Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Some points that deserve or need a more general discussion are out-
oI'structural pai~ strip foudations (Figure 1). A statical calculation with characteristic
structural loads leads to reaction forces R,, R3 etc, assuming non-yield-
ing supports in a first approximation. Statical equilibrium for each
foundation (Figure 1 inset, subscripts omitted) requires identity of
atanc in the grouncI action and resistance, F = R. The design situation is obtained with par-
tial factors, named IIF and n for convenience instead of 7 as in the
Eurocodes:
Prof Dr-Ing G Gudehus, University of Karlsruhe,8 Prof A
Fd = nF Fn c Ra = Rn/IIR
Weigenbach, University of Dortmund, Germany.
The subscript n indicates nominal values of action and resistance, F
Wurocode 7 proposes ultimate limit states for the design of struc- and R, calculated with characteristic values and assumed dimensions
Wtural parts at and in the ground, abbreviated ULS 1B. They have of the structure. R is the statically required supporting force. It is
&been introduced in order to reconcile the structural Eurocodes, in increased by a load factor nF as for structural design and can be split
particular EC2 for concrete, with EC7 within the frame of EC1. The into permanent and temporary parts. nF = 1.4 is obtained via '/,1.35 +
resulting compromise has some shortcomings from a geotechnical /3 1.50 with dominant weight ( /3), which is typical for such cases, and
point of view: the factors 1.35and 1.50for permanent and temporary actions. This fac-
~ The partial factor 1.35for permanent actions is not tractable in many tor cannot be justified by fluctuations of weight only, but by uncertain-
cases; ties of 'actions't the foundations, ie of internal forces there, due to
~ contact pressures among structural parts and ground cannot gener- irregularities of stiffhess and mechanical history.
ally be classified as action or resistance; The nominal resistance R is calculated with an assumed breadth b
~ it is difficult to transfer well-established design procedures and glob- of the foundation using characteristic soil strength parameters, sim-
al factors. plified soil layers and a nominal water table. It is reduced by n in order
The German National Application Document (NAD), which to cover uncertainties of the soil model and parameters. With the value
appeared April 1996, is an attempt to avoid these shortcomings. The n= 1.4, Eq 1 leads to the familiar 'global'actor II = IIF II-2.0. This
German pre-standard DIN V 1054-100 referred to in this NAD, which is may be replaced by a higher value, eg II = 3.0, for stiff clay. A desirable
outlined and discussed in the sequel, is intended to: reduction of the factor for action, say to 3)F = 1.25, can easily be allowed
~ incorporate established global factors so that a correction of the said for by a higher II=II/IIF . The proposed design format is thus the same
1.35 can also be allowed for; as for structural parts off the ground, incorporates well established
~ better avoid arbitrary interpretations of the partly vague EC7 text; experience and avoids details of soil mechanics and probabilistics.
~ avoid over- or underdesign in cases of well-established practice. A I'rame structure on shallow block foundations is more complicated
Shallow and spread foundations are treated first. The forces acting as the latter obtain inclined and eccentric forces (Figure 2). Nominal
upon groups of block foundations and the resisting forces from the forces with inclinations and eccentricities (F, 5, e in Figure 2 inset,
ground are first calculated without partial safety factors. The forces are without subscripts for brevity) are obtained from a statical calculation
then changed into design values by partial factors as in structural which may include assumed subgrade springs for representing the
engineering and so that established global factors are reproduced. yielding ground. Acting and resisting design forces are calculated with
Hydrostatic uplift and horizontal sliding are similarly treated as addi- the same partial factors nF and nas above, assuming the same incli-
tional ultimate limit states (ULS 1A and B). nation and relative eccentricity, 5 and e/b, as in the nominal situation.
Groups of piles and anchors are treated in the same manner. The Established relations for the ground resistance R in case of base fail-
forces from the superstructure are calculated as for shallow ure can be used avoiding lengthy discussions on safe values of 5 and
foundations. The resistance of the ground against penetration or pull- e/b.
out is reduced by a partial factor depending on loading test results. Lateral forces at the foundation can also be allowed for. An active
Ultimate limit states of pile and anchor groups can also involve large earth pressure, at the left side in the case of Figure 2 inset, is included
zones of the ground, leading to 'global'plift or base failure (ULS 1A into F, 5 and e. A passive earth pressure at the right side can likewise
and C). be included; it is thus part of the action at the foundation base, which
The same concept can be used for retaining structures. The breadth is inevitable for internal forces. The force component ratios, 5 and e/ b,
of L-walls is determined from weight and earth pressure as for a strip are again estimated for the nominal situation. A sufficient safety
foundation. Bedding depth and struts of pile walls are determined by against sliding on a cohesionless base is obtained with
considering simple beams. Similar beams are considered with several
rows of anchors and with allowance for vertical force components. The tan 5~ tan 5, /I4 (2)
length of anchor tendons is determined by group failure (ULS 1C). Soil
nailing is a special case. wherein 5= 5 is the nominal force inclination, 5, the base friction
Uplift and seepage forces can be incorporated by taking effective angle, and I4 an associated safety factor. The familiar safety level is
forces in the soil skeleton and in structural parts in the ground. obtained with I4 = 1.5. We thus consider the horizontal and vertical
Instationary pore water pressures related with volume changes of the components of F as coupled due to the interaction of structure and
soil are left aside. Possible redistributions of structural forces are ground.
briefly discussed. They are covered by partial factors in the proposed Hydrostatic uplift is considered as a special ultimate limite state
concept which requires a certain degree of ductility. (ULS 1A for spread foundations (Figure 3). A trough is lifted if its nom-
tn, tn,
Fs W /II (3)
Herein Fdenotes the resulting hydrostatic uplift force, II the associ-
wherein the partial factor is lower than in the case outlined above, typ- ated partial factor as in Eq (3), W the nominal weight of the slab plus
ically II-1.05 to 1.1.This is sufficient as the nominal forces Fand W the buoyant weight of the lifted part of the ground, and F a pull-out
do not depend on statical redistributions and are less uncertain there- resistance of the anchor sections below the assumed separating sur-
fore. face. Eq (4) is thus a combination of Eqs (1) and (3) combining ULS 1A
This format can be transferred to the bottom of a drained excavation and B. (Following EC7, one has to consider this case as ULS 1C, but the
with an injected sealing layer (Figure 3). Acting and resisting forces are partial factors for shear strength of the soil would lead to inconsistent
determined by nominal total and water pressures, a and u, of the layer. results.)
F= Wwould express hovering (II= 1), meaning zero effective stress,
a' a u = 0, at the bottom. Eq (3) can again be used, so that mean pres- Retalninl structures
sures are represented by forces. An L-wall can be treated similarly as a shallow foundation with
inclined and eccentric force (Figure 7). A gravity structure with total
Groups of plies or anchors weight W and earth pressure E is obtained for calculation by means of
The building of Figure 1 may now stand on a group of vertical piles a vertical separating surface behind the wall. A resulting force F with
passing through soft ground (Figure 4). the nominal supporting forces inclination 5 and eccentricity e is obtained from Wand E with positions
R,, Rr, etc are calculated as before (possibly including a force redistrib- b and hE . The nominal ground resistance R is calculated with the
ution which can be achieved by attributing subgrade moduli to the sup- nominal 5 and e/b, the characteristic soil parameters, nominal layers
ports). The statically required supporting force R of each pile is trans- and water table. The breadth b is sufficient if Eq (1) is satisfied with the
ferred to the bearing layer (Figure 4 inset). With the nominal acting same factors IIP and IIR as for any other shallow foundation.
and resisting forces, Fand R, determined with characteristic values, Dimensioning the bottom plate with ULS 1B thus includes its breadth b.
assumed dimensions (eg d, and d2 for the fixed pile section) and with- Other failure mechanisms have to be considered with generally
Rgme 7. L~pe
iehlnlng wall.
Rgme'tg.
Pge wall wgh two
P rews el anchors.
ha 1ai
rttttt
Az
a,
/
/
/
/
/
other partial factors. Safety against sliding without adhesion is soil parameters. With IIR 1.4 the familiar global factor = -
q IIPIIR 2.0 is
assessed with Eq (2). A passive earth pressure in front of the founda- obtained. Adaptations of Rz are adequate for elevated active earth pres-
tion may be incorporated into F if a ditch can be reliably avoided there. sures and for exceptional design situations.
The global failure can be analysed with a slip circle, as indicated in As stated above for groups of piles, the designs of more complicated
Figure 7, using partial factors for shear strength parameters as pro- retaining structures with a few fixed partial factors can be misleading.
posed for ULS 1C. Bending moments for the design of cross sections of The ratios of supporting forces and heights, such as A/B and hz /h,
the wall and the bottom plate can be determined by estimating parts of may be fixed in empirically well-established cases (comparable to 6 and
the earth pressure and the soil weight above the slab. e/b for shallow foundations). Redistributions can only be followed up
A concrete or steel sheet pile wall with a row of struts and further by detailed observation and calculation in the sense of the observa-
lateral support by the lower ground is treated as a vertical beam with tional method; partial factors are not helpful then.
two supports (Figure Sa). The statically required supporting forces A Resting or streaming ground water can be allowed for by using effec-
and B are obtained from the nominal earth pressure E with two equi- tive forces, ie total forces minus resulting water pressures (Figure Sb).
librium conditions and the heights hz and hz (only horizontal compo- Seepage forces f, at the soil skeleton and net water pressures au can be
nents are considered here). E is the characteristic active earth pressure estimated from nominal water tables. The effective earth pressure E's
due to soil weight and surcharge p if the wall is allowed to yield suffi- calculated with the resulting skeleton volume force y '+ fand E'ith
ciently. hz and hz can be estimated for the nominal situation with estab- y
'
f,, both for the flooded soil fraction, and with total specific weight
lished methods of earth pressure calculation, so representing assumed y for the soil above. The heights hz and hz have to be estimated as
pressure distributions. For the assessment of safety the bedding depth before. (The seepage force may be substituted by an additional net
d has to be assumed, and corrected by iteration. water pressure as indicated by the dotted line in Figure Sb.) As without
Eq (1) is now written for the ULS 1B of the struts and the earth sup- water, the chosen bedding depth d is sufficient if Eq (1) is satisfied. The
port. The nominal actions are the statically required supporting forces struts are calculated with the partial factors prescribed for other struc-
A and B. The associated partial factor IIF is the same as for the previ- tural parts. The total structure is thus treated similarly as the soil
-
ously considered cases. A rather high factor, Rz 1.40, is justified by skeleton as far as the actions of water are concerned.
uncertainties of the calculation model and the parameters although For a concrete or steel sheet pile wall with anchors, vertical compo-
the soil weight is nearly fixed. The nominal resistance Rof the earth nents and pull-out resistance have to be allowed for (Figure 9).
support is the passive earth pressure E calculated with characteristic Inclination e and head depth hof the anchors are chosen. The earth
pressure inclinations, 6, and 6, have to be estimated and must not
exceed the wall friction angle. The statically required supporting
forces A and B are obtained from the earth pressure E (normally
active) and its assumed position. (In addition, the equilibrium of ver-
tical forces can be considered with lower and upper bounds of the ver-
tical force S at the bottom.) The bearing capacity of the earth support
is assessed as before, using a cautious estimate of 6 for E . Cross sec-
tions and pull-out resistance of the anchors are calculatecf with Eq (1).
The partial factor qz may be different from the one for vertical
anchors. The factor qz for the statically required supporting forces A
and B is the same as before, which is again justified by uncertainties
fst of the mechanical model and the parameters. The bending moment for
ULS 1B of the wall cross section is estimated as before. An ULS 1C is
E'gmu
analysed with slip surfaces (dashed lines in Figure 9) which are not
constrained by the anchors. The partial pull-out resistance of the
anchors in the non-sliding part of the ground has to be taken then with
8. Pge wall supporhdhy slnds andhwersog (hdt), same syshmwgh the same partial factor IIR . This case is similar as the one of Figure 6,
groundwahr (right). but this time we have a hybrid of ULS 1B and 1C.
.
Rttwo 11 Cut
with soil nol lint)
gelt), ottulllbrlutn
of toraoo at a
T ~~
Rt+82+Rs
Consolidation of
alluvium resulting
olhNnj3 unnttto
w
(rhtht).