situation The design situation in Example 9 for the Eurocode 7 Workshop. If Method 5 is used for this design example and the K is assumed equal to Ka obtained from Annex C1. 2005). does not provide any safety as the factored resistance is greater than the characteristic resistance.