Gravity Retaining Walls and Eurocode 7

Retaining Wall Design to Eurocode 7

All retaining Wall design on publicly financed contracts within the EU should
now be carried out to Eurocode 7.
The general design procedure for retaining walls to EC-7 is similar to that
followed in design to British Standards in that the same failure mechanisms
are considered but in this case:

No Lumped Safety Factor is applied in the design

Partial safety factors are applied to Material Properties, Actions which

are relevant to the structure (i.e. Applied Loads) and any Resistances.

The design is said to be satisfactory if the sum of all the Actions is less
than the sum of all the Resistances

This covers the ULS (i.e. collapse) design; EC-7, unlike the various British
Standards, also specifically requires that a SLS check is carried out.

EC-7 Design Approaches

The main purpose of Eurocodes in general is to standardise the way in which
engineering design is carried out across the EC.
Having said this, EC-7 actually specifies three different approaches which the
designer may adopt, as follows:

Design Approach 1

Design Approach 2

Design Approach 3

Combination 1
Combination 2

The situation is simplified by the fact that Design Approach 1 is the only
approach acceptable for design in the UK. This does, however, mean that two
separate combinations of partial factors must be considered for UK design.
Page 1 of 10

Application of Partial Factors

Partial Factors on Actions
EC-7 uses an approach where Design Actions are derived by multiplying the
True Action by a partial factor.
In other words, generally:
Design Action True Action x PartialFactor

(1)

So for example, if the True Action is an actual load of 1000 kN and the partial
factor is 1.5, the Design Action will be 1000 x 1.5 = 1500 kN.
Reference to Table 1 indicates that the designer has to:

Determine the Action and its true value

Then decide whether the Action in question is:

Permanent or variable is it always present or is it present only

some of the time?

Favourable or unfavourable does it tend to cause the structure to

collapse or does it tend to prevent it from collapsing

Once the designer has made these decisions, the correct partial factor can
then be selected from Table 1 and the Design Action evaluated using
equation (1).

Partial Factors on Materials

Soil Strength
EC-7 has a very specific method for applying partial factors on soil strength. In
particular, the partial factor on frictional strength MUST be applied to tan
and NOT to .
The following sections explain precisely how the partial factors on soil strength
should be applied:

Page 2 of 10

Frictional Component of Soil Strength

The shear strength of a soil is actually given as tan or tan u.
As a result, the design strength is given as:
tan design

tan actual
Partial Factor

or

design

tan actual
tan -1

Partial Factor

(2)

Cohesion Component of Soil Strength

The cohesion values, C and Cu give a direct measure of the soil shear
strength.
As a result, the design strength is given as:
C' design

C' actual
Partial Factor

(3)

Weight Density
This is applied by multiplying the actual Weight Density of the soil by the
partial factor to give the Design Weight Density, so that:
Design Weight Density True Weight Density xPartial Factor

(4)

Partial Factors on Resistances

The partial factor on Resistance is applied by dividing the Calculated
Resistance by the partial factor to give the Design Resistance, so that:

Design Resistance

Calculated Resistance
Partial Factor

Page 3 of 10

(5)

The best way to explain the EC-7 design approach is to consider an example.
The example here is one considered in a previous handout:

Gravity Wall Design Example 1

Figure 1 shows a gravity retaining wall for which:
Bulk density of retained fill = 18 kN/m3
for the retained fill of 40
Surcharge Load = 10 kN/m2
Bulk density of concrete = 23.5 kN/m3
The angle of friction on the base of the wall, , is equal to 0.75.

1.80 m

(3)

Surcharge 10kN/m2

3.00 m

Lateral Soil
Stresses

(1)

(2)

A
Figure 1 Gravity Retaining Wall Example

The partial factors used in EC-7 are summarised in Table 1, below.

The failure will be a GEO/STR failure because any instability failure is
determined by the soil strength and in the case of the structural design the
structural loads acting will also be determined by the soil strength.

Page 4 of 10

Parameter
Permanent action (G)

Symbol

Unfavourable
Favourable

Variable action (Q)

Unfavourable
Favourable

Accidental action (A)

Unfavourable
Favourable

Coefficient of shearing resistance (tan ')

Effective cohesion (c')
Undrained shear strength (cu)
Unconfined compressive strength (qu)
Weight density ()
Bearing resistance (Rv)
Sliding resistance (Rh)
Earth resistance (Rh)
Design Approach 1

Combination 1
Combination 2

G, dst
G, stb
Q, dst
A, dst
'
c'
cu
qu

Rv
Rh
Re

GEO/STR - Partial factor set

EQU
A1

A2

M1

M2

1.1

1.35

1.0

0.9

1.0

1.0

1.5

1.5

1.3

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.25

1.0

1.25

1.25

1.0

1.25

1.4

1.0

1.4

1.4

1.0

1.4

1.0

1.0

1.0

(A1+M1+R1)
(A2+M2+R1)

Design Approach 2

(A1+M1+R2)

Design Approach 3

(A1or A2) +M2+R3

Table 1 Eurocode 7 Partial Factors

Piles & anchors:

R1

R2

R3

1.0

1.4

1.0

1.0

1.1

1.0

1.0

1.4

1.0

(A1+M1+R1)
(A2 + (M1 or M2) + R4)

Reference: Smiths Elements of Soils 8th Edition Pg 268

Page 5 of 10

Design Approach 1 Combination 1

Stage 1 Sliding Check:
The first stage is to identify the partial factors which must be applied to the
problem. By reference to Table 1, these will be as follows:
Type

Partial Factor
Case A1

Permanent unfavourable

G, dst = 1.35

Permanent unfavourable

G, dst = 1.35

Permanent favourable

G, stb = 1.0

Action
The thrust due to the
retained backfill
The thrust due to the
applied surcharge
Force due to the weight of
the wall

Partial Factor
Case M1
= 1.0
= 1.0

Material Property
Coefficient of shearing resistance (tan )
Weight Density

Partial Factor
Case R1
R; h = 1.0

Resistance
Sliding
Note:

The bearing resistance should also be checked; this is done separately to

the current calculation

For = 40 and = 1.0:

tan design = tan 40 / 1.0

and

design = 40

As the angle of friction on the base of the wall, , is equal to 0.75,

design = 0.75 x design = 30
Hence:
Ka design = (1 sin 40) / (1 + sin 40) = 0.3572 / 1.6428 = 0.2174
Weight density of retained fill = 18 kN/m3

design = 18 / 1.0 = 18 kN/m3

Weight density of concrete = 23.5 kN/m3

design = 23.5 / 1.0 = 23.5 kN/m3

For failure by sliding, the sliding resistance should be factored by R; h = 1.0

Page 6 of 10

Working in Forces per metre width:

Element

Force (kN)

(1) Force due to Surcharge

1.35 x 0.217 x 10 x 3.0 = 8.79 kN

(2) Force due to Retained Fill

1.35 x 0.217 x 18 x 32 / 2 = 23.729 kN

H=

32.52 kN

(3) Weight of wall section

1.0 x 3.00 x 1.80 x 23.5 = 126.9 kN

V=

126.9 kN

Ratio of on base to = 0.75

Sliding Resistance = 126.9 x tan (0.75 x 40) = 73.27 / 1.0 = 73.27 kN
The Total Action causing Sliding =

32.52 kN

Total Resistance to Sliding

73. 27 kN

Check:

R>A

73.27 > 32.52

OK

Hence the design is Satisfactory in Sliding

Stage 2 Check on Overturning: (Note: Forces here are already factored)

Working in Forces per metre width:
Element

Force
(kN)

(1) Surcharge
(2) Retained Fill

(3) Wall section

Lever Arm about point A

Moment
about A
(kNm)

8.79

3.0 / 2 = 1.5m

13.185

23.729

3.0 / 3 = 1.0m

23.729

Overturning Moment =

36.914

1.8 / 2 = 0.9m

114.21

Restoring Moment =

114.21

126.9

Resistance to Overturning = 114.21 / 1.0 = 114.21

The Total Action causing Overturning

36.914 kNm

Total Resistance to Overturning

114.21 kNm

Check:

R>A

114.21 > 36.914

Hence the design is Satisfactory in Overturning

Page 7 of 10

OK

Design Approach 1 Combination 2

For the sliding check:
Type

Partial Factor
Case A2

Permanent unfavourable

G, dst = 1.0

Permanent unfavourable

G, dst = 1.0

Permanent favourable

G, stb = 1.0

Action
The thrust due to the
retained backfill
The thrust due to the
applied surcharge
Force due to the weight of
the wall

Partial Factor
Case M1
= 1.25
= 1.0

Material Property
Coefficient of shearing resistance (tan )
Weight Density

Partial Factor
Case R1
R; h = 1.0

Resistance
Sliding
Note:

Again, the bearing resistance should also be checked; this is done

separately to the current calculation

For = 40 and = 1.25:

tan design = tan 40 / 1.25 = 0.6713

and

design = 33.87

As the angle of friction on the base of the wall, , is equal to 0.75,

design = 0.75 x design = 25.4
Hence:
Ka design = (1 sin 33.87) / (1 + sin 33.87) = 0.4427 / 1.5573 = 0.284
For bulk density of retained fill = 18 kN/m3

design = 18 / 1.0 = 18 kN/m3

For bulk density of concrete = 23.5 kN/m3

design = 23.5 / 1.0 = 23.5 kN/m3

For failure by sliding, the sliding resistance should be factored by R; h = 1.0

Page 8 of 10

Working in Forces per metre width:

Element

Force (kN)

(1) Force due to Surcharge

1.0 x 0.284 x 10 x 3.0 = 8.52 kN

(2) Force due to Retained Fill

1.0 x 0.284 x 18 x 32 / 2 = 23.004 kN

H=

31.52 kN

(3) Weight of wall section

1.0 x 3.00 x 1.80 x 23.5 = 126.9 kN

V=

126.9 kN

Ratio of on base to = 0.75

Sliding Resistance = 126.9 x tan (0.75 x 33.87) = 60.26 / 1.0 = 60.26 kN
The Total Action causing Sliding =

31.52 kN

Total Resistance to Sliding

60.26 kN

Check:

R>A

60.26 > 31.52

OK

Hence the design is Satisfactory in Sliding

Stage 2 Check on Overturning: (Note: Again, forces are already factored)

Working in Forces per metre width:
Element

Force
(kN)

(1) Surcharge
(2) Retained Fill

(3) Wall section

Lever Arm about point A

Moment
about A
(kNm)

8.52

3.0 / 2 = 1.5m

12.78

23.004

3.0 / 3 = 1.0m

23.004

Overturning Moment =

35.784

1.8 / 2 = 0.9m

114.21

Restoring Moment =

114.21

126.9

Resistance to Overturning = 114.21 / 1.0 = 114.21

The Total Action causing Overturning

35.784 kNm

Total Resistance to Overturning

114.21 kNm

Check:

R>A

114.21 > 35.784

Hence the design is Satisfactory in Overturning

Page 9 of 10

OK

Summary of Design Calculations:

The above calculations represent the full check for sliding and overturning.
Note that:

Both Combination 1 and Combination 2 must be checked

Both sliding and overturning checks are necessary

A bearing check is also necessary in each case. These checks have

been omitted here for clarity. The way to carry out a bearing check will
be covered later in this Module

Given that the sliding and overturning checks are acceptable for both
combinations, the wall design is satisfactory.

Efficiency of the Design

Given that the main requirement for the design is that:
A<R

(6)

In each case, a simple way to check the efficiency of the design is to assess just
how much bigger the total Resistance is than the total Action.
If the total Resistance is very much greater than the total Action, the design is
inefficient
If the total Resistance is just greater that the total Action, the design is efficient
Ideally the design should be as efficient as possible; if the design is inefficient
then its efficiency should be improved. This is most easily done by changing the
wall dimensions. Most obviously, reducing the width of the wall will reduce the
resistance both to sliding and overturning.

Page 10 of 10