Friday 0845-1000 Keynote by Brian Simpson PDF

Nordic Geotechnical Meeting
Copenhagen, May 2012

BP201.1
BP198.1
Eurocode 7
fundamental issues and some implications for users
Brian Simpson, Arup Geotechnics
1
Eurocode 7
BP198.2 BP201.2
Safety format of EC7

Characteristic and design values of soil parameters
Design in situations dominated by water pressures
The EQU limit state
Numerical analysis for ULS design
2
Eurocode 7
BP198.2 BP201.2

The EQU limit state
3
EN1990 Ultimate limit states BP87.48 BP106.14 BP111.8 BP112.10 BP124-T1.41 BP168.28 BP188.6 BP190a.20
BP198.7
EN1990 3.3 Ultimate limit states
Serious failures involving risk of injury or major cost.

Must be rendered very unlikely. An unrealistic possibility.
4
EN1990 Serviceability limit states
EN1990
BP87.49 BP106.15
3.4 Serviceability limit states

BP111.9 BP112.11 BP124-T1.42 BP168.29
Inconveniences, disappointments and more manageable costs.

Should be rare, but it might be uneconomic to eliminate them
completely.
5
What sort of limit state is this?
BP190a.28
6
6
2.4.7 Ultimate Limit States BP124-T1.92
2.4.7.1 General
(1)P Where relevant, it shall be verified that the following limit states are not exceeded:
loss of equilibrium of the structure or the ground, considered as a rigid body, in which the
strengths of structural materials and the ground are insignificant in providing resistance
(EQU);
internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or structural elements, including
e.g. footings, piles or basement walls, in which the strength of structural materials is
significant in providing resistance (STR);
failure or excessive deformation of the ground, in which the strength of soil or rock is
significant in providing resistance (GEO);
loss of equilibrium of the structure or the ground due to uplift by water pressure (buoyancy)
or other vertical actions (UPL);
hydraulic heave, internal erosion and piping in the ground caused by hydraulic gradients
(HYD).
7
2.4.7 Ultimate limit states EQU, UPL, HYD
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 of
loss
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 failure
internal
a
failure or
or excessive
excessive deformation
a
deformation of
of the
the structure
structure or
or structural
structural elements,
elements, including
including
e.g. footings,
e.g.W
footings, piles
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
significant in providing
F1
F2
resistance (STR);
(STR);
failure or
failure
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 of
loss
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,
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).
8
2.4.7 Ultimate limit states STR, GEO
9
Fundamental limit state requirement
Ed Rd
E{ Fd ; Xd ; ad} = Ed Rd = R{ Fd ; Xd ; ad}
E{F Frep; Xk/M; ad} = Ed Rd = R{F Frep; Xk/M; ad}
Friction!
E = action effects d = design (= factored)

F = actions (loads) k = characteristic (= unfactored)
R = resistance (=capacity) rep = representative
X = material properties
a = dimensions/geometry
10
EN1990 6.3.1 Design values of actions
11
EN1990
6.3.3 Design values of material or product properties
12
EN1990
13
Fundamental limit state requirement
Ed Rd
or E{F Frep; Xk/M; ad} = Ed Rd = Rk/R = RnR (LRFD)
or E Ek = Ed Rd = Rk/R
so in total
E E{F Frep; Xk/M; ad} = Ed Rd = R{F Frep; Xk/M; ad}/R
E = action effects d = design (= factored)

F = actions (loads) k = characteristic (= unfactored)
R = resistance (=capacity) rep = representative
X = material properties
a = dimensions/geometry
14
EC7 2.4.7 Ultimate Limit States
2.4.7.3 Verification of resistance for structural and ground limit states in persistent and
transient situations
2.4.7.3.1 General
(1)P When considering a limit state of rupture or excessive deformation of a structural
element or section of the ground (STR and GEO), it shall be verified that:
Ed Rd (2.5)
2.4.7.3.2 Design effects of actions

(1) Partial factors on actions may be applied either to the actions themselves (Frep) or to their
effects (E):
Ed = E{F Frep; Xk/M; ad} (2.6a)
or
Ed = E E{Frep; Xk/M; ad}. (2.6b)
15
2.4.7.3.3 Design resistances
2.4.7.3.3 Design resistances

(1) Partial factors may be applied either to ground properties (X) or resistances (R) or to
both, as follows:
Rd = R{F Frep; Xk/M; ad} (2.7a)
or Three different
Rd = R{F Frep; Xk; ad}/R (2.7b)
Design Approaches
or
Rd = R{F Frep; Xk/M; ad}/R (2.7c)
16
Partial factors recommended in EN1997-1 Annex A
Values of partial factors recommended in EN1997-1 Annex A
BP111.19 BP124-T2.14 BP124-A2.12 BP168.81 BP188.34
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 ' 1,25 1,25 StructuraGeotech 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
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
CFA Base 1,1 1,45 1,1
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
17
Partial factors recommended in EN1997-1 Annex A
BP111.19 BP124-T2.14 BP124-A2.12 BP168.81 BP188.34

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
Bored Base 1,25 1,6 1,1
CFA Base 1,1 1,45 1,1
18
Source: Andrew Bond, chair of SC7
19
Eurocode 7
BP198.2 BP201.2

EG8 Harmonisation Andrew Bond, UK

The EQU limit state
20
Eurocode 7
BP198.2 BP201.2

The EQU limit state
21
Characteristic values in EC7
2.4.5.2 Characteristic values of geotechnical parameters
(1)P The selection of characteristic values for geotechnical parameters shall be based on derived values resulting from laboratory and field tests,
complemented by well-established experience.
(2)P The characteristic value of a geotechnical parameter shall be selected as a cautious estimate of the value affecting the occurrence of the limit
state.
(3)P The greater variance of c' compared to that of tan' shall be considered when their characteristic values are determined.
(4)P The selection of characteristic values for geotechnical parameters shall take account of the following:
-- geological and other background information, such as data from previous projects;
-- the variability of the measured property values and other relevant information, e.g. from existing knowledge;
-- the extent of the field and laboratory investigation;
-- the type and number of samples;
-- the extent of the zone of ground governing the behaviour of the geotechnical structure at the limit state being considered;
-- the ability of the geotechnical structure to transfer loads from weak to strong zones in the ground.
(5) Characteristic values can be lower values, which are less than the most probable values, or upper values, which are greater.
(6)P For each calculation, the most unfavourable combination of lower and upper values of independent parameters shall be used.
(7) The zone of ground governing the behaviour of a geotechnical structure at a limit state is usually much larger than a test sample or the zone of
ground affected in an in situ test. Consequently the value of the governing parameter is often the mean of a range of values covering a large
surface or volume of the ground. The characteristic value should be a cautious estimate of this mean value.
(8) If the behaviour of the geotechnical structure at the limit state considered is governed by the lowest or highest value of the ground property, the
characteristic value should be a cautious estimate of the lowest or highest value occurring in the zone governing the behaviour.
(9) When selecting the zone of ground governing the behaviour of a geotechnical structure at a limit state, it should be considered that this limit
state may depend on the behaviour of the supported structure. For instance, when considering a bearing resistance ultimate limit state for a
building resting on several footings, the governing parameter should be the mean strength over each individual zone of ground under a footing,
if the building is unable to resist a local failure. If, however, the building is stiff and strong enough, the governing parameter should be the mean
of these mean values over the entire zone or part of the zone of ground under the building.
(10) If statistical methods are employed in the selection of characteristic values for ground properties, such methods should differentiate between
local and regional sampling and should allow the use of a priori knowledge of comparable ground properties.
(11) If statistical methods are used, the characteristic value should be derived such that the calculated probability of a worse value governing the
occurrence of the limit state under consideration is not greater than 5%.
NOTE In this respect, a cautious estimate of the mean value is a selection of the mean value of the limited set of geotechnical parameter
values, with a confidence level of 95%; where local failure is concerned, a cautious estimate of the low value is a 5% fractile.
(12)P When using standard tables of characteristic values related to soil investigation parameters, the characteristic value shall be selected as a
very cautious value.
22
Characteristic values in EC7 definition (2.4.5.2)
23
2.4.3(4) also mentions:
24
EN1990
25
Characteristic values in EC7 zone of ground
Cautious worse than most probable.
Small building on estuarine beds near slope
26
CPT results in
variable deposit
27
2.4.5.2 Characteristic values of geotechnical parameters
Thoughtful interpretation not simple averaging
28
Characteristic values in EC7 definition (2.4.5.2)
29
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 designers 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.
30
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.)
31
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
32
A USA proposal 25% fractile
0.5
0.45
5% fractile of
mean values
0.4
75% exceedence
for tests
0.35
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
33
peak,criticalstateorresidual?
Residual
Angle of shearing resistance
c ?
Thevaluethatwillprevent theexceedance ofthelimitstate.

Cautionaboutprogressivelossofdensityorstrength.
Socautionabout>38. Residual
Suggestion:TheULSdesignvalueoftheshearstrengthshouldneverbegreater
thanacautious(iecharacteristic)estimateofthecriticalstatestrengthofthe
material.
Interfacesbetweenstructureandground(wallfriction,slidingetc) usecritical
statevalueascharacteristicvalue,andapplynormalfactors.
UsefulguidanceinBS8002(withdrawn)
Residual
Thevaluethatwillprevent theexceedance ofthelimitstate.

Cautionaboutprogressivelossofdensityorstrength.
Socautionabout>38.
Suggestion:TheULSdesignvalueoftheshearstrengthshouldneverbegreater
thanacautious(iecharacteristic)estimateofthecriticalstatestrengthofthe
material.
Interfacesbetweenstructureandground(wallfriction,slidingetc) usecritical
statevalueascharacteristicvalue,andapplynormalfactors.
Critical
state
The best GI is as many different tests as possible.
Paul Mayne
So we have to be able to consider results from different

tests together.
Some more definite than others.
May conflict.
40
Datafrommorethanonesource
Bored
pile
Conflictingdata
Thecodedrafterscouldnothaveknownaboutthisuncertainty
Eurocode 7
BP198.2 BP201.2

EG11 - Lovisa Moritz, Sweden

The EQU limit state
43
Eurocode 7
BP198.2 BP201.2

The EQU limit state
44
Dubai Dry Dock BP184.14
Dubai Dry Dock BP184.16
Factors of safety ?!?

Construction basin in Western Australia
Water has a way of seeping between any two theories!
Piping failure
60
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
internal failure
failure or
or excessive
deformation of
of the
the structure
structure or
or structural
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
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).
61
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
internal failure
a
failure or
or excessive
a
deformation of
of the
the structure
structure or
or structural
elements, including
including
e.g. footings,
e.g.W
footings, piles
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
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).
62
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
internal failure
failure or
or excessive
deformation of
of the
the structure
structure or
or structural
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
resistance (STR);
(STR); F = 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); F = 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); F,dst = 1.0/1.1, F,stb = 0.9
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). F,dst = 1.35, F,stb = 0.9
63
64
(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.
65
Geotechnical safety in relation to water pressures
B. Simpson
Arup Geotechnics, London, UK
N. Vogt
Technische Universitt Mnchen,
Zentrum Geotechnik, Munich, Germany
A. J. van Seters
Fugro GeoServices, The Netherlands
66
67
B. Simpson
N. Vogt
A. J. van Seters
Introduction
Case histories of failures caused by water pressure
Existing geotechnical codes and guidance documents
Requirements of EC7
Some fundamental considerations
Examples
Recommendations
68
69
70
Need robustness
Accommodate the worst water pressures
Apply the single source principle
Dont factor water density (?)
Use of an offset in water level (?)
Reduced factor on favourable weight (?)
The star approach (?)
A middle 2/3rds rule (?)
Use engineering expertise
71
72
1m rise in water level multiplies BM
by about 2.5 outside the range
allowed by factors on the water
pressure or water force.
73
Ustb
G;stb & G,dst

2. Buoyant weight
3. Factor water
density
4. Water unfactored
Udst
74
G;stb & G,dst
2. Buoyant weight
3. Factor water
density
4. Water unfactored
F variable F permanent
75
Should generally be avoided
Use unfactored water pressures and forces?
Dont factor density but factor pressures (AvS)?
Dont factor pressures but factor forces (NV)?
At some point, equilibrium is not preserved. But
the question is where?
The problems are less for DA1, but not removed. 76
h
77
22 0.4
0.4
(e)
(a)
(a)
(c) (d)
k/Ww
nRk/Ww
(b)
(b) (f)
n.Rk/Ww
n.Rk/WwnR
(c)
(c)
(b)
11 (d)
(d) 0.2
0.2
(e)
(e) (a)
(f)
(f)
00 0
0
00 0.2
0.2 0.4
0.4 0.6
0.6 0.8
0.8 11 0.1
0.1 0.2
0.2 0.3
0.3 0.4
0.4
h/D
h/D h/D
h/D
Number of piles required (normalised). (a) unfactored,
(b) pile resistance factored, (c) G = 1.35 on water pressure,
(d) water table adjusted, (e) UPL,
78
The possibility of a reduced factor on favourable weight, perhaps
between 0.8 and 0.9 should be considered.
79
22 0.4
0.4
(e)
(a)
(a)
(c) (d)
k/Ww
nRk/Ww
(b)
(b) (f)
n.Rk/Ww
n.Rk/WwnR
(c)
(c)
(b)
11 (d)
(d) 0.2
0.2
(e)
(e) (a)
(f)
(f)
00 0
0
00 0.2
0.2 0.4
0.4 0.6
0.6 0.8
0.8 11 0.1
0.1 0.2
0.2 0.3
0.3 0.4
0.4
h/D
h/D h/D
h/D
Number of piles required (normalised). (a) unfactored,
(b) pile resistance factored, (c) G = 1.35 on water pressure,
(d) water table adjusted, (e) UPL, (f) G;fav = 0.8 on weight.
80
EC7 2.4.7.3.2(2)
In some design situations, the application of partial factors to actions coming
from or through the soil (such as earth or water pressures) could lead to design
values which are unreasonable or even physically impossible. In these
situations, the factors may be applied directly to the effects of actions derived
from representative values of the actions.
Apply only to structural

bending moments etc, or
more generally?
81
Depending on other factors, it might be necessary
to enhance the loads derived from water pressure
(or load effects such as an uplifting force), even
when they are very certain.
Problem in cases where it is directly equivalent to
factoring water pressures
82
A middle 2/3rds rule could be considered.
Effective resultant force must lie within the middle 2/3rds of the base.
83
84
Need robustness
Accommodate the worst water pressures
Apply the single source principle
Dont factor water density (?)
Use of an offset in water level (?)
Reduced factor on favourable weight (?)
The star approach (?)
A middle 2/3rds rule (?)
Use engineering expertise
85
Design approach 1
Combination 1---------------- Combination 2 ----------------Combination 2 - piles & anchors
Combination 1
Design approach 2
DA2 - Comb 1
Design approach 3
DA2 - Slopes DA3
Apply factors, either to

water pressures (ugh!)

fav
Variable unfav 1,5 1,3 1,3 1,5 1,5 1,5 1,3
Effective cohesion
Undrained strength
1,25
1,4
1,25
1,4 or to structural action actions actions 1,25
1,4
effects such as
Weight density
bending moments and

Spread Bearing 1,4
Driven Base 1,3 1,1
piles Shaft (compression)
Total/combined
1,3
1,3 prop forces (DA1-1*)
1,1
1,1
Bored Base 1,25 1,6 1,1
Combination 2
CFA Base 1,1 1,45 1,1
piles Shaft (compression)
Total/combined
1,0
1,1
1,3
1,4
Use the worst credible
1,1
1,1
Shaft in tension
Anchors Temporary
1,25
1,1
1,6
1,1 water pressures,
1,15
1,1
1,1
unfactored.
86
B. Simpson
N. Vogt
A. J. van Seters
87
G S
z
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 (stb;d) at the bottom of the column, or the submerged weight (Gstb;d) of the
same column:
udst;d stb;d (2.9a) total stress (at the bottom of the column)
Sdst;d Gstb;d (2.9b) effective weight (within the column) 88
G S
z
u
Annex A of EC7 provides values for partial factors to be used for HYD, G;dst = 1.35
and G;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 udst;k of
G;dstseepage G;stb
waterstb;k
in the (2.9a)
ground (HYD, see 10.3), it shall be verified, for every
and
relevant soil column, that the design value of the destabilising total pore water
pressure dst;d
G;dst Sdst;k (u G;stb) at
Gstb;k (2.9b)
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
In
stress stb;d) atthe
this (format, thefactors
bottomareofapplied to different
the column, or thequantities
submergedinweight
2.9 a and
(Gb.
stb;d) of the
same column:
Sdst;d Gstb;d (2.9b) effective weight (within the column) 89
7m
H=?
1m
3m
Uniform permeability
90
Sdst;d Gstb;d (2.9b) effective weight (within the column)
Apply G;dst = 1.35 to: Apply G;stb = 0.9 to: H
Pore water pressure udst;k Total stress stb;k 2.78
Seepage force Sdst;k Buoyant weight Gstb;k 6.84
Excess pore pressure udst;k - wz Buoyant density 6.84
G;dst u(u
Excess head -G;stb
dst;k
dst;k wz)/ w
stb;k (2.9a) Buoyant
Orr, density
T.L.L. 2005. 6.84
Model Solutions for Eurocode 7
Excess pore pressure or excess head Total Workshop
density Examples. 6.1
G;dst Sdst;k G;stb Gstb;k (2.9b)
Trinity College, Dublin.
91
Sdst;d Gstb;d (2.9b) effective weight (within the column)
Apply G;dst = 1.35 to: Apply G;stb = 0.9 to: H
Pore water pressure udst;k Total stress stb;k 2.78
Seepage force Sdst;k Buoyant weight Gstb;k 6.84
Excess pore pressure udst;k - wz Buoyant density 6.84
Excess head (udst;k - wz) /w Buoyant density 6.84
Excess pore pressure or excess head Total density 6.1
92
Eurocode 7
BP198.2 BP201.2

EG9 Norbert Vogt, Germany
The EQU limit state

93
Eurocode 7
BP198.2 BP201.2

The EQU limit state
94
Paper on the EQU problem
95
EN1990 Single source and EQU
a a
W W
F1 F2
Note 3 : The characteristic values of all permanent actions from one source are
multiplied by G,sup if the total resulting action effect is unfavourable and G,inf if the total
resulting action effect is favourable. For example, all actions originating from the self
weight of the structure may be considered as coming from one source ; this also applies
if different materials are involved.
96
a a
W W
F1 F2
97
a a
What if EQU not balanced?
How to involve material strength? W W
Three views: For a=5b F1 F2
M/Wa F/W
1. Material demand only calculated
when design Ws balanced. 0 1.35
b
2. Nonsense!
0.35 2.925, -0.575 (tension)
Must apply G = 1.35, 1.0
3. Treat EQU as another load case.

Check M, F1, F2 for G = 0.9, 1.1 0.2 2 0
OR G = 1.15, 1.35 0.2 2.25 0.25
Ga,k Gb,k
Pk.stb
a/2 b
98
Overturning on infinitely strong rock.
Dry sand
W
(loose)
F
Infinitely strong
rock
For finite strength, check Wx1.0; Fx1.35 (or material factor on tan of sand).
Check ground and structure.
? For infinite strength, check overturning for Wx0.9; Fx1.1 ?
Less severe design loading because rock infinitely strong?
Less severe loading for overturning than for sliding?
Even the structure is not infinitely strong. So not a real problem?
But no problem if EQU treated as another load case.
99
Soil strength also involved
Q
(1.5)
2
h
1 Homogeneous W
dry sand (0.9 < 1.0)
Inclination of slip Inclination of slip
surface < d surface > d
d=0
Nobody wants EQU to rule.

Could make a special rule to prevent EQU check.
? Better to require the check in principle and arrange factors
so that it will never be critical.
100
EN1997 UKNA Partial material factors reduced for EQU
101
Eurocode 7
BP198.2 BP201.2

The EQU limit state
TC250 group including chair of SC7
102
Eurocode 7
BP198.2 BP201.2

The EQU limit state
103
Eurocode 7
BP198.2 BP201.2

The EQU limit state
What to factor and when to factor?
104
Partial factors recommended in EN1997-1 Annex A (+UKNA)
BP124-T2.14 BP124-A2.12 BP168.81 BP188.34
BP111.19
Values of partial factors recommended in EN1997-1 Annex A (+ UKNA)

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
Bored Base 1,25 1,6 1,1
CFA Base 1,1 1,45 1,1
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
105
Fundamental limit state requirement BP193.8
Ed Rd
or E{F Frep; Xk/M; ad} = Ed Rd = Rk/R = RnR (LRFD)
or E Ek = Ed Rd = Rk/R
so in total
Reduce strength, increase the loads, and check equilibrium

OR
Find the remaining FOS?
OR
c- reduction
106
Pre-factored strength, or c- reduction?
Max wall displacement 48mm Large displacement
Max wall displacement 48mm
xbcap5-Dec11ab.sfd
= 1.25 = 1.45
0
= 1.25
= 1.45
MR;d
10m
BENDING
MOMENT
500 1000 1500 kNm/m
107
Wrong failure mechanism?
Max wall displacement 48mm Large displacement
Max wall displacement 48mm
xbcap5-Dec11ab.sfd
= 1.25 = 1.45
There is no right failure mechanism

Because failure isnt 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.
108
Factoring advanced models
, c, cu not explicit parameters
eg Cam Clay, BRICK etc

Change to Mohr-Coulomb for the factored calculation?
If c= this is the factor on drained strength, however
derived.
Consider: is the models 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.
109
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, tan).
110
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, tan).
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.
111
Time-dependent analysis
Beyond EC7!
112
ULS for staged construction single propped excavation
Compute using Compute using
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
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
113
Staged construction FE with partial facotrs
Factor material
Better continuity
strengths
Initial state
and consistency?
Initial state?
Suits some Suits some
software. software. Could be critical for wall
bending moment
wall one
Only cantilevering wall cantilevering
Combines an
definition of soil SLS analysis Could factor soil
properties. Can be used with strengths or take
Install prop at 4m Installadvanced
more prop at another approach
But: conservatism
depth 4m depth
at one stage soil models
might be Could be critical for wall
unconservative at length, bending moment
Excavate to 10m
another. Excavate to 10m
and prop force

BMs BMs BMs
114
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.
Florence Rail Station

25m deep, 50m wide,
550m long
Mezzanine level prop
High groundwater level
115
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.
116
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.
117
Eurocode 7 readily used with FE for this large project.

Geotechnical and structural design readily coordinated.
118
Partial factors for DA1 UK National Annex
BP143.22 BP168.82 BP188.36
BP111.20 BP124-T2.13 BP124-A2.11
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 ' 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 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
Shaft in tension 2.0/1.7 1.6
Bored Base 2.0/1.7 1,6
piles Shaft (compression) 1.6/1.4 1,3
Total/combined 2.0/1.7 1.5
Shaft in tension 2.0/1.7 1.6
CFA Base As 1.45
piles Shaft (compression) for 1.3
Total/combined bored 1.4
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]
119
ULS for staged construction single propped excavation
Factor material
strengths
Initial state
Initial state?

bending moment
wall cantilevering wall cantilevering
Install prop at 4m Install prop at

depth 4m depth

length, bending moment
and prop force

BMs BMs BMs
120
Florence Station comparison of bending moments
45 Prop and excavation levels
Stage 1 2 3
40
35
30
Level (m) 25
20
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 C2, factors all stages
C2, factors all stages C2, factors all stages
C2,factoring stages separately C2, factoring stages separately
121
Eurocode 7
BP198.2 BP201.2

The EQU limit state
EG4 Andrew Lees - Cyprus
122
Concluding remarks
Code-drafters challenge: To standardise and regulate

where it is sensible to do so, while encouraging
maximum exploitation of engineering expertise.
Characteristic values and water pressures: full use of

human knowledge, sometimes guided but never
governed by statistics.
Partial factors: societys safety margin (and ours!).
FEM the tool of the future code must not restrict.
EC7 still evolving!
123
Nordic Geotechnical Meeting
Copenhagen, May 2012
BP201.1
BP198.1
Eurocode 7
Brian Simpson, Arup Geotechnics
Thanks for your attention
124

Friday 0845-1000 Keynote by Brian Simpson PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Friday 0845-1000 Keynote by Brian Simpson PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Nordic Geotechnical Meeting

Copenhagen, May 2012

Brian Simpson, Arup Geotechnics

Safety format of EC7

Safety format of EC7

Serious failures involving risk of injury or major cost.

3.4 Serviceability limit states

Inconveniences, disappointments and more manageable costs.

E = action effects d = design (= factored)

E = action effects d = design (= factored)

2.4.7.3.2 Design effects of actions

2.4.7.3.3 Design resistances

E E{F Frep; Xk/M; ad} = Ed Rd = R{F Frep; Xk/M; ad}/R

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

Values of partial factors recommended in EN1997-1 Annex A

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

Safety format of EC7

Characteristic and design values of soil parameters

Safety format of EC7

Cautious worse than most probable.

Small building on estuarine beds near slope

Thoughtful interpretation not simple averaging

A cautious estimate of the value affecting the occurrence of the

Take account of time effects, brittleness, soil fabric and

The designers expertise and understanding of the ground are

Consider both project-specific information and a wider body of

Characteristic = moderately conservative = representative

More remote when

TEST RESULTS (SD from mean)

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

Thevaluethatwillprevent theexceedance ofthelimitstate.

Thevaluethatwillprevent theexceedance ofthelimitstate.

So we have to be able to consider results from different

Safety format of EC7

Design in situations dominated by water pressures

Safety format of EC7

Factors of safety ?!?

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

G;stb & G,dst

Apply only to structural

Apply factors, either to

water pressures (ugh!)

bending moments and

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

Safety format of EC7

The EQU limit state

Safety format of EC7

Three views: For a=5b F1 F2

3. Treat EQU as another load case.

Nobody wants EQU to rule.

Safety format of EC7

Numerical analysis for ULS design

Safety format of EC7

Safety format of EC7

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

Design approach 1 Design approach 2 Design approach 3

Reduce strength, increase the loads, and check equilibrium

500 1000 1500 kNm/m

There is no right failure mechanism

EC7 is interested in proving success, not failure.