Subscribe to DeepL Pro to translate larger documents.

Visit www.DeepL.com/pro for more information.

3.4.4 - Calculation of lift factor kp

We'll calculate the kp bearing capacity of the layer just below the footing using the elements in Table 57. This gives us :

Curve kp0
a b c kpmax

Clays
Q1 0,8 0,2 0,02 1,3 1,022
and
silts
Table 57: Elements for determining the kp bearing capacity factor from Table 16 [Table D.2.3 NF P94-261].

To obtain the bearing capacity under the foundation, we perform the following calculation:

[Formula D.2.3. 1 NF P94-261].

hence so kp = 0.81

It's easy to check that kp remains below kpmax.

3.4.5 - Calculation of reduction coefficient related to load inclination and qnet stress

We are in the case of a rubbing floor (c' = 0 kPa). The angle of inclination of the load δd and the coefficient
are calculatedδ as follows :

[D.2.4 (1) NF P94-261]

[Formula D.2.4.2 NF P94-261].

Remember that δd is calculated in radians.

The qnet constraint is defined by the following relationship:

[ Formula D.2.1 NF P94-261].

For each combination of actions, the results are shown in Table 58.

Vd (kN/ml) Hd (kN/ml) δd (°) δd (rad) i qnet (kPa)

δ;f
ELU 1 688,8 184,5 15,0 0,26 0,46 1070

ELU 2 526,1 184,5 19,3 0,34 0,33 768

ELU 3 510,2 136,7 15,0 0,26 0,46 1070

ELS - characteristic and

510,2 136,7 15,0 0,26 0,46 1070
quasi-permanent

Table 58: Evaluation of the coefficient related to the inclination of load

δ
i for the different action combinations

3.4.6 - Lift checks

To check the load-bearing capacity of the soil, the following inequality must be verified:

or

Detailed examples 99
 With :

ie : reduction coefficient linked to load eccentricity given in Table 56 ;

q0 : total vertical stress that would be obtained at the end of the work at the base of the surface foundation in
the absence of the latter (in kPa);
A: value of footing surface (in m²/ml) ;
Rv;d: design value of ultimate ground resistance ;
γR;v : partial lift resistance factor ;
γR;d;v: model coefficient associated with the calculation method used.

Let's calculate the value of the weight of the volume of soil consisting of the volume of the foundation under the site
after construction and the soil between the foundation and the site after construction:

Then, for each of the combinations of actions studied, we obtain the results shown in Table 59.

Rv;d
(kPa) γR;v γR;d;v Vd - R0 Checked?
qnet
(kN/ml) (kN/ml)

ELU 1 1070 1,4 1,0 569,1 420,4 yes

ELU 2 768 1,4 1,0 406,4 312,7 yes

ELU 3 1070 1,4 1,0 390,5 420,4 yes

ELS - characteristic and

1070 2,3 1,0 390,5 255,9 yes
quasi-permanent

Table 59: Load-bearing capacity check for different calculation situations

The bearing capacity of the soil is then verified for all action combinations.

3.5 - Checking for slippage

Non-slip verification is only carried out at ELU. It is necessary

to check :
[Formula 9.3.1.1]

With :

Hd : design value of the horizontal component of the load transmitted by the wall footing to the ground ;
Rp;d: design value of the footing's frontal or tangential resistance to the effect of Hd: resistance neglected in this
example for safety;

Rh;d : design value of the sliding resistance of the wall footing on the ground.

We assume drained conditions. The design value of the ultimate landslide resistance is determined from the following
expression :

[Formula 9.3.1.4]

With :
Vd : design value of the vertical component of the load transmitted by the wall footing to the ground ;
γR;h: partial factor for slip resistance: γR;h = 1.1 for fundamental UEL ;
γR;d;h: model coefficient for estimating ultimate slip resistance: γR;d;h = 0.9 ;
δa;k: characteristic value of the angle of friction at the interface between the base of the wall footing and the
ground.

100 Eurocode 7 - Application to walls (NF P94-281)

Taking approach 2, we assume that for sands δa;k = δa;d. The wall is cast in place, so :

Then, for each of the combinations of actions studied, we obtain the results shown in Table 60.

Vd (kN/ml) Rh;d (kN/ml) Hd (kN/ml) Checked?

ELU 1 688,8 487,2 184,5 yes

ELU 2 526,1 372,1 184,5 yes

ELU 3 510,2 360,9 136,7 yes

Table 60: Non-slip verification for different calculation situations

Non-slip of the wall footing is then verified for all action combinations.

3.6 - Seismic checks

Throughout this paragraph, symbols with a + sign in the superscript represent values for the descending earthquake,
and with a - sign for the ascending earthquake.

3.6.1 - Assumptions to be taken into account

The wall is located in a low seismic zone and the soil is class E. The category of importance of the structure is II for
this Tee wall. So we have the following parameters:

g = 9.81 m/s²: acceleration of gravity ;

S: characteristic parameter of the soil class worth 1.8 for a class E soil;

ST : topographical amplification coefficient, equal to 1 ;

r = 2 for a free wall that accepts a l a r g e displacement

ag : soil acceleration value for a class A soil defined by :

With :

γI = 1 for importance category II of the structure ;

agR = 0.7 m/s-² for a weak seismic zone according to the Arrêté Ponts [16] .

Calculating horizontal and vertical seismic coefficients

In the absence of specific studies, horizontal and vertical seismic coefficients are determined by :

and

3.6.2 - Determining seismic actions

Calculating the thrust coefficient K

The earth pressure coefficient K is calculated by :

[Formula E.3 NF EN 1998-5] because and

Detailed examples 101

 With :
• ϕ'd: calculation value of the angle of friction of the ground with γϕ' the partial factor on
the angle of friction worth 1.25 ;

• θ angle defined by hence for the downward earthquake and θ− = 3.8 ° for the upward

earthquake;

• δd: calculation value of the angle of friction between floor and wall: ;
• ψ = 90° and β =18.4° defined in Figure 52.

Figure 52: Convention concerning angles in the calculation of the earth pressure coefficient [Figure E.1 NF EN 1998-5].

Hence K+ = 1.00 and K- = 1.01.

Determining overall dynamic thrust

The overall static and dynamic Ed design thrust acting on the upstream retaining structure is defined by :

[Formula E.1 NF EN 1998-5].

With :
γ*: volumic weight of the soil in the absence of a water table worth 19 kN/m3 ;

kv
: vertical seismic coefficient neglected here ;
K: static and dynamic earth pressure coefficient ;
H: height of wall 5.37 m ;

Ews:
static water buoyancy, zero in the absence of a water table;

Ewd: zero hydrodynamic pressure in the absence of a water table.

Hence Ed+ = 282.7 kN/ml and Ed- = 267.8 kN/ml.

Once the overall dynamic thrust value Ed has been calculated, the static part of the thrust force Fa;stat must be separated from the
dynamic increment Fa;dyn.

Determining static thrust

The inclination to be taken into account here is therefore δd = 20.5° .

The earth pressure coefficient is determined on the fictitious screen using the Kérisel and Absi earth pressure tables
[8]. Ka = 0.732. The thrust value is therefore :

102 Eurocode 7 - Application to walls (NF P94-281)

Determining dynamic thrust increment

To calculate the dynamic thrust increment, we have :

Summary of thrust forces to be taken into account

Table 61 summarizes the values of the static thrust components to be taken into account in the calculations. As a
reminder :
• Fa;statis the proportion of static thrust applied to one third of the screen height;
• Fa;dyn is the dynamic thrust applied to half the screen height.

Vertical force Horizontal force Lever arm at Moment at point O

(kN/ml) (kN/ml) point O (m) (kN.m/ml)

Earthquake Descendant Ascendant Descendant Ascendant Descendant Ascendant

Fastat h
0 187,8 1,8 338,0
Fastat v
70,2 0 3,2 -224,6
Fadyn h
0 0 77,0 63,0 2,7 207,9 170,1
Fadyn v
28,8 23,6 0 0 3,2 -92,2 -75,5

Table 61: Static and dynamic ground thrust

Determining the seismic inertia forces of the floor and wall

The value of the horizontal FH and vertical Fv seismic inertia forces acting on the mass of the soil and wall is estimated
according to the formulas: FH = kh.W and Fv = ± kv.W

With :
W: weight of moving mass.
This gives the eigenweights and inertia forces summarized in Table 62.

Vertical force Horizontal force Lever arm at point O (m) Moment at point O
(kN/ml) (kN/ml) (kN.m/ml)
Wsolp 16,2 0 2,3 37,3
Fhsolp 0 1,0 0,8 0,8
Fvsolp ±0,5 0 2,3 ±1,2
Wsolt 325,9 0 1,2 -391,1
Fhsolt 0 20,9 2,6 54,3
Fvsolt ±10,4 0 1,2 ±(-12,5)
Wvoile 50,0 0 1,2 60,0
Fhvoile 0 3,2 2,0 6,4
Fvvoile ±1,6 0 1,2 ±1,9
Wpatin 21,3 0 2,3 49,0
Fhpatin 0 1,4 0,3 0,4
Fvpatin ±0,7 0 2,3 ±1,6
Wtalon 51,3 0 1,1 -56,4
Fhtalon 0 3,3 0,3 1,0
Fvtalon ±1,6 0 1,1 ±(-1,8)

Detailed examples 103

 Table 62: Summary of weights and inertia forces to be taken into account

3.6.3 - Seismic action combinations

All partial coefficients on the actions are equal to 1, giving the seismic combination shown in Table 63.

Earthquake Descendant Ascendant

Vertical force NEd

578,5 543,7
(kN/ml)

Horizontal force VEd

294,6 280,6
(kN/ml)

Moment in O MEd
-18,8 -20,7
(kN.m/ml)

Table 63: Seismic action combinations to be taken into account

3.6.4 - Checking soil bearing capacity

Determination of Nmax ultimate load-bearing capacity of the wall under centered vertical load

Nmax is obtained from pressuremeter data:

With :
A' and qnet: effective area and net stress of the ground defined in chapter 4, considering D = De = 0 m, δd =0, β
= 0 and ed = 0, where A' = 6.3 m²/ml and qnet = ple* = 2872 kPa ;
γR;v: partial resistance coefficient of 1.2 for the pressuremeter method;
γR;d;v: partial model coefficient of 1.0 for the pressuremeter method.

Hence

Justification

In order to justify the bearing capacity of the soil for seismic ELU, the following inequality must be verified:

[Formula F.1 NF EN 1998-5].

With :

For the downward earthquake :

[Formulas F.2 NF EN 1998-5].

For the upward earthquake :

[Formulas F.2 NF EN 1998-5].

γRd is 1.15 for dry loose sand; : soil

inertia force defined by :

104 Eurocode 7 - Application to walls (NF P94-281)

 Purely scrubbing floor

a 0,92

b 1,25

c 0,92

d 1,25

e 0,41

f 0,32

m 0,96

k 1,00

k' 0,39
cT
1,14
cM
1,01

c'M 1,01

β 2,90

γ 2,80

Table 64: Numerical parameter values for load-bearing capacity verification [Table F.1 NF EN 1998-5].

The result is :

For the downward earthquake :

For the upward earthquake :

The bearing capacity criterion is therefore verified for the seismic ELU.

T h e following inequality must also be verified, which includes checks for non-overturning and eccentricity limitation:

For the downward earthquake :

For the upward earthquake :

These two checks are therefore also justified for the seismic ELU.

3.6.5 - Checking the wall for slippage

To prevent sliding failure on a horizontal base, the following expression must be satisfied:

[Formula 5.2 NF EN 1998-5].

Detailed examples 105

 With :

FRd : design friction force for footings above the water table(50) :
For the downward earthquake :

[Formula 5.1 NF EN 1998-5].

For the upward earthquake :

[Formula 5.1 NF EN 1998-5].

δ: angle of friction of the soil-structure interface under the base of the footing ;

K: earth thrust coefficient relative to passive thrust (stop) :

[Formula E.4 NF EN 1998-5] where K+ = 1.71 and K- = 1.71.

Epd : earth pressure on footing walls :

For the downward earthquake, we obtain :

For the upward earthquake :

The wall footing is therefore well justified with regard to seismic UEL slip.

3.7 - Checking for settling

This is the case for heterogeneous soil. The final compaction should then be calculated as follows:

sf = sc + sd [ Formula H.2.1.1.1 NF P94-261].

with and [Formules H.2.1.2.1 et H.2.1.2.2 NF P94-261]

The value of the reference width to be considered B0 is equal to 0.6 m.

To calculate Ec and Ed , it is necessary to divide the soil into layers of thickness B / 2 = 3.15 m. The pressure modulus values
for each layer are given in Table 65.

(50) In the case of foundations located below the water table, the design value of the friction force must be assessed on the basis of the undrained resistance
[5.4.1.1 (4) NF EN 1998-5].

106 Eurocode 7 - Application to walls (NF P94-281)

 Layer E (MPa)
E1
15,1
E2
42,0
E3
48,4
E4
52,4
E5
101,9
E6
120,0
E7
120,0
E8
120,0

Table 65: Pressiometric modulus values for each B/2 thickness layer

3.7.1 calculation
-Ec

The Ec modulus corresponds to the soil modulus located in the range 0 to B/2 below the foundation, i.e. from 0 to 3.15
m in our exercise. In our case, we therefore have :

3.7.2 - Calculating Ed
We only know the ground from 0 to around 15 m below the footing. We assume that the properties of soils below 15 m
are at least equal to those of sands. We thus obtain Ed as follows:

[Formula H.2.1.2.6 NF P94-261].

With E3;5 = 60.6 MPa and E6;8 = 120 MPa.

The final result is :

so Ed = 33.9 MPa

3.7.3 - Calculation of effective stress q' and σ'v0

We determine the average effective stress applied to the soil as follows:

The verification of the footing settlement is carried out at the quasi-permanent ELS, Vd = 510.2 kN/ml from which q' = 81.0 kPa/ml.

As the footing studied is of the spinning type, the area A is assimilated to the width B. Thus, the average effective
stress is expressed in linear meters of footing.

To determine the effective vertical stress at the foundation before work, we will take the following value:

3.7.4 - Calculation of rheological coefficient α and shape coefficients λc and λd

The rheological coefficient is given for the different types of soil in Table 24. We are d e a l i n g w i t h a normally
consolidated sandy soil:

α = 0,33

Detailed examples 107

 Since L >> B then according to Table 26 :

λc = 1.5 and λd = 2.65

3.7.5 - Checking
The results are shown in Table 66.

Final settling
Deviatoric settlements Spherical settlements

q' σ'v0 λd λc
Vd (MPa) (mm) (MPa) (mm) (mm)
(kN/ml) (kPa/ml) (kPa/ml) Ed sd Ec sc sf

ELS - quasi-
509,96 81,0 19,0 2,65 33,9 0,74 1,5 15,1 1,43 2,17
permanent
combination
Table 66: Calculation of final settlements at quasi-permanent ELS

Generally speaking, the admissible settlement is of the order of a centimetre for a reinforced concrete retaining wall.
It is therefore possible to consider that the wall studied in this exercise has been verified with regard to settlement.

108 Eurocode 7 - Application to walls (NF P94-281)

4 - Example 3: Weight wall with impact and road load

4.1 - Assumptions
The aim is to justify the external stability of a trapezoidal-section load-bearing wall with a BN1-BN2 head restraint fixed
to a sill at the head of the wall. This wall is superficially founded (Figure 53). The impact on the barrier will be taken
into account in the Accidental ELS combinations with a weighting of 1.25 and in the Characteristic ELS combinations
with a weighting of 1 (see paragraph 4.2.1 of chapter 2 of this guide).

The wall is adjacent to a civil engineering structure. The soils beneath the wall foundation are considered to be sand
and gravel, with an average net limit pressure of 2 MPa. There is no water table. The pavement is 25 cm thick.

All checks will be carried out in accordance w i t h calculation approach 2 of standard NF EN 1997-1 and the rules
laid down in article 9 of standard NF P94-281, concerning external stability.

Figure 53: Diagram of assumptions and efforts considered

4.1.1 - Properties of the soils considered

The properties of the filler materials are summarized in Table 67.

Equivalent net Internal angle of

Cohesion Weight by volume
pressure limit friction
Ple
* (MPa) c' (kPa) φ' (°) γ (kN/m3)

Sand 2 0 30 19

Reinforced concrete - - - 24

Table 67: Soil and concrete properties

4.1.2 - Efforts to be taken into account

For traffic-related actions, we use the load model for abutments and walls adjacent to bridges defined in standard NF
EN 1991-2/NA. The traffic class considered is 2nd class.

The actions to be taken into account are as follows:

• wall's own weight ;
• own weight of the restraint ;
• earth pressure (neglected abutment): pressure of heavy soil (fill) and pressure due to overloading of fill (roadway
and traffic) ;

Detailed examples 109

 • traffic-related actions: gr1a (LM1,TS+UDL) with a 30% discount; a single loaded conventional track is
considered;
• impact on restraint system: the values given in t h e National Annex to standard NF EN 1991-2 for a BN1-BN2 type
barrier are used (Table 7 of this guide).

4.2 - Determining characteristic share values

The fictitious vertical screen corresponds to the upstream face of the wall. The earth pressure generated by the backfill is
applied directly behind this facing.

4.2.1 - Dead weight of wall and retaining device

The wall is made of concrete, the density of which is given in Table 67. Moments are applied at point O, located at the
lower downstream edge of the footing. The self-weight of the retaining device is supplied by the manufacturer.

Vertical force Lever arm at point O (m) Moment at point O

(kN/ml) (kN.m/ml)
Wmur
70,2 0,14 m -9,8
WDR
6,5 0m 0

Table 68: Self-weight actions of wall and retaining device

4.2.2 - Impact forces on the restraint system

The following forces must be taken into account when a vehicle impacts the restraint system.

Restraint type Efforts to be taken into account

To barrier-structure embedding
BN1 -BN2 Ftransversal = 100 kN/ml (500 kN over 5 m)
Max longitudinal = 50 kN.m/ml (250 kN.m over 5 m)

Table 69: Impact forces on the restraint system

The concomitant vertical force for 2 wheels of 108 kN/ml should also be taken into account, in accordance with note
4.7.3.3 NOTE 3 of standard NF EN 1991-2.

4.2.3 - Road overloading and pavement weight

The roadway is divided as follows:

• WLR rolling width: 12 metres ;
• maximum number of conventional channels: 4 channels ;
• track width wl: 3 metres ;
• number of conventional lanes: 3 lanes ;
• width of residual area: 3 meters.

The LM1 load model gives the forces shown in the following Table 70.

110 Eurocode 7 - Application to walls (NF P94-281)

 TS axle load tandems Uniformly distributed loads UDL

TS channel 1 TS channel 2 TS channel 3 UDL channel 1 UDL elsewhere

Adjustment coefficients 0,9 0,8 0,8 0,7 1,0

Load currents 2 x 300 kN 2 x 200 kN 2 x 100 kN 9 kN/m² (1.5 kN/m²) 2.5 kN/m² for

Total 540 kN 320 kN 160 kN 6.3 kN/m² of water 2.5 kN/m² for

Equivalent density q(z) at base of

16,8 3,0
wall (kN/m²)

Total LM1 with 30%

13,9
allowance (kN/m²)

Table 70: LM1 - 2nd class structure

The surcharge due to the weight of the roadway is defined by :

4.2.4 - Gravity and overload forces

The stop downstream of the wall is neglected, as it is not sustainable over time due to the thinness of the embedding.

Table 8.5.1 of standard NF P94-281 is used to determine the inclination of the thrust actions on the fictitious screen.
For a weight wall, the inclination of the thrust on the fictitious design plane is equal to :

With :

The inclination of the thrust for the heavy soil and for overloads on the fictitious plane is 20°.

Weighted ground thrust

The weight-bearing soil thrust is determined on the fictitious screen from the Kérisel and Absi soil thrust and stop
tables [8]: Kaγ = 0.3.
The active thrust due to the weight of the earth is divided into two forces Paγh and Paγv.
To calculate the active thrust, we consider the following equation:

Thrust due to road overloading

The earth thrust is determined on the fictitious screen using the earth thrust and stop tables of Kérisel and Absi [8]: Kaq
= 0.304.
For an infinite overload and against the screen, we have the distribution shown in Figure 54.

Figure 54: Distribution of overload thrust (road and pavement weight)

Detailed examples 111

 This gives :

Ground thrust synthesis

Table 71 summarizes the calculated values taken into account.

Vertical force Horizontal force Lever arm at point O (m) Moment at point O
(kN/ml) (kN/ml) (kN.m/ml)
Paγh
0 21,3 0,92 19,6
Paγv
7,8 0 0,65 -5,1
Pachaussée
0 5,0 1,4 7,0
PaLM1
0 11,6 1,4 16,2

Table 71: Thrust of heavy soil and overloads

4.2.5 - Action combinations

Table 72 summarizes the combinations o f actions for each check, together with the partial coefficients for the actions
selected.

γG
ELU 1 ELU 2 ELU 3 ELU4 ELU 5 ELU 6 ELU Acc ELS

Vd Hd Md
Partial coefficient on shares

Wmur
70,2 0,0 -9,8 1,35 1,35 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0
WDR
6,5 0,0 0,0 1,35 1,35 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0
Paγh
7,8 0,0 -5,1 1,35 1,35 1,35 1,35 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0
Paγv
0,0 21,3 19,6 1,35 1,35 1,35 1,35 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0
Pachaussée
0,0 5,0 7,0 1,35 1,35 1,35 1,35 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0
PaLM1
0,0 11,6 16,2 1,5 1,0 1,5 1,0 1,5 1,0 0 1,0
ADR
108,0 100,0 50,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,25 1,0

Vertical force 114,1 114,1 87,2 87,2 84,5 84,5 219,5 192,5
Total
force Horizontal force 52,9 47,1 52,9 47,1 43,7 37,9 151,3 137,9
(kN/ml or
kN.m/ml) Moment in O 40,1 32,0 43,5 35,4 36,0 27,9 74,2 77,9

Table 72: Combinations of actions to consider

112 Eurocode 7 - Application to walls (NF P94-281)

4.3 - Eccentricity limitation
Table 73 shows the values of the design forces at the base of the wall footing for the different design situations.

Vd (kN/ml) Hd (kN/ml) Md (kN.m/ml) ed (m)

ELU 1 114,1 52,9 40,1 0,35

ELU 2 114,1 47,1 32,0 0,28

ELU 3 87,2 52,9 43,5 0,50

ELU 4 87,2 47,1 35,4 0,41

ELU 5 84,5 43,7 36,0 0,43

ELU 6 84,5 37,9 27,9 0,33

ELU Accidental 219,5 151,3 74,2 0,34

ELS - Characteristic 192,5 137,9 77,9 0,40

Table 73: Loads considered at the base of the footing

For combinations of ULS and ELS actions, the inequalities shown in Table 74 should be checked.

Expression ie to be Eccentricity ed (m) Check

verified

0,46 ≥ 1 / 15
ELU 1 0,35 0,46
Verified

0,57 ≥ 1 / 15
ELU 2 0,28 0,57
Verified

0,23 ≥ 1 / 15
ELU 3 0,50 0,23
Verified

0,38 ≥ 1 / 15
ELU 4 0,41 0,38
Verified

0,34 ≥ 1 / 15
ELU 5 0,43 0,34
Verified

0,49 ≥ 1 / 15
ELU 6 0,33 0,49
Verified

0,48 ≥ 1 / 15
ELU Accidental 0,34 0,48
Verified

0,38 < 1 / 2
ELS - Characteristic 0,40 0,38
Unverified

Table 74: Checking eccentricity limitation

Eccentricity limitation is not verified at ELS Characteristic.

Detailed examples 113

 4.4 - Checking load-bearing capacity

4.4.1 - Calculation of equivalent installation h e i g h t De

The equivalent mounting height is calculated using the formula :

[Formula C.2.1 NF P94-261].

In the case of the wall footing studied here :

• d is taken to be zero;
• D = 0.5 m ;
• from d to D, the soil is a silty fill with ple* = 2 MPa. This gives :

so De = 0.5 m

4.4.2 - Calculation of lift factor kp

We will calculate the bearing capacity kp of the layer just below the footing using the elements in Table 75. This gives us
:

Curve kp0
a b c kpmax

Sand Q3 1 0,3 0,05 2 1,393

Table 75: Elements for determining the kp bearing capacity factor from Table 16 [Table D.2.3 NF P94-261].

To obtain the bearing capacity under the foundation, we perform the following calculation:

[Formula D.2.3. 1 NF P94-261].

hence so kp=1.17

It is easy to check that kp remains below kpmax.

4.4.3 - Calculation of the reduction coefficient related to load inclination and qnet stress

We are in the case of a rubbing floor (c' = 0 kPa). The angle of inclination of the load δd and the coefficient
are calculatedδ as follows :

[D.2.4 (1) NF P94-261]

[Formula D.2.4.2 NF P94-261].

Remember that δd is calculated in radians.

The qnet constraint is defined by the following relationship:

[ Formula D.2.1 NF P94-261].

For each combination of actions, the results are shown in Table 76.

114 Eurocode 7 - Application to walls (NF P94-281)

 Vd (kN/ml) Hd (kN/ml) δd (°) δd (rad) i qnet (kPa)
δ;f

ELU 1 114,1 52,9 24,9 0,43 0,30 709,5

ELU 2 114,1 47,1 22,4 0,39 0,35 821,5

ELU 3 87,2 52,9 31,2 0,55 0,20 467,5

ELU 4 87,2 47,1 28,4 0,50 0,24 567,9

ELU 5 84,5 43,7 27,3 0,48 0,26 607,2

ELU 6 84,5 37,9 24,2 0,42 0,32 741,6

ELU Accidental 219,5 151,3 34,6 0,60 0,16 368,8

ELS - Characteristic 192,5 137,9 35,6 0,62 0,15 342,1

Table 76: Evaluation of the coefficient related to the inclination of load iδ for the different action combinations

4.4.4 - Lift checks

To check the load-bearing capacity of the soil, the following inequality must be verified:

or

With :

ie : reduction coefficient related to load eccentricity given in Table 74 ;

q0 : total vertical stress that would be obtained at the end of the work at the base of the surface foundation in
the absence of the latter (in kPa);
A: value of footing surface (in m²/ml) ;
Rv;d: design value of ultimate ground resistance ;
γR;v : partial lift resistance factor ;
γR;d;v: model coefficient associated with the calculation method used.

Let's calculate the value of the weight of the volume of soil made up of the volume of the foundation under the site
after construction and the soil between the foundation and the site after construction:

Then, for each of the combinations of actions studied, we obtain the results shown in Table 77.

Rv;d
(kPa) γR;v γR;d;v Vd - R0 Checked?
qnet
(kN/ml) (kN/ml)

ELU 1 709,5 1,4 1,0 101,1 302,6 yes

ELU 2 821,5 1,4 1,0 101,1 433,7 yes

ELU 3 467,5 1,4 1,0 74,2 100,9 yes

ELU 4 567,9 1,4 1,0 74,2 197,9 yes

ELU 5 607,2 1,4 1,0 71,5 194,3 yes

ELU 6 741,6 1,4 1,0 71,5 338,8 yes

ELU Accidental 368,8 1,2 1,0 206,5 191,7 No

ELS - Characteristic 342,1 2,3 1,0 179,5 73,0 No

Table 77: Load-bearing capacity check for different calculation situations

The load-bearing capacity of the ground is not verified for combinations including impact forces on the restraint.

Detailed examples 115

 4.5 - Checking for slippage
Non-slip verification is only carried out at ELU. It is necessary

to check :
[Formula 9.3.1.1]

With :
Hd : design value of the horizontal component of the load transmitted by the wall footing to the ground ;
Rp;d: design value of the footing's frontal or tangential resistance to the effect of Hd; resistance neglected in this
example for safety reasons;
Rh;d : design value of the sliding resistance of the wall footing on the ground.

We assume drained conditions. The design value of the ultimate landslide resistance is determined from the following
expression :

[Formula 9.3.1.4]

With :
Vd : design value of the vertical component of the load transmitted by the wall footing to the ground ;
γR;h: partial factor for slip resistance: γR;h = 1.1 for basic UEL and 0.9 for accidental UEL;
γR;d;h: model coefficient for estimating ultimate slip resistance: γR;d;h = 0.9 ;
δa;k: characteristic value of the angle of friction at the interface between the base of the wall footing and the
ground.

Taking approach 2, we assume that for sands δa;k = δa;d. The wall is cast in place, so :

Then, for each of the combinations of actions studied, we obtain the results shown in Table 78.

Vd (kN/ml) Rh;d (kN/ml) Hd (kN/ml) Checked?

ELU 1 114,1 66,5 52,9 yes

ELU 2 114,1 66,5 47,1 yes

ELU 3 87,2 50,9 52,9 No

ELU 4 87,2 50,9 47,1 yes

ELU 5 84,5 49,3 43,7 yes

ELU 6 84,5 49,3 37,9 yes

ELU Accidental 219,5 156,5 151,3 yes

Table 78: Non-slip verification for different calculation situations

Non-slip of the wall footing is then verified for all combinations of actions except ELU 3.

Comments :
Taking into account the impact of a vehicle on the BN1-BN2 retaining device, fixed on a sill at the head of the wall, does not
justify the geometry of the foundation. The moments generated lead to excessively eccentric and inclined loading. If it is
not possible to change the design of the retaining device, or to modify the geometry of the wall and its foundation,
an alternative solution is to fix the retaining device on a friction slab.
The national appendix to Eurocode 0 (NF EN 1990/A2) has adopted a coefficient of 1.35 for the thrust actions of permanent
loads and those of operating loads for the walls adjoining the abutments. Calculations here have been carried out
using a coefficient of 1.5 for operating loads, as the distribution of surcharges in the backfill is not well known.

116 Eurocode 7 - Application to walls (NF P94-281)

5 - Example 4: weight wall with water table
This example deals with the justification of a weight wall with a tablecloth behind the wall.

5.1 - Assumptions
The wall is considered monolithic (reinforced concrete) with :
• a height of 5.0 m ;
• a width of 1.0 m at the top and 2 m at the base;
• 1/5 downstream fruit;
• a fictitious vertical upstream screen.

The wall is recessed by 1 m and retains an upstream fill 5 m high. The wall is laid on sandy soil 10 m thick above
natural ground.

A tablecloth is located behind the wall at a height of 3.00 m above the footing (Figure 55).

Figure 55: Hypothesis diagram

The balance of moments is considered with respect to point O at the geometric center of the footing.

5.1.1 - Soil properties considered

The properties of the foundation or backfill soils behind the wall and the characteristics of the reinforced concrete are
summarized in Table 79.

Net pressure Internal rubbing Weight by volume

Cohesion Weight by volume
limit angle
(kPa)
Pl *
c' (kPa) φ' (°) γ (kN/m3) γ ' (kN/m3)

Supporting soil Sand 800 0 35 20 12

Draining sandy
- 0 30 18 11
fill

Reinforced concrete - - - 25 -

Table 79: Soil and concrete properties

Detailed examples 117

 5.1.2 - Efforts to be taken into account

No surcharge is to be taken into account, and the slope behind the wall is horizontal. According to the measurements,
the water table is assumed to be constant at + 3.00 m above the base of the wall (i.e. at - 2.00 m / TN behind the
wall).

The actions to be taken into account, all permanent for this example, are as follows:
• wall's own weight Wmur ;
• ground pressure behind the wall Paγ ;
• water buoyancy Pw.

Several combinations of actions need to be checked:

• the ELU fundamental for the justification of load-bearing capacity, eccentricity limitation and non-slip;
• characteristic, frequent and quasi-permanent ELS for justification of non-punching.

Table 80 summarizes the combinations o f actions for each check, together with the partial coefficients for the actions
selected.

γG ELU 2 ELU 3 ELS

ELU 1
(Unfavorable ground (Favourable ground thrust) (Cara, Freq and QP)
pressure)
Wmur
1,35 1 1 1
Paγ
1,35 1,35 1 1
Pw
1,35 1,35 1 1

Table 80: Action combinations and partial factors to be taken into account

Eccentricity limitation will be verified for all action combinations.

5.2 - Determining characteristic share values

The fictitious vertical screen corresponds to the upstream face of the wall. The earth pressure due to the backfill applies
directly behind this facing, and the pressure due to the water also applies directly, perpendicular to the facing (the
horizontal component is therefore equal to the pressure due to the water).

5.2.1 - Dead weight of wall

The wall is made of concrete, the density of which is given in Table 81. Moments are applied at point O, located at the
lower downstream edge of the footing.

Vertical force Lever arm at point O (m) Moment at point O

(kN/ml) (kN.m/ml)
Wmur
187,5 0,22 m -41,3

Table 81: Actions related to the wall's own weight

5.2.2 - Gravity and hydrostatic thrusts

The stop downstream of the wall is neglected, as it is not sustainable over time due to the thinness of the embedding.

Table 8.5.1 of standard NF P94-281 is used to determine the inclination of thrust actions on the fictitious screen. For
a weight wall with a vertical fictitious screen, the inclination of the thrust on the fictitious design plane is equal to :

With :

118 Eurocode 7 - Application to walls (NF P94-281)

The thrust angle on the fictitious plane is 20°.

The weight-bearing soil thrust is determined on the fictitious screen from the Kérisel and Absi soil thrust and stop
tables [8]: Kaγ = 0.30.

The active thrust due to the weight of the earth is divided into two forces, Pahγ and Pavγ. For the thrust due to the action of
the water behind the wall, it is assumed that the water level is stable(51). It is also assumed that flow forces are not
preponderant and do not generate hydraulic foxing or additional thrust actions. Hydrostatic thrust is directed
perpendicularly to the fictitious screen and applies to 2/3 of the height, as does heavy soil thrust.

Table 82 summarizes the values of the thrust components to be taken into account in the calculations. The

following equation is used to calculate the gravity ground thrust:

With :
H1 : height above water table ;
H2 : height below water table.

Hydrostatic thrust is equal to :

With :
H2 = Hw height of water behind the fictitious facing.

The total horizontal thrust is therefore . The thrust action due to water has no vertical component, and
.

Table 82 summarizes the calculated values taken into account.

Vertical force Horizontal force Lever arm at point O (m) Moment at point O
(kN/ml) (kN/ml) (kN.m/ml)
Pw
0 45,0 1,7 76,5
Pahγ
0 24,2 1,7 41,1
Pav
8,8 0 1,0 -8,8

Table 82: Weighted soil pressure and water pressure

(51) Assuming there is no drainage system to lower the level, which in reality is not the case for a new structure, but may be the case for an old wall, we
consider this water level to be permanent.

Detailed examples 119

 5.2.3 - Action combinations

Table 83 summarizes t h e action combinations for each check, together with the partial coefficients for the actions
selected.

γG
ELU 1 ELU 2 ELU 3 ELU4 ELU 5 ELU 6 ELS

Vd Hd Md
Partial coefficient on shares

Wmur
187,5 0 -41,3 1,35 1,35 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0
Pahγ
0 24,2 41,1 1,35 1,35 1,35 1,35 1,0 1,0 1,0
Pavγ
8,8 0 -8,8 1,35 1,35 1,35 1,35 1,0 1,0 1,0
Pw
0 45,0 76,5 1,0 1,2 1,0 1,2 1,0 1,2 1,0

Vertical force 265,0 265,0 199,4 199,4 196,3 196,3 196,3

Total
force Horizontal force 77,7 86,7 77,7 86,7 69,2 78,2 69,2
(kN/ml or
kN.m/ml) Moment in O 64,4 79,7 78,8 105,6 67,5 82,8 67,5

Table 83: Combinations of actions to consider

5.3 - Eccentricity limitation

For combinations of ULS and ELS actions, the inequalities presented and verified i n Table 84 should be checked.

Expression ie to be Eccentricity ed (m) Check

verified
0,76 ≥ 1 / 15
ELU 1 0,24 0,76
Verified

0,70 ≥ 1 / 15
ELU 2 0,30 0,70
Verified

0,60 ≥ 1 / 15
ELU 3 0,40 0,60
Verified

0,47 ≥ 1 / 15
ELU 4 0,53 0,47
Verified

0,66 ≥ 1 / 15
ELU 5 0,34 0,66
Verified

0,58 ≥ 1 / 15
ELU 6 0,42 0,58
Verified

ELS - characteristic and 0,66 ≥ 1 / 2

0,34 0,66
quasi-permanent Verified

Table 84: Checking eccentricity limitation

5.4 - Checking load-bearing capacity

5.4.1 - Calculation of thickness hr

We are in the case of a continuous footing and . Consequently, we have hr = 1.5 ×B = 1.5 × 2= 3 m.

120 Eurocode 7 - Application to walls (NF P94-281)

5.4.2 - Calculation of equivalent net pressure limit p * th
e
The equivalent net pressure limit is calculated as follows (from 1 to 4 m) :

[Formula D.2.2 NF P94-261].

Values from 2 to 4 m are taken into account, i.e. .

The final result is :

pth * = 800 kPa
e

5.4.3 - Calculation of equivalent installation h e i g h t De

The equivalent mounting height is calculated using the formula :

[Formula C.2.1 NF P94-261].

In the case of the wall footing studied here :

• d is taken to be zero;
• D=1m;
• from d to D, the soil consists of sandy fill with pl* = 0.8 MPa = 800 kPa
The result is :
so De = 1.0 m

5.4.4 - Calculation of lift factor kp

We will calculate the kp bearing capacity of the layer just below the footing using the elements in Table 85. This gives :

Curve kp0
a b c kpmax

Sand Q3 1 0,3 0,05 2 1,393

Table 85: Elements for determining the kp bearing capacity factor from Table 16 [Table D.2.3 NF P94-261].

To obtain the bearing capacity under the foundation, we perform the following calculation:

[Formula D.2.3.1 NF P94-261].

hence so kp = 1.2

It's easy to check that kp remains below kpmax. Moreover, De / B = 1/ 2 = 0.5 < 2, so by construction kp < kpmax.

5.4.5 - Calculation of the reduction coefficient related to load inclination and qnet stress
This is the case of frictional soil (c' = 0 kPa over 3 m below the foundation). The angle of inclination of the load
δd and the reduction coefficient iδ are calculated as follows:

[D.2.4 (1) NF P94-261]

[Formula D.2.4.2 NF P94-261].

Detailed examples 121

 Remember that δd is calculated in radians.
The qnet constraint is defined by the following relationship:
[ Formula D.2.1 NF P94-261].

For each combination of actions, the results are shown in Table 86.

Vd (kN/ml) Hd (kN/ml) δd (°) δd (rad) i ;f qnet (kPa)

ELU 1 265,0 77,7 16,3 0,29 0,50 480,0

ELU 2 265,0 86,7 18,1 0,32 0,46 441,6

ELU 3 199,4 77,7 21,3 0,37 0,40 384,0

ELU 4 199,4 86,7 23,5 0,41 0,35 336,0

ELU 5 196,3 69,2 19,4 0,34 0,44 422,4

ELU 6 196,3 78,2 21,7 0,38 0,39 374,4

ELS - characteristic and quasi-permanent 196,3 69,2 19,4 0,34 0,44 422,4

Table 86: Evaluation of the coefficient related to the inclination of the id load for the different action combinations

5.4.6 - Lift checks

To check the load-bearing capacity of the soil, the following inequality must be verified:

or

With :

ie : reduction coefficient related to load eccentricity given in Table 84 ;

q0 : total vertical stress that would be obtained at the end of the work at the base of the surface foundation in
the absence of the latter (in kPa);
A: value of footing surface (in m²/ml) ;
Rv;d: design value of ultimate ground resistance ;
γR;v : partial lift resistance factor ;
γR;d;v: model coefficient associated with the calculation method used.

Let's calculate the value of the weight of the volume of soil consisting of the volume of the foundation under the site
after construction and the soil between the foundation and the site after construction:

Then, for each of the combinations of actions studied, we obtain the results shown in Table 87.

Rv;d
(kPa) γR;v γR;d;v Vd - R0 Checked?
qnet
(kN/ml) (kN/ml)

ELU 1 480,0 1,4 1,0 229,0 521,1 yes

ELU 2 441,6 1,4 1,0 229,0 441,6 yes

ELU 3 384,0 1,4 1,0 163,4 329,1 yes

ELU 4 336,0 1,4 1,0 163,4 225,6 yes

ELU 5 422,4 1,4 1,0 160,3 398,3 yes

ELU 6 374,4 1,4 1,0 160,3 310,2 yes

ELS - characteristic and quasi-permanent 422,4 2,3 1,0 160,3 242,4 yes

Table 87: Load-bearing capacity check for different calculation situations

The load-bearing capacity of the soil is verified for all action combinations.

122 Eurocode 7 - Application to walls (NF P94-281)

5.5 - Checking for slippage
Non-slip verification is only carried out at ELU. It is necessary

to check :

With :

Hd : design value of the horizontal component of the load transmitted by the wall footing to the ground ;
Rp;d: design value of the footing's frontal or tangential resistance to the effect of Hd: resistance neglected in
this example for safety;

Rh;d : design value of the sliding resistance of the wall footing on the ground.

We assume drained conditions. The design value of the ultimate landslide resistance is determined from the following
expression :

With :

Vd : design value of the vertical component of the load transmitted by the wall footing to the ground ;
γR;h: partial factor for slip resistance: γR;h = 1.1 for fundamental UEL ;
γR;d;h: model coefficient for estimating ultimate slip resistance: γR;d;h = 0.9 ;
δa;k: characteristic value of the angle of friction at the interface between the base of the wall footing and the
ground.

Using approach 2, we assume that for sands δa;k = δa;d. For a weight wall founded on a cast-in-place footing, we
consider that :

Then, for each of the combinations of actions studied, we obtain the results shown in Table 88.

Vd (kN/ml) Rh;d (kN/ml) Hd (kN/ml) Checked?

ELU 1 265,0 126,8 77,7 yes

ELU 2 265,0 126,8 86,7 yes

ELU 3 199,4 95,4 77,7 yes

ELU 4 199,4 95,4 86,7 yes

ELU 5 196,3 93,9 69,2 yes

ELU 6 196,3 93,9 78,2 yes

Table 88: Non-slip verification for different calculation situations

Non-slip of the wall footing is then verified for all action combinations.

Detailed examples 123

 6 - Example 5: L-shaped wall with localized load
This example deals with the justification of a precast concrete L-shaped wall subjected to localized loading on the
embankment behind the wall.

6.1 - Assumptions
The wall consists of prefabricated reinforced concrete elements with :
• a veil 7 m high and 0.5 m thick;
• a heel 4 m long and 0.5 m thick.

The wall is recessed by 0.5 m and retains an upstream fill 7 m high. The wall is laid on sandy soil (Figure 53).

No groundwater is taken into account, and the seismicity zone is very low.

Figure 56: Diagram of assumptions and efforts considered

6.1.1 - Soil properties considered

The properties of the foundation or backfill soils behind the wall and the characteristics of the reinforced concrete are
summarized in Table 89.

Net pressure Internal rubbing

Cohesion Weight by volume
limit angle
(kPa)
Pl *
c' (kPa) φ' (°) γ (kN/m3)

Supporting soil Sand 1300 0 35 18

Draining sandy fill

- 0 35 18
upstream and
downstream
Reinforced concrete - - - 25

Table 89: Soil and concrete properties

124 Eurocode 7 - Application to walls (NF P94-281)

6.1.2 - Efforts to be taken into account

The localized load at the rear of the wall, coming from a storage area, has an intensity q of 10 kPa/ml of wall and is
applied 2.5 m from the edge of the wall over a distance of 10 m. This load will therefore be considered as permanent
in the action combinations to be verified.

The actions to be taken into account, all permanent for this example, are as follows:
• wall's own weight Wmur ;
• dead weight of floor wedge behind wall Wsol ;
• direct effect of the localized load on the corner of the floor behind the wall Q ;
• ground thrust weighing on the back of the ground wedge Paγ ;
• ground thrust due to localized load Paq.

Several combinations of actions need to be checked:

• of the ELU fundamental for the justification of load-bearing capacity, eccentricity limitation and non-slip;
• characteristic, frequent and quasi-permanent ELS for justification of non-punching.

Table 90 summarizes the combinations o f actions for each check, together with the partial coefficients for the actions
selected.

γG ELU 2 ELU 3 ELS

ELU 1
(Unfavorable ground (Favourable ground thrust) (Cara, Freq and QP)
pressure)
Wmur
1,35 1 1 1
Wsol
1,35 1 1 1

Q 1,35 1 1 1
Paγ
1,35 1,35 1 1
Paγ
1,35 1,35 1 1

Table 90: Action combinations and partial factors to be taken into account

Eccentricity limitation will be verified for all action combinations.

6.2 - Determining characteristic share values

The fictitious vertical screen used to determine the stress values to be taken into account is positioned 4.5 m from the
edge of the wall, i.e. at the upstream end of the heel. The surcharges between the wall and the fictitious screen are
added to the own weights of the wall and the ground wedge, inducing vertical effects. The ground thrust created by
this surcharge is not calculated here, but should be taken into account in the case of structural checks.

6.2.1 - Dead weight of wall

The wall is made of prefabricated concrete, the density of which is given in Table 89.

The wall is cut into two parts to make it easier to determine the moments in the middle of the heel.

The self-weight actions of each part are applied at the center of gravity and the moments are calculated at point O in
the middle of the heel. Table 91 summarizes the results

Vertical force Horizontal force Lever arm at point O (m) Moment at point O
(kN/ml) (kN/ml) (kN.m/ml)
Wvoile
87,5 0 2 175
Wtalon
50 0 0,25 -12,5

Table 91: Actions related to the wall's own weight

Detailed examples 125

 6.2.2 - Dead weight of floor wedge

The weight by volume of the soil is given in Table 89. The soil corner is located between the wall and the fictitious
screen.

The action of the soil wedge's own weight is applied at its center of gravity and the moment is calculated at point O in
the middle of the heel. Table 92 summarizes the results.

Vertical force Horizontal force Lever arm at point O (m) Moment at point O
(kN/ml) (kN/ml) (kN.m/ml)
Wsol
468 0 0,25 -117

Table 92: Actions related to the dead weight of the floor wedge

6.2.3 - Load Q

The load Q is the resultant of the localized load q of 10 kPa/ml on the corner of the ground between the wall and the fictitious
screen, i.e. over 4.5 - 2.5 = 2 m. Table 93 gives the values of the forces and moment associated with the Q load to be
taken into account.

Vertical force Horizontal force Lever arm at point O (m) Moment at point O
(kN/ml) (kN/ml) (kN.m/ml)

Q 20 0 1,25 -25

Table 93: Load Q

6.2.4 - Thrusts due to heavy soil and overload q

The stop downstream of the wall is neglected, as it is not sustainable over time due to the thinness of the embedding.

Table 8.5.1 of standard NF P94-281 is used to determine the inclination of thrust actions on the fictitious screen. For an
L-shaped wall and a vertical fictitious screen, compare Hv the height of the wall with Bt .tan(θ), where :
• Hv the height of the sail without the footing, which is 6.5 m ;
• Bt the width of the skid without the sail, which is 4 m ;

Hence, Bt .tan (θ) = 4.0 .tan(62.5) = 7.7 m ≥ Hv = 6.5 °.

The inclinations to be taken into account are therefore :

• for the thrust due to the weight of the ground:

• for overload thrust :

126 Eurocode 7 - Application to walls (NF P94-281)

The weight-bearing soil thrust is determined on the fictitious screen using the Kérisel and Absi(52) soil thrust and thrust
tables:
• for the thrust due to the weight of the ground: Kaγ = 0.333 ;
• for overload thrust: Kaq = 0.253 .

The weight-bearing ground thrust is determined conventionally and in this case has only a horizontal component αγ because
P
the inclination is zero.

To determine the thrust due to overloading, Annex B of standard NF P94-281 is used, as detailed in paragraph 3 of
chapter 2 of this guide.

This is the case of a surcharge applied to a strip of land of limited width located against the fictitious screen
considered in this example. The values to be taken into account are shown in Figure 57.

Figure 57: Notations and load distribution at the back of the fictitious screen

With :

[Formula B.2.2.2];

[Formula B.2.2.3].

The thrust is divided into two forces, Paq1 and Paq2, corresponding to the integration of stresses on the rectangular and
trapezoidal parts respectively. As a reminder, only the horizontal component is taken into account in the verifications.

Table 94 summarizes the values of the thrust components to be taken into account in the calculations.

Vertical force Horizontal force Lever arm at point O (m) Moment at point O
(kN/ml) (kN/ml) (kN.m/ml)
Paγ
0 119,5 2,33 278,4

Paq1
0 14,2 4,2 59,6
Paq2
0 3,3 0,7 2,3

Table 94: Weighted soil thrust and overload thrust

In particular, the lever arm for Paq2 can be calculated using the method of static moments (to determine the point of
application of the resultant for the trapezoid).

(52) [8] Tables de poussée et de butée des terres, Kerisel J. and Absi E. Presses des Ponts et Chaussées, 3rd edition, 1990, 220 p.

Detailed examples 127

 6.2.5 - Action combinations

Table 95 summarizes the combinations o f actions for each check, together with the partial coefficients on the actions
selected.

γG
ELU 1 ELU 2 ELU 3 ELS

Vd Hd Md
Partial coefficient on shares

Wvoile
87,5 0 175 1,35 1 1 1
Wtalon
50 0 -12,5 1,35 1 1 1
Wsol
468 0 -117 1,35 1 1 1

Q 20 0 -25 1,35 1 1 1
Paγ
0 119,5 278,4 1,35 1,35 1 1
Paq1
0 14,2 59,6 1,35 1,35 1 1
Paq2
0 3,3 2,3 1,35 1,35 1 1

Vertical force 844,4 625,5 625,5 625,5

Total
force Horizontal force 185,0 185,0 137,0 137,0
(kN/ml or
kN.m/ml) Moment in O 487,1 479,9 360,8 360,8

Table 95: Combinations of actions to consider

6.3 - Eccentricity limitation

Table 96 shows the design forces at the base of the wall footing for the various design situations.

Vd (kN/ml) Hd (kN/ml) Md (kN.m/ml) ed (m)

ELU - durable and transient situation

844,4 185,0 487,1 0,58
ELU 1

ELU - durable and transient situation

625,5 185,0 479,9 0,77
ELU 2

ELU - durable and transient situation

625,5 137,0 360,8 0,58
ELU 3

ELS - any combination 625,5 137,0 360,8 0,58

Table 96: Loads considered at the base of the footing

For combinations of ULS and ELS actions, the inequalities shown in Table 97 should be checked.

Expression ie to be Eccentricity ed (m) Check

verified
0,74 ≥ 1 / 15
ELU 1 0,58 0,74
Verified

0,66 ≥ 1 / 15
ELU 2 0,77 0,66
Verified

0,74 ≥ 1 / 15
ELU 3 0,58 0,74
Verified

ELS - characteristic and 0,74 ≥ 1 / 2

0,58 0,74
quasi-permanent Verified

Table 97: Checking eccentricity limitation

128 Eurocode 7 - Application to walls (NF P94-281)

6.4 - Checking load-bearing capacity

6.4.1 - Calculation of thickness hr

We are in the case of a spinning sole and . Consequently, we have

6.4.2 - Calculation of equivalent net pressure limit p * th

e
The equivalent net pressure limit is calculated as follows (from 0.5 to 7.25 m) :

[Formula D.2.2 NF P94-261].

In our example, we have calculated limiting pressure values for each layer. We then calculate the equivalent net
pressure limit with the following formula, where the exponent represents the weight of each layer's contribution:

The final result is :

6.4.3 - Calculation of equivalent mounting h e i g h t De

The equivalent mounting height is calculated using the formula :

[Formula C.2.1 NF P94-261].

In the case of the wall footing studied here :

• d is taken to be zero;
• D = 0.5 m ;
• from d to D, the soil is a sandy fill with pl* = 1300 kPa.

The result is :

6.4.4 - Calculation of lift factor kp

We will calculate the kp bearing capacity of the layer just below the footing using the elements in Table 98. This gives :

Thickness The case of a threaded sole

(m) Curve kp0
a b c kpmax

Sand 8 Q3 1 0,3 0,05 2 1,393

Table 98: Elements for determining the kp bearing capacity factor from Table 16 [Table D.2.3 NF P94-261].

To obtain the bearing capacity under the foundation, we perform the following calculation:

[Formula D.2.3.1 NF P94-261].

hence so kp = 1.06

Detailed examples 129

 It's easy to check that kp remains below kpmax. Furthermore, De / B = 0.5/ 4.5 = 0.11 < 2, so by construction
kp
< kpmax.

6.4.5 - Calculation of reduction coefficient related to load inclination and qnet stress
This is the case of frictional soil (c' = 0 kPa over 3 m below the foundation). The angle of inclination of the load
δd and the reduction coefficient iδ are calculated as follows:

[D.2.4 (1) NF P94-261]

[Formula D.2.4.2 NF P94-261].

Remember that δd is calculated in radians.

The qnet constraint is defined by the following relationship:

[ Formula D.2.1 NF P94-261].

For each combination of actions, the results are shown in Table 99.

Vd (kN/ml) Hd (kN/ml) δd (°) δd (rad) i qnet (kPa)

δ;f

ELU 1 844,4 185,0 12,4 0,22 0,54 744,1

ELU 2 625,5 185,0 16,5 0,29 0,43 592,5

ELU 3 625,5 137,0 12,4 0,22 0,54 744,1

ELS - characteristic
625,5 137,0 12,4 0,22 0,54 744,1
and quasi-
permanent
Table 99: Evaluation of the coefficient related to the inclination of load iδ for the different action combinations

6.4.6 - Lift checks

To check the load-bearing capacity of the soil, the following inequality must be verified:

or

With :

ie : reduction coefficient linked to load eccentricity given in Table 97 ;

q0 : total vertical stress that would be obtained at the end of the work at the base of the surface foundation in
the absence of the latter (in kPa);
A: value of footing surface (in m²/ml) ;
Rv;d: design value of ultimate ground resistance ;
γR;v : partial lift resistance factor ;
γR;d;v: model coefficient associated with the calculation method used.

Let's calculate the value of the weight of the volume of soil made up of the volume of the foundation under the site
after construction and the soil between the foundation and the site after construction:

Then, for each of the combinations of actions studied, we obtain the results shown in Table 100.

130 Eurocode 7 - Application to walls (NF P94-281)

 Rv;d
(kPa) γR;v γR;d;v Vd - R0 Checked?
qnet
(kN/ml) (kN/ml)

ELU 1 744,1 1,4 1,0 803,9 1770,0 yes

ELU 2 592,5 1,4 1,0 585,0 1256,9 yes

ELU 3 744,1 1,4 1,0 585,0 1770,0 yes

ELS - characteristic
744,1 2,3 1,0 585,0 1077,3 yes
and quasi-
permanent
Table 100: Load-bearing capacity check for different calculation situations

The bearing capacity of the soil is then verified for all action combinations.

6.5 - Checking for slippage

Non-slip verification is only carried out at ELU. It is necessary

to check :

[Formula 9.3.1.1]

With :

Hd : design value of the horizontal component of the load transmitted by the wall footing to the ground ;
Rp;d: design value of the footing's frontal or tangential resistance to the effect of Hd: resistance neglected in
this example for safety;

Rh;d : design value of the sliding resistance of the wall footing on the ground.

We assume drained conditions. The design value of the ultimate landslide resistance is determined from the following
expression :

[Formula 9.3.1.4]

With :

Vd : design value of the vertical component of the load transmitted by the wall footing to the ground ;
γR;h: partial factor for slip resistance: γR;h = 1.1 for fundamental UEL ;
γR;d;h: model coefficient for estimating ultimate slip resistance: γR;d;h = 0.9 ;
δa;k: characteristic value of the angle of friction at the interface between the base of the wall footing and the
ground.

Taking approach 2, we assume that for sands δa;k = δa;d. The wall is prefabricated, so :

Then, for each of the combinations of actions studied, we obtain the results shown in Table 101.

Vd (kN/ml) Rh;d (kN/ml) Hd (kN/ml) Checked?

ELU 1 844,4 367,3 185,0 yes

ELU 2 625,5 272,1 185,0 yes

ELU 3 625,5 272,1 137,0 yes

Table 101: Non-slip verification for different calculation situations

Non-slip of the wall footing is then verified for all action combinations.

Detailed examples 131

 7 - Example 6: gabion weight wall
This example deals with the justification of a weight wall made up of two rows of gabions. The example details the
verification of the wall's internal resistance only.

7.1 - Assumptions
The wall is made of gabions arranged in two rows:
• a bottom row 1 m high and 2 m wide;
• a top row 1 m high by 1 m wide, positioned to create a continuous visible face.

The wall retains and is laid on sandy soil (Figure 58). No water

table is taken into account.

Figure 58: Diagram of assumptions and efforts considered

Four parameters are required to perform these checks:

• the fg value of the coefficient of friction of the gabion filling material is 0.7 ;
• the cg value of the staple's sliding resistance, worth 10 kPa ;
• the fc value of the fictitious friction coefficient of the gabion structures due to the friction of the filling stones is 0.5 ;
• the cc value of the fictitious cohesion of the gabion structures due to the presence of the wire mesh envelope is 21
kPa.

7.1.1 - Soil properties considered

The properties of the filler materials are summarized in Table 102.

Net pressure Internal rubbing

Cohesion Weight by volume
limit angle
(kPa)
Pl *
c' (kPa) φ' (°) γ (kN/m3)

Rubbing
0 30 20
upstream fill

Sand 1200 0 30 20

Gabions - - - 16

Table 102: Soil and gabion properties

132 Eurocode 7 - Application to walls (NF P94-281)

7.1.2 - Efforts to be taken into account

The actions to be taken into account, all permanent for this example, are as follows:
• wall weight (for each row) ;
• ground pressure behind the Pa ground wedge (on each gabion row).

Several combinations of actions need to be checked:

• of the ELU fundamental for the justification of load-bearing capacity, the limitation of eccentricity and for the
justification of non-slip;
• characteristic, frequent and quasi-permanent ELS for justification of non-punching.

Table 103 summarizes the combinations o f actions for each check, together with the partial coefficients on the
actions selected.

γG ELU 3 ELS
ELU 1 ELU 2
(positive thrust) (Cara, Freq and QP)
Wmur1
1,35 1 1 1
Wmur2
1,35 1 1 1
Pa
1,35 1 1,35 1

Table 103: Action combinations and partial factors to consider

Eccentricity limitation will be verified for all action combinations.

7.2 - Determining characteristic share values

7.2.1 - Dead weight of wall

The wall is made of gabions, the density of which is given in Table 102. The top row is rated 1 and the bottom row (in
contact with the foundation soil) is rated 2.

The self-weight actions of each part are applied at the center of gravity of the elements considered, and the moments
are calculated at point O in the middle of the footing. Table 104 summarizes the results.

Vertical force Horizontal force Lever arm at point O (m) Moment at point O
(kN/ml) (kN/ml) (kN.m/ml)
Wmur1
16 0 0,5 8,0
Wmur2
32 0 0 0

Table 104: Actions related to the wall's own weight

7.2.2 - Dead weight of soil

The backfill is of the rubbing type, whose density is given in Table 102. The soil wedge is located between the wall
and the fictitious vertical screen.

The action of the soil wedge's own weight Wsol is applied at its center of gravity and the moment is calculated at point O
in the middle of the footing. Table 105 summarizes the results.

Lever arm at point O

Vertical force Horizontal force Moment at point O
(m)
(kN/ml) (kN/ml) (kN.m/ml)

Wsol
10,0 0 0,5 -5,0

Table 105: Actions related to the dead weight of the floor wedge

Detailed examples 133

 7.2.3 - Static weight-bearing ground thrust

The inclination to be used for the fictitious inclined facing would be 45°, i.e. greater than the angle of internal friction of
the soil. The facing is therefore considered to be vertical. The inclination to be taken into account is therefore

The buoyancy coefficient of the heavy soil is determined on the fictitious screen using the Kérisel and Absi soil
buoyancy tables [8], giving Ka = 0.3.

The thrust value i s

Table 106 summarizes the values of the static thrust components to be taken into account in the calculations.

Vertical force Horizontal force Lever arm at point O (m) Moment at point O
(kN/ml) (kN/ml) (kN.m/ml)
Pah
0 11,3 0,67 7,6
Pav
4,1 0 0,5 -2,1

Table 106: Weighted ground thrust

7.2.4 - Action combinations

Table 107 summarizes the combinations o f actions for each check, together with the partial coefficients for the actions
selected.

γG
ELU 1 ELU 2 ELU 3 ELS

Vd Hd Md
Partial coefficient on shares

Wmur;1 16 0 8,0 1,35 1 1 1

Wmur;2 32 0 0 1,35 1 1 1
Wsol
10,0 0 -5,0 1,35 1 1 1
Pah
0 11,3 7,6 1,35 1,35 1 1
Pav
4,1 0 -2,1 1,35 1,35 1 1

Vertical force 83,8 63,5 62,1 62,1

Total
force Horizontal force 15,3 15,3 11,3 11,3
(kN/ml or
kN.m/ml) Moment in O 11,5 10,4 8,5 8,5

Table 107: Combinations of actions to consider

7.3 - Eccentricity limitation

Table 108 shows the design forces at the base of the wall footing for the various design situations.

Vd (kN/ml) Hd (kN/ml) Md (kN.m/ml) ed (m)

ELU - durable and transient situation

83,8 15,3 11,5 0,14
ELU 1

ELU - durable and transient situation

63,5 15,3 10,4 0,16
ELU 2

ELU - durable and transient situation

62,1 11,3 8,5 0,14
ELU 3

ELS - any combination 62,1 11,3 8,5 0,14

Table 108: Loads considered at the base of the footing

134 Eurocode 7 - Application to walls (NF P94-281)

 For combinations of ULS and ELS actions, the inequalities shown in Table 109 should be checked.

Expression ie to be verified Eccentricity ed (m) Check

0,86 ≥ 1 / 15
ELU 1 0,14 0,86
Verified

0,84 ≥ 1 / 15
ELU 2 0,16 0,84
Verified

0,86 ≥ 1 / 15
ELU 3 0,14 0,86
Verified

ELS - characteristic 0,86 ≥ 1 / 2

0,14 0,86
and quasi- Verified
permanent
Table 109: Checking eccentricity limitation

7.4 - Checking load-bearing capacity

7.4.1 - Calculation of lift factor kp

We'll calculate the kp bearing capacity of the layer just below the footing using the elements in Table 110. We have :

Curve kp0
a b c kpmax

Sand Q3 1 0,3 0,05 2 1,393

Table 110: Elements for determining the kp bearing capacity factor from Table 16 [Table D.2.3 NF P94-261].

To obtain the bearing capacity under the foundation, we perform the following calculation:

[Formula D.2.3. 1 NF P94-261].

hence kp = 1.0

It's easy to check that kp remains below kpmax.

7.4.2 - Calculation of the reduction coefficient related to load inclination and qnet stress

We are in the case of a rubbing floor (c' = 0 kPa). The angle of inclination of the load δd and the coefficient
are calculatedδ as follows :

[D.2.4 (1) NF P94-261]

[Formula D.2.4.2 NF P94-261].

Remember that δd is calculated in radians.

The qnet constraint is defined by the following relationship:

[ Formula D.2.1 NF P94-261].

The results for each combination of actions are shown in Table 111.

Detailed examples 135

 Vd (kN/ml) Hd (kN/ml) δd (°) δd (rad) i qnet (kPa)
δ;f

ELU 1 83,8 15,3 10,3 0,18 0,59 708

ELU 2 63,5 15,3 13,5 0,24 0,48 576

ELU 3 62,1 11,3 10,3 0,18 0,59 708

ELS - characteristic
62,1 11,3 10,3 0,18 0,59 708
and quasi-
permanent
Table 111: Evaluation of the coefficient related to the inclination of load iδfor the different action combinations

7.4.3 - Lift checks

To check the load-bearing capacity of the soil, the following inequality must be verified:

or

With :

ie : reduction coefficient linked to load eccentricity given in Table 109 ;

q0 : total vertical stress that would be obtained at the end of the work at the base of the surface foundation in
the absence of the latter (in kPa);
A: value of footing surface (in m²/ml) ;
Rv;d: design value of ultimate ground resistance ;
γR;v : partial lift resistance factor ;
γR;d;v: model coefficient associated with the calculation method used.

Let's calculate the value of the weight of the volume of soil made up of the volume of the foundation under the site
after construction and the soil between the foundation and the site after construction:

Then, for each of the combinations of actions studied, we obtain the results presented in Table 112.

Rv;d
(kPa) γR;v γR;d;v Vd - R0 Checked?
qnet
(kN/ml) (kN/ml)

ELU 1 708 1,4 1,0 83,8 869,8 yes

ELU 2 576 1,4 1,0 63,5 691,2 yes

ELU 3 708 1,4 1,0 62,1 869,8 yes

ELS - characteristic
708 2,3 1,0 62,1 529,4 yes
and quasi-
permanent
Table 112: Load-bearing capacity check for different calculation situations

The bearing capacity of the soil is then verified for all action combinations.

7.5 - Checking for slippage

Non-slip verification is only carried out at ELU. It is necessary

to check :
[Formula 9.3.1.1]

136 Eurocode 7 - Application to walls (NF P94-281)

With :

Hd : design value of the horizontal component of the load transmitted by the wall footing to the ground ;

Rp;d: design value of the footing's frontal or tangential resistance to the effect of Hd; resistance neglected in this
example for safety reasons;

Rh;d : design value of the sliding resistance of the wall footing on the ground.

We assume drained conditions. The design value of the ultimate landslide resistance is determined from the following
expression :

[Formula 9.3.1.4]

With :

Vd : design value of the vertical component of the load transmitted by the wall footing to the ground ;

γR;h: partial factor for slip resistance: γR;h = 1.1 for fundamental UEL ;

γR;d;h: model coefficient for estimating ultimate slip resistance: γR;d;h = 0.9 ;

δa;k: characteristic value of the angle of friction at the interface between the base of the wall footing and the
ground.

Taking approach 2, we assume that for the sands we have δa;k = δa;d. The wall is made of gabions, so we consider that
:

Then, for each of the combinations of actions studied, we obtain the results presented in Table 113.

Vd (kN/ml) Rh;d (kN/ml) Hd (kN/ml) Checked?

ELU 1 83,8 30,8 15,3 yes

ELU 2 63,5 23,3 15,3 yes

ELU 3 62,1 22,8 11,3 yes

Table 113: Non-slip verification for different calculation situations

Non-slip of the wall footing is then verified for all action combinations.

7.6 - Checking internal resistance

From the top of the wall to its base, for each row of interconnected cages, check :
• the row is not reversed in relation to its downstream point;
• the gabion module does not slip in relation to the modules of the lower row;
• shearing of gabion modules ;
• the compressive strength of the modules.

The checks are therefore to be carried out for row 1 in this example.

7.6.1 - Efforts applied to row 1

Dead weight of row 1

The wall is made of gabions whose density is given in Table 102 :

Wmur1 = 16 kN/ml

Detailed examples 137

 Static soil pressure on row 1

The buoyancy coefficient of the heavy soil is determined on the fictitious screen using the Kérisel and Absi soil
buoyancy tables [8], giving Ka = 0.3.

The thrust value is

Table 114 summarizes the values of the static thrust components to be taken into account in the calculations.

Vertical force Horizontal force

(kN/ml) (kN/ml)
Pah1
0 2,8
Pav1
1,0 0

Table 114: Weighted ground thrust

Action combinations

Vertical force Horizontal force

Vd (kN/ml) Hd (kN/ml)

ELU 1 23,0 3,8

ELU 2 17,4 3,8

ELU 3 17,0 2,8

ELS 17,0 2,8

Table 115: Combinations of actions to consider

7.6.2 - Slip test

Verification involves checking that the gabion row in question is capable of withstanding the horizontal thrust of the
ground. This thrust is exerted on a portion of the fictitious screen, generally inclined at right angles to the gabion
under study.

The following inequality must be verified for rank 1:

[Formula E.3.1]

With :

Vd and Hd: design values for total vertical and horizontal forces calculated at row i ;
B: contact width between the gabion in the row under consideration and the row below ;
γM;fg: partial coefficient relative to the coefficient of friction, which is 1.1 ;
γM;cg: partial coefficient for the contribution of staples to shear strength, with a value of 1.1.

Vd (kN/ml) (kN/ml) Hd (kN/ml) Checked?

ELU 1 23,0 23,7 3,8 yes

ELU 2 17,4 20,2 3,8 yes

ELU 3 17,0 19,9 2,8 yes

ELS 17,0 19,9 2,8 yes

Table 116: Non-slip checks

138 Eurocode 7 - Application to walls (NF P94-281)

Rollover check
Verification involves comparing the moment of the destabilizing forces with that of the stabilizing forces, after
weighting by the partial coefficients.

[Formula E.3.2]

With :

γF : value of the partial coefficient for actions, which is 1.35 ;

γR;d: value of the partial coefficient relating to resistances, which is 1.1 ;
Mstb;k and Mdst;k: characteristic values of the stabilizing and destabilizing moments respectively, with the
downstream point of the row considered taken as the center of rotation [D.3 (4)].

At point A :

and

We have :

Non-reversal is therefore justified.

Shear testing
Check that the gabion module is capable of withstanding the shear forces generated by the structure.

Please check :
[Formula E.3.3]

With :

τd and σd: design values for the total tangential and vertical stresses calculated at row 1 with a footing width B
= 1 m in this example;
γM;fc: partial coefficient relating to the fictitious friction coefficient, which is 1.1 ;
γM;cc : value of the partial coefficient relating to the value of the fictitious cohesion, taken to be equal to 1.1.

Vd (kN/ml) σd (kPa/ml) (kPa/ml) Hd (kN/ml) τd (kPa/ml) Checked?

ELU 1 23,0 23,0 29,5 3,8 3,8 yes

ELU 2 17,4 17,4 27,0 3,8 3,8 yes

ELU 3 17,0 17,0 26,8 2,8 2,8 yes

ELS 17,0 17,0 26,8 2,8 2,8 yes

Table 117: Shear-free checks

The non-shear checks are therefore validated.

Detailed examples 139

 Compression testing
Each gabion must be able to withstand the compressive stresses generated by the structure above it. The

inequality must be verified:

[Formula E.3.4]

With :
Vc;k: characteristic value of the resultant of vertical forces, equal to the total weight of the column of elements
including the filling material, possibly taking into account the vertical component of the thrust, worth 16
+ 1 =17 kN/ml ;
Rc;k: characteristic value of compressive strength of elements determined from experimental tests, worth 109
kN/ml ;

γF : model coefficient which is 1.1 ;

γR : partial factor for resistances, 1.25.

Hence :

The compressive strength of gabion row 1 is therefore verified.

140 Eurocode 7 - Application to walls (NF P94-281)

 Appendices
Appendix A - Flowcharts
This appendix contains cross-references to other flowcharts: these are indicated by a circled number. General cases
are highlighted in color where appropriate.

1. Effect of a localized load transmitted by the ground

2. Seismic checks

3. Determination of footing parameters and verification of eccentricity criteria

4. Lifting capacity check

5. Determining lift factors

6. Determination of reduction coefficients linked to load inclination and presence of an embankment

7. Checking for slippage

8. Determination of settlements using the Ménard pressure meter

9. Determination of settlements using a static mechanical point penetrometer with a skirted cone

Appendix A - Flow chart 141

142

Diagram 1: Effect of a localized load transmitted by the ground

Eurocode 7 - Application to walls (NF P94-281)
 Flowchart 2: Seismic checks: load-bearing capacity and slip resistance for cases without a tablecloth
Appendix A - Flow chart
143
144
Eurocode 7 - Application to walls (NF P94-281)

Flowchart 3: Footing parameters and verification of eccentricity limitation

 Flowchart 4: Checking load-bearing capacity and puncture resistance
Appendix A - Flow chart
145
146
Eurocode 7 - Application to walls (NF P94-281)

Diagram 5: Determining the lift factor

Diagram 6: Determination of reduction coefficients related to load inclination and presence

of an embankment
 Flowchart 7: Checking for slippage
Appendix A - Flow chart
147
148

Diagram 8: Determination of settlements based on Ménard pressuremeter tests

Eurocode 7 - Application to walls (NF P94-281)