Alternative to FOS

Limit State Design Approach

 Limit State Design Approach
 Involves the application of statistics to
determine the level of safety required by
or during the design process

 Based upon the avoidance of certain

‘limit
limit states
states’

 A ‘limit
limit state
state’ is any state of stability beyond
which the retaining wall no longer satisfies
the design performance requirement
• Damage
• Economic loss
• Unsafe
 Limit State Design Approach
• Attention directed to unexpected, undesirable
andd unlikely
lik l states
t t ini which
hi h the
th construction
t ti
is failing to perform satisfactorily.
• Adoption of pessimistic values for the
leading
g parameters
p involved in the design:
g
strengths, loads and geometric features.
• Check that the structure will not fail under
these pessimistic values.
• The degree of pessimism associated with the
selected parameters depends upon the
severity, or consequences, of the particular
limit state.
 Limit State Design Approach
• In this module, we will limit our attention to the Limit State
Design (LSD)
( S ) off earth retaining structures.
• The following limit states should be considered:
 loss of equilibrium of the structure or any part of it, considered
as a rigid body
 failure by rotation or translation of the wall or parts thereof
 failure by lack of vertical equilibrium of the wall
 ffailure
il off a structural
t t l element
l t such
h as a wall,
ll anchor,
h wale
l or
strut or failure of the connection between such elements
 combined failure in ground and in structural element
 movements of the retaining structure that may cause collapse
of the structure, nearby structures or services which rely on it
 failure caused by fatigue or other time-dependent effects
 Limit State Design Approach
• Limit State Design
g of such structures are
incorporated in:
 BS 8002 (1994) - Code of Practice for
Earth Retaining Structures
 Eurocode 7 (EC7) - Geotechnical Design
• We will only focus on the relevant sections or
clauses that are applicant to the design of
earth retaining structures
structures.

• First,, we look at what BS 8002 has to say

y
about the design of such structures.
 BS 8002 ((1994):
) Soil Strength
g Parameters

Clause 3.2.4: Design using total stress parameters.

The retaining wall should be designed to be in
equilibrium
ilib i when
h based
b d on a mobilized
bili d undrained
d i d design
d i
clay strength (design c) which does not exceed the
representative undrained strength divided by a
mobilization factor M. The value of M should not be less
than 1.5 if wall displacements
p are required
q to be less than
0.5%. of wall height. The value of M should be larger than
1.5 for clays which require large strains to mobilize their
peakk strength.
t th
 BS 8002 ((1994):
) Soil Strength
g Parameters
Clause 3.2.5: Design using effective stress parameters.
The retaining wall should be designed to be in
equilibrium mobilizing a soil strength the lesser of:

a. the representative peak strength of the soil divided by

a factor M = 1. 2: that is:
representa tive tan 'max
design tan ' 
M
representa tive c '
design c ' 
M

b the representative critical state strength of the soil

b.
 Secant Parameters from
a Non-Linear
N Li Mohr-Coulomb
M h C l b Failure
F il Envelope
E l

’c
rit
BS 8002 ((1994):
) Wall Friction and Adhesion

Design
D l off  (wall
i value ( ll friction)
f i ti ) or cw (wall
( ll adhesion)
dh i ) isi
the lesser of
a. the representative value determined by test,

b. 75% of the design shear strength to be actually

mobilized in the soil.
design tan  = 0 75 x design tan 
0.75 ’

design cw = 0.75 x design cu

Eurocode 7 (EN 1997
1997−1:2004)
1:2004)
 EC7: Principles
p and Application
pp Rules (Clause
( 1.4))

1) Depending on the character of the individual clauses, distinction

is made in EN 19971997-1
1 between Principles and Application Rules
Rules.
2) The Principles comprise:
— general statements and definitions for which there is no
alternative;
— requirements
q and analytical
y models for which no alternative
is permitted unless specifically stated.
3) The Principles are preceded by the letter P.
4) The Application Rules are examples of generally recognised
rules, which follow the Principles and satisfy their requirements.
5) It is permissible to use alternatives to the Application Rules
given in this standard, provided it is shown that the alternative
rules accord with the relevant Principles and are at least
equivalent with regard to the structural safety, serviceability and
durability, which would be expected when using the Eurocodes.
 Example
p of Principle
p and Application
pp Rules

9 4 Design and construction considerations

9.4
9.4.1 General
(1)P Both ultimate and serviceability limit states shall be considered
using the procedures described in 2.4.7 and 2.4.8.
(2)P It shall be demonstrated that vertical equilibrium can be achieved
f the
for th assumed d pressure di
distributions
t ib ti andd actions
ti on th
the wall.
ll
(3) The verification of vertical equilibrium may be achieved by
reducing
g the wall friction p
parameters.
(4) As far as possible, retaining walls should be designed in such a
way that there are visible signs of the approach of an ultimate limit
state The design should guard against the occurrence of brittle
state.
failure, e.g. sudden collapse without conspicuous preliminary
deformations.
 EC7: Limit States (Clause 2.4.7)
 EQU— loss of equilibrium of the structure or the ground, considered as a
rigid
g body,y, in which the strengths
g of structural materials and the ground
g
are insignificant in providing resistance
 STR— internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or
structural elements,, includingg e.g.
g footings,
g , piles
p or basement walls,, in
which the strength of structural materials is significant in providing
resistance
 GEO
GEO— failure or excessive deformation of the ground, in which the
strength of soil or rock is significant in providing resistance
 UPL— loss of equilibrium of the structure or the ground due to uplift by
water pressure (buoyancy) or other vertical actions
 HYD— hydraulic heave, internal erosion and piping in the ground caused
by hydraulic gradients

Static equilibrium EQU is mainly relevant in structural design. In

geotechnical design, EQU verification will be limited to rare cases, such as a
rigid foundation bearing on rock,
rock and is,
is in principle,
principle distinct from overall
stability or buoyancy problems. If any shearing resistance Td is included, it
should be of minor importance.
EC7: Limit States (Clause 2.4.7)
 EC7 Terminology

There are some special

p terms used in EC7.
These include:
1. ‘Actions’,
2. ‘Effects’
3. ‘Resistances’.
‘ ’
 What are Actions?
The use of the word ‘action’
action with the meaning adopted in the
Eurocodes is unfamiliar to English speakers. It might be
preferable to substitute the word ‘load’,
load , provided that this
definition is sufficiently broad to include imposed
displacements as well as forces.
In the Eurocodes, an ‘action’ is a force which is not a
‘reaction’. It is a force which is known at the start of a
particular calculation; its value is not derived within that
calculation. ‘Reactions’ are known as ‘action effects’.

In EC7, an action is denoted by the letter ‘F’.

EC7 : Actions – Partial factors
Fd = F Frep

EQU STR and GEO

Others tables are provided

for UPL and HYD
 EC7: Actions (UK National Annex)

 UK National Annex (still in

draft form) provides
alternate partial factors for
STR and GEO for the
design
g of bridges
g
 Values in Eurocode Annex
A (Table A3) are to be used
for buildings
 EC7 : Materials – Physical
y and Strength
g Properties
p

Next, we look at the material properties and how they are

incorporated into the design.

Material properties include physical properties such as the unit

weight of the soil
soil, and strength parameters such as the
effective stress friction angle, and the undrained shear
strength.

In EC7, a material property is denoted by the

letter ‘X’
‘X’.
EC7 : Materials – Partial Factors
design value of characteristic value of the property
the p
property
p y
Xd = Xk / M
EQU STR and GEO
 EC7 : Materials ((UK National Annex))
 UK National annex
also identifies critical
state angle of friction,
cv
 cv is quoted as the
same as  but the
note implies
p cv
cv =1.0
after taking full
account of the
variability of the soil
 The partial factor  is
a soil parameter. It
should
h ld nott beb
confused with the
partial factor on
actions, F, applied to
the weight of the soil
 EC7 : Effects of actions

Recall from earlier slide:

In the Eurocodes, an ‘action’ is a force which is not a
‘reaction’. An action is a force which is known at the start of a
particular calculation; its value is not derived within that
calculation. ‘Reactions’ are known as ‘action effects’.

Hence, an example of an effect of an action is a strut force,

which is a reaction to the outward wall deformation due to the
active force (action) acting on the wall.

Another example of an effect of an action is the bending

moment induced in the wall.
 EC7 : Partial Factors for Effects of actions

Partial factors on actions may be applied either to the

actions themselves (Frep) or to their effects (E):
Ed = E{F Frep; Xk/M; ad}
or
Ed = E E{Frep; Xk/M; ad}

STR and GEO

 EC7 : Effects of actions

In some design situations, the application of partial factors to

actions coming from or through the soil (such as earth or water
pressures) could lead to design values, which are unreasonable or
even physically impossible. In these situations, the factors may be
applied directly to the effects of actions derived from
representative values of the actions
actions.
 EC7 : Resistances

Resistances may be due to:

resistance force caused by earth pressure on the
side of a foundation (e.g. passive resistance)
base resistance of a pile
shaft resistance of a pile
resistance of a pile to transverse or lateral loads
and others
others….
 EC7 :Resistances – Partial Factors
Partial factors may be applied either to ground properties (X) or
resistances (R) or to both, as follows:
Rd = R{F Frep; Xk/M; ad}
or
Rd = R{F Frep; Xk; ad}/ R
or
Rd = R{
R{ F Frep; Xk/
/ M; ad}/
}/ R Specified
by UK NA

Set R1
specified
by UK NA
 UK NA specifies using
EC7 :Design
g Approach
pp 1 Design Approach 1 only

 (1)P Except for the design of axially loaded piles and anchors, it shall be verified that
a limit state of rupture or excessive deformation will not occur with either of the
following combinations of sets of partial factors:
Partial factors =1.0
Combination 1: A1 “+” M1 “+” R1
Combination 2: A2 “+” M2 “+” R1
Partial factors =1.0 except unfavourable variable actions
where “+” implies: “to be combined with”.

• NOTE In Combinations 1 and 2,

2 partial factors are applied to actions and to ground
strength parameters.

 (2)P For the design of axially loaded piles and anchors, it shall be verified that a limit
state of rupture or excessive deformation will not occur with either of the following
combinations of sets of partial factors:

Combination 1: A1 “+” M1 “+” R1 Defined in Table A.6-A.8 for piles

Combination 2: A2 “+”
+ (M1 or M2) “+”
+ R4 and Table A.12 for anchors

• NOTE 1 In Combination 1, partial factors are applied to actions and to ground strength
parameters. In Combination 2, partial factors are applied to actions, to ground resistances
and sometimes to ground strength parameters
parameters.
• NOTE 2 In Combination 2, set M1 is used for calculating resistances of piles or anchors and
set M2 for calculating unfavourable actions on piles owing e.g. to negative skin friction or
transverse loading.
 UK NA specifies using
EC7 :Design
g Approach
pp 1 Design Approach 1 only
 UK NA specifies using
EC7 :Design
g Approach
pp 1 Design Approach 1 only
 EC7 : Design
g Approaches
pp 2&3
 Design Approach 2
Partial factors =1.0

Combination: A1 “+” M1 “+” R2

Note that, in this approach, partial factors are applied to actions or to

the effects of actions
actions, and to ground resistances.
resistances

 Design Approach 3
Partial factors =1
1.0
0

Combination: (A1* or A2†) “+” M2 “+” R3

*on structural actions

†on geotechnical actions
Partial factors =1.0 except unfavourable variable actions

Note that, in this approach, partial factors are applied to actions or to

the effects of actions from the structure, and to ground strength
parameters.
 EC7 : Summary of Partial Factors and Design Approaches

Parameter Symbol EQU GEO/STR - Partial factor set

A1 A2 M1 M2 R1 R2 R3
Permanent action (G) Unfavourable γG, dst 1.1 1.35 1.0
Favourable γG, stb 0.9 1.0 1.0
Variable action (Q) Unfavourable γQ, dst 1.5 1.5 1.3
Favourable - - - -
Accidental action (A) Unfavourable γA,
A dst 1.0 1.0 1.0
Favourable - - - -
Coefficient of shearing resistance (tanφ') γφ' 1.25 1.0 1.25
Effective cohesion (c') γc' 1.25 1.0 1.25
Undrained shear strength (cu) γcu 1.4 1.0 1.4
Unconfined compressive strength (qu) γqqu 1.4 1.0 1.4
Weight density (γ) γγ 1.0 1.0 1.0
Bearing resistance (Rv) γRv 1.0 1.4 1.0
Sliding resistance (Rh) γRh 1.0 1.1 1.0
Earth resistance (Rh) γRe 1.0 1.4 1.0

D i A
Design Approach
h1 Combination
C bi i 1 (A1 M1 R1)
(A1+M1+R1) Pil & anchors:
Piles h (A1 M1 R1)
(A1+M1+R1)
Combination 2 (A2+M2+R1) (A2 + (M1 or M2) + R4)

Design Approach 2 (A1+M1+R2)

Design Approach 3 (A1or A2) +M2+R3

M2 R3
 EC7 : Eurocode Limit States ((Clause 9.2))
(1)P A list shall be compiled of limit states to be considered. As a
minimum the following g limit states shall be considered for all
types of retaining structure:

 loss of overall stability;

y
 failure of a structural element such as a wall, anchorage, wale
or strut or failure of the connection between such elements; ULS
 combined failure in the g ground and in the structural element;
 failure by hydraulic heave and piping;

 movement of the retaining structure, which may cause collapse

or affect the appearance or efficient use of the structure or
nearby structures or services, which rely on it;
 unacceptable leakage through or beneath the wall; SLS
 unacceptable transport of soil particles through or beneath the
wall;
 unacceptable change in the ground-water regime.

Values of partial factors for serviceability limit states should normally be taken equal to 1.0
 EC7 : Additional Limit States ((Clause 9.2))
(2)P In addition, the following limit states shall be considered

for gravity walls and for composite retaining structures:

 bearing
b i resistance
i t ffailure
il off th
the soilil b
below
l th
the b
base;
 failure by sliding at the base;
 failure by toppling;

and for embedded walls:

 failure by rotation or translation of the wall or parts thereof;
 failure by lack of vertical equilibrium.

composite retaining structures – composed of elements from gravity and

embedded walls - examples include double sheet pile wall cofferdams, earth
structures reinforced by tendons, geotextiles or grouting and structures with
multiple rows of ground anchorages or soil nails
Overall stability
y
Gravity
y Walls
Embedded Walls
 Eurocode Actions ((Clause 9.3.1))
— the weight of soil, rock and water;
 Basic actions — stresses in the ground;
— earth pressures and ground-water pressure;
— free water pressures, including wave pressures;
— ground-water pressures;
 Weight of backfill — seepage forces;
material
i l — dead and imposed loads from
— surcharges;
f structures;

 Surcharges — mooring forces;

— removal of load or excavation of ground;
 Weight of water — traffic
t ffi loads;
l d
— movements caused by mining or other caving or tunnelling
activities;
 Wave and ice forces — swelling and shrinkage caused by vegetation, climate or
moisture
i t changes;
h
 Seepage forces — movements due to creeping or sliding or settling ground
masses;
 Collision forces — movements due to degradation, dispersion,
d
decomposition,
iti self-compaction
lf ti and d solution;
l ti
 Temperature effects — movements and accelerations caused by earthquakes,
explosions, vibrations and dynamic loads;
(abnormal — temperature effects, including frost action;
temperature change) — ice
i lloading;
di
— imposed pre-stress in ground anchors or struts;
— downdrag.
Eurocode – Geometry
y ((Clause 9.3.2.2))
 (2) In ultimate limit state calculations in which the stability of a retaining wall
depends on the ground resistance in front of the structure, the level of the
resisting soil should be lowered below the nominally expected level by an
amount ∆a. The value of ∆a should be selected taking into account the
degree
g of site control over the level of the surface. With a normal degree
g of
control, the following should be applied:
• for a cantilever wall, ∆a should equal 10 % of the wall height above
excavation level,, limited to a maximum of 0.5 m;;
• for a supported wall, ∆a should equal 10 % of the distance between the
lowest support and the excavation level, limited to a maximum of 0.5 m.

Support (strut)
d
d

a a

a=0.1 d (max. 0.5 m)

EC7 : Design and Construction Considerations (Clause 9.4.1)

(8)P The design of retaining structures shall take account of the following items, where
appropriate:

 the effects of constructing the wall, including:

• the provision of temporary support to the sides of excavations;
• the changes of in situ stresses and resulting ground movements caused both by the wall
excavation and its construction;
• disturbance of the ground due to driving or boring operations;
• provision of access for construction;
 the required degree of water tightness of the finished wall;
 the
th practicability
ti bilit off constructing
t ti th the wallll tto reach
h a stratum
t t off llow permeability,
bilit so
forming a water cut-off. The resulting equilibrium ground-water flow problem shall be
assessed;
 the practicability of forming ground anchorages in adjacent ground;
 the
h practicability
i bili off excavating
i b between any propping i off retaining
i i walls;ll
 the ability of the wall to carry vertical load;
 the ductility of structural components;
 access for maintenance of the wall and any associated drainage measures;
 the appearance and durability of the wall and any anchorages;
 for sheet piling, the need for a section stiff enough to be driven to the design
penetration without loss of interlock;
 the stability of borings or slurry trench panels while they are open;
 for fill, the nature of materials available and the means used to compact them
adjacent to the wall, in accordance with 5.3.
 Design Example 1 (EC7)

Use Eurocode 7 to check the proposed design of the mass concrete

retaining wall shown below for the overturning (EQU) and sliding (GEO)
limit states. Adopt Design Approach 1 for the GEO limit state.

surcharge q = 20 kPa
1.8 m

retained fill:
concrete
4.0 m c’ = 0; ’ = 32
conc = 24 kN/m3
 = 18 kN/m3

2.0 m foundation soil::

1.0 m
c’ = 0; ’ = 28
26m
2.6  = 20 kN/m3
 Design Example 1 (EC7)

EQU limit state

From Table 6.3,
G;dst = 1.1; G;stb = 0.9; Q;dst = 1.5; ’ = 1.25
Determine the (i) design material properties, (ii) design actions, (iii) design effects
(i) Design Material Properties

(a) Retained Fill:

 tan ' 
' d  tan 
1   tan 1  tan 32   26.6
  '   1.25 
 
With ’d , need to obtain KA.

Question: Rankine or Coulomb or Non-planar?

Can use charts in Eurocode 7 to obtain non-planar surfaces, but
need to know wall friction .

Table from California DOT (see 20-8-07 lecture slides or note)
  24 to 29
EC7 : for concrete walls cast into soil
can take /’d = 1  Ka = 0.31
 Design Example 1 (EC7)

Table 6.3 Partial Factor Sets for EQU, GEO and STR Limit States
Parameter Symbol
y EQU GEO/STR - Partial factor set
A1 A2 M1 M2 R1 R2 R3
Permanent action (G) Unfavourable γG, dst 1.1 1.35 1.0
Favourable γG, stb 0.9 1.0 1.0
Variable action (Q) Unfavourable γQ, dst 1.5 1.5 1.3
Favourable - - - -
Accidental action (A) Unfavourable γA, dst 1.0 1.0 1.0
Favourable - - - -
Coefficient of shearing resistance (tanφ') γφ' 1.25 1.0 1.25
Effective cohesion (c') γc' 1.25 1.0 1.25
Undrained shear strength (cu) γcu 14
1.4 10
1.0 14
1.4
Unconfined compressive strength (qu) γqu 1.4 1.0 1.4
Weight density (γ) γγ 1.0 1.0 1.0
Bearing resistance (Rv ) γRv 1.0 1.4 1.0
Sliding resistance (Rh) γRh 1.0 1.1 1.0
Earth resistance (Re) γRe 1.0 1.4 1.0
 Design Example 1 (EC7)

From EC7 Section 9

9.5
5 – Determination of Earth Pressures
Design Example 1 (EC7)
 Design Example 1 (EC7)
EQU limit state
From Table 6.3,
G;dst = 1.1; G;stb = 0.9; Q;dst = 1.5; ’ = 1.25
Determine
D t i ththe (i) design
d i material
t i l properties,
ti (ii) design
d i actions,
ti (iii) design
d i effects
ff t
(i) Design Material Properties
((b)) Foundation Soil:
IIgnore Passive
P i
 tan ' 
' d  tan 
1   tan 1  tan 28   23 Resistance in
 
  '   1.25 
thi example!
this l !
Again, take /’d = 1  Ka = 0.37
Earth Pressure
h = Ka h
Diagram  h = Ka q
= 0.31 x 18 x 4
= 22.4 kPa = 0.31 x 20
0.37 x 18 x 4 = 6.2 kPa
= 26.7 kPa

7 4 kPa
7.4
0.37 x (18x4 +
20x1) = 34.1 kPa
 Design Example 1 (EC7)
EQU limit state

(ii) Design Actions

(a) Self weight
eight of the wall
all (Permanent Fa
(Permanent, Favorable
orable Action) G;stb = 0
0.9
9
(b) Active thrust from soil (Permanent, Unfavorable Action) G;dst = 1.1
(c) Active thrust from surcharge (Variable, Unfavorable Action) Q;dst = 1.5

Note: G is multiplied to the weight.

(a) Self weight of the wall

Area 1: GW1:d = (1/2) x 0.8 x 3 x conc x G;stb

= 1.2
1 2 x 24 x 0
0.9
9 = 25.9
25 9 kN 2
Area 2: GW2:d = 1.8 x 3 x conc x G;stb 1
= 5.4 x 24 x 0.9 = 116.6 kN
3
Area 2: GW2:d = 2.6 x 2 x conc x G;stb

= 5.2 x 24 x 0.9 = 112.3 kN

 Design Example 1 (EC7)
EQU limit state

(ii) Design Actions

(a) Self weight of the wall (Permanent Favorable Action)
(Permanent, G;stb = 0.9
(b) Active thrust from soil (Permanent, Unfavorable Action) G;dst = 1.1
(c) Active thrust from surcharge (Variable, Unfavorable Action) Q;dst = 1.5

(b) Active thrust from soil

h = Ka h
= 0.31 x 18 x 4
= 22.4 kPa
Pa:d (fill) = (1/2) x 22.4 x 4 x G;dst 0 3 x 18
0.37 8x4
= 26.7 kPa
= 44.8 x 1.1 = 49.3 kN
0.37 x ((18x4 +
20x1) = 34.1 kPa

Pa:d (foundation soil) = (1/2) x (26.7

(26 7 + 34.1)
34 1) x 1 0 x G;dst
1.0
= 30.4 x 1.1 = 33.4 kN
 Design Example 1 (EC7)
EQU limit state

(ii) Design Actions

(a) Self weight of the wall (Permanent, Favorable Action) G;stb = 0.9
(b) Active thrust from soil (Permanent, Unfavorable Action) G;dst = 1.1
( ) Active
(c) A ti ththrustt from
f surcharge
h (V i bl Unfavorable
(Variable, U f A ti ) Q;dst = 1.5
bl Action) 15

((c)) Active thrust from surcharge

g

 h = Ka q
Pq:d (fill) = 6 2 x 4 x Q;dst
6.2
= 0.31 x 20
= 24.8 x 1.5 = 37.2 kN = 6.2 kPa

Pq:d (surcharge) = 7.4 x 1 x Q;dst

7.4 kPa
= 7.4 x 1.5 = 11.1 kN
 Design Example 1 (EC7)
EQU limit state

(ii) Design Effects of Actions

unfavorable actions is to cause

(a) The effect of the ___________ ca se the o
overturning
ert rning
moment about the toe of the wall.
favorable actions is to mobilize the stabilizing
(b) The effect of the _________
moment to resist overturning.

GW2;d

GW1;d Pq;d (fill)

Pa;d (fill)

GW3;d
Pa;d (surcharge)
Pq;d (surcharge)

stabilizing (clockwise) destabilizing (anticlockwise)

 Design Example 1 (EC7)
EQU limit state
Action Magnitude of Lever Arm (m) Moment Arm
Action (kN) (kNm)
Stabilizing

Area 1 25.9 (2/3) x 0.8 = 0.53 13.7

Area 2 116.6 0.8 + (1.8/2) = 1.7 198.2

Area 3 112 3
112.3 2 6/2 = 1.3
2.6/2 13 146 0
146.0

Total 357.9

D t bili i
Destabilizing
Pa (fill) 49.3 1 + (4/3) = 2.33 115.0

Pa (found.
(f d soil)
il) 33 4
33.4 0 48
0.48 16 0
16.0

Pq (fill) 37.2 1 + (4/2) = 3 111.6

Pq (found. soil) 11.1 1.0/2 = 0.5 5.6

Total 248.2
 Design Example 1 (EC7)
EQU limit state

Stabili ing Moments =

Stabilizing 357 9
357.9

D t bili i Moments
Destabilizing M t = 248.2
248 2

Stabilizing > Destabilizing

Stabili ing Moments __ Destabili ing Moments

 EQU limit state is ________!

satisfied !

Overdesign factor  = 357.9/248.2 = 1.44

_______________
 Design Example 1 (EC7)

Check on GEO limit state for sliding

g
Use Eurocode 7 to check the proposed design of the mass concrete
retaining wall shown below for the overturning (EQU) and sliding (GEO)
li it states.
limit t t Adopt
Ad t DDesign
i A Approachh 1 ffor th
the GEO li
limit
it state.
t t

surcharge q = 20 kPa
1.8 m

retained fill:
co c ete
concrete
4.0 m 0 ’ = 32
c’’ = 0;
conc = 24 kN/m3
 = 18 kN/m3

2.0 m foundation soil::

1.0 m
c’ = 0; ’ = 28
2.6 m  = 20 kN/m3
 Design Example 1 (EC7)

GEO limit state ((sliding)

g)
Design Approach 1  we must check both partial factor sets combinations.
1. Combination 1 (partial factor sets A1+M1+R1)
Determine the (i) design material properties, (ii) design actions, (iii) design effects
(i) Design Material Properties
F
From Table
T bl 6.3,
63
G;dst = 1.35; G;stb = 1.0; Q;dst = 1.5; ’ = 1.0

(a) Retained Fill:

 tan '   tan 32 
' d  tan 
1  tan 1    32
 
  ''   1.0 
With ’d , need to obtain KA
 Ka = 0.25
Assume /’
d=1
(b) Foundation Soil:
 tan ' 
' d  tan 
1   tan 1  tan 28   28
  '   1.0 
   Ka = 0.30
Assume /’d = 1
 Design Example 1 (EC7)

Table 6.3 Partial Factor Sets for EQU, GEO and STR Limit States
Parameter Symbol
y EQU GEO/STR - Partial factor set
A1 A2 M1 M2 R1 R2 R3
Permanent action (G) Unfavourable γG, dst 1.1 1.35 1.0
Favourable γG, stb 0.9 1.0 1.0
Variable action (Q) Unfavourable γQ, dst 1.5 1.5 1.3
Favourable - - - -
Accidental action (A) Unfavourable γA, dst 1.0 1.0 1.0
Favourable - - - -
Coefficient of shearing resistance (tanφ') γφ' 1.25 1.0 1.25
Effective cohesion (c') γc' 1.25 1.0 1.25
Undrained shear strength (cu) γcu 14
1.4 10
1.0 14
1.4
Unconfined compressive strength (qu) γqu 1.4 1.0 1.4
Weight density (γ) γγ 1.0 1.0 1.0
Bearing resistance (Rv ) γRv 1.0 1.4 1.0
Sliding resistance (Rh) γRh 1.0 1.1 1.0
Earth resistance (Re) γRe 1.0 1.4 1.0
 Design Example 1 (EC7)

0 25
0.25
 Design Example 1 (EC7)

0.30
 Design Example 1 (EC7)

GEO limit state (sliding)

(i) Design Material Properties

Earth Pressure Diagram

h = Ka h
= 0.25 x 18 x 4  h = Ka q
= 18 kPa = 0.25 x 20
0.30 x 18 x 4 = 5 kPa
= 21.6 kPa

6 kPa
0.30 x (18x4 +
20x1) = 27.6 kPa

Ignore Passive Resistance!

Just regular earth pressure calculations, no partial factors applied yet!
 Design Example 1 (EC7)

GEO limit state (sliding)

(ii) Design Actions

(a) Self weight of the wall (Permanent Favorable Action)

(Permanent, G;stb = 1
1.0
0
(b) Active thrust from soil (Permanent, Unfavorable Action) G;dst = 1.35
(c) Active thrust from surcharge (Variable, Unfavorable Action) Q;dst = 1.5

(a) Self weight of the wall Note: G is multiplied to the weight.

Area 1: GW1:d = (1/2) x 0.8 x 3 x conc x G;stb

= 1.2
1 2 x 24 x 1.0
1 0 = 28.8
28 8 kN 2
Area 2: GW2:d = 1.8 x 3 x conc x G;stb 1
= 5.4 x 24 x 1.0 = 129.6 kN
3
Area 2: GW2:d = 2.6 x 2 x conc x G;stb

= 5.2 x 24 x 1.0 = 124.8 kN

 Design Example 1 (EC7)
GEO limit state ((sliding)
g)
(ii) Design Actions

(a) Self weight of the wall (Permanent, Favorable Action) G;stb = 1.0
(b) Active thrust from soil (Permanent, Unfavorable Action) G;dst = 1.35
(c) Active thrust from surcharge (Variable, Unfavorable Action) Q;dst = 1.5

(b) Active thrust from soil

h = Ka h
= 0.25 x 18 x 4
= 18 kPa
Pa:d (fill) = (1/2) x 18 x 4 x G;dst 0.30 x 18 x 4
= 21.6 kPa
= 36 x 1.35 = 48.6 kN
0.30 x (18x4 +
20x1) = 27.6 kPa

Pa:dd (foundation soil) = (1/2) x (21

(21.6
6 + 27
27.6)
6) x 1 0 x G;dst
1.0 Gd t

= 24.6 x 1.35 = 33.2 kN

 Design Example 1 (EC7)

GEO limit
li it state
t t (sliding)
( lidi )
(ii) Design Actions

(a) Self weight of the wall (Permanent, Favorable Action) G;stb = 1.0
(b) Active thrust from soil (Permanent, Unfavorable Action) G;dst = 1.35
( ) Active
(c) A ti ththrustt from
f surcharge
h (V i bl Unfavorable
(Variable, U f A ti ) Q;dst = 1
bl Action) 1.5
5

((c)) Active thrust from surcharge

g

 h = Ka q
Pq:d (fill) = 5 x 4 x Q;dst = 0.25
0 25 x 20
= 5 kPa
= 20 x 1.5 = 30 kN

Pq:d (found. soil) = 6 x 1 x Q;dst 6 kPa

= 6 x 1.5 = 9 kN
 Design Example 1 (EC7)
GEO limit state ((sliding)
g)
(iii) Design Effects of Actions and Resistance

(a) The effect of the ___________ actions is to cause the forward sliding
of the wall.

((b)) The effect of the _________ actions is to mobilize the friction at the
base of the wall to resist the sliding.

GW2;d

GW1;d Pq;d (fill)

Pa;d (fill)

GW3;d
Pa;d (found. soil)
Pq;d (found. soil)

Fd = (G
(Gw;d) ttan 
stabilizing destabilizing (cause sliding)
(resist sliding)
 Design Example 1 (EC7)
GEO limit state ((sliding)
g)
(iii) Design Effects of Actions and Resistance

((a)) Unfavorable or Destabilizing

g Actions

Pq;d (fill)

Pa;d (fill)

Pa;d (found. soil)

Pq;d (found. soil)

T t l horizontal
Total h i t l thrust,
th t Rh;d = Pa;d (fill) + Pa;d (found.
(f d soil)
il)
+ Pq;d (fill) + Pq;d (found. soil)

= 48.6
48 6 + 33
33.2
2 + 30
30.0
0+9
9.0
0
= 120.8 kN
 Design Example 1 (EC7)

GEO limit state ((sliding)

g)
(iii) Design Effects of Actions and Resistance

(b) Favorable or Stabilizing Actions

GW2;d

GW1;d

GW3;d

Fd = (Gw;d) tan 

(Gw;d) = Gw1;d + Gw2;d + Gw3;d = 28.8 + 129.6 + 124.8 = 283.2 kN

Design resistance = (Gw;d) tan  = 283.2 tan 28

28 = 150.6 kN

Note : assume  = 
 Design Example 1 (EC7)

GEO limit state (sliding)

D i
Design resistance
i t = 150.6
150 6 kN
Total horizontal thrust = 120.8 kN

Stabilizing Effect __ Destabilizing Effect

 GEO limit state is ________!

Overdesign factor  = _______________

 Design Example 2: Cantilever Retaining Wall
A cantilever retaining wall is shown below. The concrete and soil properties
are as shown,
h andd the
th safe
f bearing
b i capacity
it off the
th soil
il is
i 250 kPa.
kP Assume
A
coefficient of friction between base of wall and soil to equal tan ’peak.
Check the safety of the proposed design:
( ) by
(a) b the
th traditional
t diti l FoS
F S (or
( gross pressure)) approach h
(b) in accordance with BS 8002
(c) against the EQU and GEO (design approach 1) limit states of EC7.
0.4 m surcharge q = 10 kPa

Dense sand:

concrete c’ = 0; ’ = 38
5m  = 24 kN/m3
 = 18 kN/m3

0.5 m
0.4 m

3m
 Design Example 2
0.4 m surcharge q = 10 kPa

Dense sand:

concrete c’ = 0; ’ = 38
5m  = 24 kN/m3
 = 18 kN/m3

virtual face

0.5 m
0.4 m

3m

For retained soil that is supported by a heel,

heel we usually assume a __________
virtual face
Rankine’s conditions apply along this face, and the
as shown on the figure. _________
earth pressures acting here are established in the design.
 Design Example 2

Forces (Actions) acting on the Soil-Wall

Soil Wall System
do not consider

0.4 m surcharge q = 10 kPa

Dense sand:

c’ = 0; ’ = 38

concrete
Ws Wh  = 18 kN/m3
5m  = 24 kN/m3

Pq

Pa
0.5 m
04m
0.4
Wb
3m
 Design Example 2
(a) FoS or Gross Pressure Method
(i) Sliding:
Using Rankine’s theory (with ’ = 38)

KA 
 i '
1  sin
 0.238 (Note: based on unfactored
1  sin ' friction angle)

K A h 2  21 x 0.238 x 18 x 5 = 53.6
2
Active thrust from soil, Pa = 1
2
53 6 kN
Active thrust from soil, Pq = Kaqh = 0.238 x 10 x 5 = 11.9 kN
H = 65.5 kN
Vertical reaction, R = Weight of base + weight of stem + soil on heel
= Wb + Ws + Wh
= 24(0.4 x 3.0) + 24(0.4 x 4.6) + 18(2.1 x 4.6)
= 28.8 + 44.2 + 173.9
= 246
246.9
9 kN

Total force causing sliding, Rh = 65.5 kN

F
Force resisting
i ti sliding,
lidi t  = 246.9
Rv tan 246 9 x ttan 38 = 192.9
192 9 kN

Factor of Safety Against Sliding, Fs = _____________________

 Design Example 2
(a) FoS or Gross Pressure Method
0.4 m surcharge q = 10 kPa
(ii) Overturning
Dense sand:
c’ = 0; ’ = 38

concrete
Ws Wh  = 18 kN/m3
5m  = 24 kN/m3

Pq

Pa
0.5 m
0.4 m
Wb
A
3m

Take moments about A, the toe of the wall.

Disturbing moment, Ms : (due to lateral thrust of soil)
5 5
Ms  Pa x   Pq x  = 89.3 + 29.8 = 119.1 kNm
3 2
Resisting moment, MR : (due to weight of wall and soil on heel)
Due to base = 28.8 x 1.5 = 43.2 kNm
Due to stem = 44.2 x 0.7 = 30.9 kNm
Due to soil on heel = 173.9
173 9 x 1
1.95
95 = 339.1
339 1 kNm
MR = 43.2 + 30.9 + 339.1 = 413.2 kNm
Factor of Safety Against Overturning, Fo = ______________________
 Design Example 2
(a) FoS or Gross Pressure Method
0.4 m surcharge q = 10 kPa
(iii) Bearing Capacity
Dense sand:
0 ’ = 38
c’’ = 0;

concrete
Ws Wh  = 18 kN/m3
5m  = 24 kN/m3

Pq

Pa
0.5 m
0.4 m
Wb
A
3m

x Rv (acts at distance x from A)

Consider moments about point A, the toe of the wall.
Rv x = 413.2 – 119.1 = 294.1 kNm
that is
x = 294.1/246.9 = 1.19 m (within middle third of base)

Eccentricity of Rv , e = 1.5 – 1.19 = 0.31 m

Rv  6e  246.9  6 x0.31 
Maximum bearing pressure = 1     1   = 133 kPa
B  B  3  3 
Factor of Safety Against bearing capacity failure, Fb = ________________
 Design Example 2
(b) BS 8002
(i) Sliding:
 tan ' 
Design ' d  tan 1   tan 1  tan 38   33
  ''   1.2 
 
 BS 8002 ((1994):
) Soil Strength
g Parameters
Clause 3.2.5: Design using effective stress parameters.
The retaining wall should be designed to be in
equilibrium mobilizing a soil strength the lesser of:

a. the representative peak strength of the soil divided by

a factor M = 1. 2: that is:
representa tive tan 'max
design tan ' 
M
representa tive c '
g c' 
design
M

b. the representative
p critical state strength
g of the soil
 Design Example 2
(b) BS 8002
(i) Sliding:
 tan ' 
Design ' d  tan 1   tan 1  tan 38   33
  ''   1.2 
 
Using Rankine’s theory K A 
1  sin '  0.295
1  sin '
K A h 2  21 x 0.295 x 18 x 5 = 66.4 kN
1 2
Active thrust from soil, Pa = 2
Active thrust from soil, Pq = Kaqh = 0.295 x 10 x 5 = 14.8 kN
H = 81.2
81 2 kN
Vertical reaction, R = Weight of base + weight of stem + soil on heel
= Wb + Ws + Wh
= 246.9 kN
g tan  = 0.75 ((design
Note : design g tan 
’))
BS 8002 ((1994):
) Wall Friction and Adhesion

Design
D l off  (wall
i value ( ll friction)
f i ti ) or cw (wall
( ll adhesion)
dh i ) isi
the lesser of
a. the representative value determined by test,

b. 75% of the design shear strength to be actually

mobilized in the soil.
design tan  = 0 75 x design tan 
0.75 ’

design cw = 0.75 x design cu

 Design Example 2
(b) BS 8002
(i) Sliding:
 tan ' 
Design ' d  tan 1   tan 1  tan 38   33
  ''   1.2 
 
Using Rankine’s theory K A 
1  sin '  0.295
1  sin '
K A h 2  21 x 0.295 x 18 x 5 = 66.4 kN
1 2
Active thrust from soil, Pa = 2
Active thrust from soil, Pq = Kaqh = 0.295 x 10 x 5 = 14.8 kN
H = 81.2
81 2 kN
Vertical reaction, R = Weight of base + weight of stem + soil on heel
= Wb + Ws + Wh
= 246.9 kN
g tan  = 0.75 ((design
Note : design g tan 
’)) = 0.75 tan 33 = 0.49
Total force causing sliding, Rh = 81.2 kN
Force resisting sliding, Rv tan  = 246.9 x 0.49 = 121.0 kN
Sliding limit state design is ___________, since
total force causing sliding Rh ___ force resisting sliding Rv tan 
 Design Example 2

(b) BS 8002
(ii) Overturning
T k moments
Take t about
b t A,
A the
th ttoe off th
the wall.
ll
Disturbing moment, Ms : (due to lateral thrust of soil)

5 5
Ms  Pa x   Pq x  = 110.7 + 37 = 147.7 kNm
3 2
66.4 kN 14.8 kN

Resisting moment, MR : (due to weight of wall and soil on heel)

MR = 43.2
43 2 + 30
30.9
9 + 339
339.1
1 = 413.2
413 2 kN
kNm ( i ht is
(weight i nott factored)
f t d)

O
Overturning
t i limit
li it state
t t design
d i isi ___________, since
i
disturbing moment Ms ___ resisting moment MR
 Design Example 2
(b) BS 8002
(iii) Bearing Capacity
Consider moments about p
point A, the toe of the wall.
If Rv acts at distance x from A, then

Rv x = 413.2 – 147.7 = 265.5 kNm

that is,
265 5/246 9 = 1.08
x = 265.5/246.9 1 08 m (within middle third of base)
0.4 m surcharge q = 10 kPa

Dense sand:
c’ = 0; ’ = 38

concrete
Ws Wh  = 18 kN/m3
5m  = 24 kN/m3

Pq

Pa
0.5 m
0.4 m
Wb
A
3m

x Rv (acts at distance x from A)

 Design Example 2
((b)) BS 8002
(iii) Bearing Capacity
Consider moments about point A, the toe of the wall.
If Rv acts at distance x from A, then

Rv x = 413.2
413 2 – 147.7
147 7 = 265
265.5
5 kNm

that is,
265 5/246 9 = 1.08
x = 265.5/246.9 1 08 m (within middle third of base)

Eccentricity of Rv , e = 1.5 – 1.08 = 0.42 m

Rv  6e  246.9  6 x0.42 
Maximum bearing pressure = 1     1   = 151.4 kPa
B  B  3  3 
Bearing resistance limit state design is ___________, since
Maximum
M i bearing
b i pressure (151.4
(151 4 kP
kPa)) ___ allowable
ll bl bearing
b i
capacity (250 kPa).
 Design Example 2

(c) Eurocode 7
EQU limit state
From Table 6.3,
63
G;dst = 1.1; G;stb = 0.9; Q;dst = 1.5; ’ = 1.25
Determine
ete e tthe
e ((i)) des
design
g material
ate a p properties,
ope t es, ((ii)) des
design
g actions,
act o s,
(iii) design effects

(i) Design Material Properties

 tan ' 
' d  tan 
1   tan 1 tan 38   32
  '   1.25 
 

Using Rankine’s theory K A 

1  sin ' d   0.307
1  sin
i ' d 
 Design Example 2

((c)) Eurocode 7
EQU limit state
From Table 6.3,

G;dst = 1.1; G;stb = 0.9; Q;dst = 1.5; ’ = 1.25

Determine the (i) design material properties, (ii) design actions,
(iii) design
d i effects
ff t
(ii) Design Actions
(a) Weight of Wall (Permanent Favourable Action):
Stem: Gstem;d = 0.4 x 4.6 x concrete x G;stb = 1.84 x 24 x 0.9 = 39.7 kN
Base: Gbase;d = 0.4 3 0 x concrete x G;stb = 1.2
0 4 x 3.0 1 2 x 24 x 0
0.9
9 = 25.9
25 9 kN
Soil on heel: Gheel;d = 2.1 x 4.6 x  x G;stb = 9.66 x18 x 0.9 = 156.5 kN

(b) Thrust from Active Earth Pressure (Permanent Unfavourable Action):

Pa:d = (1/2) x 0.307 x 18 x 52 x G;dst = 76.0 kN

(c) Lateral thrust from the Surcharge (Variable Unfavourable Action):
Pq:d = 0.307 x 10 x 5 x Q;dst = 23.0 kN
 Design Example 2
(c) Eurocode 7
EQU limit state
(iii) Design Effects

Action Magnitude of Lever Arm (m) Moment Arm

Action (kN) (kNm)
Stabilizing

Stem: Gstem;d 39.7 0.7 27.8

B
Base: Gbase;d 25 9
25.9 15
1.5 38 9
38.9
Soil on heel: Gheel;d 156.5 1.95 305.2

T t l
Total 371 9
371.9
Destabilizing
Pa;d 76.0 1.67 126.9
Pq;d 23.0 2.5 57.5
Total 184.4
Th EQU li
The limit
it state
t t requirement
i t is
i _______ since
i Mdst __ Mstb
The overdesign factor  = _________________________
 Design Example 2

(c) Eurocode 7
GEO limit state (sliding and bearing), design approach 1
From Table 6.3,
G;dst = 1.35; G;stb = 1.0; Q;dst = 1.5; ’ = 1.0 (Note: different from EQU)
Determine the (i) design material properties, (ii) design actions,
(iii) design effects

((i)) Design
g Material Properties
p

 tan ' 
' d  tan 
1   tan 1 tan 38   38
 
  '   1 .0 

Using Rankine’s theory K A 

1  sin ' d 
 0.238
1  sin ' d 
 Design Example 2
(c) Eurocode 7
GEO limit state (sliding and bearing), design approach 1
From Table 6.3,
G;dst = 1.35;
1 35 G;stb = 1.0;
1 0 Q;dst = 1.5;
1 5 ’ = 1.0
10
Determine the (i) design material properties, (ii) design actions,
(iii) design effects
(ii) Design Actions
(a) Weight of Wall (Permanent Favourable Action):
Stem: Gstem;d = 0.4 x 4.6 x concrete x G;stb = 1.84 x 24 x 1.0 = 44.2 kN
Base: Gbase;d = 0.4 x 3.0 x concrete x G;stb = 1.2 x 24 x 1.0 = 28.8 kN
Soil on heel: Gheel;d = 2.1 x 4.6 x  x G;stb = 9.66 x18 x 1.0 = 173.9 kN
Total Rv;d : 246.9 kN
(b) Thrust
Th t from
f Active
A ti Earth
E th Pressure
P (P
(Permanent
tUUnfavourable
f bl Action):
A ti )

Pa:d = (1/2) x 0.238 x 18 x 52 x G;dst = 72.3 kN

(c) Lateral thrust from the Surcharge (Variable Unfavourable Action):

Pq:d = 0.238 x 10 x 5 x Q;dst = 17.8 kN
 Design Example 2

(c) Eurocode 7
GEO limit state (sliding and bearing), design approach 1
(iii) Design Effects
Sliding:
Total horizontal thrust, Rh;d = 72.3 + 17.8 = 90.1 kN

Design ) = Rv;d tan  = 246.9 tan 38 = 192.9 kN

g resistance (friction)
(

The GEO limit state for sliding is ________, since

total horizontal thrust Rh;d ___ design frictional resistance Rv;d tan 

The overdesign factor  = ________________________

(c) Eurocode 7
GEO limit state ((sliding
g and bearing),
g), design
g approach
pp 1
(iii) Design Effects
Since Rv is now considered unfavorable, the
Bearing:
weight of wall and soil for stabilizing moment
should
Rv is now considered as also be calculated
a permanent, unfavorableusing G;dst !
action
Destabilizing Moment : ((due to lateral thrust of soil))
Mdst = MPa + MPq = 72.3 x 1.67 + 17.8 x 2.5 = 165.2 kNm
Stabilizing Moment : (due to weight of wall and soil on heel)
Mstb = Mstem + Mbase + Mheel = 59.6
59 6 x 0 0.7
7 + 3838.9
9x11.55 + 234
234.7
7x1
1.95
95
= 557.7 kNm
(within middle
Lever arm of Rv;d , x = (557.7 – 165.2)/333.2 = 1.18 m thi d off base)
third b )
Eccentricity, e = 1.50 – 1.18 = 0.32 m
Rv;d = (weight of stem + weight of base + weight of soil on heel) x G;dst
= 333.2 x 1.35 = 449.8 kN
R v ;d  6e 
Maximum bearing pressure =  1   = 245.9 kPa
B  B 
The GEO limit state for bearing is ________, and
The overdesign factor  = ________________________________
 Design Example 2

( ) Eurocode
(c) E d 7
GEO limit state (sliding and bearing), design approach 2

Use Similar Steps

p for Designg Approach
pp 2, but
with the appropriate partial factors of safety.
 Eurocode 7 (EN 1997
1997−1:2004)
1:2004)

Let’s Revisit the

ey Features
Key eatu es oof
Eurocode 7
 Limit States (Clause 2.4.7)
 EQU— loss of equilibrium of the structure or the ground,
considered as a rigid bodybody, in which the strengths of structural
materials and the ground are insignificant in providing resistance
 STR— internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or
structural elements, including e.g. footings, piles or basement
walls, in which the strength of structural materials is significant in
providing
p g resistance
 GEO— failure or excessive deformation of the ground, in which the
strength of soil or rock is significant in providing resistance
 UPL—
UPL lossl off equilibrium
ilib i off th
the structure
t t or the
th groundd due
d to t
uplift by water pressure (buoyancy) or other vertical actions
 HYD— hydraulic
y heave,, internal erosion and piping
p p g in the ground
g
caused by hydraulic gradients
 What are Actions?
The use of the word ‘action’ with the meaning adopted in
the Eurocodes is unfamiliar to English speakers. It might
be preferable to substitute the word ‘load’,
load , provided that
this definition is sufficiently broad to include imposed
displacements as well as forces.

In the Eurocodes, an ‘action’

action is a force which is not a
‘reaction’. It is a force which is known at the start of a
particular calculation; its value is not derived within that
calculation. ‘Reactions’ are known as ‘action effects’.
 What are Actions?
For any calculation,
calculation the values of actions are defined
quantities, and are not derived from the calculation
model. In certain circumstances, some quantities may be
either actions or action effects. For example, the
downdrag on a pile through an embankmen may be
considered an action in designing the pile and as an
action effect when designing the embankment.

It is fruitless to try to find a more fundamental or

philosophical definition of ‘action’
action . We are accustomed to
using the term ‘load’ in precisely the way intended here.
 What are Actions?
Consider, for example
Consider example, the ‘load’
load on a pile.
pile Calculations
are first carried out for the building to be supported, using
a frame analysis
y in which the loads are the weights
g of the
structural elements and other items carried by them. At
this stage, a ‘reaction’ force is derived in a column in the
l
lowest t storey
t off the
th structure.
t t

The structural engineer then turns a page in his

calculations and starts to derive the structural section
required for the column; in that particular calculation,
what was previously a reaction has become the ‘column
load’, and it may have a variety of factors of safety
applied.
applied
 What are Actions?
The same force later becomes the ‘pile
pile load’
load , possibly
with different factors applied.

The essential feature of all these ‘loads’ or ‘actions’ (but

not the ‘reactions’)
reactions ) is that they are fixed values in the
particular calculations in which they are used and partial
load factors can be applied to them.

In this context, the purpose of the factors is to account for

the possible variations in the forces which are adverse for
each of the elements to be designed, considered
separately.
 What are Actions?

In geotechnical engineering, the question has often been

asked: ‘Are earth pressures actions?’

The answer to this is that they are actions in calculations

in which their values are known and fixed, but they are
not actions in calculations in which they are derived.
Actions – Partial factors
Fd = F ⋅ Frep Note : action is multiplied by
partial safety factor

EQU STR and GEO

Others tables
Oth t bl are provided
id d
for UPL and HYD
Materials – Partial Factors

M
Note : material property is divided
Xd = Xk / by partial safety factor

EQU STR and GEO

 Effects of actions

• P
Partial
ti l ffactors
t on actions
ti may be
b applied
li d either
ith tto th
the
actions themselves (Frep) or to their effects (E):

Ed = E{F Frep; Xk/M; ad}

or
Ed = E E{Frep; Xk/M; ad}
 Resistances – Partial Factors
• Partial factors may be applied either to ground properties (X) or
resistances ((R)) or to both,, as follows:
Rd = R{F Frep; Xk/M; ad}
or
Rd = R{F Frep; Xk; ad}/ R
or
Rd = R{F Frep; Xk/M; ad}/R Specified
by UK NA

Set R1
specified
by UK NA
 Design Approach 1 a
UK NA specifies using
Design Approach 1 only

 (1)P Except for the design of axially loaded piles and anchors, it shall be verified that
a limit state of rupture or excessive deformation will not occur with either of the
f
following combinations off sets off partial factors:
f
Partial factors =1.0
Combination 1: A1 “+” M1 “+” R1
Combination 2: A2 “+” M2 “+” R1
Partial factors =1.0 except unfavourable variable actions
where “+” implies: “to be combined with”.

NOTE In
I Combinations
C bi ti 1 and
d22, partial
ti l ffactors
t are applied
li d tto actions
ti and
d tto ground
d strength
t th
parameters.

 (2)P For the design of axially loaded piles and anchors, it shall be verified that a limit
state of rupture or excessive deformation will not occur with either of the following
combinations of sets of partial factors:

Combination 1: A1 “+” M1 “+” R1 Defined in Table A.6-A.8 for piles

and Table A
A.12
12 for anchors
C bi i 2
Combination 2: A2 “+”
“ ” (M1 or M2) “+”
“ ” R4

NOTE 1 In Combination 1, partial factors are applied to actions and to ground strength
parameters. In Combination 2, partial factors are applied to actions, to ground resistances
and sometimes to ground strength parameters
parameters.
NOTE 2 In Combination 2, set M1 is used for calculating resistances of piles or anchors and
set M2 for calculating unfavourable actions on piles owing e.g. to negative skin friction or
transverse loading.
 Design Approaches 2 & 3
 Design
D i A
Approach
h2
Partial factors =1.0

Combination: A1 “+” M1 “+” R2

 Design Approach 3
Partial factors =1
=1.0
0

Combination: (A1* or A2†) “+” M2 “+” R3

*on structural actions

Partial factors =1.0 except unfavourable variable actions
†on geotechnical actions
Eurocode Limit States (Clause 9.2)
(1)P A list shall be compiled of limit states to be considered. As a
minimum the following limit states shall be considered for all
types of retaining structure:

 loss of overall stability;

 failure of a structural element such as a wall, anchorage, wale
or strut or failure of the connection between such elements; ULS
 combined failure in the ground and in the structural element;
 failure by hydraulic heave and piping;

 movement of the retaining g structure,, which may

y cause
collapse or affect the appearance or efficient use of the
structure or nearby structures or services, which rely on it;
 unacceptable leakage through or beneath the wall; SLS
 unacceptable transport of soil particles through or beneath the
wall;
 unacceptable change in the ground-water regime.

Values of partial factors for serviceability limit states should normally be taken equal to 1.0
Additional Limit States (Clause 9.2)
(2)P In addition, the following limit states shall be considered

for gravity walls and for composite retaining structures:

 bearing resistance failure of the soil below the base;
 failure by sliding at the base;
 failure by toppling;

and for embedded walls:

 failure
fail re b
by rotation or translation of the wall
all or parts thereof
thereof;
 failure by lack of vertical equilibrium.

composite retaining structures – composed of elements from gravity and

embedded walls - examples include double sheet pile wall cofferdams, earth
structures
t t reinforced
i f d by
b ttendons,
d geotextiles
t til or grouting
ti andd structures
t t with
ith
multiple rows of ground anchorages or soil nails
 Eurocode Actions (Clause 9.3.1)
 Basic
B i actions
ti
 Weight of backfill
material
 Surcharges
 Weight of water
 Wave and ice forces
 Seepage forces
 Collision forces
 Temperature effects
(abnormal temperature change) explosions, vibrations and dynamic loads;
— the weight of soil, rock and water;
— stresses in the ground;
— earth press
pressures
res and gro
ground-water
nd ater pressure;
press re
— free water pressures, including wave pressures;
— ground-water pressures;
— seepage forces;
— dead and imposed loads from structures;
— surcharges;
— mooring forces;
— removal of load or excavation of ground;
— traffic loads;
— movements caused by mining or other caving or
tunnelling activities;
— swelling and shrinkage caused by vegetation, climate or
moisture changes;
— movements due to creeping or sliding or settling ground
masses;
— movements due to degradation, dispersion,
decomposition self
decomposition, self-compaction
compaction and solution;
— movements and accelerations caused by earthquakes,
— temperature effects, including frost action;
— ice loading;
— imposed pre-stress in ground anchors or struts;
— downdrag.
Eurocode – Geometryy ((Clause 9.3.2.2))
 (2) In ultimate limit state calculations in which the stability of a
retaining wall depends on the ground resistance in front of the
structure, the level of the resisting soil should be lowered below the
nominally expected level by an amount ∆a. The value of ∆a should
be selected taking into account the degree of site control over the
l
levell off th
the surface.
f With a normall d
degree off control,
t l ththe ffollowing
ll i
should be applied:
• for a cantilever wall, ∆a should equal 10 % of the wall height above
excavation level, limited to a maximum of 0.5 m;
• for a supported wall, ∆a should equal 10 % of the distance between the
lowest support and the excavation level, limited to a maximum of 0.5 m.

Support (strut)
d
d

a a
a=0.1 d (max. 0.5 m)
 Design and Construction Considerations (Clause 9.4.1)

 (8)P The design of retaining structures shall take account of the following items,
where appropriate:
 the effects of constructing the wall, including:
• the provision of temporary support to the sides of excavations;
• the changes of in situ stresses and resulting ground movements caused both by the wall
excavation and its construction;;
• disturbance of the ground due to driving or boring operations;
• provision of access for construction;
 the required degree of water tightness of the finished wall;
 the practicability of constructing the wall to reach a stratum of low permeability
permeability, so
forming a water cut-off. The resulting equilibrium ground-water flow problem shall be
assessed;
 the practicability of forming ground anchorages in adjacent ground;
 the practicability of excavating between any propping of retaining walls;
 the ability of the wall to carry vertical load;
 the ductility of structural components;
 access for maintenance of the wall and any associated drainage measures;
 the appearance and durability of the wall and any anchorages;
 for sheet piling, the need for a section stiff enough to be driven to the design
penetration without loss of interlock;
 the stability off borings or slurry trench panels while they are open;
 for fill, the nature of materials available and the means used to compact them
adjacent to the wall, in accordance with 5.3.