Lumb Lecture 8-2014

8th Lumb Lecture
Eurocode 7 –
Good practice in geotechnical design
Brian Simpson
Arup
8th Lumb Lecture
Eurocode 7 – Good practice in geotechnical design

• Limit state design
• Holistic design – structures and ground
• Practical approach to characteristic values
of soil parameters
• ULS and SLS design requirements
• Water pressures
• Ground anchors
• Retaining structures – numerical analysis
• The future
8th Lumb Lecture

of soil parameters
• Water pressures
• Ground anchors
• The future
Limit state design
• “states beyond which the

structure no longer satisfies
the relevant design criteria”
• partial factor design ?
• probabilistic design ?
• concentration on what might

go wrong EN1990 3.3 (3)
States prior to structural collapse, which,
for simplicity, are considered in place of
the collapse itself, may be treated as
ultimate limit states.
4
EN 1990 3.3 Ultimate limit states
Serious failures involving risk of injury or major cost.

Must be rendered very unlikely. An “unrealistic” possibility.
5
EN 1990 3.3 Ultimate limit states
Serious failures involving risk of injury or major cost.

Must be rendered very unlikely. An “unrealistic” possibility.
6
EN1997-1 2.4.7 Ultimate limit states – STR, GEO
7
EN1990 3.4 Serviceability limit states
Inconveniences, disappointments and more manageable costs.

Should be rare, but it might be uneconomic to eliminate them
completely.
8
EN1990 3.4 Serviceability limit states
Inconveniences, disappointments and more manageable costs.

Should be rare, but it might be uneconomic to eliminate them
completely.
9
Limit state design
• An understanding of limit state design can be obtained

by contrasting it with “working state design”.
• Working state design: Analyse the expected, working
state, then apply margins of safety.
• Limit state design: Analyse the unexpected states at
which the structure has reached an unacceptable limit.
• Make sure the limit states are unrealistic (or at least
unlikely).
10
Soil failure without geometrical instability (large displacements)??
BP190a.28
11
Fundamental limit state requirement
Ed ≤ Rd
E{ Fd ; Xd ; ad} = Ed ≤ Rd = R{ Fd ; Xd ; ad}
E{γF Frep; Xk/γM; ad} = Ed ≤ Rd = R{γF Frep; Xk/γM; ad}
or E{γF Frep; Xk/γM; ad} = Ed ≤ Rd = Rk/γR = RnφR (LRFD)
or γE Ek = Ed ≤ Rd = Rk/γR
so in total
γE E{γF Frep; Xk/γM; ad} = Ed ≤ Rd = R{γF Frep; Xk/γM; ad}/γR
E = action effects d = design (= factored)

F = actions (loads) k = characteristic (= unfactored)
R = resistance (=capacity) rep = representative
X = material properties
a = dimensions/geometry
12
Partial factors recommended in EN1997-1 Annex A (+UKNA)
Values of partial factors recommended in EN1997-1 Annex A (+ UKNA)
Design approach 1 Design approach 2 Design approach 3

Combination 1---------------------
Combination 2 -------------------------
Combination 2 - piles & anchors DA2 - Comb 1 DA2 - Slopes DA3
A1 M1 R1 A2 M2 R1 A2 M1 or …..M2 R4 A1 M1 R2 A1 M=R2 A1 A2 M2 R3
Actions Permanent unfav 1,35 1,35 1,35 1,35
fav
Variable unfav 1,5 1,3 1,3 1,5 1,5 1,5 1,3
Soil tan φ' 1,25 1,25 StructuralGeotech 1,25
Effective cohesion 1,25 1,25 actions actions 1,25
Undrained strength 1,4 1,4 1,4
Unconfined strength 1,4 1,4 1,4
Weight density
Spread Bearing 1,4
footings Sliding 1,1
Driven Base 1,3 1,1
piles Shaft (compression) 1,3 1,1
Total/combined 1,3 1,1
(compression)
Shaft in tension 1,25 1,6 1,15 1,1
Bored Base 1,25 1,6 1,1
piles Shaft (compression) 1,0 1,3 1,1
Total/combined 1,15 1,5 1,1
(compression)
CFA Base 1,1 1,45 1,1
(compression)
Anchors Temporary 1,1 1,1 1,1
Permanent 1,1 1,1 1,1
Retaining Bearing capacity 1,4
walls Sliding resistance 1,1
Earth resistance 1,4
Slopes Earth resistance 1,1
indicates partial factor = 1.0 C:\BX\BX-C\EC7\[Factors.xls] 25-Nov-06 17:26
13
Partial factors recommended in EN1997-1 Annex A
Values of partial factors recommended in EN1997-1 Annex A

Combination 1---------------------
Combination 2 -------------------------
fav
Variable unfav 1,5 1,3 1,3 1,5 1,5 1,5 1,3
Weight density
Spread Bearing 1,4
Driven Base 1,3 1,1
(compression)
Bored Base 1,25 1,6 1,1
(compression)
CFA Base 1,1 1,45 1,1
(compression)
walls Sliding resistance 1,1
Slopes Earth resistance 1,1
indicates partial factor = 1.0 C:\BX\BX-C\EC7\[Factors.xls] 25-Nov-06 17:26
14
Partial factors for DA1 – UK National Annex
Design approach 1
Combination 1---------------------
Combination 2 -------------------------
Combination 2 - piles & anchors
A1 M1 R1 A2 M2 R1 A2 M1 or …..M2 R4
Actions Permanent unfav 1,35
fav
Variable unfav 1,5 1,3 1,3
Soil tan φ' 1,25 1,25
Effective cohesion 1,25 1,25
Undrained strength 1,4 1,4
Unconfined strength 1,4 1,4
Weight density
Spread Bearing EC7
footings Sliding UKNA values
Driven Base 1,7/1.5 1,3
piles Shaft (compression) 1.5/1.3 1,3
Total/combined 1.7/1.5 1,3
(compression)
Shaft in tension 2.0/1.7 1.6
Bored Base 2.0/1.7 1,6
Total/combined 2.0/1.7 1.5
(compression)
CFA Base As 1.45
piles Shaft (compression) for 1.3
Total/combined bored 1.4
(compression)
Shaft in tension piles 1.6
Anchors Temporary 1,1 1,1
Permanent 1,1 1,1
Retaining Bearing capacity
walls Sliding resistance
Earth resistance
Slopes Earth resistance
indicates partial factor = 1.0
C:\BX\BX-C\EC7\[Factors.xls]
15
2.4.7 Ultimate Limit States
2.4.7.1 General
2.4.7.1 General
(1)P Where
(1)P Where relevant,
relevant, itit shall
shall be
be verified
verified that
that the
the following
following limit
limit states
states are
are not
not exceeded:
exceeded:
— loss
— loss of
of equilibrium
equilibrium of
of the
the structure
structure or
or the
the ground,
ground, considered
considered as
as aa rigid
rigid body,
body, in
in which
which the
the
strengths of
strengths of structural
structural materials
materials and
and the
the ground
ground are
are insignificant
insignificant in
in providing
providing resistance
resistance
(EQU);
(EQU);
— internal
— internal failure
failure or
or excessive
excessive deformation
deformation of
of the
the structure
structure or
or structural
structural elements,
elements, including
including
e.g. footings,
e.g. footings, piles
piles or
or basement
basement walls,
walls, in
in which
which the
the strength
strength of
of structural
materials is
is
significant in
significant in providing
resistance (STR);
(STR);
— failure
— failure or
or excessive
deformation of
of the
the ground,
ground, in
in which
which the
the strength
strength of
of soil
soil or
or rock
rock is
is
significant in
resistance (GEO);
(GEO);
— loss
— loss of
of equilibrium
equilibrium of
of the
the structure
structure or
or the
the ground
ground due
due to
to uplift
uplift by
by water
water pressure
pressure (buoyancy)
(buoyancy)
or other
or other vertical
vertical actions
actions (UPL);
(UPL);
— hydraulic
— hydraulic heave,
heave, internal
internal erosion
erosion and
and piping
piping in
in the
the ground
ground caused
caused by
by hydraulic
hydraulic gradients
gradients
(HYD).
(HYD).
17
1
7
DA1 Combinations 1 and 2 correspond to STR and GEO?
Design approach 1
Combination 1---------------------
Combination 2 -------------------------
A1 M1 R1 A2 M2 R1 A2 M1 or …..M2 R4
fav
Soil tan φ' 1,25 1,25
Weight density
STR GEO
STR and GEO both designed for the same partial factors
18
8th Lumb Lecture

of soil parameters
• Water pressures
• Ground anchors
• The future
Genting Highlands BP87.59 BP106.30 BP111.22 BP112.43 BP119.43 BP124-F3.9 BP130.33 BP145a.8
BP184.54
20
20 ©
Genting Highlands BP87.60 BP106.31 BP111.23 BP112.44 BP119.44 BP124-F3.10 BP130.34 BP145a.9
BP184.55
FOS > 1 for characteristic
soil strengths BP87.61
BP106.32 BP111.24 BP112.45
BP119.45 BP124-F3.11 BP130.35 BP145a.10
- but not big enough

The slope and retaining wall are
all part of the same problem. BP87.62
BP106.33 BP111.25 BP112.46 BP119.46 BP124-F3.12
Structure and soil must be

BP145a.11
BP130.36
designed together - consistently.

Partial factors for DA1 – UK and MS National Annex
Design approach 1
Combination 1---------------------
Combination 2 -------------------------
A1 M1 R1 A2 M2 R1 A2 M1 or …..M2 R4
fav
Soil tan φ' 1,25 1,25
Weight density
Spread Bearing EC7
footings Sliding UKNA values
Driven Base 1,7/1.5 1,3
Total/combined 1.7/1.5 1,3
Bored
(compression)
Base
• Should DA1-1 and DA1-2 give
Shaft in tension 2.0/1.7
2.0/1.7
1.6
1,6
piles
Total/combined the same result?
Shaft (compression) 1.6/1.4
2.0/1.7
1,3
1.5
(compression)
CFA Base • Then what’s the point in doing As 1.45
piles Shaft (compression) for 1.3
Total/combined
(compression)
Shaft in tension
two calculations? bored
piles
1.4
1.6
Anchors Temporary 1,1 1,1
Permanent 1,1 1,1
Earth resistance
24
EN1990 – choice of partial factor values BP145a.14
Design consistently at β standard

deviations from the mean
0.7 and 0.8 or 1.0 and 0.4 ? BP145a.15
Provided the uncertainties of loads and

resistances are reasonably similar …
… use this approach
But if one type of uncertainty is really dominant …

Ratio of β achieved to β required
1.2
Less economic
1.1
.
1
SAFETY RATIO
0.9
0.8
Less safe
αE=-0.7, αR=0.8
0.7
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
σE/(σR+σE)
C:\BX\BX-C\EC7\Papers\Paris Aug06\[Paris-Aug06.xls]
1.2
Typical
1.1 foundations
.
1
SAFETY RATIO
0.9
0.8
Slope αE=-0.7, αR=0.8
0.7
stability
Tower
0.6 foundations
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
σE/(σR+σE)
0.7 and 0.8 or 1.0 and 0.4 ? BP145a.15
Provided the uncertainties of loads and

resistances are reasonably similar …
… use this approach
But if one type of uncertainty is really dominant …

1.2
Uneconomic
1.1 αE=-0.4, αR=1.0 αE=-1.0, αR=0.4
.
1
SAFETY RATIO
0.9
0.8
Unsafe
αE=-0.7, αR=0.8
0.7
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
σE/(σR+σE)
1.2 Uneconomic
1.1 αE=-0.4, αR=1.0 αE=-1.0, αR=0.4

.
1
SAFETY RATIO
0.9
0.8 Unsafe
αE=-0.7, αR=0.8
0.7
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
σE/(σR+σE)
Combinations 1 and 2 in EC7 - DA1 BP106.34 BP111.53 BP112.47
BP119.47 BP124-F3.13 BP129.50 BP145a.22
Design approach 1
Combination 1---------------------
Combination 2 -------------------------
A1 M1 R1 A2 M2 R1 A2 M1 or …..M2 R4
fav
Soil tan φ' 1,25 1,25
Weight density
• Just like load combinations, extended to include

variables on the resistance side.
• All designs must comply with both combinations in

all respects, both geotechnical and structural
• Turkstra’s principle for load combinations -

extended
8 th
Lumb
Lecture
8th Lumb Lecture

• Practical approach to characteristic
values of soil parameters
• Water pressures
• Ground anchors
• The future
Ed ≤ Rd
so in total
E = action effects d = design (= factored)

F = actions (loads) k = characteristic (= unfactored)
R = resistance (=capacity) rep = representative
X = material properties
a = dimensions/geometry
35
Ed ≤ Rd
so in total
Concrete and steel: 2 standard deviations from the mean test result.
36
Characteristic values in EC7
37
Characteristic values in EC7 – definition (2.4.5.2)
38
2.4.3(4) also mentions:
39
41
Characteristic values in EC7 – zone of ground
“Cautious” – worse than most probable.
Small building on estuarine beds near slope
42
43
2.4.5.2 Characteristic values of geotechnical parameters
Thoughtful interpretation – not simple averaging

7.6.2.2
44
Characteristic values in EC7 – definition (2.4.5.2)
45
0.5 SD below the mean?
A suggestion:
When:
• a limit state depends on the value of a parameter averaged over a large

amount of ground (ie a mean value), and
• the ground property varies in a homogeneous, random manner, and
• at least 10 test values are available
Then: A value 0.5SD below the mean of the test results provides a useful
indication of the characteristic value
(Contribution to Discussion Session 2.3, XIV ICSMFE, Hamburg. Balkema.,

Schneider H R (1997) Definition and determination of characteristic soil properties.
Discussion to ISSMFE Conference, Hamburg.)
46
0.5 SD below the mean?
- a useful consideration, not a rule
1.2
5% fractile of
mean values
1
0.8
More remote when

dependent on
0.6 specific small zone.
0.4
5% fractile of
test resuts
0.2
Results of
soil tests
0
-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
SD from mean Mean
C:\bx\EC7\[EC7.xls] 26-May-03 10:10
47
A USA proposal – 25% fractile
0.5
0.45
5% fractile of
mean values
0.4
75% exceedence
0.35
for tests
PROBABILITY DENSITY
0.3
0.25
0.2 5% fractile
of test
0.15 results
0.1
Results of
0.05
soil tests
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
TEST RESULTS (SD from mean)
C:\BX\BX-C\EC7\[EC7a.xls] 14-May-09 11:20
48
• NOT a fractile of the results of particular, specified laboratory tests on
specimens of material.
• A cautious estimate of the value affecting the occurrence of the limit state
• Take account of time effects, brittleness, soil fabric and structure, the effects
of construction processes and the extent of the body of ground involved in a
limit state
• The designer’s expertise and understanding of the ground are all encapsulated
in the characteristic value
• Consider both project-specific information and a wider body of geotechnical

knowledge and experience.
• Characteristic = moderately conservative = representative (BS8002) = what

good designers have always done.
49
8th Lumb Lecture

of soil parameters
• Water pressures
• Ground anchors
• The future
Square footing Ultimate bearing capacity
Undrained: R/B = (π+2) cusu + q
Gk = 700 kN
Drained: R/B = c' Ncsc + q' Nqsq + 0.5 γ' B Nγsγ
γ = 17 kN/m3 1m
B? cu = 50 kPa
c’=0, ϕ’ = 25°
γ = 20 kN/m3
Limiting settlements:
20 mm short term (undrained)
30 mm long term (drained)
Partial factors γCu = 1.4 γϕ=1.25
To satisfy ULS requirements:

Undrained: B = 1.73 m Working bearing pressure = 237 kPa
Drained: B = 2.02 m Working bearing pressure = 174 kPa
SLS:
51
6.6 Serviceability limit state design
52
Square footing Ultimate bearing capacity
Undrained: R/B = (π+2) cusu + q
Gk = 700 kN
Drained: R/B = c' Ncsc + q' Nqsq + 0.5 γ' B Nγsγ
γ = 17 kN/m3 1m
B? cu = 50 kPa
c’=0, ϕ’ = 25°
γ = 20 kN/m3
Partial factors γCu = 1.4 γϕ=1.25
To satisfy ULS requirements:

Undrained: B = 1.73 m Working bearing pressure = 237 kPa
Drained: B = 2.02 m Working bearing pressure = 174 kPa
SLS:
SLS using cu/3 B = 2.44 m Working bearing pressure = 120 kPa
SLS using cu/2 B = 2.04 m Working bearing pressure = 171 kPa
53
Settlement prediction by Bolton et al
τ/cu
τ
cu τmax
cu/2 (M=2)
γ (M=2) γ
γ/γM=2
Vardanega, P.J. and Bolton, M.D. (2011) Strength mobilization in clays and silts. Canadian Geotechnical Journal
48(10):1485-1503.
McMahon, B.T., Haigh, S.K., Bolton, M.D. (2014) Bearing capacity and settlement of circular shallow foundations
using a nonlinear constitutive relationship. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 51 (9): 995-1003.
54
Square footing
• Design for undrained ULS only –
Gk = 700 kN likely to fail at SLS.
γ = 17 kN/m3 1m
• Design for ULS drained –
B? cu = 50 kPa
marginal at SLS
c’=0, ϕ’ = 25° • cu/3 – small settlements
γ = 20 kN/m3
Limiting settlements: • cu/2 – non-linear
Settlement limits
55
60 250
Square footing 50 Bolton

200
kPa
mm
Drained Bearing
Gk = 700 kN 40
pressure
Bearing pressure
150
Settlement
γ = 17 kN/m3 1m 30 Bolton
E/Cu=200
Undrained 100
B? 20 20 mm short term (undrained)
cu = 50 kPa
c’=0, ϕ’ = 25°
30 mm longE/Cu=300
term (drained) 50
10
γ = 20 kN/m3 F=2 F=3
0 0
1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60
Footing width m
Settlement limits
57
Square footing • Design for undrained ULS only –
likely to fail at SLS.
Gk = 700 kN
• Design for ULS drained –
γ = 17 kN/m3 1m marginal at SLS
B? cu = 50 kPa • cu/3 – small settlements
c’=0, ϕ’ = 25°
γ = 20 kN/m3
• cu/2 – non-linear
Limiting settlements: • Necessary to check both ULS and
20 mm short term (undrained) SLS: SLS may govern
Settlement limits
58
Grand Egyptian Museum
• Governed by SLS
59
Coventry University Engineering and Computing Building
Design for Collaborative Learning
Detailed Design
Coventry University Engineering and Computing Building

• Sand and clays
• Governed by long
term bearing capacity
(ULS)
• Careful consideration
of relevant load
combinations
62
63
Greengate Public
Realm
- footbridge near
Manchester
64
Section 7 – Pile foundations
65
SLS also covered by ULS factors
66
8th Lumb Lecture

of soil parameters
• Water pressures
• Ground anchors
• The future
Water has a way of seeping between any two theories!
2.4.7.1 General
2.4.7.1 General
(1)P Where
shall be
be verified
verified that
that the
the following
following limit
limit states
states are
are not
not exceeded:
exceeded:
— loss
— loss of
of equilibrium
equilibrium of
of the
the structure
structure or
or the
the ground,
ground, considered
considered as
as aa rigid
rigid body,
body, in
in which
which the
the
strengths of
materials and
and the
the ground
ground are
are insignificant
insignificant in
in providing
resistance
(EQU);
(EQU);
— internal
failure or
or excessive
deformation of
of the
the structure
structure or
or structural
elements, including
including
e.g. footings,
piles or
or basement
basement walls,
walls, in
in which
which the
the strength
strength of
of structural
materials is
is
significant in
resistance (STR);
(STR);
— failure
— failure or
or excessive
deformation of
of the
the ground,
ground, in
in which
which the
the strength
strength of
of soil
soil or
or rock
rock is
is
significant in
resistance (GEO);
(GEO);
— loss
— loss of
of equilibrium
equilibrium of
of the
the structure
structure or
or the
the ground
ground due
due to
to uplift
uplift by
by water
water pressure
pressure (buoyancy)
(buoyancy)
or other
or other vertical
vertical actions
actions (UPL);
(UPL);
— hydraulic
heave, internal
internal erosion
erosion and
and piping
piping in
in the
the ground
ground caused
caused by
by hydraulic
hydraulic gradients
gradients
(HYD).
(HYD).
69
6
9
2.4.7.1 General
2.4.7.1 General
(1)P Where
shall be
be verified
verified that
that the
the following
following limit
limit states
states are
are not
not exceeded:
exceeded:
— loss
— loss of
of equilibrium
equilibrium of
of the
the structure
structure or
or the
the ground,
ground, considered
considered as
as aa rigid
rigid body,
body, in
in which
which the
the
strengths of
materials and
and the
the ground
ground are
are insignificant
insignificant in
in providing
resistance
(EQU);
(EQU);
— internal
a
failure or
or excessive
a
deformation of
of the
the structure
structure or
or structural
elements, including
including
e.g. footings,
W
piles or
or basement
basement walls,
W
walls, in
in which
which the
the strength
strength of
of structural
materials is
is
M
significant in
resistance (STR);
(STR);
F1 F2
— failure
— failure or
or excessive
deformation of
of the
the ground,
ground, in
in which
which the
the strength
strength of
of soil
soil or
or rock
rock is
is
significant in
b resistance (GEO);
(GEO);
— loss
— loss of
of equilibrium
equilibrium of
of the
the structure
structure or
or the
the ground
ground due
due to
to uplift
uplift by
by water
water pressure
pressure (buoyancy)
(buoyancy)
or other
or other vertical
vertical actions
actions (UPL);
(UPL);
— hydraulic
heave, internal
internal erosion
erosion and
and piping
piping in
in the
the ground
ground caused
caused by
by hydraulic
hydraulic gradients
gradients
(HYD).
(HYD).
70
7
0
2.4.7.1 General
2.4.7.1 General
(1)P Where
shall be
be verified
verified that
that the
the following
following limit
limit states
states are
are not
not exceeded:
exceeded:
— loss
— loss of
of equilibrium
equilibrium of
of the
the structure
structure or
or the
the ground,
ground, considered
considered as
as aa rigid
rigid body,
body, in
in which
which the
the
strengths of
materials and
and the
the ground
ground are
are insignificant
insignificant in
in providing
resistance
(EQU);
(EQU);
— internal
failure or
or excessive
deformation of
of the
the structure
structure or
or structural
elements, including
including
e.g. footings,
piles or
or basement
basement walls,
walls, in
in which
which the
the strength
strength of
of structural
materials is
is
significant in
resistance (STR);
(STR); γF = 1.0, 1.35, 1.5 etc
— failure
— failure or
or excessive
deformation of
of the
the ground,
ground, in
in which
which the
the strength
strength of
of soil
soil or
or rock
rock is
is
significant in
resistance (GEO);
(GEO); γF = 1.0, 1.35, 1.5 etc
— loss
— loss of
of equilibrium
equilibrium of
of the
the structure
structure or
or the
the ground
ground due
due to
to uplift
uplift by
by water
water pressure
pressure (buoyancy)
(buoyancy)
or other
or other vertical
vertical actions
actions (UPL);
(UPL); γF,dst = 1.0/1.1, γF,stb = 0.9
— hydraulic
heave, internal
internal erosion
erosion and
and piping
piping in
in the
the ground
ground caused
caused by
by hydraulic
hydraulic gradients
gradients
(HYD).
(HYD). γF,dst = 1.35, γF,stb = 0.9
71
7
1
“Design” water pressures in EC7
72
2.4.2 – Actions The “single source principle”
(9)P Actions in which ground- and free-water forces predominate shall be

identified for special consideration with regard to deformations, fissuring,
variable permeability and erosion.
NOTE Unfavourable (or destabilising) and favourable (or stabilising)

permanent actions may in some situations be considered as coming from a
single source. If they are considered so, a single partial factor may be applied to
the sum of these actions or to the sum of their effects.
73
3rd International Symposium on Geotechnical Safety and Risk,
Munich, June 2011
Geotechnical safety in relation to water pressures

B. Simpson
Arup Geotechnics, London, UK
N. Vogt
Technische Universität München,
Zentrum Geotechnik, Munich, Germany
A. J. van Seters
Fugro GeoServices, The Netherlands
Simpson, B, Vogt, N & van Seters AJ (2011) Geotechnical safety in relation to water
pressures. Proc 3rd Int Symp on Geotechnical Safety and Risk, Munich, pp 501-517.
Very “simple” problems
75
Slightly more complex problems
76
Explicitly accommodate the worst water pressures
that could reasonably occur
1m rise in water level multiplies BM

by about 2.5 – outside the range
allowed by factors on the water
pressure or water force.
77
Use of an offset in water level?
∆h
7
8
HYD – Equation 2.9
G’ S
z σ
u
EC7 {2.4.7.5(1)P} states: “When considering a limit state of failure due to heave
by seepage of water in the ground (HYD, see 10.3), it shall be verified, for every
relevant soil column, that the design value of the destabilising total pore water
pressure (udst;d ) at the bottom of the column, or the design value of the seepage
force (Sdst;d) in the column is less than or equal to the stabilising total vertical
stress (σstb;d) at the bottom of the column, or the submerged weight (G´stb;d) of
the same column:
udst;d ≤ σstb;d (2.9a) – total stress (at the bottom of the column)
Sdst;d ≤ G´stb;d (2.9b)” – effective weight (within the column)
79
G’ S
z σ
u
Annex A of EC7 provides values for partial factors to be used for HYD, γG;dst = 1.35
and γG;stb = 0.9. But the code does not state what quantities are to be factored.
EC7 {2.4.7.5(1)P} states: “When considering a limit state of failure due to heave
Maybe:
by seepageγG;dstofudst;k
water ≤ inγG;stb
theσground
stb;k (HYD,
(2.9a) see 10.3), it shall be verified, for every
relevant and 1.35/0.9 =
soil column, that the design value of the destabilising 1.5
total pore water
pressureγ(uG;dst S ) at≤the
dst;ddst;k
γG;stb G´stb;kof the(2.9b)
bottom column, or the design value of the seepage
force (Sdst;d) in the column is less than or equal to the stabilising total vertical
In this (format,
stress σstb;d) atthe
thefactors
bottom areofapplied to different
the column, or thequantities
submerged inweight
2.9 a and
(G´b.stb;d) of
the same column:
81 Sdst;d ≤ G´stb;d (2.9b)” – effective weight (within the column)
Orr, TLL (2005) Model
HYD – Equation 2.9 Solutions for Eurocode 7
Workshop Examples.
Trinity College, Dublin.
7m
H=?
1m
3m
Uniform permeability
82
Apply γG;dst = 1.35 to: Apply γG;stb = 0.9 to: H
Pore water pressure udst;k Total stress σstb;k 2.78
Seepage force Sdst;k Buoyant weight G´stb;k 6.84
Excess pore pressure udst;k - γwz Buoyant density 6.84
γG;dst u(u
Excess head ≤ -γG;stb
γwz)σstb;k
/γw (2.9a) Orr, density
Buoyant T.L.L. 2005. 6.84
dst;k
dst;k
Model Solutions for Eurocode 7
Excess pore pressure or excess head Total Workshop
density Examples. 6.1
γG;dst Sdst;k ≤ γG;stb G´stb;k (2.9b)
Trinity College, Dublin.
83
Apply γG;dst = 1.35 to: Apply γG;stb = 0.9 to: H
Pore water pressure udst;k Total stress σstb;k 2.78
Seepage force Sdst;k Buoyant weight G´stb;k 6.84
Excess pore pressure udst;k - γwz Buoyant density 6.84
Excess head (udst;k - γwz) /γw Buoyant density 6.84
Excess pore pressure or excess head Total density 6.1
84
Safety Against Hydraulic Heave (HYD in EC7)
Conclusions
Not good to factor total water pressures

- Factoring differential or excess water pressure
may be OK. (ie excess over hydrostatic)
85
Terzhagi’s rectangular block
G' = buoyant weight

b=t/2
S = seepage force
due to excess water pressure
G'
t Dimensions t x t/2
FT = G'/S
S
Das (1983) Fig 2.47
86
Factors of safety for HYD
Das (1983) Fig 2.47
8
7
Essential to assess correct water pressures (permeabilities)
…then FT seems to be irrelevant
6m
∆h/t = 2
4
FT ≈ 1.5 2
Level (m)
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
FT = 1.17 -12
1.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03
Permeability m/s
89
Permeability m/s
Why b=t/2? A narrower block would be more critical.
Include friction on the side of the block?
G' = buoyant weight

b=t/2
S = seepage force
due to excess water pressure
G'
t Dimensions t x t/2
FT = G'/S
S
Das (1983) Fig 2.47
90
Equipotentials for uniform permeability – FT = 1.5
∆h/t = 2 6m
∆h = 6m
FT ≈ 1.5
t = 3m t
Simpson, B & Katsigiannis, G (2015) Safety considerations for the HYD limit state.
Submitted for ECSMGE, Edinburgh.
Effect of friction on the Terzaghi block
10
9
8
7
Factor of safety
6
5
4
+ friction
3
∆h/t = 2 2
No friction
FT ≈ 1.5 1
0 b=t/2
0 2 4 6 8
Column width b (m)
2
1.8 ∆h/t = 2
No friction
1.6
1.4
Factor of safety
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 b=t/2
0 2 4 6 8
Column width b (m)
2
1.8 ∆h/t = 2
No friction
1.6
Factor of safety 1.4

∆h/t = 3
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 b=t/2
0 2 4 6 8
Column width b (m)
2
1.8 ∆h/t = 2
No friction
1.6
1.4
Factor of safety ∆h/t = 3
1.2
∆h/t = 3.33
1 ± friction
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 b=t/2
0 2 4 6 88
Column width b (m)
Effect of friction on
the Terzaghi block
10 2
9 1.8 ∆h/t = 2
No friction
8 ∆h/t = 2 1.6
7 1.4
FT ≈ 1.5
Factor of safety
Factor of safety
6
∆h/t = 3
1.2
∆h/t = 3.33
5 1 ± friction
4 0.8
+ friction
3 0.6
2 0.4
No friction
1 0.2
0 0
0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 88
Column width b (m) Column width b (m)
Conclusions of EG9
• Not good to factor total water pressures
- Factoring differential water pressure may be OK.
• Design for F=… is no use if the pore pressures (permeability
distribution) are not properly understood.
• ULS design water pressure derived without factors (1% chance)
- No factors on effects of water pressure – eg seepage force S.
- But could be factors on structural effects of water pressures – eg BM
• Take directly assessed ULS design water pressures (1% chance)
with factored strengths of materials. Consider all failure
mechanisms. Simple!
• Special case: Terzaghi block – only consider one mechanism so
add a factor of safety (1.5?).
97
8th Lumb Lecture

of soil parameters
• Water pressures
• Ground anchors
• The future
Ground anchors –
EC7 Section 8
and the new UKNA
99
EC7 Section 8 – Anchorages (existing)
EC7 “Evolution Groups”
EG0 Management and oversight
EG1 Anchors
EG2 Maintenance and simplification
EG3 Model solutions
EG4 Numerical models
EG5 Reinforced soil
EG6 Seismic design
EG7 Pile design
EG8 Harmonization
EG9 Water pressures
EG10 Calculation models
EG11 Characterization
EG12 Tunnelling
EG13 Rock mechanics
EG14 Ground improvement
Three European documents
• EN 1537
Execution of special geotechnical work – Ground anchors
• EN ISO 22477-5
Geotechnical investigation and testing — Testing of geotechnical structures — Part 5:
Testing of anchorages
• Eurocode 7 – EN 1997-1 – Section 8 – Anchors + UKNA
And the existing British code

• BS 8081 – Ground anchorages (being revised as NCCI)
EN 1997-1:2004/A1:2013
Eurocode 7 (2004) with amendment (2013)
Section 8 - Anchors
8.1 General
8.2 Limit states
8.3 Design situations and actions
8.4 Design and construction considerations Motherhood and apple pie?
8.5 Limit state design of anchors

8.6 Tests on anchors
8.7 Lock-off load for pre-stressed anchors
8.8 Supervision, monitoring and maintenance
+UKNA
103
Anchor
force
The life story of

a ground anchor
Time
104
ULS: EULS;d = max (FULS;d , Fserv;d)
Anchor
force
Proof
load, Pp Sufficient to prevent supported structure FULS;d
Check exceeding ULS FServ ;d
behaviour
γServ
Lock-off FServ ;k
load, P0
Sufficient to prevent
FServ ;k SLS supported structure
Pre-load and testing exceeding SLS
EN 22477-5
BS 8081
FULS;d
Working life
Time
FFserv ––the
themaximum anchor force, including effect of lock off
in load,
Characteristic and sufficient to prevent
ULS force(k): a cautious
required estimate
to prevent anyofultimate
what is likely
limit to happen
state the supported structure
a serviceability limit state in the supported structure
105
106
Small factor γa;ULS
Take the worst
• Investigation or suitability tests must be used to check EULS;d

• Investigation tests not used much on small contracts. Suitability tests on working anchors.
• Investigation or suitability tests may optionally check behaviour at Fserv;k (NA)
• All grouted anchors must have acceptance tests
• Acceptance tests may check EULS;d and/or Fserv;k (NA)
107
Small factor γa;ULS
Take the worst
108
110
CEN value: ξULS = 1.0
UK value: ξULS = 1.35 Fserv;k/EULS;d
< 1.0, if EULS;d > 1.35Fserv;k
CEN value: γa;ULS = 1.1 = UK value

So RULS;m = 1.1xRULS;d ≥ 1.1EULS;d ›› Fserv;k??
So RULS;m = 1.1x (RULS;d ≥ EULS;d)x1.35 Fserv;k/EULS;d ≈ 1.5FServ;k
111
ULS: EULS;d = max (FULS;d , Fserv;d) FULS;d
Anchor
force
Proof RULS;m
load, Pp
Check 1.5 FServ ;d
behaviour
γServ
Lock-off FServ ;k
load, P0
Sufficient to prevent
FServ ;k SLS supported structure
Pre-load and testing exceeding SLS
EN 22477-5
BS 8081
FULS;d
Working life
Time
FFserv ––the
themaximum anchor force, including effect of lock off
in load,
Characteristic and sufficient to prevent
ULS force(k): a cautious
required estimate
to prevent anyofultimate
what is likely
limit to happen
state the supported structure
a serviceability limit state in the supported structure
112
RULS;m = 1.1x (RULS;d ≥ EULS;d)x1.35 Fserv;k/EULS;d = 1.5FServ;k
RSLS;m = Fserv;k
Advice on design of anchors to achieve these

performance requirements will be provided in
BS 8081 (2015).
113
Summary
• Anchor validation based only on
testing – no reliance on
calculations.
• No requirement for big overall
FOS.
• But contractor will need to be
confident that every anchor will
pass the acceptance test. Low
creep at fairly high loads.
• So he might introduce extra
margins to be sure of this.
• EC7 gives the test criteria, but
doesn’t advise how to achieve
them. BS8081 will do this.
114
8th Lumb Lecture

• Practical approach to characteristic values of
soil parameters
• Water pressures
• Ground anchors
• The future
How retaining
walls fail – ULS
(Eurocode 7) BP140.11a
Which governs – ULS or SLS? Always SLS?

3:41 pm
3:41 pm
9.8 Serviceability limit state design
119
9.8.2 Displacements BP168-4.33
120
8th Lumb Lecture

• Practical approach to characteristic values of
soil parameters
• Water pressures
• Ground anchors
• The future
9.8.2 Displacements BP168-4.33
Numerical analysis often used for SLS.

Nothing new in EC7.
122
8th Lumb Lecture
• Use of numerical methods for ULS

− Can numerical methods be used for all design approaches?
− How should strength factors be applied?
− Does FEM give the wrong failure mechanism?
− Use of advanced soil models for ULS
− Undrained behaviour and consolidation
− K0 and soil stiffness
− Staged construction
• Simpson,
EC7 B and
Evolution Junaideen,
Group SM (2013)
4, chaired by
UseAndrew
Dr of numericalLees
analysis with Eurocode 7.
(Cyprus)
18th South East Asia Geotechnical Conference, Singapore.
123
8th Lumb Lecture

124
Partial factors recommended in EN1997-1 Annex A (+UKNA)
Values of partial factors recommended in EN1997-1 Annex A (+ UKNA)

Combination 1---------------------
Combination 2 -------------------------
fav
Variable unfav 1,5 1,3 1,3 1,5 1,5 1,5 1,3
Weight density
Spread Bearing 1,4
Driven Base 1,3 1,1
(compression)
Shaft in tension 1,25 1,6 DA2 1,15 1,1
Bored Base 1,25 1,6 1,1
piles Shaft (compression) 1,0 1,3 unsuitable for
1,1
(compression)
Shaft in tension 1,25 1,6 numerical 1,15 1,1
CFA Base 1,1 1,45 1,1
piles Shaft (compression) 1,0 1,3 analysis 1,1
(compression)
Permanent • Easy to factor primary input –
1,1 1,1 1,1
walls Sliding resistance material strengths and actions 1,1
Slopes Earth resistance • Difficult to factor geotechnical 1,1
resistances
indicates partial factorand
= 1.0 action effects C:\BX\BX-C\EC7\[Factors.xls] 25-Nov-06 17:26
125
8th Lumb Lecture

126
Ed ≤ Rd
so in total
• (a) Reduce strength, increase the loads, and check equilibrium

OR
• (b) Find the remaining FOS?
OR
• (b) “c-φ reduction”
127
φ reduction?
Pre-factored strength, or c-φ
Max wall displacement 48mm Large displacement
Max wall displacement 48mm
xbcap5-Dec11ab.sfd
γφ = 1.25
γφ = 1.45
0
γϕ = 1.25
γϕ = 1.45
MR;d
10m
BENDING
MOMENT
500 1000 1500 kNm/m
129
8th Lumb Lecture

130
Wrong failure mechanism?
Max wall displacement 48mm Large displacement
Max wall displacement 48mm
xbcap5-Dec11ab.sfd
γφ = 1.25 γφ = 1.45
• There is no “right” failure mechanism

• Because failure isn’t the “right” answer!
• EC7 is interested in proving success, not failure.
• Finding FOS useful for design refinement, but not for final verification.
• Plastic models of structural elements useful in ULS analysis.
131
8th Lumb Lecture

132
Factoring advanced models
– φ′, c′, cu not explicit parameters
• eg Cam Clay, BRICK, Lade etc
• Change to Mohr-Coulomb for the factored calculation?
• If γc′=γφ′ this is the code factor on drained strength, however derived.
• Consider: is the model’s drained strength more or less reliable than

those used in conventional practice?
- eg the model might take good account of combinations of principal
stresses, direction (anisotropy), stress level etc.
- Possibly modify factors in the light of this.
133
8th Lumb Lecture

134
Undrained strength in effective stress models
Reliable computation of undrained strength from effective stress
parameters is very difficult.
EC7 generally requires a higher factor on undrained strength (eg

1.4 on cu) than on effective stress parameters (eg 1.25 on c′, tanφ′).
135
cu/1.4 doubles bending moment when sensitive
136
Undrained strength in effective stress models
• Reliable computation of undrained strength from effective stress
parameters is very difficult.
• EC7 generally requires a higher factor on undrained strength (eg

1.4 on cu) than on effective stress parameters (eg 1.25 on c′,
tanφ′).
• The drafters assumed that effective stress parameters would be

used only for drained states.
• The higher factor (eg 1.4) was considered appropriate for

characteristic values of cu based on measurement, which is
generally more reliable than values computed from effective
stress parameters.
• So it is unreasonable to adopt a lower value for the latter.

137
Time-dependent analysis
• Beyond EC7!
• Geotechnical category 3
138
8th Lumb Lecture

139
Ko
• In reality, K0 is not a simple function of soil strength (φ').
• So it is not sensible, and not a Eurocode requirement, to factor

K0 or vary it as a function of φ'. In situ stresses are taken as a
separate parameter – an action.
140
Soil stiffness
• CIRIA Report C580 recommends that stiffness should be
reduced (halved) for ULS analysis. No other publication has a
similar requirement.
τ
• The reason for this was that
larger strains may be mobilised
in ULS analyses – it was not an
additional safety margin.
γ
• This reasoning may apply to Strategy 1, but not so clearly to
Strategy 2 since, in many cases, most of the displacement has
already taken place when the strength is reduced. If the soil is
close to failure, stiffness will not be important.
• So reduction of stiffness for ULS analysis is not recommended.

141
8th Lumb Lecture

142
ULS for staged construction – single propped example
Strategy 1 Strategy 2
Compute using Compute using unfactored Compute using
factored strength parameters parameters
characteristic factored parameters
Factor material
strengths
Initial state
Initial state?
Could be critical for wall

Excavate to 5m – Excavate to 5m –
bending moment
wall cantilevering wall cantilevering
Install prop at 4m Install prop at

depth 4m depth

length, bending moment
Excavate to 10m Excavate to 10m
and prop force
No further factors Apply factors on No further factors

on strut forces or strut forces or on strut forces or
BMs BMs BMs
143
Florence Rail Station
- 25m deep, 50m wide,
550m long
- Mezzanine level prop
- High groundwater level
Simpson, B and Hocombe, T

(2010) Implications of modern
design codes for earth retaining
structures. Proc ER2010,
ASCE Earth Retention
Conference 3, Seattle, Aug
2010.
151
Eurocode case study: High speed rail station, Florence, Italy
• 454m long, 52m wide and 27 to 32m deep

• 1.2 to 1.6m thick diaphragm walls
• Three levels of temporary strutting.
152
• SLS analyzed as if London Clay using the BRICK model.

• Time dependent swelling and consolidation.
• Eurocode 7, DA1, Combinations 1 and 2 analysed using FE and Oasys FREW.
153
• Eurocode 7 readily used with FE for this large project.

• Geotechnical and structural design readily coordinated.
154
Partial factors for DA1 - UKNA
Design approach 1
Combination 1---------------------
Combination 2 -------------------------
A1 M1 R1 A2 M2 R1 A2 M1 or …..M2 R4
fav
Soil tan φ' 1,25 1,25
Weight density
Spread Bearing EC7
footings Sliding UKNA values MSNA
Driven Base 1,7/1.5 1,3 1,7/1.5
1.87/1.65
piles Shaft (compression) 1.5/1.3 1,3 1.5/1.3
1.65/1.43
Total/combined 1.7/1.5 1,3 1.7/1.5
1.87/1.65
(compression)
Shaft in tension 2.0/1.7 1.6 2.0/1.7
2.20/1.87
Bored Base 2.0/1.7 1,6 2.0/1.7
2.20/1.87
piles Shaft (compression) 1.6/1.4 1,3 1.6/1.4
1.76/1.54
Total/combined 2.0/1.7 1.5 2.0/1.7
2.20/1.87
(compression)
Shaft in tension 2.0/1.7 1.6 2.0/1.7
2.20/1.87
CFA Base As 1.45 As
piles Shaft (compression) for 1.3 for
Total/combined bored 1.4 bored
(compression)
Shaft in tension piles 1.6 piles
Earth resistance
155
ULS for staged construction – single propped example
Strategy 1 Strategy 2
Compute using Compute using unfactored Compute using
factored strength parameters parameters
characteristic factored parameters
Factor material
strengths
Initial state
Initial state?

Excavate to 5m – Excavate to 5m –
bending moment
wall cantilevering wall cantilevering
Install prop at 4m Install prop at

depth 4m depth

length, bending moment
Excavate to 10m Excavate to 10m
and prop force
No further factors Apply factors on No further factors

on strut forces or strut forces or on strut forces or
BMs BMs BMs
156
Florence Station – comparison of bending moments
45 Prop and excavation levels
Stage 1 2 3
40
35
Level (m) 30
25 C2, Strategy 1
20
C2, Strategy 2
15
10
5
-6,000 -4,000 -2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
Bending Moment (kNm/m)
C1 C1 C1
C1
C2, factors all stages (Strategy 1) C2, factors all stages
C2, factors all stages C2, factors all stages
C2,factoring stages separately (Strategy 2)
C2, factoring stages separately
157
Summary – numerical analysis
• FEM analysis of SLS is conventional – nothing new.

• FEM can also be used for ULS
• Design Approach 1 is well suited to this.
• Difficult to distinguish favourable and unfavourable actions from
the ground – the “star” approach for these.
• The code requirement is best checked by applying fixed factors to
strength – method (a).
• “c- φ reduction” might be useful for design refinement – method (b).
• Plastic modelling of the structure would be beneficial.
• When advanced soil models are used, it may be best to switch to
Mohr-Coulomb for the ULS check.
158
Summary – numerical analysis
• Great care is needed in modelling undrained situations using

effective stress parameters – requires a good advanced model.
• The full value of γCu should be applied for undrained materials.
• Factoring of K0 and stiffness is not recommended.
• “Strategy 2” – applying factors to stages individually – is
recommended.
- Analyse DA1-1 first, then check critical stages for DA1-2.
- Computing effort might be reduced if stages for which DA1-2 is critical
can be established for a given range of situations.
• EC7 Evolution Group
159
8th Lumb Lecture

of soil parameters
• Water pressures
• Ground anchors
• The future
The future
• Evolution groups => extensive revisions of most sections

• About to start re-drafting for 2020(?)
• Reorganised into three parts: General, Testing, Specific elements
• Harmonisation – simplifying the Design Approaches
• Consequence classes – variations to partial factors (1.25 → 1.2?)
• Additional sections
- Reinforced ground
- Ground improvement
- Rock mechanics
• Numerical analysis – section or sub-section
161
8th Lumb Lecture

of soil parameters
• Water pressures
• Ground anchors
• The future
Thanks for
listening

Lumb Lecture 8-2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lumb Lecture 8-2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8th Lumb Lecture

Eurocode 7 – Good practice in geotechnical design

Eurocode 7 – Good practice in geotechnical design

• “states beyond which the

• partial factor design ?

• concentration on what might

Serious failures involving risk of injury or major cost.

Serious failures involving risk of injury or major cost.

Inconveniences, disappointments and more manageable costs.

Inconveniences, disappointments and more manageable costs.

• An understanding of limit state design can be obtained

E = action effects d = design (= factored)

Design approach 1 Design approach 2 Design approach 3

indicates partial factor = 1.0 C:\BX\BX-C\EC7\[Factors.xls] 25-Nov-06 17:26

Design approach 1 Design approach 2 Design approach 3

indicates partial factor = 1.0 C:\BX\BX-C\EC7\[Factors.xls] 25-Nov-06 17:26

indicates partial factor = 1.0

Eurocode 7 – Good practice in geotechnical design

BP106.32 BP111.24 BP112.45

BP119.45 BP124-F3.11 BP130.35 BP145a.10

- but not big enough

BP106.33 BP111.25 BP112.46 BP119.46 BP124-F3.12

Structure and soil must be

designed together - consistently.

indicates partial factor = 1.0

Design consistently at β standard

Provided the uncertainties of loads and

… use this approach

But if one type of uncertainty is really dominant …

Provided the uncertainties of loads and

… use this approach

But if one type of uncertainty is really dominant …

1.1 αE=-0.4, αR=1.0 αE=-1.0, αR=0.4

BP119.47 BP124-F3.13 BP129.50 BP145a.22

• Just like load combinations, extended to include

• All designs must comply with both combinations in

• Turkstra’s principle for load combinations -

Eurocode 7 – Good practice in geotechnical design

E = action effects d = design (= factored)

2.4.3(4) also mentions:

“Cautious” – worse than most probable.

Small building on estuarine beds near slope

Thoughtful interpretation – not simple averaging

• a limit state depends on the value of a parameter averaged over a large

• the ground property varies in a homogeneous, random manner, and

• at least 10 test values are available

(Contribution to Discussion Session 2.3, XIV ICSMFE, Hamburg. Balkema.,

More remote when

TEST RESULTS (SD from mean)

C:\BX\BX-C\EC7\[EC7a.xls] 14-May-09 11:20

• Consider both project-specific information and a wider body of geotechnical

• Characteristic = moderately conservative = representative (BS8002) = what

Eurocode 7 – Good practice in geotechnical design

To satisfy ULS requirements:

To satisfy ULS requirements:

Square footing 50 Bolton

Coventry University Engineering and Computing Building

Eurocode 7 – Good practice in geotechnical design

(9)P Actions in which ground- and free-water forces predominate shall be

NOTE Unfavourable (or destabilising) and favourable (or stabilising)

Geotechnical safety in relation to water pressures

1m rise in water level multiplies BM

Not good to factor total water pressures

G' = buoyant weight