‘TVLI IN HOUSE COURSE ON EUROCODE 7 -CONTENTS S/N Topic Page ws Introduction ie 10 2 Basis of Geotechnical Design ee 39 Geotechnical investigation, Supervision of Construction and 3 Monitoring 4o_| 52 4 Spread Foundations sé 64 7 Pile Foundations 65 82 6 Review of EC 7 83 92a 7 Review of EC 7 (Actions) Sa | 98 8 EC 7 -2 Ground Investigations 99 100 = Design of Retaining Structures 101 108 10 Earth Pressures 109 112 11 Gravity type Retaining Walls 113 132 12 Embedded Retaining Walls 133 145 13 Anchorages 146 149 14 Use of FEM 150 157 as Hydraulic Failure 159 164 16 Uplift Failure 165. 173 Fi Hydraulic Heave Failure 174 | 181 18, Piping Failure 182 182 19 Overall Stability 183 | 188 20 Basal Heave Failure 189 192 rik Summary 193 193EC Leong TY Unin House (Course 21 uly 2022 Contents 1. Introduction (0.5 hr) 2. Basis of Geotechnical Design (0.75 hr) 3. Geotechnical investigations, supervision of construction and monitoring (0.75 hr) 4. Spread foundations (0.75 hr) 5. Pile foundations (0.75 hr) ig Structures and Anchorages (2.25 hr) 7. Overall Stability, slopes and embankments (1.25 hr) EC Loong 1 in House > Paget (Course 23 Jay 20121. Introduction References ‘A.and Harris A. (2008). Decoding Eurocode 7. Taylor & Francis (2008). EC7 — Implications for UK Practise. Eurocode R,, Kawadas, M., Krebs Ovesen, N., Orr, T. and ‘Schuppener, 8, (2004). Designers’ guide to EN 1997-1 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design ~ Genetal rules. Thomas Telford. Nicholson, D, Tse, Cand Penny, C. (1999). The Observational Method in ground inciples and applications, Report 185, CIRIA, London. Sieert , j-G.and Ch. Bay-Gress , Ch, (2000). Comparison of European bearing capacity ‘calculation methods for shallow foundations . Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs Geotech. Engng, 143:65-74, Simpson, B. (2007) Approaches to ULS design. Proceedings of First International Symposium on Geotechnical Safety & Risk, Oct 18-19, Shanghai, China, Simpson, 8, (2011). Concise Eurocodes: Geotechnical design BS EN 1997-1: Eurocode 7, Part 1, BSI. le Design and Construction Practice. Edition. Taylor & Francis. (Cour 212012 Page 2Useful websites Eurocode text Eurocode examples: CLG letter validating Eurocodes Designer's simple guide ISSMGE C205 on Safety and in Geotechnical Design www. OF fae ICE Eurocodes Expert wwweurscodes.co.uk Geocentrix blog ~T weww.eurocode?.com Eurocode 7 ~ Today and Tomorrow Decoding Eurocode 7 cteong-TY Ua House : ‘course 22 Jy 2012 . Introduction (0.5 hr) «Overview of Eurocodes *Scope of Eurocode 7 and design approaches «Assumptions and Definitions « Paee31. Introduction © Eurocodes are a pan-European set of design codes for building and civil engineering works. They presently serve as alternatives to the existing national design codes in Europe and will eventually replace them. They provide a common understanding regarding design between owners, users, designers and contractors in civil and structural engineering throughout Europe. 1. Introduction 2 PARTS eee i1. Introduction SS EN 1997: 2010 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design Part 1: General Rules = 12 sections = Annexes A to J ® National Annex to Part 1 Part 2: Ground Investigation and Testing = 6 Sections = Annexes A to X = National Annex to Part 2 EN 1997 Part 1: General Rules ings and ides general basis for the geotechnical aspects of design of bu civil engineering works. Assumptions: 1. Assumptions in EN 1990 (Clause 1.3) 2. Assumptions in EN 1997 ~ Part 1 * Data required for design collected, recorded and interpreted by qualified personnel Structures designed by qualified and experienced personnel * Adequate continuity and communication between personn data collection, design and construction = Adequate supervision and quality control = Execution conducted according to relevant standards and specs by qualified personnel * Construction materials and products used as specified in standard or relevant material or product specs = Structure will be used for purpose designed for 3. Assumptions to be considered by designer and client and should be documented Leong 1 Page S Course 21. Introduction Outline of SS EN 1997: Geotechnical Design ~ Part 1: General rules 1 General 2 Basis of geotechnical design 3 Geotechnical data 4 Supervision of construction, monitoring and maintenance 5 Fill, dewatering, ground improvement and reinforcement 6 Spread foundations 7 Pile foundations 8 Anchorages 9 Retaining structures 10 Hydraulic failure 11 Overall stability 12. Embankments Annexes A to J 2 ourea 24 2012 1. Introduction Euronorms — Execution of special geotechnical works (TC288) £N1536:1999 Bored piles £N 1537:1999 Ground anchors EN 1537:1999 Ground anchors Corrigendum EN 1538:2000 Diaphragm walls EN 12063: 1999 Sheet-pile walls EN 12699: 2000 _ Displacement piles EN 12715:2000 Grouting EN 12716:2001 Jet grouting EN 14199: 2005 —Micropiles EN 14475: 2006 _—Reinforced fil EN14475: 2006 _Reinforced fill - Corrigendum EN 14679: 2005 Deep mixing EN14679: 2006 Deep mixing - Corrigendum EN14731: 2005 Ground treatment by deep vibration £N15237:2007 Vertical drainage 2 ‘Course 32012 Page 6EN 1997 Part 2: Ground investigation and testing Provides rules related to: + planning and reporting of ground investigations + general requirements for commonly used lab and field tests * interpretation and evaluation of test results + derivation of geotechnical parameters and coeffi tion for geotechnical category 2 projects arily to design of pile and spread = Primarily applic * Derivation of parameters dedicated pr foundations based on field testing ECLeong -1Y Un inoue 3 (course 21 sty 2012 1. Introduction Outline of SS EN 1997: Geotechnical Design — Part 2: Ground investigation and testing General Planning of ground investigations Soil and rock sampling and groundwater measurements Field tests in soils and rocks Laboratory tests on soils and rocks Ground investigation report AUAWNHE Annexes A —B Planning Annexes C ~ K Field testing Annexes L — W Laboratory testing cLeong TY nn Howse wu Paee71. Introduction Normative references (TC341) fe si ee eae EN ISO 14689-1 Geotechnical investigation and testing ~ Identification and classification of rock ~ Part 1: Identification and description classification of iat EN1SO 2475-1 Geotechnical investigation and testing - Sampling by drilling and excavation and groundwater measurements — Part 1: Technical principles of execution EN 150 22476 Geotechnical investigation and testing — Field testing Part 1: Electrical cone and piezocone penetration tests Part 2: Dynamic probit Part 3: Standard penetration test Part 4: Menard pressuremeter test Part 5: Flexible dilatometer test Part 6: Self boring pressuremeter test Part 7: Borehole jack test Part 8: Full displacement pressuremeter test Part 9: Field vane test Part 12: Mechanical CPT (Course 2112012 1. Introduction Eurocode Design Method © All the Eurocodes are all based on a common design method The common design method is presented in EN 1990 © Acommon loading code for all the Eurocodes is presented in EN 1991- Actions ¢ The Eurocodes share a common terminology and symbols —Partial factors — Characteristic actions and material parameters or resistances comments erage1. Introduction EN 1997 to be used in conjunction with EN 1990 and EN 1991 EN 1990 - Basis of Eurocode Design establishes principles and requirements for safety and serviceability, describes basis of, design and verification and gives guidelines for related aspects of structural EN 1991 — Actions on structures provides numerical values of actions on building and civil engineering works Part 1-1: General actions - Densities, self-weight,imposed loads for bu Part 1-2 : General actions - Actions on structures exposed to fire Part 1-4 : General actions ~ Wind actions Part 1-5 : General actions ~ Thermal actions Part 1-6 : General actions — Actions during execution Part 1-7 : General actions ~ Accidental actions Part 2: Traffic load on bridges ns induced by cranes and machinery jos and tanks Econ. (ouree 24 ” 1. Introduction EN 1990 Structural Safety, Serviceability & Durability EN 1991 Actions on Structures | Design and Detailing (Material/ Resistance) Geotechnical & Sesimic Design EC teong TY Uniretouse o | Pagee (course 21 ul 20121. Introduction (ours 212012 a 1. Introduction Principles and Application Rules Principles comprise of: + General statements and definitions for which there are no alternative + Requirements and analytical models for which no alternative is permitted unless specifics + Statement is preceded with “P” + Verb used is Application Rules comprise of: + Generally recognised rules which follow the Principles and satisfy their requirements + Permissible to use alternatives provided that the alternative rules ere in accordance to relevant Principles and are at least equivalent w.rt. structural safety, serviceability and durabil + Verb used include “should”, “may”, “can”. (Course 2 aly 2012 2 Page 102. Basis of Geotechnical Design (0.75 hr) * Design requirements and design situations * Design by calculation * Design by prescriptive measures * Observational method * Geotechnical Design Report 2. Basis of Geotechnical Design 2.1 Design Requirements (1) P For each geotechnical design situation it shall be verified that no relevant state defined in EN 1990, is exceeded {8) P In order to establish minimum requirements for the extent and content of geotechnical investigations, calculations and content of geotechnical investigations, caculations and construction control checks, the complexity of each geotechnical design shall be identified together with the associated risks. In particular, a ion shall be made between: * Light and simple structures and small earthworks for which it is possible to ensure that the minimum requirements will be satisfied by experience and qualitative geotec! investigations, with negl isk; + Other geotechnical structures £Clnong=-TY Un Inoue mm Page a2 (outs 2 uly 20122. Basis of Geotechnical Design 2.1 Design Requirements (1) P For each geotechnical design situation it shall be verified that no relevant limit state defined in EN 1990, is exceeded situations and states; site conditions, nature ant design life, surroundings, ground conditions, groundwater con« influence of environment (clause 2.1(2)) of structure and i, seismicity, Limit states can occur in ground, structure or both (clause 2.1(3)) Limit states verified by calculations, prescriptive measures, models and load tests, ‘observational method (clause 2.1(4)) Often in practice, one type of limit state governs design and avoidance of other it states can be verified with control check (clause 2. If possible, design results should be checked against comparable experience (clause 2.1(7)) ecteon Course 24 iy 20 2. Basis of Geotechnical Design Design Requirements (8) Pin order to establish minimum requirements for the extent and content of geotechnical investigations, calculations and content of geotechnical For “simple” structures and earthworks, simplified design procedures may be lause 2.1(9)) Three Geotechnical Categori requirements (clause 2.1(10) {C 1, GC 2, GC 3 to establish geotechnical design inary classification of structures performed before geotechnical investigations (clause 2.1(11)) Designer can choose to use a higher GC (clause 2.1(12)) Ina project, there can be various design aspects with different GC (clause 2.1(13)) Ec Leong-TY tn inoue Grune bly 2012 2 Page 122. Basis of Geotechnical Design GC1 ‘Small and relatively simple structures Negligible risk No excavation below groundwater table or comparable experience show excavation below groundwater table will be straightforward ~ Small excavations for drainage works, pipe-laying, etc. EC Leong-TY Un House 2. Basis of Geotechnical Design GC2 Conventional types of structure and foundation (includes spread foundations, raft foundations, pile foundations, walls and retaining, structures, bridge piers and abutments, embankments and earthworks, ground anchors and tie-back systems, tunnels in hard, nov-fractured rock and not subjected to special requirements) ‘No exceptional risk or difficult ground or loading conditions Involves quantitative geotechnical data and analysis (clause 2.1(18)) Routine lab and field tests and design and execution (clause 2.1(19)) Cteong TY Un House Page 13 (Coveen 24 ly 2022 262. Basis of Geotechnical Design GCc3 difficult gr ind loading condi ity or persistent ground movements) native provisions and rules to those in EC 7 (clause 2.1(21)) Normally includes a 2. Basis of Geotechnical Design categorisation (from Simpson and Driscoll 1998) Flow chart for geote 28 page 142. Basis of Geotechnical Design 2.2 Design Situations 2.2.1 P Both short-term and long-term design situations shall be considered. 2.3 Durability 2.3.1 P At the geotechnical design stage, the significance of environmental conditions shall be assessed in relation to durability and to enable provisions to be made for the protection or adequate resistance of the materials. e.g. acids or sulfate attack on concrete, corrosion of steel, fungi and bacteria attach on timber, degradation of synthetic fabrics 2. Basis of Geotechnical Design 1 1998) Design process of EN 1997-1 (modified from Simpson and Estabh prtiniary Gootcrical Catagory tt sien 2420), ST Protnary grand ieagnons (222 end ‘Ground tneatgaton report (3) and check hock of Geese! Calogoy, Slecaecnnied Cagery ‘Ded by ein (2, preseive ‘maatures (29, ado moda te (25) crobevaiona mats (27) Sicetifomaton? 7 ies ote ean ropont (2 )and ‘eaconenment of aoletrsa atogary Superson a ie nation of ew work) nd reararsmet of Geoechies Calagony wo Page 152. Basis of Geotechnical Design 2.4 Geotechnical design by calculation Design by calculation involves actions (imposed loads or displacements), properties of metrical data, limiting values of deformations, crack “The calculation model may consist of either analytical, semi-empirical or numerical model (Clause 2.4.1 (5)) {6) P Any calculation model shall be either accurate or err on the side ofsafety. (10) P if an empiri it shall be clearly established that it is relevant for the prevailing ground condi imit state, analysis of re that exceeding the specific limit state consid ign by prescriptive measures, experimental models ar ynal method, shall be 2. Basis of Geotechnical Design ie Settlement of shallow foundations ‘on cohesionless soil. acer ere) Compton nen compe mt aa te gl ot Fee ren ha pan eis Ga pct tn Seat ata tas too Bele alos OE Dae, Seem ie ec 32 Page 162. Basis of Geotechnical Design Eg VALUES FROM GPT RESULTS [Adapled fron Schmertmann, ot a. 389), and other sources.) (1978), Robertson and Campanella Normally consolidated silty or clayey sands SMor SC Overconsolidated silty or clayey sands SMor SC 3 Singapore Marine Clay: Ey = 200 c, EC aong-1 Uninsouse : (Corse 21 uy 2012 Modes of Bearing Capacity Failures General Shear Local Shear Punching Shear au Page 17Local Shear Terzaghi (1943): C',g = 0.67¢' 64g = tan” (0.67 tang’) Vesic (1975): $',j=tan{(0.67+D, —0.75D? )tan)] where 0 < D, < 0.67 2. Basis of Geotechnical Design 2.4. 2 Actions in Eurocodes, “actions” is a term used for loads. Actions can be forces, pressures, stresses, displacements or strains. Actions include: . nrinkage caused by + weight of soil, rock, water vegetation, climate or moisture changes + stresses in the ground + movements due to degradtaion, + earth pressure dispersion, decomposition, self- + free water pressures, including wave compaction and solution pressures + movements and accelerations caused by + groundwater pressures ‘earthquakes, explosions, vibrations and + seepage forces dynamic loads + dead and imposed loads from structures + temperature effects, including frost + surcharges actions + mooring forces + ice loading + removal of load or excavation of ground «+ imposed pre-stress in ground anchors or + traffic loads strats + movements caused by mining or other + downdrag caving or tunnelling activi Ec Leong- TY tn Inoue . Couse 24 ay 2022 Page 182. Basis of Geotechnical Design 2.4.3 Ground properties (1) P Properties of soil and rock masses, as quantified for design calculations by geotechnical parameters, shall be obtained from test results, either directly or through correlation, theory or empiricism, and from other relevant data. Factors that can result in possible differences between the ground properties and geotechnical parameters obtained from test results and those governing the behaviour of the geotechnical structure ~ Many geotechnical parameters are not true constants but depend on stress level and mode of deformation ~ Soil and rock structure (e.g. fissures, laminations or large particles) that may play a rent role in the test and in the geotechnical structure - time effects; ~ softening effect of percolating water on soil or rock strength ~ softening effect of dynamic actions ~ brittleness or ductility of the soil and rock tested + method of installation of the geotechnical structure ~ influence of workmanship on artificially placed or improved ground ~ effect of construction activities on the properties of the ground cong Course 201 ” 2. Basis of Geotechnical Design 2.4.5.2 Characteristic values of geotechnical parameters (2) P The selection of characteristic values for geotechnical parameters shall be based on results and derived values from laboratory and field tests, complemented by well-established experience. (2) P The characteristic value of a geotechnical parameter shail 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 6’ shall be considered when their characteristic values are determined, (4) P The selection of characteristic values for. ‘geotechnical parameters shall take into account of the following: * Available geological and background information Extent of field and lab investigation Type and number of samples i Extent of zone of ground involved f Ability of geotechnical structure to transfer load from weak to strong zones of the ground EcLsong-1Y Ln inoue Page 19 ‘Curse 7h 2032 .2. Basis of Geotechnical Design al parameters 2.45.2 Characteristic values of geotechnic: combination of lower and (6) P For each caleulation, the most upper values of independent parameters shall be used. (a2}P When using standard tables of characte valued related to soil investigation parameters, the characteristic valve shall be selected as @ very cautious value. 2. Basis of Geotechnical Design geotechnical parameters 2.4.5.2 Characteristic values of very cautious value 0 Page 202. Basis of Geotechnical Design Cteong-TY inn owes (outs 2 uly 2012 a 2. Basis of Geotechnical Design 5% fractile of Mean value ~% 5% fractile of Test results Normal, Bell-shaped Cul Number of tests casenindpatons oieecove ‘Sanded Doone 40 contain Parcnopet Parentet Nomad Cave Eaves cLeong-1Y nn House (trom don 2005) ao Page2t ‘course 21 hl 20322. Basis of Geotechnical Design fe tanrits, oan va ta os of vena ‘Ser Sanam verte nth he sb cower alu tani tar Fraga soars nghot es ore cos cerca va nad ‘SE Grama oan eben ab—eb abe---d oe (Grom Fanta. 2008) jarameters selected using jpresentative values in rere _ salle Tata temporary works) 10 Geopecry works) e ‘atoive {2a tgermaneat works) 12 (permanent works) sees re Bguvalntentay level Sh acted (03% Fete “page 22 (trom Bord 2008)2. Basis of Geotechnical Design fp = Factor of salty on most 1 Fimo abl params vo 1 Fmo = Factor of safety on moderaiely ‘conservative parameter value 1 Fim = Factor of satety on most i Unfavourable parameter vaue No of Readings Characteristic materia in Stuctural engineering) CIRIA 185 (1999) ‘Soil Strength Parameter esuts 2. Basis of Geotechnical Design 2.4.6.1 Design values of actions E=7F, (2.1a) with FE, =Wk, (2.1b) Characteristic action Representative action Design action Design effects of Action, Ey ve Page 232. Basis of Geotechnical Design 2.4.6.2 Design values of geotechnical parameters ot (2.2) Yu 2.4.6.3 Design values of geometrical data and material factors (j,4) include an allowance for minor such cases, no further safety margin on the 2.4.6.4 Design values of structural properties (1) P The design strength properties of structural materials and design resistances of the structural elements shall be calculated in accordance to EN 1992 to EN 1996 and EN 1999. Ecteong-1¥ Un inHouse o Course 2 uy 2022 2. Basis of Geotechnical Design 2.4.7 Ultimate Limit States librium of structure or ground EQU~ loss of eq STR~ internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or structural elements GEO — failure or excessive deformation of the ground UPL loss of equilibrium of the structure or ground due to uplift by water pressure Ee teong-TY Ln inoue (Corea 23 aly 2012 s Page 242. Basis of Geotechnical Design Examples of Ultimate Limit States (ULS) gi 4 2. Basis of Geotechnical Design 2.4.7 Ultimate Limit States 2.4.7.2 Verification of static equilibrium (EQU) ooo with Ye « and E> ore } 4) (2.4a) (2.4b) EQU is mainly relevant in structural design and is rare in geotechnical design. CLoong.-1¥ un iouse (Course 2 uly 2012 Page 25 so2. Basis of Geotechnical Design 2.4.7 Ultimate Limit States 2.4.7.2 Verification of static equilibrium (EQU) “Table A.NA.‘ ~ Parla factors on ations () for the equitorium (EAU) mit state Vale ea) he Natoral Arar SS EN 160008 [See Tesi NAA2-A) ste Natona Arnot 6S EN 1060: 208 ‘Structure Buldings [ See Table NAAT20 Bridges 2. Basis of Geotechnical Design 2.4.7 Ultimate Limit States 2.4.7.2 Verification of static equilibrium (EQU) ‘Table NAA valde of cons QU) (Bet A) ome amare | aa | “oalge | untavoursbis | Favourable | S608" 4.610) | 11069 ‘Stic to spel edt oe aide AAO ime 135 Fre a pine ry = 108 bah oh ua pr ants th avo pat of emer redo ge me caret oc oom mmemeres 52 Page 262. Basis of Geotechnical Design 2.4.7 Ultimate Limit States 2.4.7.2 Verification of static equilibrium (EQU) Table ANA2 — Pata actos for sl parameters) or he EQU lini state Sal parameter Smal Vai ‘Angle of shearing resistance w 1A ote cohesien . 1" Uae sear aberahh = 72 Unconed sheng ‘ 72 4 Applied to tan and tan yy although it might be more appropriate to determine the design value of #, directly: NOTE The lol paral tc soul be ten nena ote pet vate eh ose vale oda nen tat fa uhad ve fats Sco oe aaa eee ae | tin nHouse 2. Basis of Geotechnical Design 2.4.7 Ultimate Limit States 2.4.7.3 Verification of resistance for structural (STR) and ground (GEO) limit states in persistent and transient situations 2.4.7.3. General (STR or GEO) E,SR, (2.5) 2.4.7.3.2 Design effects of actions E, -*{rt nd (2.6) Yn es oe Fa) cLeong-1Y un iouse a . Course 2 ly 2002 Page 272. Basis of Geotechnical Design 2.4.7 Ultimate Limit States 2.4.73 Verification of resistance for structural {STR) and ground (GEO) limit states in persistent and transient situations 2.4,7.3.3 Design resistances R, onda} (78) Yu or ReRY Exe 27) or rien[inarinn (2.70) Ye 2. Basis of Geotechnical Design 2.4.7 Ultimate Limit States ation of resistance for structural (STR) and ground (GEO) limit states in ‘ent and transient situations ana WAAL (A) Dan valu eto 0 A) Page 282. Basis of Geotechnical Design 2.4.7 Ultimate Limit States 2.4.7.3 Verification of resistance for structural (STR) and ground (GEO) limit states in persistent and transient situations Set AL Te WA) Dein an acto TBE fe) Sugeest arg Fea twa gneve bea bc a ono oe Uns | 2. Basis of Geotechnical Design 2.4.7 Ultimate Limit States 2.4.7.3 Verification of resistance for structural (STR) and ground (GEO) jimit states in persistent and transient situations Set A2 Table NA.A1.2 (C) ~ Design values of actions (STR/GEO) (Set C} Porsistent =e ‘Accompanying vaiaile — 2 meen a =e ae ign vot “ave le sctione* i “Bate [cera | Fer an | onan ia, ‘aa een | 106m | tam | pact one lf oat, Se, Se ee eT [- ise wieaetis ceaientnTaiMA | Page 292. Basis of Geotechnical Design 2.4.7 Ultimate Limit States 2.4.7.3 Verification of resistance for structural {sTR) and ground (GEO) fimit states in persistent and transient situations “Table ANAA~Partial factors for soll parameter (x) forthe STR and GEO timit stato Set ameter bol = wi wa “higia of shearing resistance Effective cohesion ‘nerained shear strenath Tneonfined strength * ples fasion Jas mihcugh R might be more appropri datoine the design eive ofr [NOTE ~The value of he partis factor sho ected vluef such a reciprocal vo more onerous effec ran Note to 24.2@)P of SSEN 2. Basis of Geotechnical Design 2.4.7 Ultimate Limit States stance for structural (STR) and ground (GEO) limit states in persistent and transi ations ‘Table A.NA.5 — Partial rosistance factors (ya) for spread footings for the STR and GEO imit states: [Resistance Symbol Bearing ‘Yer Stiding Yen 7 ‘Page 30,2. Basis of Geotechnical Design 2.4.7 Ultimate Limit States 2.4.7.3 Verification of resistance for structural (STR) and ground (GEO) fimit states in persistent and transient situations Table A.NA.S ~ Partial restatance factors (ya) for driven piles for the STR and GEO timit states ba Resistance | synbot | 1 Fawthowt epic] Ra wih pit verification of SLS“_| verification of SLS“” fae io 17 “8 shat : 1 {compression) te i is Toiaeonbied (compression) * ue ie Satine —| tr eo a ‘©The lower y values in R4 may be adopled ‘serviceability is verified by load tests ipreliminary andor ‘i ten rs Ban Be of soa ps ae na ta eae rn stro gly pot yo mee fib ttn a or 2. Basis of Geotechnical Design 2.4.7.3.4 Design Approaches 2.4,7.3.4.2 Design Approach 1 Combination 1: A1 “+” M1"#” R1 Combination 2: A2 “+” M24” RL. or Combination 2: A2 “+” (M1 or M2) “+” R4_ for axially loaded piles or anchors 2.4,7.3.4.3 Design Approach 2 Combination : Ad “+” M1 “+” R2 2.4.7.3.4.4 Design Approach 3 ination : (AZ or A2) “+” M1 “+” R3 structural actions A2 :on geotechnical actions ECteong-1Y Un House Page 31 (couse 21 bly 20322. Basis of Geotechnical Design 2.4,7.3.4 Design Approaches 2.4.7.3.4.2 Design Approach 1 Combination 1: A1 “+” M1 “+” R1 Combination 2: A2 “+” M2 “#" R1 or Combination 2: A2 “+” (M1 or M2) “#” R4 for axially loaded Usually geotechnical sizing is governed by Combination 2 and structural design is governed by structural design (Frank et al. 2004) ECleong-1Y Un in House (Course 21072012 2. Basis of Geotechnical Design 2.4.8 Seviceability limit states E, | hy= 0.5m [ee 25 Kirin Tt hy=05m Bx8 Ground properties: y= 18 KN/m? y= 10 KN/m? Hi, = 20 Determine minimum B nT Un in House ory4. Spread foundations Bearing Capacity Factors Kethor ™ ms we ~ # Tersaghi 2 (as) ane TRITON Koy is given tes * Suis withe wen (8-2) un] Meyerhat® (%—Dyantn4g) tas? F-+4) exp(atang) Hansen? 54th = tang tar? (Fr $) ex(oian4) vei aan ae Bwocote7? | 2Ny— Dang 4 Neaee wt (E+8) ooterne) Lnon-1 Un nouse ou 2012 4. Spread foundations Shape Factors authors z » “Terai war) 1 oe neg 1002 o> rom! 6>10 Goat y 1 6=0 1 é=0 Hansen By B r4Baing 1-02 206 Vase 3 B 14 Bene 1-048 306 Eurocode 7 1B sind rash taong-1 tn tnstouse ne Page 57 Cowse 24 iy 20124. Spread foundations Inclination Factors ‘Autor 4 OA i= Coments mm oe [eel ee | ansen ~ osteo uot S| a- ore eae P G-esmno | RET |g [-z H [er om | gangs Vesie como ee Gamo | BABE Trait Burocode 7 # ieNym Lal - 1-year sor oh A laa ‘Base Factors wn by b. b : Eurocode 7 14) (1 — ate 4—— = cle (1-atanoy Na 20 | (-ctang)? 2a te =0 oa ECLeong-TY tin ln House (ousee 2 uly 2012 4. Spread Foundations Example 4.1 Square footing on soft clay P,=270 KN, Qy = 70 kN hy = 0.5m hy= 0.5m BxB Ground properties: ‘y= 18 KN/m? fy 10 KN/m* He 20° c= 5 kPa yy = 30 kPa Determine mi fc teong-1¥ i (ous Bay 2 Pa: Foundations Typical F = 2—3say2 Undrained: G=0.5B'(25 +18)=21.5B" KN va(P+G)+Q =270+21.5B' +70 =340+21.5BKN ana ha (erabst4 (=12) 116 Page 584. Spread Foundations Example 4.1 Square footing on soft clay EN 1997-1: Annex D —Undrained conditions DAI-Combination 2 ae Ree (6.14)214)0.2)+18=150 Pa G, = 0.5(2.2) (25+18)=104 kN oe : Vz = 14(P+G)+ 790 R, =150(2.2) = 726 kN =1(270+104)+1.3(70) V, ¢,=16.23" é 1 oSe nn Fn abe. ey as ag =y'(h, +h, )=800.5+0.5)=8kPa Ecteong-1Y UninHowe ca 4. Spread Foundations Example 4.1 Square footing on soft clay EN 1997-1: Annex D - Drained conditions DAI -Combinalion | Neu #64, Nya 3.93, Nog =1483 ae - 3 Seq = 1.40 Gi, =0.5(2.2){[(25-10)+(8-' 10)]=56 KN Ven +G,)+1.Q ae -(¢ “i, +h,)= -(5 Jos0s)= BkPa =1.35(270-+56)+1.5(70) %y = 545KN, Sn€ (5)(14.83)0.4) + (8)6.4)1.34) Riceng, rans, +057BNs, ++0.5(8Y2.2)(3.92)(0.7) =197 kPa Ry =197@22F =953KN YcRy R, _ 953 corr == 983 -175(01 Overdesign fctor == 545 1.75(0K) cao ote ao4. Spread Foundations Example 4.2 Spread foundation for a tower Check sliding resistance (ULS) — (Clause 6.5.3) Qi. = 300 KN Ground properties: Y= 18 KN/m? Dry medium sand and gravel = 35° cys OkPa Ec eong-1Vninsioue Yoon = 30° (Corse 241 2012 4. Spread Foundations 6.5.3 Sliding resistance 6.5.3(2)P Hy SRy+Ryg H, = horizontal load (including active earth forces) R, =design value of resistance R,« = design value of resisting force caused by passive earth pressure R, &R,,, should be related to scale of movement Ecteong inetouse ta Page 624. Spread Foundations 6.5.3 Sliding resistance |Drained condition (Clause 6.5.3(8)P) Undrained condition (Clause 6.5.30. )P) R,=Vigtand, (63a) Ry = ACys (64a) or or py = Casensa) (Acas) (63>) | Ra Yash ee) 3, =O forcast in-situ concrete Yan Ifitis possible for water or air to reach the interface between foundation and an undrained clay subgrade, 24 a4 for smooth precast concrete d'eau effective critcal state friction angle R, <04V, 63) (Clause 6.5.3(12)P) {Course 2420 2012 : 4. Spread Foundations Example 4.2 Spread foundation for a tower DAI-Combination 2 ADM M2“RL Gug= HO) 45) =1764 EN G,=600kN V,=1(Gu.+6,)* tos) =1.0(1764 + 600)+0 =2364KN H, = ¥e(Qu.)=1-3G00)=390 KN (ovate ( oxzse4e S| hile 25 7 1092 KN Ye 10 H,SR, (WeglectingR,,) 1 092 Overdesign Factor =1%2=28 (OK: eign Face =-5q'=28 (OX) R, cteong-1Y ua nHouse Course 2 ly 2022 12" page 624. Spread Foundations Example 4.2 Spread foundation for a tower DAI-Combination! ALY MI"Y"R1 G,., = 2(6) (24.5)=1764 kN G,=600KN V=tGu+G,)+1Q.) =1.0(1764 + 600) +0 = 2364KN H, =7q(Q,,)=1.5(300)= 450 KN Ae (Vi,tand, = 236410030" 3651 i 1.0 H,SR, (Neglecting R,.) Overdesign FactorT = 1255 3.93 (0K) 450 ns, 4. Spread Foundations SLS Design When the direct method is used, settlement calculations have to be performed and their results compared with limiting values (Clauses 6.4(5)P, 2.4.9) values, values of structural deformations and in EN 1997-1 Annex H may be used. In the absence of specified foundation movements gi Usually the partial factors for checking SLS by settlement calculations are equal 1.0 and are applied to both representative values of actions in SLS and characteristic values of the deformation parameters of the ground (Clause 2.4.8(2)). ----~-Similar to current design practice When calculating settlement of footing, interaction with neighbouring footings has to be considered (Clause 6.6.1(8)P). £Ctoong TY nn House Page 63 (Course 25 2042 1264. Spread Foundations Prescriptive method Refer to clause 2.5 for design by prescriptive method. ‘Asample method for deriving the presumed bearing resistance of spread foundations on rocks is given in Annex G. (Similar to CP4 Clause 2.2.3.3.1.9 ‘Allowable bearing pressure on weak and broken rocks) cLeongTY tin ieowse ro (Course 2 July 2012 4. Spread Foundations Structural design (Clause 6.8) ‘The structural design of the foundation involves check against ULSs occurri foundation element. A check against SLSs (e.g. crack width) may also be relevant. 2.4.6.4 (1) P The design strength properties of structural materials and the design resistances of structural elements shall be calculated in accordance with EN 1992 to EN 1996 and EN 1999, e.g. EN 1992-1-1 9.8 Foundations EN 1997-1 differentiates between stiff and flexible foundations but give no guidance how to do so. sability of strip and raft foundations shall be checked assuming ability limit state loading and a distribution of bearing pressure corresponding to the deformation of the foundation and the ground. nae Page 645. Pile foundations (0.75 hr) + Design situations * Design methods and consideration + Pile load tests « Axially loaded piles + Structural Design * Supervision of construction 5. Pile Foundations EN 1997-1 Section 7 provides a comprehensive guidance on design of pile foundations ludes end-bearing piles, friction piles, tension piles and transversely loaded piles by driving, jacking, screwing or boring with or without grouting. 7.1 General 7.2 Limit States 7.3 Actions and design situations 7.4 Design methods and design considerations load tests loaded piles 7.7 Transversely loaded piles EN 1536: 1999 - bored piles EN 12063:2000 - sheet pile walls Page 65 1305. Pile Foundations Limit States (Clause 7.2{ 1. Loss of overall stability 2. Bearing resistance failure of pile foundation 3. Uplift or insufficient tensile resistance of the pile foundation 4, Failure in the ground due to transverse loading of the foundation uts 5, _ Structural failure of the pile in compression, tension, bending, buckling or shear Combined in the ground and in the Combined failure in the ground and in the Excessive settlement 9. Excessive heave 10. Excessive lateral movement 11. Unacceptable vibrations sis im 5. Pile Foundations Actions on piles due to ground movement: 1. Vertical settlements causing downdrag (Clause 7.3.2.2) 2. Upwards .cements causing heave (Clause 7.3.2.3) 3. Horizontal soil displacements causing transverse loading 7.3:2.1(3) P One of the two following approaches shall be adopted for design: “The ground displacement is treated as an action. An interaction analysis fs then carried out to determine the forces, displacements and strains in the pile. (e.g. using load transfer functions such as p-y and t-z curves) ‘An upper bound to the force, which the ground could transmit to the pile shall be introduced as the design action, Evaluation of this force shall take in:o account of the strength of the soil and the source of the load, represented by weight or compression ‘of the moving soil or the magnitude of disturbing actions. Page 665. Pile Foundations 7.4.1 Design methods: 1. Static pile load tests ~ demonstrated by calculations or otherwise, to be consistent with other relevant experience methods — validity demonstrated by static pile load tests in comparable situations 3. Dynamic pile load tests - validity demonstrated by static pile load tests in comparable situations 4. Observations — of a comparable pile foundation supported by results of site investigation and ground testing Static pile load tests may be conducted on trial piles or working piles (Clause 7.4.1(3)) 5. Pile Foundations 7.4.2 Design considerations: tems to be considered in choosing an appropriate pile type 7AQ{6) Required “Ground and groundwater conditions, including te presenca or owt of obstructions inthe ground “Stresses generated in the ple uring instalation *Possibty of preserving and checking itaptyof pie lng Istalad ‘foc of method and sequence of ile instalation on ples, which have already been ntaled and onadcent tractres ‘Telerances within which ple canbe insta reliably ‘elctvous effects of chemi inthe ground *Possty of connecting diferent groundwater regimes ‘Handing and transportation of ples fects of ple constrction on eighbourng budge ECLaong-TV Un etouse ise 886 67 Course 24 hy 20825. Pile Foundations 7.4.2 Design considerations: (cont'd) Items to be considered in choosing an appropriate pile type 724215) Aeeory “Spacing of pls pile roars -isplacement or vibration of adjacent structures ve opie nstalltion ype of hammer or ator used -Dmamicsrestes inp during ng stor bored pes were aud fused, the nee to keep the pressure ofthe Mud at a levelto ensure borehole donot coese ant Iau fre ofa il not occur leaning bese and sometires sot of borhale, especialy bestonte, to remove remoulded materia -Aocl instability ofa shat during concreting wich may cave asl incision within the pile stnges of so or water a ection of eos inst pi and posible disturbance of wet concrete bythe fi of water hough sfc of surated sand layers rounds ple extracting water fom concrete stetording inven of chemical «soll compaction during ding of Soi diturvanee duet boing of CLeong TY in in House (course 21 uy 2002 5. Pile Foundations 7.5 Pile load test 75.1(1) P Pile load tests shall be carried out in the following situations: « When using a type of pile or installation method for which there is no comparable experience + When the piles have not been tested under comparable soil and loading conditions «When the piles wil be subject to loading for which theory and experience do not provide sifticient confidence inthe design. The pile testing procedure shall then provide loading sitar to the anticipated loading « When observations during the process of installation indicate pile behaviour that deviates Strongly and unfavourably from the behaviour anticipated on the basis ofthe site Investigation or experience, and when additional ground investigations do not clarify the reasons for this deviation eCLeong-T¥ in rHouse (cone 21 hy 2002 136 Page 685. Pile Foundations 7.5 Pile load test 7.5.4(6) P fone pile load test is carried out, ground conditions are believed to occur. .. hall normally be located where the most adverse P if load tests are carried out on two or more test piles, the test loca tative of the site of the pile foundation and one of the test piles shall most adverse ground conditions are believed to occur. 7.5.1(6) P Between the installation of the test pile and the beginning of the load test, adequate time shall be allowed to ensure that the required strength of the pile material is achieved and the pore- ‘water pressures have regained their initial values. 7.5.2.3 (2) P Test load (on a working pile) must be at least equal to the design load for the foundation. in compression itis often difficult to define an ultimate limit state from a load settlement plot showing a continuous curvature. in these cases, settlement of the pile top equal to 10% of the pile base diameter should be adopted as the failure criterion. a7 5. Pile Foundations 7.5.4 Load test report to be included in a load test report Description of te Ground conns with refernee to round investigations sue type *Desription of ple nstalation and any problems encountered drag the works *esrpton fading and measuring apparatus andthe reaction tem *Caltation docuronts or the lod els, oes and gauges stntalation records ofthe est ples -Phorogachie records of pile and test ste ‘est results in numerical form “Time displacement pets foreach apple asd when step loading procedure is sed ‘Measured load displacement behaviour *Reatons for any departures from the above requirements rs Page 695. Pile Foundations 7.6 Axially loaded piles 7.6.1.3{2) P The design shall demonstrate that exceeding the following limit states is sufficiently improbable: -ULS of compressive or tensile resistance failure of a single pile *ULS of compressive or tensile resistance failure of the pile foundation as a whole *ULS of. ‘or severe damage to a supported structure cause by excessive displacement or differential displacements of the pile foundation +S1S in the supported structure caused by displacement of pites 718) For piles in compression itis often difficult to define an ultimate limit stete from a load settlement plot showing a continuous curvature. In these cases, settlement of the pile top equal to 110% of the pile base diameter should be adopted as the failure criterion. 5. Pile Foundations 7.6.2 Compressive ground resistance Generally, ESR, o «desig exil eompression london pile or group pls (include weight of pil) 1, compressive erste ince overburden of silat pile) If weight of pile overburden, effect may be dsegarded exept for the following situations: downdag significant very ight «the pileextends above the surface ofthe ground (Cian 1621) For a ple group, need to consider (Clause 7.6.2.1 (SIP: + Single pile failure + Block fallure ‘compressive resistance of pile group for block fallure may be calculated by treating block a a ple of arge lameter (Clause 7.6.2.1 (A: cLeowg-TYinnHouse (course 2 hy 2012 140 Page 705. Pile Foundations 7.6.2 Compressive ground resistance 7.6.2. (5)P The stifness and strength of the structure connecting the piles inthe group shell be considered When deriving the design resistance ofthe foundation, hich the piles bear overlies a layer of weak sil the effect of the weak layer on the the foundation shal be considered. 7.6.2.4 (40)? The strength of a zone of ground above and below the pile base shall be taken nto account when caleulating pile base resistance. should be considered if weak ground is present at a depth of less than 4 times pile base diameter below the base of the ple. 3) For open-ended driven tube or box-section piles with openings of more than 500 mm in any i without special devices inside the pile to induce plugeing, the base resistance should be limited to ler of stance between sol plug and inside fce of ple ~ base resistance derived using the gross-sectional area ofthe base Ceong-7Y Un in House (Course 2112082 1 5. Pile Foundations 7.6.2 Compressive ground resistance 7.6.2.1 (8)? The stifiness and strength of the structure connecting the piles in the group shall be considered when deriving the design resistance ofthe foundation, 7.6.2.1 (8)P if the layer in which the ples bear overties a layer of weak soll the effect of the weak layer on the ‘compressive resistance of the foundation shall be considered ‘The strength of azone of ground above and below the pile base shall be taken into account when calculating ple base resistance. 7.6.2.1{11) Punching fellure should be considered if weak ground is present at a depth of les than 4 times pile base diameter below the base of the pile, For open-ended driven tube or box-section piles with openings of more than S00 mm in any i nd without special devices inside the pile to induce plugging, the base resistance should be limited to the smaller of: + shearing resistance between sil plug and insi ~ base resistance derived using the gross-section Leong tn inoue ne Page 71 Course 25. Pile Foundations 7.6.2.2 Compressive ground resistance from static load tests, (Characteristic compressive resistance (Clause 7.62.2(8)P) 5. Pile Foundations 7.6.2.3 Ultimate compressive resistance from ground test results ("model pile procedure”): Compressive esitmceof apie (Cause 7.62.36) RU-R +R, Foro pil Ce. nab ot The characteristic valuesR and, ae dteminedas flows nfo eB Bo Rep Bed ea Rafat Ra) & a on aes } where an =Bret Rade Bad ta, Ba Ruta), 1.62.3(8) The chuacerstc values maybe obnied by clelating ReeAQ, and Ry TAG, a on 3) 144 Page 725. Pile Foundations ‘Summary of correlation factors (NA to SS EN 1997-1 Tables A.NA.9, A.NA.1O & A.NA.11. er sracures with sucess and strength to Waster fom "wenk'to |] gap es, and may bedded by 1.1, provided neve less thas 10, 5. Pile Foundations Example 5.1: Design of a driven pile in compression from static load test results Determine number of ples needed ce ‘to support G3 MN, = 26 MN Qe sme pe gee ergo tee af — Less I: YS I. cS ml So : ok [ Sndskoret ~S 191220 m (ckameter) State loa ets of {data rom Wasa ameter) of elerent lengths aos Page 735. Pile Foundations Example 5.1: Design of a driven pile in compression from static load test results Pile _R,, MN (for L= 55.5 m) P31 14.4 13.9 —14.0414.4412.1413.9 4 =13.6 MN Reyoin = 12.1 MN ‘Static load tests of driven 22 m in dlamerer) of different lengths, ~Clause 7.6.2.2(9) {ate hereeataats 5. Pile Foundations Example 5.1: Design of a driven pile in compression from static load test results Forn=4, correlation factors &=138, & =1.15 Reduction factor for load redistribution Pile R,,, MN {for L= 55.5 m) P31 144 AAA] |< ooo ic P79b __ 139 Thus, Reawcn Rn nin n=4 (test piles) Ry = Min) “SS ~ Clause 7.6.6.2(8)P 14.0414.4412,1413.9 " : a SS (8,128 =13.6MN Rome =12.1MN- =9.9MN = Clause 7.6.2.2(9) Ecos Me Page 74 ones 25. Pile Foundations Example 5.1: Design of a driven pile in compression from static load test results According to EN 1990 Clause 3.2, the following design situations are to be considered: - persistent and transient design situations ~ accidental design situations - seismic design situations In this example, we consider two design situations : ~ Accidental situations :G, +A, =31+16=47MN 5. Pile Foundations in compression from static load test results licit verification of SLS) Example 5.1: Design of a driven pi Combination 2: A24"R4 (wo F,=1.0G, =1.0x31=31MN kK} Thus number of piles needed = 346 (overssien ricer = 858-112 0%) ‘Thus number of piles needed = 4 25 (ovedesien Factor T= ae 1.06 -> ox} iso P2ee755. Pile Foundations Example S.1: Design of a driven pile in compression from static! load test results For persistent and transient situations, consider DA -1 [Combination]: Al"+"RL Fy =135G, =1.35x31=41.85 MN Ry 99 Ry =—*=—— =9.9 MN a ‘Thos number of piles needed = 4185 = 5x9.9 sign Facte =———=1.18 ->Ol Overdesign Factor P= 753 > x) 5. Pile Foundations Example 5.1: Design of a driven pile in compression from static load test results For accidental situations, all partial factors = 1.0 and resistance factors = 1.0 Fyg=10G, +1.0A, =31+416=47 MN Rye _ 9.9 Rug = =—— = 9.9 MN ie 10) 41 Thus number of piles needed = > =5 {overasien Factor = 229-105 0K) nsz Page 765. Pile Foundations Example 5.2: Design of a bored pile in compression from lab test results : cee “e G, = 600 kN, Q, = 300 kN ote I 08 m (Gama $35 oy Le24m(?) fe Number of ground tests = 3 5, Pile Foundations Example 5.2: Design of a bored pile in compression from tab test results Mean c, values Mean of all c, « Cupane (KPa) 52 46 SL “50 a7 xB . R= R,+R, = RBLEC,al+{ = Posen Note: a= 0.75 £45.20 yen +450 ‘Thus, Ruy = 2350-4148 = 2498 KN R, guia = 2079 +135 = 2214 KN Rei = 2305-4189 = 2494 KN Page 775. Pile Foundations Example 5.2: Design of a bored pile in compression from lab test results Hence, R. (ae 2) 2402 KN men = 5 Rein = 2214 KN Forn =3, correlation factors &,=142, &,=133 Thus, Roy =n : } -Clause 7.6.6.2(8)P min] 2402, 2214 | 665 1a 1421.33 Ra= 2079 135 === KN, == =102kN Ryu = [yy TISIEN, Rag = 753 = 102 5S. Pile Foundations Example 5.2: Design of a bored pile in compression from lab test results ‘A2"+"R4 (w/o explicit verification of SLS) __ > Fa =10G, +1.3Q, =1.0x600 +1.3x300 = 990 Fa 02 | 1563 apt Tg Tee la fa 1028 a Overdesign Factor P =-955-= 1.04 A2"+"R4 (with explicit verification of SLS) 1563 4 = 1176 KN vas 176 Overdesign Factor P =--— = 1.19 ign Factor P= 355 156 page 785. Pile Foundations Example 5.2: Design of a bored pile in compression from lab test results DA-i Combination] AI RI Fog =1.35G, +1.5Q, = 135x600 +1.5x300 = 1260 KN “Rex. Rig _ 102, 1563 os Rag ae Hk = 2, 1568 _ 665 tay Se i Overdesign Factor F = 2965 1.39 1260 5. Pile Foundations Example 5.3: Design of a hored pile subject to downdrag, G,=300KN 5=03m(dlamets) Clause 7.3.2.1(3)P allows designer to choose ether ground by be ee settlement or downdrag load as action. Note: in CPa Clause 7.3.6, downcirag lad is computed 25 0.61, softday for friction piles and L for end-bearing ples where ts the thickness of the consolidating sol. A mobilization factor can be applied (typically 0.67 with a maximum value of 1.0). tyeSm | ofy220802 Inthis example, we wal use downdrag as action. surly yns0kro ther assumptions: he? + Neutral pane is at interface of soft clay and stif clay. | + Settlement of soft clay Is suficient to mobilize maximum owndrag along Ly. + Ground resistance st base of theplles netiibe. * Characteristic values of long term downdrag per unit area in soft clay a, and fong term shaft resistance per unit area in sf cay oy. ae as shown in figure. Ecleong- Trin nose tse PaBE79 (Course 21 Ray 20125. Pile Foundations Example 5.3: Design of a bored pile subject to downdrag G,= 300 kN (Churceritc and designations 18-03 (diameter) Pemanentaction:G, = 300K epee bey By NE ‘Totaldowndragacton ,, = Bla, "x 03%5x20=94.208 ‘taf resstanse:R,, = RBL,¢), = #2 0.5% Ly X50 47.1 EN sl seen (SR) Ten R,:MZonF, JRE Design vale of downdeag ation Fuse We = 140042) =131. 958 suit en SO¥PO ce (Use wloSLS verification) nye Ba afloat 99 5. Pile Foundations Example 5.3: Design of a hored pile subject to downdrag. 6, = 300kN 03 midameiee) —_AIM*MIon Ry: Mon F,)""RE Lye bby 7 ! i Design vue of downdag ection tgesim | taye20¥ TS copay Fun tlie =1380062)=12720 stay tun50bra , he gr design value of action given ‘by combination ie. E, =532.2 EN, shouldbe conser. 16 Page 805. Pile Foundations 7.8 Structural design of piles The structural design of piles should follow the requirements given in EN 1992 (concrete) and EN 1993 (stee!) . EN 1997-1 requires that piles are checked against structural failure in all relevant cesign situations {Clause 7.8(2)P). 7.8(4)P Slender piles passing through water or thick deposits of extremely low strength fine soil shall be checked against buckling, 7.8(5) Normally a check for buckling is not required when the piles are contained by soil characteristic shear strength, c,, that exceeds 10 kPa. ith a Note: CP4 Clause 7.4.5.3.1 ~ bored pile structural capacity limited to 7.5 MPa is not present in EN 1992. EcLon ‘cose 24 ly 5. Pile Foundations 7.9 Supervision of construction (2) Apile installation plan should include the following information: “Pl te cation nd indntion och il ntti tees on poston sie ros section Required lle toad carrying capacity evel (wrt fied datum within or near ste), or the required penetration resistance slnsalation sequence ‘koown obstructions shooter constr on png activities Installation of al piles shal be monitoced and records are made as the piles ae installed (Clause 7.913). te Page 815. Pile Foundations 7.9 Supervision of construction le construction record should include the following information: torque applied to the difing motor (where used) storbored ils, the sata encountered inthe borings andthe conden ofthe bate the performance of the pil to eat Page 82NANYANG UNIVERSITY ‘TVUEOT (Got) sy 2012 4 Review of EC7 Review EC7 (Actions) EC7-2 Ground Investigations Design of Retaining Structures Earth Pressures 3 Gravity-type Retaining Walls 1 Embedded Retaining Walls 00 Anchorages 27 Use of FEM 135 TYLIEOT (Goh) July 2012 2 Page 834 Bond, A. and Harris, A. (2008). Decoding Eurocode 7. Taylor & Francis. 6 Dept of Communities and Local Government, UK (2006). A designers’ simple guide to BS EN 1997. ¢ Driscoll R., Scott, P. and Powell J. (2008). EC7 — implications for UK practice. Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design. CIRIA C641. + Frank, R., Bauduin C., Driscoll, R., Kawadas, M., Krebs Ovesen, N., Orr, T. and Schuppener, B. (2004). Designers’ guide to EN 1997-1 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design - General rules. Thomas Telford. ¢ Simpson B. and Driscoll, R, (1998) Eurocode 7 a commentary. BRE. ¢ Simpson,B. (2007). Approaches to ULS design — The merits of Design Approach 1 in Eurocode 7. /SGSR2007 First Intemational Symposium on Geotechnical Safety & Risk, Oct. 18~19, 2007 Shanghai, Tongji University, China. TVUECT (Goh) iy 2012 8 8 Anchorages 8.1 General 8.2 Limit states 8.3 Design situations and actions 8.4 Design and construction considerations 8.5 Ultimate limit state design 8.8 Serviceabilty limit state desion 8,7 Suitability tests 8.8 Acceptance tests, 8.9 Supervision and monitoring 40.1 General 10.2 Failure by uplift 10.3 Failure by heave 10.4 Internal erosion 10.5 Failure by piping 11 Overall stability 44.1 General 11.2 Limit states 14.3 Actions and design situations 11.4 Design and construction considerations 11.5 Ultimate 11.8 Serviceal 11.7 Monitoring 9 Retaining structures 9.1 General 9.2 Limit states 9.3 Actions, geometrical data and design situations 9.4 Design and construction considerations 9.5 Determination of earth pressures 9.6 Water pressures 9.7 Ultimate limit state design 9.8 Serviceabilty limit state design 8S EN 1997-1: 2010. ‘TWUECT (Goh) iy 2012 ‘ (cot Page 84WA te SS EN 19974 : 2010 | NA.2. Nationally Determined (eovnaeas 03) Parameters As indicated in Table NA.1, only Design Approach 1 is to be used in Singapore. Singapore National Annex t a * ; Eurscode 7: Geotechnical. | The values given in the Tables in cee Annex A of this National Annex replace the recommended values in Annex A of SS EN 1997- 1: 2010. THLLECT (Got Jy 2012 5 Definitions Actions on the foundations (SS EN 1997 §2.4.2(4)) — » Earth and groundwater pressures » Weight of soil, rock and water ® Dead and imposed loading from structure » imposed loading from ground movements (eg. sw« shrinkage, down-drag) Ground properties (§2.4.3) — > from field or laboratory tests (directly or by correlation, theory or empiricism) > Takes into account effects of time, stress level and deformation etc TVUEGT (Got) bly 2012 8 Page 85ee ee 5 Sees wee Geometrical data (§2.4.4(1)P)— > Include slope of the ground surface, groundwater levels and structural dimensions Characteristic values of Geotechnical parameters (§2.4.5.2) - > Selected from the available information (eg. SI report) > Based on a cautious estimate of the data made within the zone influenced by stresses transmitted to the ground > Less than most probable values (most situations) > Higher than most probable where higher values have an unfavourable effect on the foundation behaviour (eg. down-drag) YU ECT (Goh) sty 2012 7 REST Ultimate Limit States (§2.4.7.1) for foundations — > STR: internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure > GEO: failure or excessive deformation of the ground Model Factors (§2.4.7.1(6)) Model factors may be applied to the design value of a re: ance or the effect of an action to ensure that the results of the design calcul n model are either accurate or err on the safe side. TYUEC? (Goh) daly 2012 oe94.4.0). equilibrium (EQU) : Easta S Etna Ultimate limit states of resistance (STR/GEO) : EgsRy Ultimate limit state of uplift (UPL) : Gusta * Qasta © Gawia + Ra Ultimate limit state of hydraulic failure (HYD) : Yastd S Fst; OF Sysug S Fstosa TYLIEG? (Got) sty 2012 n Approach .2(1)P) STR limit state — failure or excessive deformation of the structure GEO limit state — failure or excessive ground deformation Ensure that: Design effects of actions E, $ design resistance Ry Design Approach 1 Combination 1: Ai + M1 + R41 Combination 2: A2 + M2 +R1 A=action; M = material properti ; R = ground resistance TYUIECT (Goh) ty 2012 10 page 87pg a ae Combination 1: Al + M1 + R1 Combination 2: A2 + M2 +R1 §2.4.7.3.4.2(2)P Note 2 — If it is obvious that one combination governs the design, it is not necessary to perform full calculations for the other combination. Often Combination 2 (DA1C2) will govern the geotechnical “sizing” and Combination 1 (DA1C1) will govern the structural design. ‘TYUECT (Goh) Jy 2012 " E, = design value of the effects of all the actions Eq =EbyeFrep: Xk /1mi@a} Rg = design value of the corresponding ground and/or structure Rg =RlyeFrep:Xk mia} For piles and anchorages => Rg =RiyeFrep:Xki4a}/ YR Representative value of an action TYLECT (Goh) ay 2042 * 2 2 Page 88where C, = the limiting design value of the relevant serviceability criterion TYUEO? (Got) sty 2092 8 eae Rt Permanent |Unfavourable | action G J Favourable ES Variable | Unfavourable 3. action Q sees Favourable - Tang F a Ya | 10] [Unit weight % | To) 40 | Bearing : 2 resistance Yev Sliding : ie resistance Yen +5 Earth ; ‘YRye resistance Y Page 89ae ECT partial fa factors ‘Angle of shear resistance * Ww 1.25 Effective cohesion Ye 4.25 Undrained shear strength Yes 14 Unconfined strength Yeu 14 ‘Angle of shear resistance * w 42 Effective cohesion Ye 12 Undrained shear strength You 15 Unconfined strength You 15 4.0 @This factor is are large in comparison with the normally acceptable strains in service. Accordingly, for most earth retaining structures, the i ity limit state of displacement will be the However, although calculate displacements directly, serviceability can be sufficiently assured by limiting the proportion of Wall: displacement e sheat | strain a proportion of oil TYLIEGT (Gon) Jay 2012 16 Page 90Came Oe ee BS8002 uses a mobilization factor on soil strength - i.e. Increased load on active side, reduced soil resistance on passive side. This will ensure that for soils which are medium dense or firm the wall displacements in service will be limited to 0.5% of the wall height. The design lateral earth pressures are intended to overestimate the pressure on the active side and underestimate the passive resistance, in the working state (3.1.9). The mobilization factor is not_a partial factor but is related directly to the acceptable movement (strain) of the wall in service. ... It has no connection with any unfavourable deviations from the representative values. TYUECT (Goty Jay 2012 w es eternoe ees AnOes Surcharge EC7 — no spe ment for a minimum surcharge. BS8002 — minimum surcharge of 10 kPa unless the wall is less than 3 m in height. EC7 states that compaction pressures should not be included in GEO ULS design calculations since they are normally relieved by relatively small horizontal movement of the wall. Compaction pressures should be included in STR calculations to check the structural wall section strength and in SLS calculations. BS8002 makes no distinction between ULS and SLS conditions. TYLIECT (Goh) duly 2012 48 Page 91,SLS design EC7 — advises that the appropriate earth pressures are usually larger than the limiting active earth pressures and lower than the ling passive pressures. BS8002 — indicates that Serviceability can be sufficiently Actions: Permanent unfavourable - ye,ast_ Permanent favourable - Yes Variable unfavourable- —_7o;ast Variable favourable - Yojstb Variable unfavourable Siiding and OveHurning Faitu W = Permanent favourable ‘Bearing Capacity Failur W = Permanent unfavourable ‘ermanent hfavourable swe Aen) Page 92Actions: Ae Permanent unfavourable -yo,set Youn (SSeS Permanent favourable = Yo s a Variable unfavourable Yesst Yorsto Variable favourable- —ya:sty Yaudst Yo;stb q, = variable favourable (7,54, = 0.0) Variable (assw ) a unfavourable q, ‘Bearing Capacity, q, = variable unfavourable WL EC (Gon) vay opines rea aat iew (Actions — Single Source Princip SS £N1997-1 2.4.2(9)P Note states that “Unfavourable (or destabilising) and favourable (or Stabilizing) 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.” TYLIEC7 (Goh) July 2012 2 Page 93id Overturning Failure: P., = Permanent unfavourable Py = Permanent favourable? = Permanent unfavourable? P, = Permanent unfavourable P, = Permanent favourable? = Resistance? = Permanent unfavourable? ‘YU EC? (Goh) duty 2082 % Page 94P, is unfavourable for bearing, sliding and overturning. U, is favourable for bearing (since it counteracts W), but unfavourable for sliding (since it reduces the effective stress beneath the base) and overturning. How can ‘the horizontal component of the water pressure P,, be treated differently from the vertical component U,? “TY EC? (Go July 2082 28 destabilising) and favourable (or stabilizing) 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.” condition TYUECT (Got) ay 2012 2% Page 95is (6)P When essures for limit states with severe consequences (generally ultimate limit states), design values shall represent the most unfavourable values that could occur during the design lifetime of the structure. For limit states with less severe consequences (generally serviceability limit states), design values shall be the most unfavourable values which could occur in normal circumstances. (8) Design values of groundwater pressures may be derived either by applying partial factors to character water pressures or by applying a safety margin to the characteristic water level in accordance with 2.4.4(1)P and 2.4.5.3(1)P Groundwater pressures are Geotechnical Actions (§2.4.2(2)) TYL ECT (Goh) July 2012 a Some possible options: A= Characteristic Cre B: y=1.0 D: yg= TYUEO? (Goh) Jy 2082 8 copes eee LS Ce Page 96A B c D For B, the water pressure is regarded as being at its design value (most unfavourable water level). Therefore no partial factor is applied i.e. y = 1.0 ‘WU EO? (Gon) Jay 2012 ~ Revi ator on Wate For C, the water pressure is treated as a permanent action, hence is factored by yg = 1.35 ‘TYLIECT (Goh) July 2012 Page 97For D, the water pressure is treated as a variable action, hence is factored by yg = 1.5 ‘TVUECT (Gor) ly 2012 o a csscageatase aaetauis ‘Pressure? r Pressure? “For many geotechnical engineers, logical to apply a partial factor to a quantity whose ultimate value is relatively known (particularly if the highest possible water level is placed at ground surface). For others, is illogical to treat water pressures any differently to other actions, especially effective earth pressures, which are normally factored by 7c. (Bond & Harris 2008, page 83) TYLIECT (Goh) Joly 2012 2 Paer 98,investigation z, GWT is below formation level Greater of: Z,20.4h Z, 2 (t + 2.0 metres) GWT is above formation level Greater of: Z, = (H + 2.0 metres) Z, = (t+ 2.0 metres) TVLIEC? (Goh) Jy 2012 2 GWT is below formation level Greater of: 2,2 0.4h Z, 2 (t+ 2.0 metres) TYLECT (Goh) sy 2012 % Page 99Minimum depth of vestigation z, GWT is above formation level 2,2 2.0 metres” Greater of: Z,2 (H + 2.0 metres) Z,2 (t + 2.0 metres) 2 (t + 5.0 metres) if no impermeable stratum is encountered Za ‘TVU €Or (Got) aay 2012 % age 100 TVLIECT (Goh) Jy 20129 Retaining structures 9.1 General 9.2 Limit states 9.3 Actions, geometrical data and design situations 9.4 Design and construction considerations 9.5 Determination of earth pressures 9.6 Water pressures 9.7 Ultimate limit state design 9.8 Serviceability limit state design ‘TYLEO7 (Gon aay 2012 a & loss of overall stability > failure of a structural element such as a wall, anchorage, wale or strut or failure of the connection between such elements » combined failure in the ground and in the structural element > failure by hydraulic heave and piping » movement of the retaining structure, which may cause collapse or affect the appearance or efficient use of the structure or nearby structures or services, which rely on it > unacceptable leakage through or beneath the wall » unacceptable transport of soil particles through or beneath the wall > unacceptable change in the groundwater regime TYLEGT (Gon) iy 2042 2 Page 101Gravity walls and composite retaining structures » bearing resistance failure of the soil below the base Embedded wails > failure by rotation or translation of the wall or parts thereof > failure by lack of vertical eq i Examples of composite retaining structures — cofferdams, reinforced earth walls ‘TYUECT (Got dy 2012 2» pee ea Nodes mode: Failure modes tmecharis™s) A FE dion Yu! Bearing capacity Qvertuming ad General torture TYUECT (Gon) Jy 2012 0 Page 102‘TYUECT (Got July 2012 42 Page 103iit == BES eee ty Font ne (em opt th ali pee te Bae ig Rat ‘TYUECT (Goh July 2012 “0 TYUECT (Gon) sty 2012 page s04retaining structure. In ULS calculations of walls which rely on the ground resistance in front of the wall, the level of the resisting toe should be lowered below the nominally expected value by an amount Aa. ‘TYLIECT (Goh) July 2012 6 pig y ss sere Grounds Cantilever wall » Aa = 10 % of the wall height h above excavation level, up to a maximum of 0.5 m Supported wail >» Aa = 10 % of the distance between the lowest support and the excavation level h, up to a maximum of 0.5 m Cantilever Propped h Tate “aah ‘TYUECT (Go Jy 2012 48 Page 105,Smaller values of Aa, including 0, may be used when the surface level is controlled reliably throughout the construction. Larger values of Aa should be used where the surface level is particularly uncertain. ‘TYUECT (Go) ty 2012 a The selection of levels of the phreatic surfaces shall consider the: & long term hydraulic and hydrogeological conditions at the site > effects of variation in permeability on the groundwater regime > presence of perched or artesian water tables E07 (Go ‘TYUEO7 (Gob) Jy 2012 eaer pressures for limit states with severe consequences (generally ultimate limit states), design values shall represent the most unfavourable values that could occur during the design lifetime of the structure. For limit states with less severe consequences (general serviceability limit states), design values shall be the most unfavourable values which could occur normal circumstances. (8) Design values of groundwater pressures may be derived either by applying partial factors to characteristic water pressures or by applying a safety margin to the characteristic water level in accordance with 2.4.4(1)P and 2.4.5.3(1)P. Groundwater pressures are Geotechnical Actions (§2.4.2(2)) ‘TYLIEC7 (ot Jy 2012 0 permeability (silts and clays), water pressures shall be assumed to act behind the wall. Unless a reliable drainage system is installed (9.4.2(1)P), or infiltration is prevented, the values of water pressures shall correspond to a water table at the surface of the retained material. TVUEC? (Goh) ty 2012 0 Page 107pressures in space > anticipated variations in soil properties, water levels and porewater pressures in time » variation in actions and in the ways they are combined > excavation, scour or erosion in front of the retail ing structure » effects of compaction of the backfilling bel ind the retaining structure b effects of anticipated future structures and surcharge loadings or unloadings on or close to the retained material > anticipated ground movements due, for example, to subsidence or frost action TYLIECT (Goh ay 2042 * For many earth retaining structures, a critical limit state should be considered to occur if the wall has displaced enough to cause damage to nearby structures or services. Although collapse of the wall may not be imminent, the degree of damage may considerably exceed a serviceability limit state in the supported structure. TYU ECT (Goh) Jy 2012 2 Page 108Beh ona Concrete wall or steel sheet pile we in sand or gravel k S$ 2/3 for precast concrete or steel sheet piling k=1.0 may be assumed for concrete cast against soil For Steel sheet pile in clay under undrained con immediately after driving, no adhesive or frictional resistance should be assumed. Increases in these values may take place over a period of time. ‘TYLIECT (Got) Jy 2012 53 (2) For normally consolidated soil, at rest conditions should normally be assumed in the ground behind a retaining structure if the movement of the structure is less than 5x10“xh, (3) For a horizontal ground surface, the at rest earth pressure coefficient, Ky, should be determined from: Ky = (1- sing ')x VOCR (9.1) TVUECT (Goh) Jy 2012 5 Page 109Active: Og(2) = Kalz+q\-2e[Ka T(z) =O, tand+a Passive: o,(z) =K,[z+q]+2c,/K, T)(z) =o, tand +a TYUECT (Goh) Jay 2012 6 “ECT and CIRIA C580 For ve walls with @' = angle of shearing resistance (degrees), 8 = soil/wall friction angle (degrees) and p = angle of ground surface to horizontal (degrees) Active K, — use negative 4’ and 6. Passive K, ~ use positive §' and 6. is positive for ground level that increases with distance from the wall. K, =cos?p{ Ltsing'sinam,, +4') : 1-sin@'sin(2m, +6’) -(—sinB)_ 4 cos Hf S08)_ pg at) “ tty =— (Gave 2 v=m,+Bp-my, so(vtang) ™, My, B in degrees; v must be converted radians before substitution into the K, equati "| 8 > CIRIA C580 (2003) Gaba, Simpson, Powrie & Beadman Embedded retaining walls — guidance for economic design Page 110one rae ge Figure C.1.1.~ Coefficients K of effective active earth pressure (horizontal component): with horizontal retained surface (B = 0) sr SEES. Figure C.1.4 - Coefficients K, of effective active earth pressure (aorizontal component): with inctined retained surface (8/9"= 1) ‘TYUEO7 (Gaby duty 2012 68 Page litFigure 62.4 Goetclens kof efecto passive earth prossue (horizontal component): with horizontal retained surface (8 = 0) ‘TYLIEGT (Got) Jy 2012 s The movement needed for vocee ot | dene sot development of an active limit i} * * | state in non-cohesive behind a vertical wall retai horizontal ground should be considered. The magnitude of this movement depends on the os ree kind of wall movement and the density of the soi. Table C.1 gives the order of magnitude of the ratio v,/h. namin | apuns Passive limit state - see oswos | orwor Table C.2 and Figure C.3 ; ae TYUECT (Gon) Jay 2012 cy Page 112| ote art Lessord Gravity well Cortilever watt TYUECT (Gon) ty 2012 8, = 30" W = 24(6)(2.4) = 345.6 kN/m Pay, = 0.5(Ky,)7H? = 0.5(0.273)(19)(62) = 93.36 kN/m Poy = KqyQH? = 0.273)(10)(6) = 16.38 kN/m P,, = (Pan + Pan)tand = 63.36 kN/m ‘TYLIECT (Got Jy 2042 2 Page 113= 30" W= 345.6 kN/im IF, = W + P,, = 408.96 kN/m ing = DF, tanby / (Par + Pan) P,, = 93.36 kN/m Py = 16.38 kN/m = 408.96 tan30/(109.74) Pay = 63.36 KN/m =2.15 TUT ECT (CT Ry BE w Take moment about wall toe =M, = 235.86 kNm/m =M, = 566.78 kNm/m FSovertuming = Me / Mo = 2.40 0° W= 345.6 kN/m; moment arm = 1.2m P,, = 93.36 kN/m; moment arm = 2m Pay = 18.38 kN/m; moment arm = 3 m Py = 63.36 kN/m; moment arm = 2.4 m TEST (eon my 12 es Page 114x=Line of action about toe = Z(M, - M,) / ZF, =0.81m eccentricity e = (0.58 - 0.81) = 0.39 m < B/6 = 0.40m OK eb/6 | bearing pressure TYUECT (Goh Jay 2012 65 TVUEO? (Goh) Jy 2082 68 Page 115Design Approach 1 Combination 1: Al + M1+R1 Combination 2: A2 + M2 +R1 TYLLEGY (Got) iy 2012 eo 3,7 30° ANeaseae ny a = Combination 1: Al + M1+R1 WU C7 (Goh Jy 2012 ee . Page 1167 = 19 KN/m? §’= 30° c’= 0 Y= l0 design 9’, = tan4{(tan30°)/1.0} = 30° For 8 = 4’, Ky, = 0.273 ‘TYU ECT (ony sy 2012 60 a Kyq = (0.273)(10) = 2.73 kPa Kany = (0.273)(19)(6) = 31.12 kPa TVLIECT (Got) July 2012 7 Page 11731.12 Pana = Panok (Yoyast) = 0-5(31.12)(6)(1.35) = 126.04 kNim Yosast Paya = Panik CYoyant) = 2-73(6)(1.5) = 24.57 kNim ‘TYUECT (Goh) Jy 2012 ” Poa = 126.04 KN/m Pang = 24.57 KN/m Paya = (Panza) (tan) = 126.04(tan30°) = 72.77 kN/m (use single source principle) Paya = (Panja)(tand) = 24.57(tan30°) = 14.19 kN/m ‘avid = ‘TYLI ECT (Gon Jy 2012 2 Page 118Wa = (2. 4(6)24)Yeau = (2.4)(6)(24)(1.0) = 345.60 kN/m 8,= 30° ‘TYU E07 (Got) Jy 2012 2 LSIalng Eee ARR ae (c) Design E Effects of A q=10kPa y Unfavourable forces (causing sliding about wall base about toe) — P,, and Pa, Favourable forces (resisting —W, P,, and P, qv ing through friction) ‘TYLLECT (Goh July 2012 7 Page 11930° Total horizontal force Eyyg = Panja + Panja = 150.61 kNim Design Resistance Ry = (Wg + Paya + Pyyq)tan(30°) = 249.74 kim Overdesign factor P= 249.74 / 150.61 = 1.66>1 > OK ‘YL EOT (Gon) July 2012 6 (¢)D Desi ak Effects of Actions. Total overturning moment Mg pg = (2.0)(Pana) * VP. a) = 325.80 kNm/m Total Resisting moment Me pa = (Wy)(1.2) + Paya(2-4) + Poy:a(2-4) = 623.42 kN ‘TYUECT (Got Juy 2012 16 Page 120Combination 2: A2 + M2+R1 TYUECT ety sy 2012 n 2 #9-4 Gliding = Design = 19 kN/m? ,’= 30° c’= 0 design $’, = tan{(tan30°)/1.25} = 24,79° For 8 = $y’, Kan = 0.34 ‘TYLLECT (Goh July 2012 7 Page 121,ZO Kendl = (0.34)(10) = 3.4 kPa Kany = (0.34)(19)(6) = 38.76 kPa ‘THU ECT (Got) Jy 2012 * '(b) Design actions — ‘ontal forces from fil , 38.76 3.4 kPa Yejast Pay,q = 0.5(38.76)(6)(1.0) = 116.28 kN/m Yojast Pong = 3-4(6)(1.3) = 26.52 kN/m seer inayat : a Page 122 BePana = 116.28 KN/m Pang = 26.52 KN/m Paya = (Panja)(tand) = 116.28(tan24.79°) = 53.70 kN/m (use single source principle) Pavia = (Pana)(tand) = 26.52(tan24.79°) = 12.25 kN/m ‘TYLIEGT (Goty Jay 2012 8 D Wa = (2.4)(6)(24)ye st = (2.4)(6)(24)(4.0) = 345.60 kN/m cieanterval TYLIEOT (Goh) Jy 2012 2 Page 123,By = 30" Unfavourable forces (causing sl about toe) — Pa, and Py, ing about wall base Favourable forces (resisting sliding through friction) —W, P,y and Pay, ‘TYUEO7 (Got) diy 2012 8 yy = 1.25 Foundation base design $4 = tan3{(tan30°)/1.25} = 24,799 = 8,4 8, = 30° Total horizontal force Epg = Pana + Pana = 142.80 kNim Design Resistance Rig = (Wg + Pare * Pasltan(24.79°) = 190.09 kNim Overdesign factor I'= 190.09 / 142.80 = 1.33 > OK YUECT 7 (Got) by 2012 eeeTotal overturning moment Me pa = (2.0)(Pana) + (3)(Pahia) = 312.12 kNm/im 5, = 30° Total Resisting moment Mp j;3 = (Wa)(1.2) + Payal2.4) + Payig(2-4) = 573.02 kNm/m Overdesign factor P= 573.02/312.12 = 1.84 3 OK ‘TVUIEGT (Goh) July 2012 85 DA1C1 DA1C2 Check bearing resistance ‘TYUECT (Got) Jy 2012 % Page 125,Assumptions: e Rankine pressures. -consewie e ignore passive resistance. Uplift at wall base a simple triangular istribution (max edn = 20° pressure at heel and zero at toe. 3.5m Includes overdig TYUECT (Goh) sly 2012 a iDING eee ye25 kN/m? = 18 kN/m? ,’= 36° c= 0 0.25 m > 3.5m Includes overdig Assume Uplift at» imple triangular di (max pressure at heel and zero at toe. ‘TYLIEGT (Got) Jy 2012 8 Page 12618 KN/m? $y’= 36° c'= 0 HMC ccceeceMmecrecee epee overdig | jesign mate! design $4 = tan-Y{(tan36°)/1.0} = 36° For Rankine, K, = 0.260 ‘YUE? (oty ty 2012 0 ‘TYULECT (Go July 2012 Page 127iy = 2Yy = 20 kPa on ag = Kaf(1.5)18+(2x8)} = 11.18 kPa = K,(1.5)18 = 7.02 kPa K,g = 2.6 kPa “TYLIECT (Got) ay 2012 “Exainble #92 (ATC1 oe 1C1 q= 10kPa 2.6 11.18 20kPa Pana = 0.5(1.5)7.02 + 0.5(7.02+11.18)2 = 23.57 kNim Pang = 2.6(3.5) = 9.1 kKN/m Pays = 0.5(2)20 = 20.0 kN/m TYUECT (Got) July 2012 2 Page 128Partial factor | Design Action (kNim) Uplift force U, 48.0 | Yordge = 1.35 64.8 Pano (Surcharge) 9.1 Yorast = 1.5 13.65 72.47 TYUECT (Go ay 2082 2 yee25 kN/m? a= 10kPa ‘Design Approach 1 Combination 1: A2+M2+R1 y= 18 kN/m? ,’= 36° c’= 0 2m t= 20 (a) Design material properties Wy = 125 design ’, = tan-{(tan36°)/1.25} = 30.17° For Rankine, K, = 0.334 Spase = fin = tanr'{(tan20°)/1.25} = 16.23° TYLIEGT (Go Jay 2082 page 129suo nwt Wt. of wall stem Wp, | 0.25 x 3.2 x 25 = ‘TWLIECT (Goty ty 2012 98 q= 10kPa Gy = 2yy = 20 kPa olay = K,(1.5)18 = 8.94 kPa Glgo = K,f(1.5)184(2x8)} = 14.23 kPa Kg = 3.31 kPa ‘TYLLECT (Got) July 2012 fe Page 1303.31 14.23 20kPa Pana = 0.5(1.5)8.94 + 0.5(8.944+14.23)2 = 29.88 kN/m Payg = 3.31(3.5) = 11.59 KN/m Pap = 0.5(2)20 = 20.0 KN/m TVLIECT (Goh) Jy 2042 7 Page 131,C1 DAt C2 a Check for overturning and bearing capacity “YYUECT (Go Jy 2012 “THU ECT (Gon July 2012 100 Page 132ae ae Anchored ‘TYLIEGT (Got Juy 2012 serena onecenrnrrete bedded: Walls. » For DA1, the minimum wall penetration required for toe stability is usually governed by the Combination 2 analysis. b» It is recommended that initially, in the first calculation, the Combination 2 analysis is performed to determine the required penetration length. » Then, in the second calculation, the Combination 1 analysis is performed to check that this length is in fact larger than the minimum length required by the Combination 1 analysis. Frank et al. (2004) TYLIECT (Goh) Jy 2012 102 Page 133The main uncertainty in EC7 relates to the design of embedded walls. While there is no dispute that the active earth pressures on the retained side of the wall are an unfavourable action, EC7 does not specifically address the issue as to whether the passive earth pressures acting on the restraining side of the wall are a favourable action, unfavourable action or a resistance. ‘TYUECT (Got) ty 2012 103 passive pressures at the toe of the wall in the retained soi Approximate pressure distribution: Force R is assumed to represent the passive resistance. TYUECT (Got) July 2012 104permanent, unfavourable action since the thrust derives from the same source as the active pressure and the [SS EN1997-1 2.4.2(9)P Note states that “Unfavourable (or destabilising) and favourable (or stabilising) permanent actions may in some situations be considered @s coming from a single source. If they are considered so, @ single partial factor may be applied to the sum of these actions or to ihe sum of their effects. Option 2 - Passive pressure treated as a favourable action with Yea, = 1.0 or as a resistance with yg, = 1.0. TYLIECT (Goh) Jy 2012 105 ‘Table A.NA.13 ~Partal resistance factors for retaining structures at the STR and GEO limit states Resistance ‘Symbot ‘Sot Rt Bearing capacliy he, 10 ‘Sliding resistance ay 10 arth resistance ‘te 10 For earth retaining structures, based on the Single-Source Principle described in the Note below SS EN1097-1: 2010, 2.4.2(0), the permarient actions from the passive earth pressure and active earth pressure can be treated ‘as permanent, unfavourable actions and a single partial factor may be applied to these actions. a ‘TYLIECT (Got July 2012 108 Page 135,single source principle, by reference to the NOTE below BS EN 1997-1:2004, 2.4.2(9)P, whereby unfavourable and favourable permanent actions arising from a single source may have the single partial factor applied to them. This reference was included to highlight that if, for example, earth pressures applied to a structure from a single source are partially favourable and partially unfavourable, it may be appropriate to use a single value of yy (see PD6694-1). The Note in Table A.NA.2 does hi DENTON S., KIDD A., SIMPSON B., and BOND A. (2010). Overview of geotechnical design ‘of bridges and the provisions of UK NA for EN 1987-1, Proc. of Bridge Design to Eurocodes - UK Implementation, Nov. 2010, ICE: London. TVLIECT (Got) Jy 2012 07 ‘TYLIECT (Goh) ty 2012 108 Page 136ras vombination: 1: A Active pressure isiconsidered Assume H already includes Unfavourable Action unplanned excavation Yorast = 1.35, yy = 1.0 ‘Sand & smooth wall design 4’, = tan(tan30°97 1 = 20 kN/mé $' = 30° = 30° K, = 1/3; K, = 3 (Rankine) ‘TYU ECT (Got) Jy 2012 109 pressure can be treated as a permanent, unfavourable action since the thrust derives from the same source as the active pressure and the level of uncertainty in its value should be the same. passive force Py.g = 0.5(K,y)(d)?(Ye;ast) Take moments about toe: P,.(d/3) — Pa.g(5 + dy/3 = 0 =>d= 4.63m ‘TYUEOT (Goh) Jy 2012 110 Page 137Option 2 - Passive pressure treated as a favourable action with yest = 1.0 or as a resistance with yp. = 1.0 passive force Py. = 0.5(K,y)(4)*C¥e;stn) P,,g(d/3) — Pa(5 + dy/3 = 0 =d= 567m TYUECT (Goh) July 2082 wi pera Example #9:3 (DAIC2 Cantileversd Wall) Combination 2:2 +M2 +R1-.. Assume H already includes Yorist = 1-0, Yy = 1.25 unplanned excavation design $’, = tan4(tan30°)/1.25 nee Sand & smooth wall = 24.79° 7 = 20 kN/m? $' = 30° =>K, = 0.409, K, = 2.444 (Rankine) active force Pyig = 0.5(K,y(5+d)"(e,qq) = 4.09(5+d)*x(1.0) passive force Poy = 0.5(Kyy)(d)*(Yojaee) = 24.44(d)?x(1.0) ‘TYLIECT (Go ty 2012 12 Deda Page 138=> solving... Pp.q(d/3) — Pa.4(5 + d/3 = 0 d=7.20m ‘TYUEGT (Got) Jy 2012 410 Out-of-balance water levels occurs commonly in waterfront structures (a) Wall driven into impermeable soil fh A Pw = Yor Net water pressure TYLIECT (Goh) sy 2012 14 Page 139Draw flow net, determine pressure head Hotow Determine u = Aprow/w (at various points along the wall) Gy =G-U, Oh’ = Kayoy' and Opp! = Unot = Uactive side ~ Upassive side pet water pressure One| = (epproximate) Kony! ‘TYUECT (Got) Jy 2012 eosMel ay Wall driven into permeable soil (approx. soln.) below WT, use y,' and y,' in place of y' in computing effective earth pressures (buoyant unit weight y, = y' = y - Yy,) Terzaghi (1954), Teng (1962) net water pressure TYUEC? (Goh) Jy 2042 w CIRIA, Craig 1997 Alternative approximation: py = a(2b+c)y,/(2b+o+a) total head assumed to be ‘arly distributed around the wall (Symons 1983) ive * a/ (2bt+atc) Pa net water pressure se Yp ” TVUIEGT (Got) ty 2012 118 page 141CIRIA, Craig 1997 Alternative approximation: Fall in total head assumed to be Py = a(2b)yw/ (2b+a) wal Cae 4983) wa/(2bta) lave a7 USE Tp” "YU ECT (Goh) ty 2012 119 d=65 ation 2:A2+M2+R1 design 9’, = tan{tan35°)/1.25 = 29,3° >K, = 0.343, K, = 2.912 (Rankine) TYLECT (Got) say 2012 oeq= 10kPa ‘TYUEC? (Goh) dy 2012 Propped! k= 0.343, k= 2.912 SM 1 = 20 KN/m? K,q = 3.43 kPa 6, = a(2b)y,/(2b+a) = (4.5)2d yy / (2d+4.5) = 33.43 kPa ine ¥ a/ (2a) = 4.5/(2d+4.5) = 0.257 Ya! = Yo + level = 12.57 KNim? Yo! = 75 — ive = 7-43 KNim? ‘TYUECT (Go Jy 2012 122 Page 143Sasa arenes : Wail) K, = 0.343, K,= 2.912 y= 20 kN/m? Op O'2 K.q o'g1 = K,(1.5)20 = 10.29 kPa Olay = Kaf(1.5)20+(4.5+d)y'} = 57.80 kPa o'pr = KA(d)y',} = 140.59 kPa ‘TYUECT (Gon) dy 2012 12 Check for Rotational stability about prop location ‘TYUECT (Got) July 2012 1 Page 144Design Moment (kNmim) Sum forces horizontally to obtain Prop force = 165.0 kNim Find max wall bending moment = 415 kKNm/m Check for DA1C1 ‘TVLIEC7 (Goh) Jy 2012 126 Page 1458 Anchorages 8.1 General 8.2 Limit states 8.3 Design situations and actions 8.4 Design and construction considerations it state design 8.6 Serviceability limit state design 8.7 Suitability tests 8.8 Acceptance tests 8.9 Supervision and monitoring TVLUEOT (Goh) Jt 2012 sr Definitions from §8.1.2.1 to 8.1.2.5 (taken from EN 1537:1999) ¢ permanent anchorage - anchorage with a design life of more than two years ¢ temporary anchorage - anchorage with a design life of less than two years + acceptance test - load test on site to confirm that each anchorage meets the design requirements test - load test on site to confirm that a particular anchor design will be adequate in particular ground conditions ¢ investigation test - load test to establish the ultimate resistance of an anchor at the grout/ground interface and to determine the characteristics of the anchorage in the working load range (the tests are performed before working anchorages are installed) ‘TYUECT (Gon) duty 2012 128 Page 146— structural failure of the tendon or anchor head, caused by the applied stresses; — distortion or corrosion of the anchor head; — for grouted anchors, failure at the interface between the body of grout and the ground; — for grouted anchors, failure of the bond between the steel tendon and the grout; — for deadman anchorages, failure by insufficient resistance of the deadman; — loss of anchorage force by excessive displacements of the anchor head or by creep and relaxation; — failure or excessive deformation of parts of the structure due to the applied anchorage force; — loss of overall stability of the retained ground and the retaining structure; — interaction of groups of anchorages with the ground and adjoining structures. TYLEC? (Goh) daly 2082 120 ges 6864) ee ; Design of Anchorages (§8.5.4) (1)P The design value R,.4 of the pull-out resistance R, of an anchorage shall fulfil the limit condition: Pa S Rag (8.1) (2) Design values of pull-out resistance may be determined from the results of tests on anchorages, or by calculations. ‘TYLIECT (Gob) July 2012 130 Page 147resaesrecaeuccanic: 68.5.2) i Design values of pull-out resistance determined from the results of tests (1)P The design value of the pull-out resistance shall be derived from the characteristic value using the equatio! Roa = Rasa (8.2) NOTE The partial factor y, takes to account unfavourable deviations of the anchorage force transmitted into the ground, either in terms of fixed length or of a deadman structure. “TYLIECT (Goh) sty 2012 1 ‘Table A.NA.12 — Partial resistance factors for pre-stressed anchorages at the STR and GEO limit states Resistance |Symbol /|Set Ri R4 ‘Temporary Yast 14 1.4 Permanent. Yasp. 14 ae NOTE — Larger values of yp should be used for non- prestressed anchorages, to make their designs consistent with those of tension piles (A.3.3.2 and A.3.3.3) or retaining structures (A.3.3.5), as appropriate. ‘TYLIECT (Got) Jy 2012 192 Page 148Design value of the structural resistance of the anchorage (1)P The structural design of the anchorage shall satisfy the following inequality: Roa $ Rea (8.3) (2)P The material resistance of the anchorages Reg Shall be calculated according to EN 1992, EN 1993 and EN 1537:1999, as relevant. (3)P If anchors are submitted to suitability tests R,, shall take account of the proof load (see 9.5 of EN 1537:1999). ‘TYUECT (Gory Jy 2012 193 Design value of the anchorage load (1)P The design value of the anchorage load, P, shall be derived from the design of the retained structure as the maximum value of — the ultimate limit state force applied by the retained structure, and if relevant — the serviceability limit state force applied by the retained structure. ‘TYLIECT (Gay Jy 2012 194 Page 149ee oe 6 So Bauduin, C., De Vos, M. and Simpson, B. (2000). considerations on the use of finite element methods in ultimate limit state design." Proc. Int. Workshop on Limit State Design in Geotechnical Engineering, Melbourne. Bauduin, C., De Vos, M. and Frank, R. (2003). "ULS and SLS design of embedded walls according to Eurocode 7." Proc. XII] ECSMGE, Prague (Czech Republic), Vol. 2, 41-46. ‘TYLIECT (Goh) Jy 2012 438 PARTIAL FACTORS IN FEM CALCULATION: ¢ FEM can be used for SLS to predict structural forces, wall deflections and ground movements, using characteristic loads and characteristic material properties. ¢ For ULS, use of factored loads (higher) and reduced soil strengths will produce unrealistic deformations and possibly unrealistic failure mechanisms. ¢ It has been proposed that FEM be used to perform ULS check to ensure that the GEO/STR limit states with factored parameters can act ium (no collapse). TYLIECT (Got) aay 2012 126 Page 150,involves repeated analyses by progressively reducing the shear strength properties until collapse occurs. For a Mohr-Coulomb material, by reducing the shear strength by a factor F the shear strength equation becomes: te. tang : FF" F eto, tang where tis the shear strength, o, is the normal stress, + marctan(!®4) rae and g'-acan(2) and = are the new Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters. Systematic increments of F are performed until the finite element model does not converge to a solution (i.e. failure occurs). The critical strength reduction value which corresponds to non-convergence is taken to be the factor of safety FS. ‘TYLIEG7 (on) Jay 2012 197 Displacement Vector Plot after Strength (c-¢) Reduction Analysis FOS=1.30 sta asa ec es False alarm? TTYUECT (Got ty 2012 108 Page 151(1) ULS check of DA1C1 (and DA2) + DA1C1 require permanent unfavourable actions to be factored by a partial factor of safety e.g. earth pressure acting on the retaining wall. + This is not possible because in the numerical analyses the earth pressure is not an input but a result of the analyses. ¢ However, EC7 allows for the alternative of putting the partial factor on the effect of the action (e.g. wall bending moment or strut force), instead of on the action itself. (The method is commonly called DA1C1* or DA2*). ¢ Analysis is carried out using characteristic loads and characteristic parameters. The relevant partial factors are .d at the end of the analy: ‘TYLECT (Got) ty 2012 199 (2) ULS check of DA1C2 (option available in Plaxis 2011) @ SLS is first carried out using characteristic loads and characteristic parameters. # Subsequently for each “phase” (stage), ULS check is carried out using factored (higher) unfavourable loads and factored (reduced) strength parameters. Phase 2 (SLS)_ Phase 3 (SLS) 3 ‘TYUECT (Got) Juy 2012mo aaa : (3) ULS check of DA1C1 (option available in Plaxis 2011) + SLS is first carried out using characteristic loads and characteristic parameters. ¢ Subsequently for each “phase”, ULS check is carried out using factored (higher) unfavourable loads and characteristic strength parameters. Phase 3 (SLS)_ ‘TYLECT (Goh) Jy 2082 41 ¢ EC7 gives no strict guidance concerning the design values of initial stress ratio and deformation parameters for ULS calculations using FEM. Characteristic values are recommended. @ For undrained behaviour of clays, modeling the soil using effective strength (c’ 9’) or undrained strength (c,, 6, =0) may result in different results as the partial factors differ. TYLIECT (Gon) uy 2012 2 Page 153Example modified from: Plaxis Bulletin Autumn issue 2011 The use of design approaches with Plaxis hitp:/Avww.plaxis.nl/publication/62///Plaxis+Bulletin+Autumn +2011+/ 5.5 m (including overdig) “TYU ECT (Got) Jay 2012 11 Apply surcharge and excay -1 m 2 A install anchor & preload 100 kNjen 3 Pexx-4M 4 AP Excav Sm 5 AP eiaW SSH eveIRY. Poaict DAICZ ARIS OC VASA ee TVUECT (Got) Jy 2012snc ci tn sit esos ican)” seg mianitatomtinen,| Pies Merawaie Hosionts lms nnciset) ——Mamnmemin En lini aert 8 te 7- ‘me = 32 pn er 9 at) ee ite sunny mmeanesiminer wei, Punvaa tenes} ei) ‘TYLIECT (Gat) dy 2012 ‘sor (oy 208 . “ Page 156FEM Example (HS versis: Excavate to -5.5 m (Results) ‘TYLIECT (Got Jay 2012 49 End of Chapter 9 TYU EG? (Gah) by 2012 180 Page 157‘THAI EG7 (Got) Jy 2012 4 Hydraulic Failure Uplift Failure Hydraulic Heave Failure Piping Failure Overall Stability Basal Heave Failure Summary ‘TWLIECT (Goh) July 2012 2 Page 15910.1 General 10.2 Failure by uplift 10.3 Failure by heave 10.4 Internal erosion 10.5 Failure by piping TYLIEGT (Gon) dy 2012 a Deals with Hydraulic failure in which the strength of the ground is not significant in providing resistance and where failure is induced by excessive porewater pressures or porewater seepage. > (1) failure by uplift (buoyancy) UPL > (4) failure by piping ‘TYLIEC7 (Gon) Jy 2012 4 Page 160(1) Uplift or Buoyancy (UPL) Buoyancy occurs when porewater pressure under a structure or a low permeability ground layer becomes larger than the mean overburden pressure (due to the structure and/or the overlying ground layer). [ace ts 8) Uplift of a buried hallow structure 1 (grounc water table 2 water tint surtace TYUECT (Goh) ty 2012 5 Failure by heave occurs when upwards seepage forces act against the weight of the reducing the vertical effective stress to zero. Soil particles are then lifted away by the vertical water flow and failure occurs (boiling). impermeable a 6 Page 161(3) Internal Erosion (HYD) Failure by internal erosion is produced by the transport of soil particles within a soil stratum, at the interface of soil strata, or at the interface between the soil and a structure. This may finally result in regressive erosion, leading to collapse of the soil structure. ‘THLIECT (Goh) ty 2012 7 Chapter tO Hyarauite Failure” Piping Piping is a phenomenon where seeping water progressively erodes or washes away soil particles, leaving large voids or “pipes” in the soil. ‘TYLIECT (Goh) Aty 2012 8 Page 162eee (4) Piping (HYD) Failure by piping is a particular form of failure, for example of a reservoir, by internal erosion, where erosion begins at the surface, then regresses until a pipe-shaped discharge tunnel is formed in the soil mass or between the soil and a foundation or at the interface between cohesive and non- cohesive soil strata. Failure occurs as soon as the upstream end of the eroded tunnel reaches the bottom of the reservoir. EK Ee Since the strength of ground is not significant in UPL or HYD situations, only one set of recommended partial factors is provided for each of these ULSs. ‘THIET (Go July 2012 40 Page 163,§10.1(2) In situations where the porewater pressure is hydrostatic (negligible hydraulic gradient) it is not required to check other than failure by uplift. o ae aoe §10.1 NOTE 5 The conditions for hydraulic failure of the ground can be expressed in terms of total stress and porewater pressure or in terms of effective stresses and hydraulic gradient. Total stress analysis is applied to failure by uplift. For failure by heave, both total and effective stresses are applied. Conditions are put on hydraulic gradients in order to control internal erosion and piping. ‘TYU ECT (Gon) say 2012 " §10.1(3)P_ highlights that the hydraulic gradients, porewater pressures and seepage forces are the predominant actions to be considered in designs against hydraulic failures. Special attention has to be given to the following: — the variation of soil permeability in time and space; — variations in water levels and porewater pressure in time; — modification in the geometry. ‘TYU ECT (Goh) Joly 2012 2 Page 164ground layer ag: permanent stat friction) to the permanent and variable destabilising actions from water and, possibly, other sources. YL ECT (oh) Jy 2012 8 Up tt boton ot en exction (9 Benton of sab sow tr ve oat und sate + oop ae fon ‘ak tg srce oon com aed ‘Binjected sand TYLIEG7 (Goh) sty 2012 16 Page 165Singapore National Annex SS EN 4997-2010 : Resistance to uplift by friction and anchor forces using tension _ piles and diaphragm walls, but not ground anchors, may also be treated as a stabilizing permanent vertical action (Gta) aoe 2 meter A decthe toc wheerestanceTedmolops Vai TYLIECT (Goh) sy 2012 6 - increasing the weight of the structure - decreasing the water pressure below the structure by drainage - anchoring the structure in the underlying strata TVLECT (Got) ly 2012 6 Page 16610.2 (2)P The design shall be checked against failure by uplift using inequality (2.8) of 2.4.7.4. Gacta + Qasta $ Satya * Ra forces (P) TVLI ECT (Got) Jy 2012 ‘ing permanent action (upwards forces) g variable actions (upwards forces) G.th,a = design value of the stabilizing permanent actions R, = design resistance = friction forces (T4) + anchor NA to 88 EN 1997-1 ; 2010 Table A.NA.15 — Partial factors on actions (y,) at the UPL limit states ‘Action Symbol Value Permanent Unfavourable 4 ve 14 Favourable ®) Yas 09 Variable Unfavourable Yass 15 Favourable 5 Yo 0 ‘TYUEC? (Goh) Jy 2012 © page 167ne Ms NA to 8S EN 1997-1 : 2010 Table A.NA.16 — Partial factors for soil parameters (7) and resistances (yg) at the uplift (UPL) limit state Soil parameter Symbol Value Angle of shearing resistance “) Wy 1.25 Effective cohesion Ye 1.25 Undrained shear strength Yeu 14 Resistance Symbol Value Tensile pile resistance Ys See Note 2 Anchor Ya 1.48) NOTE 2~ Pile design should comply with clauses A.3.3.2 and A3.3.3. TYUEGT (Get) sty 2012 1° TYUECT (Gon) ly 204 (Gon) ly 2012 2 page 168For a structure completely below the GWT, the water pressure acting on the top of the structure could be action and the water Pressure acting on the bottom as a destabilizing action. zing actions are multiplied by different partial factors, the safety against uplift would then depend on the water depth above the structure. (Frank et al 2004) ‘TYLIECT (Got Jy 2012 a The Single Source Principle §2,4.2(9)P may be applied. z factor Hy may be applied to the differences U, between these actions. © Yw(Hy — Hy)A = yyfH)A [SS EN1997-1 2.4.2(9)P Note states that “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 fo the sum of their offocts."] a zor Page 169Gass + Qasta S Seria * Ra becomes Ug $ Geiia + Gsoina + 27 becomes Ug = Yeast Ww(H)A Note: In calculating Goi, use effective unit weight y' to calculate the weight of below the GWT. TVUECT (Gah) July 2012 Guscra + Qdsa S Sawa + Ra Structural loading g, = 40 kPa (permanent) H, = 4.5 m Consider force per m run B=16m £20 kN/m? '=35°, c= 0 ‘TYUECT (Got) July 2012 2 Page 170Structural loading g, = 40 kPa Gastsa = Gast Yorast = (Hw)(Yu)(B)Yo;ast™ (4-5)(10)(16)(1.1) = 792 kN/m ‘TYUECT (Goh Jy 2012 Fa sea popeareroreer neo mpl He 10. fe elle Cexan Sosua * Oa: $ Gara + Ry Structural loading g, = 40 kPa B=16m Geto; = Sotoik Yoistn = (Ok)(B)Yeistb + (Grasement)¥e;stb = 40(16) (0.9) + 300(0.9) = 846 kN/m ‘TYLLECT (Ga July 2012 2 Page 174Be +Ra 19 9, = 40 kPa Gaeta . + Qa s Structural loadin: °” stabilizing action from . basement wal shear ‘y=20 KN/m? '=359, 7=0 B=16m Two common approaches to determine Rg i) Use yy to compute factored strength Compute R,, using 4’, and treat as permanent stabi action i.e. Ry = Ye;stp Ry = (0.9)Rx a “TYLIEGT (Got Jy 2012 y=20 kN/m? $/=35°, c’ =0 Gaeta + Qasta $ Fara + Ra Approach (i): Use y, to compute factored strength y= 1.25; = 35° Og = 29.3° > 8 = 2/39 = 19.5° > Ken = 0.29 Oy avg = 0-5(Hy)(Y ~ Yu) = 0.5(4.5)(10) = 22.5 kPa Ry = Kay tan(8y)(oy avg)Area = 0.29tan(19.5°)(22.5)(2x4.5) = 20.8 kN/m relative to ground. 22 TYLIECT (Got) dy 2042 eat Page 172=20 kN/m? Gears * Qastd S Gaibs * Ra yeas sb 0 Approach (ii): Compute R, using 4’, and treat as permanent stabilizing action i.e. Ry = Ye;st Ry = (0-9)R, 4 = 35° > = 2/39 = 23.3° > Ky, = 0.23 © avg = 0-5(Hy)(Y — Yy) = 0.5(4.5)(10) = 22.5 kPa Ry = Kan tan(8g)(oy avg)Area = 0.23tan(23.3°)(22.5)(2x4.5) = 20.1 kN/m Ra = Yeistp Ry = (0-9)20.1 = 18.1 kN/m Note: §2.4.7.4(2) Additional resistance to uplift may be treated as a stabilizing permanent vertical action G.i,,4 ‘TYLIECT (Goh Jy 2012 2 split Fatlure (Example #40, Gaus + std $ Gana + Ra Geta = 782 kN/m Gag 846 KN/m Approach (i): Ry = 20.8 kN/m > T'= 866.8/792 = 1.09 > OK Ry = 18.1 kN/m > [= 864.1/792 = 1.09 > OK ‘TYUECT (Go July 2012 30 Page 173,relevant soil column. Equation (2.9a) expresses the condition for stabil pressures and total stresses. in terms of porewater Equation (2.9b) expresses the same condition in terms of seepage forces Failure occurs when the upward seepage forces acting against the ‘weight of the soil reduces the effective stress to zero. sro ” asta S Fsto.d Action: E, = Ugg, = water pressure Resistance: Ry = Ost,4 = total vertical stress Susta G'sta (2.9b) Action: Ey = Sge,q= Seepage force 'ste.a = Submerged weight Resistance: R, = ‘TWUECT Gon).Yasta S Osea Susta S S'sta (2.9b) Equation (2.9a) expresses the condition for stability in terms of porewater pressures and total stresses. Equation (2.9b) expresses the same condition in terms of seepage forces and submerged weights. TYLIEGT (Got) Jay 2012 Yastd S Osta Action: Ey = Ugg, = water pressure Resistance: Ry = O,,p,q = total vertical stress 6 ‘TYUEC? (Gob Hy 2012 Page 175(2)P The determination of the characteristic value of the porewater pressure shall take into account all possible unfavourable conditions, such as: — thin layers of soil of low permeability; — spatial effects such as narrow, circular or rectangular excavations below water level. “TYLIEGT (Gon) ty 2012 NA to SS EN 1997-1: 2010 Table A.NA.17 ~ Partial factors on actions (j-) at the Hydraulic Heave (HYD) limit state Action Symbol Value Permanent y Unfavoursbie® Yesaat “hSah_ 138 Favourable yaa 0.9 Variable Unfavourable 5 15 Favourable ® 0 pore: stb;d) Cl e stabilizing total to arise from a single source Page 176oe Yan 219 KN/mE datum equjpotential i ib eH W’ = y(area x 1) = 0.5y'(D)?(1) la = average hydraulic head at the base of the soil prism ive =h/D; hy = (1.9Ah)/D = 1.9(4/7)/D seepage force U = iy,(area x 1) = lave¥w(0.5D)(D)(1) = 0.5y,D(h,)(1) 1 1T)2 A poe. 05YD' _ Dy _ 309-981) _, 59 U 0.5yyDh,() byyy 1.9(4/7)9.81 TYLIEGT (Gah) sty 2082 38 Page 17Pressure head h, = total head — elevation head = {1.9Ah - (-3.0)} = 1.9Ah +3 Pore pressure u = h,(y,) Action: Ey = Ugst,g = Water pressure = ‘Yo:ist(Uastsd = (1.35)(4.9Ah + 3)y,, = (1.35)40.08 = 54.11 kPa Resistance: Ry = Ost, = total vertical stress = Yosatn(Setns) = (0-9)(19x3) = (0.9)87 = 51.3 kPa T= 51.3 /54.11=0.95 > Not OK Note: Different partial factors applied to hydrostatic porewater pressures (see comments pages 41-46) . Susta 5 G'sw, (2.9b) Action: Ey = Sgs,a= Seepage force U = Yorast{ layety(0-5D(D)(1)} = 1.35{0.5y,,D(h,)(1)} Resistance: Ry = G'.4,,q = submerged weight = Yo:atp {0.5y'(D)?(1)} = 0.9 {0.57'(D)°(1)} _Rg__0.9)0.57D*)___ 0.9)Dy “Sy 0.35)0.57yDh,D) 1.35) %y 0.9x3(19-9.81) = =1.7) 1.35x1.9(4/7)9.81 _ 1 YL ECT (Gon) sty 2012 40 ae Page 178_ 0 Héave Failure (Comparison Ussed $ Sstoa ‘TYLEO? (Got) Sty 2012 “ “Heave Failure (Comparison of Eq. 2.9(@) and; DENTON S,, KIDD A, SIMPSON B,, and BOND A. (2010). Overview of geoiechnicl design of bridges and the provisions of UK Na for EN 1987-1, Proc of Brige Designo Eurocodes - UK Implementation, Nov. 2010, (CE: London Although Eq. 2.9(a) and (b) are effectively equivalent, they can yield different results depending upon the way in which partial factors are applied. The difficulty arises because although Table A.NA.17 gives values for the factors, BS EN 1997-1 does not state where they are to be applied in calculations, which has led to confusion. A pore water pressure component appears on both sides of equations (2.9a), whereas it does not appear on either side of equation (2.9b). ‘THLIECT (Got ty 2012 42 Page 179eae ailire’(Compariboniet Ea 29(@) and 29(6)) Thus, if the partial factor on stabilizing permanent actions is applied to all of the components of the stabilizing total vertical stress and the partial factor on destabilizing actions is applied to all of the components of the destabilizing total porewater pressure it has the effect of applying different partial factors to the porewater pressure components on either side of equation (2.9a). Since the porewater pressure component of the destabilizing total porewater pressure and the stabilizing total vertical stress arises from the same source (in fact, being the same pressure), such a differentiation of partial factors is unnecessary according to the single source principle. TYLIECT (Goh) ty 2012 8thereby “overcoming the’ potential for equations (2.9a) and (2.9b) to yield different results. ‘TYLIEGT (Go July 2012 4“ NA to SS EN 1997-1 : 2010 Table A.NA.17 ~ Partial factors on actions (77) at the Hydraulic Heave (HYD) limit stat ‘TYUECT (Goh July 2012 4 page 181(1)P Where prevailing hydraulic and soil conditions can lead to the ‘occurrence of piping, and where piping endangers the stability or serviceal of the hydraulic structure, prescriptive measures shall be taken to prevent the onset of the piping process, either by the application of filters or by taking structural measures to control or to block the groundwater flow. A es S08 VL! EO7 (Goh) Jty 2012 “0 Page 18211 Overall stability 11.1 General 11.2 Limit states 11.3 Actions and design situations 11.4 Design and construction considerations 11.5 Ultimate limit state design 11.6 Serviceability limit state design 11.7 Monitoring Note: Chapter 12 — design of er not covered in this course. — TYLIEO (Got) Jay 2012 4 (1)P All possible limit states for the particular ground shall be considered in order to fulfil the fundamental requirements of stability, limited deformations, durability and limitations in movements of nearby structures or services. (2) Some possible limit states are listed below: — loss of overall stability of the ground and associated structures; — excessive movements in the ground due to shear deformations, settlement, vibration or heave; — damage or loss of serviceability in neighbouring structures, roads or services due to movements in the ground. ‘TYLIEGT (Got) Jy 2012 0 Page 183,(12) Since a distinction between favourable and unfavourable gravity loads is not possible in assessing the most adverse slip surface, any uncertainty about weight density of the ground should be considered by applying upper and lower characteristic values of it. (13)P The design shall show that the deformation of the ground under design actions due to creep or regional settlements will not cause unacceptable damage to structures or infrastructure sited on, in or near the particular ground. TYUEOT Got sy 2012 51 ee [. Table A.NA.14 — Partial resistance factors for slopes and overall stability at the STR and GEO limit states Resistance Symbol Set Rt Earth Rie 1.0 resistance TYUECT (Goh) uy 2012 2 Page 184~ £220 Unfavourable weight “Favquyable weight, EC7 requires ferent partial factors to be applied to unfavourable and favourable actions. This is difficult to do for conventional limit equilibrium slope stability calculations. Need to apply Single Source Principle. ‘TYLIECT (Got) July 2012 8 » For undrained analysis (saturated clay $, = 0), EC7 solution corresponds to a traditional FS = 1.4. » For drained analysis (c’ — 4’ soil), EC7 solution corresponds to a traditional FS = 1.25. ls, EC7 solution corresponds to a traditional FS of between 1.25 of 1.4. » EC7 does not differentiate between temporary or permanent slopes. The importance of the slope is also not considered. ‘TYUECT (Goh) Jy 2012 4 Page 185,where cross-sectional area ABCD = 70 m? and arc length ABC = 18.9 m. Compare with DA1C2. y= 19 KN/m? c, = 65 kPa 4.4 Conventional 3 a nvantna) Area ABCD = 70 m; arc length ABC tae = 18.9 m. y= 19 kN/m? c, = 65 kPa Mg = eyLar M,= FS =Ma/M, = 65(18.9)(12.1) / (70 x 19 x 4.5) = 2.48 T¥LLECT (Goh) sly 2012 5 page 186yr 19 19 kN/m? cy = 65 kPa Mew = (Cubvevlbat ! Yr:e Masta = YozastlW / Jd T= Maia! Masa = 10520 / 5985 =1.76 > (= FS/1.4) You = 1-4; Y= 1.05 yee = 1.0; ‘Yordst = 1.0 (Slope self weight is a péomangnt unfavourable action) TYUECT (Got) July 2012 sr stabi ity of the ground close to an excavation, cluding excavation spoil and existing structures, roads and services shall be checked (see Section 9). (2)P The stability of the bottom of an excavation shall be checked in relation to the design porewater pressure in the ground. For the analysis of hydraulic failure see Section 10. (3)P Heave of the bottom of deep excavations due to unloading shall be considered. ‘TYUEGT (Goh Jy 2012 58 Page 187(1)P The design shall show that the deformation of the ground under characteristic actions will not cause a serviceability limit state in structures and infrastructure on or near the particular ground. ‘TYLIECT (Goh) Jy 2012 (2) Monitoring should be planned to provide knowledge of: — groundwater levels or porewater pressures in the ground, so that effective stress analyses can be carried out or checke: — lateral and vertical ground movements, in order to predict further deformations; — the depth and shape of the moving surface in a developed slide, in order to derive the ground strength parameters for the design of remedial works; — rates of movement, in order to give warning of impending danger; in such cases a remote digital readout for the instruments or a remote alarm system may be appropriate. TYEE (on aay 2012 ® o Page 188,L= Length of Cut B= Width of Cut H= Height of Cut ‘T= Clay thickness below base of Cut 5.TeyBy (YHB, + qBy —cy,H) B,=7, if Ts 0.7B and = B, = 0.7B, if T > 0.7B B, = BN2 = 0.7B “TYUECT (Goh Jy 2012 B= Width of Cut H= Height of Cut T= Clay thickness below base of Cut FS = (Resisting / Driving) 5.7¢,By +Cy,H ° (yHB, +qB,) B,=T, if T<0.7B and = B, = 0.7B, if T > 0.7B B, = BN2=0.7B ‘TYLIECT (Gop sty 2012 62 Page 189,Width B = 20m pupae tokPa = 20 KN/m? c, = 40 kPa 12 Not to scale 15m 7 = 20 KN/m? c, = 60 kPa ‘YL ECr (Goh) Jy 2012 B, = 0.78 = 0.7(20)=14m

You might also like

• Sap2000 General

  

  100% (1)

  Sap2000 General

  64 pages
• Application of Eurocode 7 For Earth Retaining Structures

  

  100% (1)

  Application of Eurocode 7 For Earth Retaining Structures

  57 pages
• Direct 2nd Order Analysis R Liew 2013 PDF

  

  100% (1)

  Direct 2nd Order Analysis R Liew 2013 PDF

  42 pages
• Guide On Ground Investigation and Geotechnical Characteristic Values To EC7 24 Apr 2015

  

  100% (2)

  Guide On Ground Investigation and Geotechnical Characteristic Values To EC7 24 Apr 2015

  40 pages
• Iem Workshop Ec8 2012

  

  No ratings yet

  Iem Workshop Ec8 2012

  108 pages
• Structural Steel Construction - Course Notes

  

  No ratings yet

  Structural Steel Construction - Course Notes

  359 pages
• FEA Best Practices

  

  0% (1)

  FEA Best Practices

  105 pages
• GeoSS-BCA EC7 Briefing (19nov2014) PDF

  

  100% (1)

  GeoSS-BCA EC7 Briefing (19nov2014) PDF

  32 pages
• Substation Sample Photo Handbook

  

  No ratings yet

  Substation Sample Photo Handbook

  55 pages
• Substation Sample Photo Handbook

  

  No ratings yet

  Substation Sample Photo Handbook

  55 pages
• ERSS Requirements

  

  No ratings yet

  ERSS Requirements

  21 pages
• NSL Hollow Core Slabs 12jul16 - 2016 Edition PDF

  

  50% (2)

  NSL Hollow Core Slabs 12jul16 - 2016 Edition PDF

  24 pages
• NSL Hollow Core Slabs 12jul16 - 2016 Edition PDF

  

  50% (2)

  NSL Hollow Core Slabs 12jul16 - 2016 Edition PDF

  24 pages
• Retaining Walls With High Water Loads To EC7 PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  Retaining Walls With High Water Loads To EC7 PDF

  4 pages
• PRESENTATION - Link To SG External Training Notes (Aug 2017) PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  PRESENTATION - Link To SG External Training Notes (Aug 2017) PDF

  11 pages
• 02 - Ground Investigation Requirements and Derivation of Characteristic and Most Proable Design Parameters

  

  No ratings yet

  02 - Ground Investigation Requirements and Derivation of Characteristic and Most Proable Design Parameters

  47 pages
• Date: 16 Sep 2016: Your Ref: Our Ref

  

  No ratings yet

  Date: 16 Sep 2016: Your Ref: Our Ref

  82 pages
• Date: 16 Sep 2016: Your Ref: Our Ref

  

  No ratings yet

  Date: 16 Sep 2016: Your Ref: Our Ref

  82 pages
• The Highly Variable Jurong Formation

  

  No ratings yet

  The Highly Variable Jurong Formation

  88 pages
• Handout - IES-SPRING Workshop - 24feb17 - Pt1

  

  No ratings yet

  Handout - IES-SPRING Workshop - 24feb17 - Pt1

  76 pages
• Specifying Sustainable Concrete PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  Specifying Sustainable Concrete PDF

  26 pages
• PLAXIS Singapore (2011) - User Meeting 001 PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  PLAXIS Singapore (2011) - User Meeting 001 PDF

  319 pages
• PLAXIS Singapore (2011) - User Meeting 001 PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  PLAXIS Singapore (2011) - User Meeting 001 PDF

  319 pages
• PLAXIS Singapore (2011) - User Meeting 001 PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  PLAXIS Singapore (2011) - User Meeting 001 PDF

  319 pages
• EC 7 Part 1 Seminar

  

  100% (2)

  EC 7 Part 1 Seminar

  178 pages
• Nicoll Highway Collapse

  

  100% (1)

  Nicoll Highway Collapse

  16 pages
• Seminar On Excavation & Lateral Support Works (2005)

  

  No ratings yet

  Seminar On Excavation & Lateral Support Works (2005)

  93 pages
• Ec7 Wallap

  

  No ratings yet

  Ec7 Wallap

  20 pages
• Introduction of ERSS (IED)

  

  No ratings yet

  Introduction of ERSS (IED)

  50 pages
• ACES Series of Eurocodes Workshops PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  ACES Series of Eurocodes Workshops PDF

  89 pages
• En 1997

  

  100% (1)

  En 1997

  76 pages
• 06 EC2WS Frank Geotechnics PDF

  

  100% (1)

  06 EC2WS Frank Geotechnics PDF

  55 pages
• Foundation Design and Construction in Cavernous Karst: A Local Experience

  

  100% (1)

  Foundation Design and Construction in Cavernous Karst: A Local Experience

  6 pages
• Retaining Walls Shear Key PDF

  

  100% (1)

  Retaining Walls Shear Key PDF

  4 pages
• Design & Detailing of Prestressed Building Floors in Singapore Using Eurocode May 2015 PDF

  

  100% (1)

  Design & Detailing of Prestressed Building Floors in Singapore Using Eurocode May 2015 PDF

  151 pages
• Design & Detailing of Prestressed Building Floors in Singapore Using Eurocode May 2015 PDF

  

  100% (1)

  Design & Detailing of Prestressed Building Floors in Singapore Using Eurocode May 2015 PDF

  151 pages
• L1 - Introduction To EC7

  

  No ratings yet

  L1 - Introduction To EC7

  17 pages
• 242 1 NZ 1day Intro K Values Aframe

  

  100% (1)

  242 1 NZ 1day Intro K Values Aframe

  67 pages
• Second Generation of Eurocode 7 Improvements and Challenges: Welcome

  

  No ratings yet

  Second Generation of Eurocode 7 Improvements and Challenges: Welcome

  93 pages
• Burland Triangle

  

  100% (2)

  Burland Triangle

  52 pages
• Soil Nails Loose Fill Slopes

  

  100% (1)

  Soil Nails Loose Fill Slopes

  98 pages
• Second Order Effects EN1992-1-1

  

  100% (2)

  Second Order Effects EN1992-1-1

  59 pages
• Annual Seminar 2015 PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  Annual Seminar 2015 PDF

  196 pages
• Lessons Learned From Foundation Failure by Prof. Wong

  

  No ratings yet

  Lessons Learned From Foundation Failure by Prof. Wong

  38 pages
• Geotech Lecture Notes & Tut Combine

  

  No ratings yet

  Geotech Lecture Notes & Tut Combine

  796 pages
• 03-Ir Chow-Design and Execution of Jack-In Piles in Malaysia (31st August 2015)

  

  No ratings yet

  03-Ir Chow-Design and Execution of Jack-In Piles in Malaysia (31st August 2015)

  112 pages
• Geotechnical Aspects of Bridge Design (EN 1997) - EN1997 - Bridges - RFrank PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  Geotechnical Aspects of Bridge Design (EN 1997) - EN1997 - Bridges - RFrank PDF

  65 pages
• Geotechnical Aspects of Building Design (EN 1997) : Eurocode 2

  

  No ratings yet

  Geotechnical Aspects of Building Design (EN 1997) : Eurocode 2

  55 pages
• Finger 1 Project - ERSS Report For Temporary Drain Diversion - 24 Sep 2014

  

  No ratings yet

  Finger 1 Project - ERSS Report For Temporary Drain Diversion - 24 Sep 2014

  67 pages
• Interpretation of CPT Test Results For An Underground Project in Soft Clays

  

  100% (1)

  Interpretation of CPT Test Results For An Underground Project in Soft Clays

  8 pages
• Plaxis L11 - Slope Stability Including Unsaturated Behaviour

  

  100% (3)

  Plaxis L11 - Slope Stability Including Unsaturated Behaviour

  24 pages
• Engineering Geological Practice in Hong Kong Vol1

  

  No ratings yet

  Engineering Geological Practice in Hong Kong Vol1

  155 pages
• Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Limit Analysis

  

  100% (1)

  Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Limit Analysis

  61 pages
• Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Limit Analysis

  

  No ratings yet

  Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Limit Analysis

  19 pages
• Characteristics of Singapore Marine Clay at Changi

  

  No ratings yet

  Characteristics of Singapore Marine Clay at Changi

  11 pages
• EC 7 Part 2 PDF

  

  100% (1)

  EC 7 Part 2 PDF

  224 pages
• Assessment of Excavation-Induced Building Damage, E.J.cording

  

  No ratings yet

  Assessment of Excavation-Induced Building Damage, E.J.cording

  23 pages
• Requirements On GI (DR Poh TY)

  

  100% (3)

  Requirements On GI (DR Poh TY)

  52 pages
• Design and Performance of Deep Excavations in Soft Clays

  

  No ratings yet

  Design and Performance of Deep Excavations in Soft Clays

  27 pages
• As 2015 Opt

  

  No ratings yet

  As 2015 Opt

  196 pages
• 02-Dr Ooi-Design of Jacked-In Piles & Case Studies in Singapore

  

  No ratings yet

  02-Dr Ooi-Design of Jacked-In Piles & Case Studies in Singapore

  39 pages
• Displacement-Based Design For Deep Excavations

  

  No ratings yet

  Displacement-Based Design For Deep Excavations

  19 pages
• Finite Element Analysis of A Deep Excavation in Kenny Hill Formation 2018

  

  No ratings yet

  Finite Element Analysis of A Deep Excavation in Kenny Hill Formation 2018

  7 pages
• Eurocode With Geostudio PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  Eurocode With Geostudio PDF

  6 pages
• CE5108 NOV 2017 - Prof Harry On Example Use of FEM in EC7 For ERSS and Slopes

  

  No ratings yet

  CE5108 NOV 2017 - Prof Harry On Example Use of FEM in EC7 For ERSS and Slopes

  75 pages
• Finger 1 Project - ERSS Report For Temporary Drain Diversion - 23 Sep 2014

  

  No ratings yet

  Finger 1 Project - ERSS Report For Temporary Drain Diversion - 23 Sep 2014

  66 pages
• BS EN 1997 - Geotechnical Design Examples PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  BS EN 1997 - Geotechnical Design Examples PDF

  14 pages
• Eurocode 7

  

  No ratings yet

  Eurocode 7

  8 pages
• Tunelling in Soft Soils

  

  No ratings yet

  Tunelling in Soft Soils

  14 pages
• 04-NSF Design and EC7 (Prof Harry Tan)

  

  100% (2)

  04-NSF Design and EC7 (Prof Harry Tan)

  66 pages
• 1 Shear Strength & Slope Stability-IEM Lecture (22feb19) V2notes PDF

  

  100% (2)

  1 Shear Strength & Slope Stability-IEM Lecture (22feb19) V2notes PDF

  152 pages
• Geotechnical Properties of Old Alluvium in Singapore, 2001

  

  No ratings yet

  Geotechnical Properties of Old Alluvium in Singapore, 2001

  11 pages
• Singapore Soil Formations

  

  No ratings yet

  Singapore Soil Formations

  11 pages
• Skin Friction and Pile Design

  

  No ratings yet

  Skin Friction and Pile Design

  7 pages
• Geotechnical Design: Worked Examples

  

  100% (4)

  Geotechnical Design: Worked Examples

  172 pages
• Working Platforms To BRE or Not To BRE Is The Question Mar 16 AG PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  Working Platforms To BRE or Not To BRE Is The Question Mar 16 AG PDF

  11 pages
• GeoSS-BCA EC7 Briefing (19nov2014)

  

  100% (4)

  GeoSS-BCA EC7 Briefing (19nov2014)

  63 pages
• WONG & GOH Basal Heave Stability For Wide Excavations

  

  No ratings yet

  WONG & GOH Basal Heave Stability For Wide Excavations

  7 pages
• Geo-E2010 Advanced Soil Mechanics L Wojciech Sołowski: 14 March 2017

  

  100% (2)

  Geo-E2010 Advanced Soil Mechanics L Wojciech Sołowski: 14 March 2017

  75 pages
• SC Fire Protection Guide PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  SC Fire Protection Guide PDF

  81 pages
• ACES Series of Eurocodes Workshops PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  ACES Series of Eurocodes Workshops PDF

  89 pages
• Boiling or Heaving in Cofferdams

  

  No ratings yet

  Boiling or Heaving in Cofferdams

  2 pages
• Briaud, 1999, The Pressuremeter and Capacity of Stiff Clays

  

  No ratings yet

  Briaud, 1999, The Pressuremeter and Capacity of Stiff Clays

  14 pages
• Database For Retaining Wall and Ground Movements Due To Deep Excavation

  

  No ratings yet

  Database For Retaining Wall and Ground Movements Due To Deep Excavation

  22 pages
• Design Issues Related To Jet Grouted Slabs at The Base of Excavations, 2000

  

  No ratings yet

  Design Issues Related To Jet Grouted Slabs at The Base of Excavations, 2000

  6 pages
• L1 Piles Subject To Lateral Soil Movement

  

  100% (1)

  L1 Piles Subject To Lateral Soil Movement

  32 pages