PAPER LIMIT STATE DESIGN OF STRUCTURAL PARTS AT AND
Some points that deserve or need a more general discussion are out-
II.imit state desic~n
oI'structural pai~
atanc in the grouncI
Prof Dr-Ing G Gudehus, University of Karlsruhe,8 Prof A
Weigenbach, University of Dortmund, Germany.
Wurocode 7 proposes ultimate limit states for the design of struc-
Wtural parts at and in the ground, abbreviated ULS 1B. They have
&been introduced in order to reconcile the structural Eurocodes, in
particular EC2 for concrete, with EC7 within the frame of EC1. The
resulting compromise has some shortcomings from a geotechnical
point of view:
~ The partial factor 1.35for permanent actions is not tractable in many
cases;
~ contact pressures among structural parts and ground cannot gener-
ally be classified as action or resistance;
~ it is difficult to transfer well-established design procedures and glob-
al factors.
The German National Application Document (NAD), which
appeared April 1996, is an attempt to avoid these shortcomings. The
German pre-standard DIN V 1054-100 referred to in this NAD, which is
outlined and discussed in the sequel, is intended to:
~ incorporate established global factors so that a correction of the said
1.35 can also be allowed for;
~ better avoid arbitrary interpretations of the partly vague EC7 text;
~ avoid over- or underdesign in cases of well-established practice.
Shallow and spread foundations are treated first. The forces acting
upon groups of block foundations and the resisting forces from the
ground are first calculated without partial safety factors. The forces are
then changed into design values by partial factors as in structural
engineering and so that established global factors are reproduced.
Hydrostatic uplift and horizontal sliding are similarly treated as addi-
tional ultimate limit states (ULS 1A and B).
Groups of piles and anchors are treated in the same manner. The
forces from the superstructure are calculated as for shallow
foundations. The resistance of the ground against penetration or pull-
out is reduced by a partial factor depending on loading test results.
Ultimate limit states of pile and anchor groups can also involve large
zones of the ground, leading to 'global'plift or base failure (ULS 1A
and C).
The same concept can be used for retaining structures. The breadth
of L-walls is determined from weight and earth pressure as for a strip
foundation. Bedding depth and struts of pile walls are determined by
considering simple beams. Similar beams are considered with several
rows of anchors and with allowance for vertical force components. The
length of anchor tendons is determined by group failure (ULS 1C). Soil
nailing is a special case.
Uplift and seepage forces can be incorporated by taking effective
forces in the soil skeleton and in structural parts in the ground.
Instationary pore water pressures related with volume changes of the
soil are left aside. Possible redistributions of structural forces are
briefly discussed. They are covered by partial factors in the proposed
concept which requires a certain degree of ductility.
Rttsso t. Skeleton wNb ~~~~ basement watts npon tNoobfoenteeens
(tnS& sotiatnbnt bteeb tonwtatton.
tn, tn,
IN THE GROUND
lined in the conclusion.
Shallow and spread foundations
Consider a skeleton with a stiff basement upon a group of block or
strip foudations (Figure 1). A statical calculation with characteristic
structural loads leads to reaction forces R,, R3 etc, assuming non-yield-
ing supports in a first approximation. Statical equilibrium for each
foundation (Figure 1 inset, subscripts omitted) requires identity of
action and resistance, F = R. The design situation is obtained with par-
tial factors, named IIF and n for convenience instead of 7 as in the
Eurocodes:
Fd = nF Fn c Ra = Rn/IIR
The subscript n indicates nominal values of action and resistance, F
and R, calculated with characteristic values and assumed dimensions
of the structure. R is the statically required supporting force. It is
increased by a load factor nF as for structural design and can be split
into permanent and temporary parts. nF = 1.4 is obtained via '/,1.35 +
/3 1.50 with dominant weight ( /3), which is typical for such cases, and
the factors 1.35and 1.50for permanent and temporary actions. This fac-
tor cannot be justified by fluctuations of weight only, but by uncertain-
ties of 'actions't the foundations, ie of internal forces there, due to
irregularities of stiffhess and mechanical history.
The nominal resistance R is calculated with an assumed breadth b
of the foundation using characteristic soil strength parameters, sim-
plified soil layers and a nominal water table. It is reduced by n in order
to cover uncertainties of the soil model and parameters. With the value
n= 1.4, Eq 1 leads to the familiar 'global'actor II = IIF II-2.0. This
may be replaced by a higher value, eg II = 3.0, for stiff clay. A desirable
reduction of the factor for action, say to 3)F = 1.25, can easily be allowed
for by a higher II=II/IIF . The proposed design format is thus the same
as for structural parts off the ground, incorporates well established
experience and avoids details of soil mechanics and probabilistics.
A I'rame structure on shallow block foundations is more complicated
as the latter obtain inclined and eccentric forces (Figure 2). Nominal
forces with inclinations and eccentricities (F, 5, e in Figure 2 inset,
without subscripts for brevity) are obtained from a statical calculation
which may include assumed subgrade springs for representing the
yielding ground. Acting and resisting design forces are calculated with
the same partial factors nF and nas above, assuming the same incli-
nation and relative eccentricity, 5 and e/b, as in the nominal situation.
Established relations for the ground resistance R in case of base fail-
ure can be used avoiding lengthy discussions on safe values of 5 and
e/b.
Lateral forces at the foundation can also be allowed for. An active
earth pressure, at the left side in the case of Figure 2 inset, is included
into F, 5 and e. A passive earth pressure at the right side can likewise
be included; it is thus part of the action at the foundation base, which
is inevitable for internal forces. The force component ratios, 5 and e/ b,
are again estimated for the nominal situation. A sufficient safety
against sliding on a cohesionless base is obtained with
tan 5~ tan 5, /I4 (2)
wherein 5= 5 is the nominal force inclination, 5, the base friction
angle, and I4 an associated safety factor. The familiar safety level is
obtained with I4 = 1.5. We thus consider the horizontal and vertical
components of F as coupled due to the interaction of structure and
ground.
Hydrostatic uplift is considered as a special ultimate limite state
(ULS 1A for spread foundations (Figure 3). A trough is lifted if its nom-
aint
GROUND ENGINEERING SEPTEMBER 1996
 PAPER LIMIT STATE DESIGN OF STRUCTURAL PARTS AT AND IN THE GROUND

out partial factors, safety against

ULS 1B is assessed again with Eq
1. The partial safety factor IIF can
remain the same as before, and
W/2 for the same reasons. The nomi-
nal resistance R is normally
determined from loading tests
and at best supported or extrapo-
lated with mechanical calcula-
tions including soil parameters.
The associated partial factor qR
F/2 depends on the number of load-
ing tests, the relevance of ground
investigation and the reliability of the mechanical model. A wider
spectrum of IIR than for block and step foundations can be necessary
therefore, and q = nR nR holds again for the global safety factor.
A closer inspection shows that both nR and qs should better be adapt-
ed to the type of building, ground and piles. A larger qs should be cho-
sen for an end bearing pile in sand, eg than for a friction pile in stiff
clay. One should realise that details of ground-structure interaction
cannot be covered by a few fixed partial safety factors.
Ai-'B, A counterpart of Figure 2 is an abutment of a bridge upon piles pass-
ing through soft ground (Figure 5). Nominal pile forces are calculated,
with an assumed array of the piles, as statically required reaction
tR, forces, eg F, and F, . Their component ratios, eg F,/F, and inclination
5, in the considered example, depend on the chosen mechanical model
TOP:Rgure 3. and parameters and is assumed again to remain the same for the
Hrdrostaeo uplift design situation. Acting and resisting forces are then treated for the
ot tnmgb (ten), assessment of safety against ULS 1B as before. F,/F, and 5, replace e/b
bottom ol an and 5 for a shallow foundation. The partial factor qR is justified by
suemndbm uncertainties of force redistribution as before. Eq 1 is used with the
(oontra), and same IIR as for the previous case.
In)ected layer Other force components and mechanisms can also be included.
(itgbt). Negative shaft friction from the soft ground and the top layer can be
F, Fa added to the action upon a pile which is then its axial force at the level
AII Rgmu d. of the bearing layer (likewise for vertical piles). Lateral pile forces,
gbetetsn wllb caused by laterally flowing soft soil, lead to bending moments as in
basement walls retaining structures. The whole structure and part of the surrounding
upon phe, and ground may undergo sliding towards a neighboured slope which has to
(Inset) separated be safeguarded by considering a ULS 1C (detailed in the next section).
pile. A group of vertical anchors can be needed against hydrostatic uplift
of a bottom plate (Figure 6). The force acting upon each anchor is
Rlgltr'gma g. F, = (F W)/N, with the resulting uplift force F and weight W (usually
Itrtdge abubmmt without contribution from the walls). Dividing through the number N,
on pile Ipeup of anchors means that a uniform distribution of anchor forces is
assumed. Multiplying the nominal value F, with a force factor IIF is to
cover uncertainties of redistribution as before. The nominal resistance
R is usually determined from pull-out tests, possibly supported by
mechanical calculations. The associated partial factor nR depends on
the number of tests and other factors as outlined above for piles, and
with the same advantages and shortcomings of partial factors.
inal weight and uplift forces are equal, W = F (Figure 3, left). The nom- Other ultimate limit states of the same system can be investigated
inal action F is calculated with a safe characteristic height of the with other safety factors. Hydrostatic uplift involves the anchor group
water table. The nominal resting weight W is obtained with a safe frac- with the lifted part of the ground and is covered by
tile of specific weight and structural dimensions. Uplift is sutTiciently
avoided with II/s W+ N/ /IIR (4)

Fs W /II (3)
wherein the partial factor is lower than in the case outlined above, typ-
ically II-1.05 to 1.1.This is sufficient as the nominal forces Fand W
do not depend on statical redistributions and are less uncertain there-
fore.
This format can be transferred to the bottom of a drained excavation
with an injected sealing layer (Figure 3). Acting and resisting forces are
determined by nominal total and water pressures, a and u, of the layer.
F= Wwould express hovering (II= 1), meaning zero effective stress,
a' a u = 0, at the bottom. Eq (3) can again be used, so that mean pres-
sures are represented by forces.
Groups of plies or anchors
The building of Figure 1 may now stand on a group of vertical piles
passing through soft ground (Figure 4). the nominal supporting forces
R,, Rr, etc are calculated as before (possibly including a force redistrib-
ution which can be achieved by attributing subgrade moduli to the sup-
ports). The statically required supporting force R of each pile is trans-
ferred to the bearing layer (Figure 4 inset). With the nominal acting
and resisting forces, Fand R, determined with characteristic values,
assumed dimensions (eg d, and d2 for the fixed pile section) and with-
Herein Fdenotes the resulting hydrostatic uplift force, II the associ-
ated partial factor as in Eq (3), W the nominal weight of the slab plus
the buoyant weight of the lifted part of the ground, and F a pull-out
resistance of the anchor sections below the assumed separating sur-
face. Eq (4) is thus a combination of Eqs (1) and (3) combining ULS 1A
and B. (Following EC7, one has to consider this case as ULS 1C, but the
partial factors for shear strength of the soil would lead to inconsistent
results.)
Retalninl structures
An L-wall can be treated similarly as a shallow foundation with
inclined and eccentric force (Figure 7). A gravity structure with total
weight W and earth pressure E is obtained for calculation by means of
a vertical separating surface behind the wall. A resulting force F with
inclination 5 and eccentricity e is obtained from Wand E with positions
b and hE . The nominal ground resistance R is calculated with the
nominal 5 and e/b, the characteristic soil parameters, nominal layers
and water table. The breadth b is sufficient if Eq (1) is satisfied with the
same factors IIP and IIR as for any other shallow foundation.
Dimensioning the bottom plate with ULS 1B thus includes its breadth b.
Other failure mechanisms have to be considered with generally

GROUND ENGINEERING sEPTEMBER 1996

 PAPER LIMIT STATE DESIGN OF STRUCTURAL PARTS AT AND
Rgure L Bottom
slab wgh anchors
against
hydreshgc upglt
(hdt), separalad
anchor(rtght)
Rgme 7. L~pe
iehlnlng wall.
ha
/
/
/
/
/
other partial factors. Safety against sliding without adhesion is
assessed with Eq (2). A passive earth pressure in front of the founda-
tion may be incorporated into F if a ditch can be reliably avoided there.
The global failure can be analysed with a slip circle, as indicated in
Figure 7, using partial factors for shear strength parameters as pro-
posed for ULS 1C. Bending moments for the design of cross sections of
the wall and the bottom plate can be determined by estimating parts of
the earth pressure and the soil weight above the slab.
A concrete or steel sheet pile wall with a row of struts and further
lateral support by the lower ground is treated as a vertical beam with
two supports (Figure Sa). The statically required supporting forces A
and B are obtained from the nominal earth pressure E with two equi-
librium conditions and the heights hz and hz (only horizontal compo-
nents are considered here). E is the characteristic active earth pressure
due to soil weight and surcharge p if the wall is allowed to yield suffi-
ciently. hz and hz can be estimated for the nominal situation with estab-
lished methods of earth pressure calculation, so representing assumed
pressure distributions. For the assessment of safety the bedding depth
d has to be assumed, and corrected by iteration.
Eq (1) is now written for the ULS 1B of the struts and the earth sup-
port. The nominal actions are the statically required supporting forces
A and B. The associated partial factor IIF is the same as for the previ-
-
ously considered cases. A rather high factor, Rz 1.40, is justified by
uncertainties of the calculation model and the parameters although
the soil weight is nearly fixed. The nominal resistance Rof the earth
support is the passive earth pressure E calculated with characteristic
fst
E'gmu
8. Pge wall supporhdhy slnds andhwersog (hdt), same syshmwgh
groundwahr (right).
IN THE GROUND
Rgureg.
A P Pge wall wgh
anchors and earth
III support
Rgme'tg.
Pge wall wgh two
P rews el anchors.
1ai
rttttt
Az
a,
soil parameters. With IIR 1.4 the familiar global factor = -
q IIPIIR 2.0 is
obtained. Adaptations of Rz are adequate for elevated active earth pres-
sures and for exceptional design situations.
As stated above for groups of piles, the designs of more complicated
retaining structures with a few fixed partial factors can be misleading.
The ratios of supporting forces and heights, such as A/B and hz /h,
may be fixed in empirically well-established cases (comparable to 6 and
e/b for shallow foundations). Redistributions can only be followed up
by detailed observation and calculation in the sense of the observa-
tional method; partial factors are not helpful then.
Resting or streaming ground water can be allowed for by using effec-
tive forces, ie total forces minus resulting water pressures (Figure Sb).
Seepage forces f, at the soil skeleton and net water pressures au can be
estimated from nominal water tables. The effective earth pressure E's
calculated with the resulting skeleton volume force y '+ fand E'ith
y
'
f,, both for the flooded soil fraction, and with total specific weight
y for the soil above. The heights hz and hz have to be estimated as
before. (The seepage force may be substituted by an additional net
water pressure as indicated by the dotted line in Figure Sb.) As without
water, the chosen bedding depth d is sufficient if Eq (1) is satisfied. The
struts are calculated with the partial factors prescribed for other struc-
tural parts. The total structure is thus treated similarly as the soil
skeleton as far as the actions of water are concerned.
For a concrete or steel sheet pile wall with anchors, vertical compo-
nents and pull-out resistance have to be allowed for (Figure 9).
Inclination e and head depth hof the anchors are chosen. The earth
pressure inclinations, 6, and 6, have to be estimated and must not
exceed the wall friction angle. The statically required supporting
forces A and B are obtained from the earth pressure E (normally
active) and its assumed position. (In addition, the equilibrium of ver-
tical forces can be considered with lower and upper bounds of the ver-
tical force S at the bottom.) The bearing capacity of the earth support
is assessed as before, using a cautious estimate of 6 for E . Cross sec-
tions and pull-out resistance of the anchors are calculatecf with Eq (1).
The partial factor qz may be different from the one for vertical
anchors. The factor qz for the statically required supporting forces A
and B is the same as before, which is again justified by uncertainties
of the mechanical model and the parameters. The bending moment for
ULS 1B of the wall cross section is estimated as before. An ULS 1C is
analysed with slip surfaces (dashed lines in Figure 9) which are not
constrained by the anchors. The partial pull-out resistance of the
anchors in the non-sliding part of the ground has to be taken then with
the same partial factor IIR . This case is similar as the one of Figure 6,
but this time we have a hybrid of ULS 1B and 1C.
GROUND ENGINEERING SEPTEMBER 1996
 PAPER LIMIT STATE DESIGN OF STRUCTURAL PARTS
.
Rttwo 11 Cut
with soil nol lint)
gelt), ottulllbrlutn
of toraoo at a
T ~~
Rt+82+Rs
olhNnj3 unnttto
w
(rhtht).
A similar approach is proposed for a pile wall with two rows of
anchors (Figure 10). The nominal ratio of the two anchor forces,
AI/As, has to be estimated with the aid of observations, mechanical cal-
culations and engineering judgment. The statically required anchor
forces can then be calculated as in the case of Figure 9. The pull-out
resistance R, and R, are calculated with the same ratio,
ie R,/R2 = AI/As . The lower earth support is calculated as before. The
pull-out resistance for an ULS 1C has to be referred to the sections of
the anchors beyond the slip surface, with different lengths for the two
anchor rows.
A steep cut with a thin wall and several rows of soil nails can be
analysed in a similar way (Figure 11). The pull-out resistance of the
rows is determined by the section lengths, which is practically equal to
the maximal axial nail forces needed for the design of the nail cross
sections. The resulting pull-out resistance is in equilibrium with the
total weight W, the normal force 1V on the slip surface and the shear
resistance T. As the latter is reduced with partial factors for shear
strength we have again a hybrid of ULS 1B and C. Other actions and
mechanisms can be incorporated for the same case. For instance, uplift
and seepage forces can be allowed for by considering effective forces as
for the case of Figure 8b. Bending moments and transversal forces of
the thin wall have to be estimated for the design of its cross sections.
Condttslons
The use of nominal and design forces in a unified way has some advan-
tages as against Eurocode 7. Consideration of the real system appeals
to the familiar statical design. The proposed partial factors can easily
be related with established global factors so that ample experience is
not lost suddenly with a new format. Engineering judgement can be
allowed for by adaptation of nominal situations and partial factors.
The bulk of experience is preserved with the proposed format, and con-
fusion with sophisticated mechanics and statistics is avoided. The
effective stress principle can easily be incorporated.
Limitations are mainly due to the assumed ductility of ground and
structure. Force distributions and redistributions have to be estimated
which is legitimate as long as the lower bound theorem of plasticity
theory is justified. This is not theoretically correct for frictional forces,
but empirically justified as long as sufficient freedom for the consid-
ered mechanism is given.
Pre-stressing of structural parts is not considered and not relevant
for ULS 1B due to the assumed ductility. A certain degree of brittleness
can be allowed by restricting the deformation capacity as for concrete
structures. Temporary negative or positive excess pore water pres-
sures play a similar role as structural pre-stressing: they change due to
relaxation and dissipation and can lead to a more brittle soil behaviour.
Inertial effects have been excluded. They may be allowed for by a fur-
ther increase of actions and decrease of resisting forces in a quasi-sta-
tic manner. A more detailed analysis, including shakedown and lique-
faction, should not be made with a few fixed partial factors.
Coming back to more conventional structural parts and ground con-
ditions, we summarise that main objectives are achieved by the pro-
posed concept:
~ The adaptation to well-established global factors is secured;
~ over- or underdesign can thus be avoided;
~ uncertainties of the present EC7, going back to concessions towards
structural engineering, are avoided.
We stress in closing that our concept is not the solution once and for-
ever. The present German codes and standards can and will not serve
as the only reference for the coming European standards. Our common
interest in the geotechnical community should be: to defend the pecu-
liarities of ground engineering as against structural engineering; to
defend well-established methods of design; and to avoid uncertainties
where our understanding is already sufficient.
GROIIND ENGINEERING sEPTEMBER 1996
DISCUSSION
Consolidation of
alluvium resulting
from the impounding
of tidal estuaries
by MCR Davies & TA Newson (paper published Ground Engineering
May, Vol29, No4). Discussion from Alan K Parkln, Dept of Civil
Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 31 68,Australia.
~ Ihe authors rightly anticipate rejuvenated settlements to occur in
the Cardiff Bay sediments as a result of decreased salinity, follow-
ing construction of the proposed barrage - depending, of course, on
how far the leaching might extend. They do not, however, make refer-
ence to a similar experiment by Lun & Parkin (1985), performed on a
saline silty clay from South Melbourne, Australia, in which the oedome-
ter cell water was changed f'rom saline to fresh, and I'resh to saline
(Samples A and B respectively), some time after the conclusion of the
primary phase (Figure 1).
These results accord with those
of the authors insofar as the
change to a distilled water envi-
ronment leads to a significantly
increased creep component (with
respect to the control sample), and
in that there is an appreciable
delay before this effect manifests.
Predicting these movements is,
however, another matter but
important details emerge if such
results are presented in velocity
format, as in Figure 1 (noting that
this is not consolidation rate as
referred to by the authors). Here it
is seen that Sample B showed only
a small transient increase in set- ' " '~ " "~ ""7
tlement rate (presumably as salt ie
depleted water near the exterior
was drawn into the water bath),
while Sample A showed a more substantial increase that was preserved
in a permanent and parallel translation of the creep line. The merit of
this approach is to show, first, that the continuing movement is creep
and not consolidation (as it is referred by the authors), and, second,
once the creep line has been established, that there exists a basis for
predicting continuing settlement with some confidence. There is also a
valuable examination of these effects in Mitchell et al, (1973).
Lun, PTW; & Parkin, AK (1985). Consolidation behaviour determined by the velocity
method. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 22, 158-165.
Mitcheu, JK; Greenberg, JA; & Witherspoon, PA (1973). Chemico-osmotic etrects in fine-
grained soils. J Soil Mech & Found Div, ASCE, 99:SM4:307-22, Proc Paper 9678.
Reply by MCR Davies fl, TA Newson.
en conducting the study reported in the paper, the authors
were not aware of the similar, but not identical, experiment
conducted by the writers which appears as one aspect of the
work reported by Lun & Parkin (1985).With regard to the writer's first
point, the authors agree that the term 'creep's more correct techni-
cally to describe the apparent continued consolidation of the samples.
In the second point, the writer indicates that the experimentally
obtained creep line provides a basis for predicting settlements. While
agreeing with this, it is important to note that the processes involved
in creep induced by chemical-osmosis are, as described by Mitchell et
al (1973), highly complex. In order to obtain accurate quantitative pre-
dictions it is very important that the boundary values of the problem
are correctly reproduced. One important parameter in controlling the
rate of creep is the salt concentration gradient; which is why great
care was taken to ensure that this was highly controlled in the exper-
iments described in the paper.