Session 4

Risk and Reliability

Design of Retaining
Structures
Slopes, Overall
Stability and
Embankments
(Blarney Castle)
1

Session 4a
Risk and reliability

Complexity and Geotechnical Risk

The complexity of a geotechnical design situation and the geotechnical

risks involved are due to the geotechnical hazards and the vulnerability
of the structure being designed

When assessing the complexity of a design situation, the following

factors related to geotechnical hazards should be considered (Clause
2.1(2)):

Ground conditions

Groundwater situation

Regional seismicity

Influence of the environment

And the following factors relating to the vulnerability of a structure:

Nature and size of the structure and its elements
Surroundings

The concept of three Geotechnical Categories is offered as a method to

assess the complexity (Clause 2.1(10))
3

Geotechnical Categories and Risk Factors

Risk Factors

Geotechnical Categories
GC1

Geotechnical
hazards

GC2

GC3

Geotechnical Complexity
Low

Moderate

High

Ground conditions

Known from comparable

experience to be straightforward.
Not involving soft, loose or
compressible soil, loose fill or
sloping ground.

Ground conditions and properties

can be determined from routine
investigations and tests.

Unusual or exceptionally difficult

ground conditions requiring non
routine investigations and tests

Groundwater
situation

No excavations below water

table, except where experience
indicates this will not cause
problems

No risk of damage without prior

warning to structures due to
groundwater lowering or
drainage. No exceptional water
tightness requirements

High groundwater pressures and

except-ional groundwater
conditions, e.g. multi-layered
strata with variable permeability

Regional seismicity

Areas with no or very low

earthquake hazard

Moderate earthquake hazard

where seismic design code (EC8)
may be used

Areas of high earthquake hazard

Influence of the
environment

Negligible risk of problems due

to surface water, subsidence,
hazardous chemicals, etc.

Environmental factors covered by

routine design methods

Complex or difficult environmental

factors requiring special design
methods

Moderate

High

Vulnerability

Low

Nature and size of

the structure and its
elements

Small and relatively simple

structures or construction.
Insensitive structures in seismic
areas

Conventional types of structures

with no abnormal risks

Very large or unusual structures

and structures involving abnormal
risks. Very sensitive structures in
seismic areas

Surroundings

Negligible risk of damage to or

from neighbouring structures or
services and negligible risk for
life

Possible risk of damage to

neighbouring structures or
services due, for example, to
excavations or piling

High risk of damage to

neighbouring structures or
services

Geotechnical Risk

Low

Moderate

4
High

Expertise, Investigations, Design Methods and Structural

Types related to Geotechnical Categories
Geotechnical Categories
GC1

GC2

GC3

Expertise required

Person with appropriate

comparable experience

Experienced qualified person

Experienced geotechnical
specialist

Geotechnical
investigations

Qualitative investigations
including trial pits

Routine investigations involving

borings, field and laboratory tests

Additional more sophisticated

investigations and laboratory tests

Design
procedures

Prescriptive measures and

simplified design procedures,
e.g. design bearing pressures
based on experience or
published presumed bearing
pressures. Stability or
deformation calculations may not
be necessary.

Routine calculations for stability

and deformations based on
design procedures in EC7

More sophisticated analyses

Examples of
structures

Simple 1 and 2 storey

structures and agricultural
buildings having maximum
design column load of 250kN
and maximum design wall load
of 100kN/m
Retaining walls and excavation
supports where ground level
difference does not exceed 2m
Small excavations for drainage
and pipes

Conventional:
Spread and pile foundations
Walls and other retaining
structures
Bridge piers and abutments
Embankments and earthworks
Ground anchors and other
support systems
Tunnels in hard, non-fractured
rock

Very large buildings

Large bridges
Deep excavations
Embankments on soft ground
Tunnels in soft or highly
permeable ground

Reliability

All Eurocodes based on reliability analyses i.e. aim to achieve

structures with a certain target probability of failure:
1x10-6 in 1 year for a ULS
2x10-3 for an SLS
= 3.8

Target reliability achieved through:

Use of characteristic loads
Selection of characteristic parameter values
Choice of appropriate partial factor values

Hence appropriate selection of characteristic values is

essential to obtain the required reliability for geotechnical
designs
6

Reliability Analyses

The reliability of the ULS design of a spread foundation was investigated for:

Different loading conditions

Different failure mechanism
Different characteristic values 5% fractile or 95% confidence in mean
Auto-correlation length v
Correlated and uncorrelated c tan values

Example Details

Loading conditions
Results shown for Load Case 1

FORM analysis and values

Failure Mechanism

Choice of depth to select soil parameter values

9

Calculated Values
8

DA1
DA2
DA3
FOS = 2
FOS = 3

7
6

7
6
5

DA1
DA2
DA3
FOS = 2
FOS = 3

3.8

25.0

27.5

30.0

32.5
'

35.0

37.5

40.0

3.8

25.0

27.5

30.0

32.5
'

35.0

Assumptions:
Correlated c - tan
v = 2m
V (tan) = 15%
k = 95% of mean

Assumptions:
Uncorrelated c - tan
v = 2m
V (tan) = 15%
k = 5% fractile

Result
generally > 3.8

Result
generally < 3.8

37.5

40.0

10

Discussion
Any questions

11

Session 4b
Design of Retaining Structures

(Carton House)
12

Scope
Requirements in Section 9: Retaining Structures of Eurocode 7 apply to
structures which retain ground comprising soil, rock or backfill and
water at a slope steeper than it would eventually adopt if no structure
were present
Main types are gravity walls and embedded walls
Eurocode 7 also covers composite walls which are defined in Eurocode
7 as walls as composed of elements from the above two types of wall.
A large variety of such walls exists and 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
Pressures in silos are not covered by Eurocode 7 but by EN1991-4
13

Relevant CEN Standards

Eurocode 7 refers to the following CEN standards that are relevant

to the design and construction (execution) of retaining walls

EN 1997-3: Part 53-Pt 5 Design of Steel Structures - Piling (EN

1993-5:1997)

Execution standard Execution of special geotechnical work

EN 1538 - Diaphragm Walls
EN 12063 - Sheet pile walls
EN 1536 - Bored Piles
14

Construction Considerations
Items to be considered

Checked

The effects of constructing the wall including:

Temporary support to the sides of the excavation
Changes in in-situ stresses and resulting ground movements caused by the
wall excavation and its construction
Disturbance of the ground due to driving and boring operations
Provision of access for construction
The required degree of water tightness of the finished wall
The practicality of constructing the wall to form a water cut-off
The practicality of forming ground anchorages in adjacent ground
The practicality of excavating beneath any propping of retaining walls
The ability 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, their drivability without loss of interlock
The stability of borings or slurry trench panels while they are open
For fill, the nature of the materials available and the means used to compact
them adjacent to the wall
Table 9 2

15

Pressures and Forces on Retaining Walls

The following five different types of earth pressure are considered in

the sub-sections of Clause 9.5:
At rest earth pressure (C9.5.2)
Limiting values of earth pressure (C9.5.3)
Intermediate values of earth pressure (C9.5.4)
Earth pressure due to compaction (C9.5.5)
Water pressure (C9.5.6)

Backfill density estimated from knowledge of available material.

GDR shall specify verification checks

Use conservative backfill density values to avoid excessive site testing

Surcharges consideration should be taken of increased surcharge
due to repetition of load
Wave and ice forces, seepage forces, collision forces, temperature
effects

16

Determination of Earth Pressures

At rest earth pressures K0 values
Factors to be considered

Stress history

May assume at rest conditions if wall movement is < 5 x 10-4 x h for

normally consolidated soil (Clause 9.5.2(2))

For overconsolidated soil except for high OCR values (Clause 9.5.2(3))

Horizontal coefficient of earth pressure K0 = (1-sin') OCR

For sloping ground (Clause 9.5.2(4))

K0; = K0 (1+sin)

Limiting Values

Ka and Kp values obtained from charts and equations in Annex C

Equations for earth pressure in Annex C are useful for numerical

analyses

17

Water Pressures

For silts and clays - The ground water level shall be assumed to be
at surface of retained material unless reliable drainage system or
infiltration is prevented

Effects of water filled tension cracks shall be considered where no

special drainage or flow prevention measures are installed (principle)

18

Points to Note

Earth pressures include the pressure from soil and weathered rock and
water pressures

The single source principle applies to DA1 and DA3, although not expressly
stated in Eurocode 7
i.e. the same partial action factors are applied to earth pressures on opposite
sides of the wall

DA3 is as DA1.C2 but with partial factors of 1.35 &1.5 on permanent and
variable structural actions

The partial factor is applied to the net water force, although this not
expressly stated in EC7, this is very important for DA2 and to DA1.C1 in
some design situations

DA1.C1 may not apply a safety margin against overall stability of an

retaining structure in particular design situations

Need to demonstrate vertical equilibrium can be achieved

19

Wall Friction

Mobilised wall friction

Concrete or steel sheet pile: dd = k cv,d
k 2/3 for precast concrete or steel sheet piling
k =1.0 may be assumed for concrete cast to soil
No adhesion or friction resistance for steel sheet pile in clay under
undrained conditions immediately after driving.

20

Allowance for Unplanned Excavations

For embedded cantilever walls, a = 10% of its height and for a

supported wall a = 10% of the height beneath the lowest support
with a limited to a maximum of 0.5m. Smaller values may be used
where the surface level is specified to be controlled [C9.3.2.2(3)] or
larger values where the surface level is particularly uncertain

(Clause 9.3.2.2(4))

No overdig allowance for SLS check

21

Design Methods and Considerations

Design methods
Calculation
Prescriptive measures
Experimental models and load tests
Observational method

Observational method specifically mentioned

F and R are strictly applied to actions (forces) and not to pressures but in
practice it is more convenient to apply factors to pressures

Design should guard against brittle failure

The SLS design values of the earth pressures at not necessarily the limiting
values

Deflection must not cause damage to adjacent structures (note: SLS not
necessary in some circumstances)

Drainage systems must have maintenance in place or demonstrated to work

effectively without maintenance
22

Limit states to be Considered

Limit states to be considered

Retaining structure type Checked

Loss of overall stability

All types

Failure of structural element e.g. wall, anchor, strut,

connection

All types

Combined failure in ground and in structural

element

All types

Movements of the retaining structure which may

cause collapse or affect structure, nearby structures
or services

All types

Unacceptable leakage through or beneath the wall

All types

Unacceptable change to the flow of groundwater

All types

Bearing resistance failure of the soil below the base

Gravity and composite

Failure by sliding at the base of the wall

Gravity and composite

Failure by toppling of the wall

Gravity and composite

Failure by rotation or translation of the wall or parts

thereof

Embedded

Failure by lack of vertical equilibrium

Embedded

23

Actions and Resistances

Geotechnical Action

Eurocode 7 defines a geotechnical action as an action transmitted to the

structure by the ground, fill, standing water or ground-water (Clause 1.5.2.1)

Passive Earth Pressure

The passive earth pressure, PP acting on resistance side of a gravity wall

should be considered as an earth resistance (Table A.13) when considering
base sliding and as a favourable geotechnical action (Table A3) when
considering bearing failure

Design water levels/pressures

The design value of the water table is generally taken as the worst
reasonable scenario. An alternative approach is to consider the variations in
the water level as a variable action and the apply appropriate partial factor

24

Design Actions
DA1.C1 & DA2

In DA1.C1 and DA2, design values of action are obtained by applying F to the
characteristic values of non geotechnical actions e.g. self weight of the wall Fd = F Fk
and to geotechnical actions obtained from the characteristic values of the ground
parameters Fd = FF(Xk) or alternatively to the effect of actions Ed = EE(Fk,Xk,ad)

DA1.C2 & DA3

In DA1.C2 and DA3, design values are obtained by applying F to the characteristic
values of non geotechnical actions Fd = F Fk and the design values of geotechnical
actions are obtained by factoring the ground parameters Fd = F F(Xk / m)

Effects of actions

Where the application of the partial values to geotechnical actions gives

unreasonable results, the partial factors for actions can be applied directly to the
effect of actions, e.g. BM or SF, calculated using representative values of the actions
(Clause 2.4.7.3.2(2))
25

Embedded Wall

Need to find:
The minimum length of wall penetration to prevent rotational failure and
vertical equilibrium, and
The distribution of effects of the actions (BMs, SF) and the magnitude of
the support reactions (anchors, props)

Analyse using limit equilibrium method (LEM) assuming free earth

support for tied back (single) sheet pile wall

BM = 0

about O

26

Analysis of Tied-Back Sheet Pile Wall

Surcharge = 20kPa
1
1.5m

Tie Rod

Tidal
lag = 0.6m

2
6.0m
3
6

Coarse
gravel
= 0.5m

4.0m

4
Design
level

Silty sand
a) Problem geometry

8
Active

Passive

b) Calculation model
27

Earth Pressure Equations DA1.C1, DA1.C2 & DA3

UNIFORM SOIL
ck' k'

ua
A

ub
B

pa,d' + u = Gunfav [Ka,d (v ua) - 2ck'Ka,d ,/ M + ua] + QunfavKa,d q

pp,d' + u = Gunfav [Kp,d (v ub) + 2ck'Kp,d / m + ub] / R
Single source princiiple used for DA1 and DA3
Use of net pressure not necessary when using single source principle as R = 1.0
Useful for FE analyses

28

Earth Pressure Equations DA2

Uniform Soil
. ck' , k'

ua - ub

Single source principle not used

Net water pressure force used

pad' = G,unfav [Ka,k (v ua) - 2ck'Ka,k/M + (ua - ub)] + Qunfav q

pp,d' = G,fav [Kp,k (v ub) +2ck'Kp,k / M] / R

29

Calculation Stages

Compute the design earth pressure

Determine the sheet pile length by taking moments about the tie rod

Determine the design tie rod force by balancing horizontal forces

Determine the bending moments using the design earth pressure

values.

30

Design values

Granular Backfill
d' (')
atan(tan35/1.0) =35o
DA1.C1
DA3 M3 cu=1.4; c'=1.25; '=1.25
atan(tan35/1.25) = 29.26o
DA1.C2

Sandy Silt
d' (')
atan(tan32/1.0) = 32o
atan(tan32/1.25) = 26.58o

DA2

atan(tan35/1.0) = 35o

atan(tan32/1.0) = 32o

DA3

atan(tan35/1.25) = 29.26o

atan(tan32/1.25) = 26.58o

Design earth pressures are obtained using design values

31

Informative Annex C Ka & KP

32

Design Parameters
Soil

Granular backfill
(k = 22kN/m3)

Silty Sand
(k = 18kN/m3)

Parameter

Drained
DA1.C1&
DA2

DA1.C2
& DA3

d' (o)

35

29.26

Ka

0.25

0.31

KP

d' (o)

32.0

26.58

Ka

0.28

0.35

KP

6.1

4.2

33

Approximation for Seepage Water Pressures

H
Gravel

Silty sand

wHL/(L+D)

wd/(L+D)

34

Earth Pressure Equations DA1.C1

ck'=0 for both soils

ua A
ub

B
pad' + u = 1.35 [Kad (v ua) + ua] + 1.5 q
pPd ' + u = 1.35 [KPd (v ub) + ub]/1.0
35

-150

-100

1.5

DA1.C1

10

-50

5.4

50

10

10

150

200

250

2
4
6

8
+

100

0 0

10

10

12
15

14

8
15

16

ID

DA1:C1

1.5* 0.25*20

7.5

1.35*0.25* 22*1.5+ 1.5* 0.25*20

18.63

1.35*0.25* 22*5.4+ 1.5* 0.25*20

47.60

1.35*[0.25* (22*10-4.6*10)+4.6*10]+ 1.5* 0.25*20

128.33

4+

1.35*[0.28* (22*10-4.6*10)+4.6*10]+ 1.5* 0.28*20

136.27

1.35*{0.28*[22*10+18*(d+0.5)-((d+0.5+4.6)*100.6*(d+0.5)*10/(2d+0.5))]+((d+0.5+4.6)*10-0.6*(d+0.5)*10/(2d+0.5))}+
1.5* 0.28*20

212.86
(d=4.32m)

1.35*[10*4.5]

60.8

1.35*{6.1*[4.5*10+18*d-((d+0.5+4.6)*100.6*(d+0.5)*10/(2d+0.5))]+((d+0.5+4.6)*10-0.6*(d+0.5)*10/(2d+0.5))}

384.21
(d=4.32m)

36

Vertical and Horizontal Equilibrium

Vertical equilibrium

Vertical downward force due to active pressure

{1.35 x Kad x (v'-q) + 1.5Kad q} x L x tan = 254.2 kN/m

Vertical upward force due to passive pressure

{1.35 x KPd x (v')} x L x tan = 243 kN/m

If there were a significant difference, change , on generally the active side

as sheet piles tends to move down [Frank et al., 2004]

Horizontal equilibrium

Design anchor force

Td = Pa;d- PP;d

= 296.9 kN/m
37

TIED SHEET PILE RETAINING WALL

Shear Force and BM

300.00

DA1.C1

100.00
0.00
0.00
-100.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

Td= 296.9 kN/m

-200.00
-300.00
-400.00
DEPTH (m )

BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAM

200.0
BENDING MOMENT (kNm/m)

SHEAR FORCE kN/m

200.00

0.0
0.00
-200.0

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

-400.0
-600.0
-800.0
-1000.0
-1200.0

38
DEPTH (m )

-150

-100

1.5

5.4

DA1.C2

10

-50

50

10

10

150

200

250

2
4
6

8
+

100

0 0

10

10

12
15

14

8
15

16

ID

DA1:C2

1.3* 0.31*20

8.06

1.0*0.31* 22*1.5+ 1.3* 0.31*20

18.29

1.0*0.31 * 22*5.4+ 1.3* 0.31*20

44.89

1.0*[0.31* (22*10-4.6*10)+4.6*10]+ 1.3* 0.31*20

108.0

4+

1.0*[0.35* (22*10-4.6*10)+4.6*10]+ 1.3* 0.35*20

116.0

1.0*{0.35*[22*10+18*(d+0.5)-((d+0.5+4.6)*100.6*(d+0.5)*10/(2d+0.5))]+((d+0.5+4.6)*10-0.6*(d+0.5)*10/(2d+0.5))}+
1.3* 0.35*20

204.34
(d=6.56m)

1.0*10*4.5

45

1.0*{4.2*[4.5*10+18*d-((d+0.5+4.6)*100.6*(d+0.5)*10/(2d+0.5))]+((d+0.5+4.6)*10-0.6*(d+0.5)*10/(2d+0.5))}

321.73
(d=6.56m)

39

TIED SHEET PILE RETAINING WALL

Shear Force and BM

DA1.C2

200.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
-100.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

Td= 321.3 kN/m

-200.00
-300.00
-400.00
DEPTH (m )

BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAM

200.0
BENDING MOMENT (kNm

SHEAR FORCE kN

300.00

0.0
-200.00.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

-400.0
-600.0
-800.0
-1000.0
-1200.0
-1400.0
DEPTH (m )

40

Summary DA1
DA1.C1

DA1.C2

DA1

Length (m)

14.8

17.1

17.1

Td

296.9

321.3

321.3

1045*

1251

1251

277

225

277

kN/m

Md
kNm/m

Sd

kN/m

* If Md from DA1.C1 were > that from DA1.C2 could reduce it by

carrying out a FE or other soil/structure analysis for longer length.

41

Earth Pressure Equations DA2

ck = 0 for both soils

Net water pressure

ub

ua
A

pad + u = 1.35[Kad (v ua)+(ua-ub]+1.5q

pPd + u = 1.0[KPd (v ub)]/1.4
42

Earth and Water Pressures DA2

-100

10

-50

50

100

150

200

0 0

1.5

Net water pressure kPa

250
20

15

10

22

0
0
2

5.4

X
10 4

10.5

4
66

66

8
104

10
12

10.5

6
5.79

17.25

18
20

10
12

14
16

0
6

Depth (m)

-150

14

817.25

16
0
18
20

43

-150

-100

10

-50

50

100

150

200

250

0 0

1.5

DA2

5.4

X
10 4
10.5

22
4
66

66

8
104

10

10.5

12

14
16

17.25

18

817.25

20

ID

DA2

1.5* 0.25*20

7.5

1.35*0.25* 22*1.5+ 1.5* 0.25*20

18.6

1.35*0.25* 22*5.4+ 1.5* 0.25*20

47.6

1.35*(0.25*(22*6-0.6*10)+0.6*10)+1.5*0.25*20

58.1

1.35*[0.25* (22*10-4.6*10)+ 0.6*10]+1.5* 0.25*20

74.33

4+

1.35*[0.28* (22*10-4.6*10)+ 0.6*10]+1.5* 0.28*20

82.3

1.35*[0.28*{22*10+18*(0.5)-((0.5+4.6)*10-0.6*(0.5)*10/(2*d+0.5))}+(0.6*100.6*(0.5)*10/(2*d+0.5))]+1.5* 0.28*20

83.58

1.35*[0.28*{22*10+18*(d+0.5)-((d+0.5+4.6)*10-0.6*(d+0.5)*10/(2*d+0.5))}]+1.5* 0.28*20

97.2
(d=6.74m)

1.0*[6.1*{4.5*10+18*d-((d+0.5+4.6)*10-0.6*(d+0.5)*10/(2*d+0.5))}]/1.4

222.3
(d=6.74m)

44

TIED SHEET PILE RETAINING WALL

Shear Force and BM

200.00

DA2

100.00
0.00
0.00
-100.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

Td= 347 kN/m

-200.00
-300.00
-400.00
DEPTH (m )

BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAM

200.0
BENDING MOMENT (kNm

SHEAR FORCE kN

300.00

0.0
-200.00.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

-400.0
-600.0
-800.0
-1000.0
-1200.0
-1400.0
-1600.0
DEPTH (m )

45

-150

-100

10

-50

1.5

DA3
5.4

50

10

4
10

150

200

250

2
4
6

8
+

100

0 0

10

10

12
15

14

8
15

16

ID

DA3

1.3* 0.31*20

8.06

1.0*0.31* 22*1.5+ 1.3* 0.31*20

18.29

1.0*0.31 * 22*5.4+ 1.3* 0.31*20

44.89

1.0*[0.31* (22*10-4.6*10)+4.6*10]+ 1.3* 0.31*20

108.0

4+

1.0*[0.35* (22*10-4.6*10)+4.6*10]+ 1.3* 0.35*20

116.0

1.0*{0.35*[22*10+18*(d+0.5)-((d+0.5+4.6)*10-0.6*(d+0.5)*10/(2d+0.5))]+((d+0.5+4.6)*100.6*(d+0.5)*10/(2d+0.5))}+
1.3* 0.35*20

204.34
(d=6.56m)

1.0*10*4.5

45

1.0*{4.2*[4.5*10+18*d-((d+0.5+4.6)*10-0.6*(d+0.5)*10/(2d+0.5))]+((d+0.5+4.6)*100.6*(d+0.5)*10/(2d+0.5))}

321.73
(d=6.56m)

46

TIED SHEET PILE RETAINING WALL

Shear Force and BM

200.00

DA3

100.00
0.00
0.00
-100.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

-200.00

Td= 321.3 kN/m

-300.00
-400.00
DEPTH (m )

BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAM

200.0
BENDING MOMENT (kNm

SHEAR FORCE kN

300.00

0.0
-200.00.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

-400.0
-600.0
-800.0
-1000.0
-1200.0
-1400.0
DEPTH (m )

47

Summary of Results
DA1

DA2

DA3

Length (m)

17.1

17.25

17.1

Td

321.3

347

321.3

Md kNm/m

1251

1259

1251

Sd

277

328

277

kN/m

kN/m

48

Reinforced Cantilever Gravity Retaining Wall

Surcharge = 20kPa

Design
level

1.0m

0.3m

2.0m

5.0m

A
1.6m

0.4m

Coarse grained
backfill

Water
level

2
3

6
5.2m
Glacial till

a) Problem geometry

B 0.5m

Uplift
b) Calculation model

Design against bearing and sliding failure as for a spread foundation

49

Discussion

Any Questions
50

Session 4c
Slopes, Overall Stability and Embankments

51

Slopes and Overall Stability

Eurocode 7 has no separate section on the design of slopes

Instead there is a separate Section 11 on Overall Stability

Overall stability situations are where there is loss of overall stability of the
ground and associated structures or where excessive movements in the
ground cause damage or loss of serviceability in neighbouring structures,
roads or services

Typical structures for which an analysis of overall stability should be

performed (and mentioned in relevant sections of Eurocode 7):
-

Retaining structures
Excavations, slopes and embankments
Foundations on sloping ground. natural slopes or embankments
Foundations near an excavation, cut or buried structure, or shore

It is stated that a slope analysis should verify the overall moment and
vertical stability of the sliding mass. If horizontal equilibrium is not checked,
interslice forces should be assumed to be horizontal
This means that Bishops method is acceptable, but not Fellenius method

52

Overall Stability Failure Modes

- Examples of overall failure modes involving ground failure around

retaining structures presented in Section 11
53

Comments on Overall Stability

Centre of rotation
Surcharge

Favourable weight

Wf

Unfavourable weight

Slip surface

Typical slope stability design situation

No specific inequality to be satisfied is given in Eurocode 7
It could analysed be in terms of forces or moments or both
No calculation model is given
Finite elements can be used but no guidance given
DA2 is generally not used for slopes

54

Design of Slopes Using DA1

Both DA1.C1 and DA1.C2 should be considered, but DA1.C2 normally
controls if no structural element or soil reinforcement is involved
For undrained conditions:
DA1.C1

G = 1.35, Q= 1.5, cu = 1.0

DA1.C2

G = 1.0,

Q= 1.3, cu = 1.4

Drained conditions
In DA1.C1 an increase in the vertical load generally increases the resistance,
leaving the margin of safety relatively unchanged. Thus DA1.C2, where G =
1.0, Q = 1.3, c, , = 1.25, governs
Single source principle is applied i.e. both unfavourable and favourable
components of the same load, e.g. soil weight, are treated as if they act as a
single load
55

DA1 Design Example

W = 150kN

Sliding stability of a block on

a slope

L = 1.75m

= 20

Interface properties
cu,k = 40 kPa
ck = 5 kPa
Design sliding resistance, Rd
o
k = 35
Undrained: ( cu,k /M) x L
Drained:

(ck/M) x L + N tan k /M)

Undrained Conditions
DA1.C1 Fd = 1.35x150xsin20 = 69.3 kN/m;

Rd = (40/1.0)x1.75 = 70 kN/m Fd < Rd OK

DA1.C2

Rd = (40/1.4)x1.75 = 50 kN/m Fd > Rd Fail

Fd = 1.0x150xsin20 = 51.3 kN/m;

Drained Conditions
DA1.C1

Fd = 1.35x150xsin20 = 69.3 kN/m

Rd = (5/1.0)x1.75 + 1.35x150xcos20x(tan35/1.0) = 8.75 + 133.2 = 142kN/m OK

DA1.C2

Fd = 1.0x150xsin20 = 51.3kN/m
Rd = (5/1.25)x1.75 + 1.0x150xcos20x(tan35/1.25) = 7.0 + 98.7 = 105.7kN/m OK
56

Sliding Stability of an Infinite Slope

Design situation:
- Hard stratum resting on a weak layer
Gro u n d s u rface
0

30

Sd

1.8m

Hard s tratu m
Rd

Slip p lan e

W eak clay lay er

cuk = 25kP a

Equilibrium requirement:
- Design sliding force, Sd Design resisting force, Rd
57

Infinite Slope with Seepage

b

Slip plane
bcos

For water table at the surface:

Traditional design

' tan '

F=
sat tan

If F = 1.25
sat tan (tan/ 1.25)
i.e Eurocode 7 condition
58

Slope Stability Analysis Using Method of Slices

40

Centre of rotation

35

y Axis

30

Radius, r

25
20
15
10
5
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

x Axis

Eurocode 7 requirements when using the method of slices:

-

Both vertical and moment equilibrium should be checked, and

If horizontal equilibrium is not checked, then the interslice forces shall

be assumed to be horizontal

This means some simpler methods not acceptable

59

Details of different
methods of slices
from SLOPE/W
Note:
- Not acceptable methods

- Acceptable methods

60

Bishops Simplified Method of Slices

mob
m;mob

'
'
'
Tan
c
Tan
c'
k
= + N'
=
+ N'
F
m;mob
m;mob
F

1
=
GWSin

[ck' b + ( GW G ub)Tan k' ]Sec

TanTan 'k
1+

m;mob

Design Procedure:
DA1.C1
Apply G = 1.35 to permanent actions, incl. soil weight force via the soil weight
density and Q = 1.5 to variable actions and check that m;mob = F 1.0
DA1.C2
Apply G= 1.0 to permanent actions, incl. soil weight force via the soil weight
density and Q=1.3 to variable actions and check that m;mob = F 1.25
61

Slope Stability Analysis Example Using Method of Slices

40

Centre of slip circle at:

X=28
Y= 35

35

y Axis

30

Radius, r

25
20
15
10
5
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

x Axis

6 slices

62

Stability Analyses Using DA1.C1

F=

1.33356

Slice

ru

GWsin

c'b

A/B

1.924093

4.041346

155.5185

0.3

-0.359413

-73.8447

8.082692

106.737

0.823941

129.5445

4.920185

4.041346

397.6834

0.3

-0.114247

-61.2029

8.082692

244.51

0.946233

258.4037

6.921059

4.041346

559.4079

0.3

0.124045

93.43899

8.082692

341.0353

1.058424

322.2104

7.922987

4.041346

640.3907

0.3

0.369826

312.4866

8.082692

414.2424

1.181649

350.563

7.703474

4.041346

622.6481

0.3

0.642476

503.6556

8.082692

469.3376

1.350681

347.4823

5.418592

4.041346

437.9681

0.3

0.991606

494.8266

8.082692

487.2678

1.716461

283.8794

Sum

1269.36

2813.617

1692.083

F=

1.333021

A = [c'b + W (1 - ru) tan') ] sec

B = 1 + tan tan / F
F = M, mob 1.0

so OK according to DA1.C1
63

Stability Analyses Using DA1.C2

F=

1.349628

Slice

ru

Wsin

c'b

A/B

1.924093

4.041346

155.5185

0.3

-0.35941

-54.69977

8.082692

81.30302

0.826037

98.42535

4.920185

4.041346

397.6834

0.3

-0.11425

-45.33546

8.082692

183.2278

0.946873

193.5084

6.921059

4.041346

559.4079

0.3

0.124045

69.21407

8.082692

254.7305

1.057729

240.8278

7.922987

4.041346

640.3907

0.3

0.369826

231.4715

8.082692

309.0937

1.179486

262.0579

7.703474

4.041346

622.6481

0.3

0.642476

373.0782

8.082692

350.2748

1.346506

260.1362

5.418592

4.041346

437.9681

0.3

0.991606

366.5382

8.082692

364.7676

1.707931

213.5728

Sum

940.2668

2813.617

1268.528

F=

1.349115

A = [c'b + W (1 - ru) tan') ] sec

B = 1 + tan tan / F
F = M, mob 1.25 so OK according to DA1.C2

64

Stability of an Anchored Excavation

In this situation the
anchor imposes a
stabilizing action on the
excavation
Hence DA1.C1 should
be checked
It may control the design

65

Slope Design Using DA3

Slope design using DA3 is the same as DA1.C2 since actions on the soil (e.g.
structural actions Gk, Qk, traffic loads, etc.) are treated as geotechnical actions, like
the soil weight Wk, and the A1 partial action factors G=1.0; Q=1.3 are applied.
However, in a bearing analysis of the
foundations the structural loads
are treated as structural actions
and the A2, i.e. DA1.C1
partial action factors
G=1.35; Q=1.5, are used
Is this slope stability or
bearing resistance?

Gk, Qk

Wk

66

Design of Embankments

Section 12: Embankments of EN 1997 provides the principles and

requirements for the design of embankments for small dams and for
infrastructure projects, such as road embankments
No definition is given for the word small but Frank et al. state that it may be
appropriate to assume small dams include dams (and embankments for
infrastructure) up to a height of approximately 10m

A long list of possible limit states, both GEO and HYD types, that should be
checked is provided including:

Loss of overall stability

Failure in the embankment slope or crest
Failure by internal erosion
Failure by surface erosion or scour
Excessive deformation
Deformations caused by hydraulic actions

Limit states involving adjacent structures, roads and services are included in
the list
67

Particular Aspects Regarding Embankment Design

Since embankments are constructed by placing fill and sometimes involve ground
improvement, the provisions in Section 5 should be applied

For embankments on ground with low strength and high compressibility, EN 19971 states that the construction process shall be specified, i.e. in Geotechnical
Design Report, to ensure that the bearing resistance is not exceeded or excessive
movements do not occur during construction

Since the behaviour of embankments on soft ground during construction is usually

monitored to ensure failure does not occur, it is often appropriate to use the
Observational Method for design

The importance of both supervision and monitoring in the case of embankments is

demonstrated by the fact that there is a separate sub-section on the supervision of
the construction of embankments and the monitoring of embankments during and
after construction in Section 12

The only other section of Eurocode 7 that has provisions for both supervision and
monitoring is the section on ground anchorages
68

Conclusions

Sections 11 and 12 set out the provisions for designing against

overall stability and for the design of embankments

The focus is on the relevant limit states to be checked

No calculation models are provided

When using method of slices for slope stability, some simplified methods
not acceptable

The relevance and importance of other sections of EN 1997-1 is

demonstrated, for example:
The section on Fill and Ground Improvement
The sub-section on the Observational Method
The sub-section on the Geotechnical Design Report
The section on Supervision and Monitoring
69

Discussion
Any questions

70

Tomorrow
- Special Features of Soil
- Geotechnical Design
Triangle
- Associated CEN
Standards
- Implementation and
Future Development
- Tutorial Examples

71