Geotechnical Engineering

Volume 165 Issue GE1

The design of temporary excavation support
to Eurocode 7
Markham

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Geotechnical Engineering 165 February 2012 Issue GE1
Pages 312 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geng.2012.165.1.3
Paper 900096
Received 17/12/2009
Accepted 20/01/2011
Keywords: codes of practice & standards/excavation/temporary works

ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

The design of temporary

excavation support to
Eurocode 7
Paul David Markham MSc, CEng, FICE
Director, RNP Associates Limited, Sutton Coldeld, UK

This paper examines how Eurocode 7 relates to the design of temporary excavation support. It is shown that total
stress design and the net available passive resistance method described in Ciria Report 104 can produce inconsistent
results, which must be carefully checked for sensitivity to the soil parameter values used. Many temporary
excavations are designed using moderately conservative soil parameter values and a limit equilibrium method of
analysis with a lumped factor of safety of 1.5. It is concluded that design in accordance with Eurocode 7 produces
higher propping forces than design using this approach, but that Eurocode 7 produces propping forces over 60%
lower than design in accordance with Ciria Report C580.

Notation
cu
cu;d
ka
kac
kp
kpc
Psls
ua
up
F
G;dst
G;stb

a

p

va

vp

v9a

v9p

1.

undrained cohesion
design value of undrained cohesion
active pressure coefficient
active pressure coefficient
passive pressure coefficient
passive pressure coefficient
value of the prop force derived from the SLS load case
pore water pressure on active side of wall
pore water pressure on passive side of wall
partial factor for an action
partial factor for a permanent destabilising action
partial factor for a permanent stabilising action
active earth pressure
passive earth pressure
total vertical stress on the active side of the wall
total vertical stress on the passive side of the wall
effective vertical stress on the active side of the wall
effective vertical stress on the passive side of the wall

Where frames or props are used, proprietary equipment available

for hire will usually be used (Figure 1).
The major differences between the design of temporary and
permanent excavation support include the following.
Temporary works are required for a comparatively short time,
thus in fine-grained soils it can be appropriate to use total
stress parameters for the design rather than effective stress
parameters
j The design has to be undertaken based on the ground
investigation report for the permanent works. Often this
report has not been conceived or written for the design of
temporary excavations; the necessary information for design
j

Introduction

Eurocode 7 (EC7) (BSI, 2004a) is now the sole national and

European standard for the design of geotechnical works and its
use is mandatory on publicly funded work. There are several
design guides to EC7 (Bond and Harris, 2008; Department for
Communities and Local Government, 2007; Frank et al., 2004),
which state the general manner in which EC7 is applied. This
paper will specifically refer to the design of routine excavation
support, usually carried out by a contractor as part of the
construction process, and is based on the authors experience of
the design and checking of temporary works schemes. These
excavations are supported by the use of steel trench sheets or
steel sheet piles with or without support from frames or props.

Figure 1. Typical small temporary excavation supported by trench

sheets and proprietary frames

Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 165 Issue GE1

The design of temporary excavation

support to Eurocode 7
Markham

of such structures is absent and there is not time to conduct a

supplementary site investigation. Where suitable site
investigation data are not available, then it would not be
possible to do a design in accordance with EC7.
j The excavation is in the upper layers of soil. The ground in
this area often consists of fill, made ground, disturbed ground,
head or recent deposits that do not form coherent beds.
Owing to a lack of suitable case histories, it is usually
difficult to base the design on case histories from previous
excavations in similar material.
j These temporary excavations are usually less than 6 m deep.

usually treated as unfavourable throughout. However, towards the

toe of the wall the soil on the retained side becomes favourable
because it prevents rotation of the toe of the wall and reduces
bending moment in the wall and reduces prop loads. It is not
clear where the soil changes from being unfavourable to favourable and using the principles of EC7 different partial factors
should be applied to each of these actions, which would make the
calculations unnecessarily complex. When favourable and unfavourable actions come from the same source, EC7 allows the
same partial factor, F, to be applied to all those forces; this
reduces the complexity of the calculations and has become known
as the single source principle.

BS 8002:1994 (BSI, 1994) has not been widely adopted by

designers of sheet pile walls (Puller and Lee, 1996). Therefore,
temporary works design of retaining walls uses a hybrid of
several methods. Gaba et al. (2003) recognised that there was a
multitude of guidance for designers and that this advice was often
contradictory, and therefore aimed to summarise both best practice and the alternative design methods in Ciria Report C580.
This was published before the publication of EC7 and is not
compatible with EC7 on some issues, such as factors of safety for
stability and strut design.

2.

For retaining walls, in cohesionless soils, the active and passive

earth pressures are calculated from the formulae
active pressure

a k a
v9a ua

passive pressure

p k p
v9p up

Eurocode 7

2.1 Application of the partial factors

Eurocode 7 is a limit state and partial factor code which adopts
the same philosophy as the other structural Eurocodes, with
actions subject to different partial factors depending on whether
they are favourable (or stabilising) or unfavourable (or destabilising). For example, when treated as an action, earth pressure is
subject to the partial factors G;fav 1.0 for a favourable action
or the partial factor G 1.35 for an unfavourable action. On a
propped wall (Figure 2) the soil on the retained side of the wall is

Substituting the usual formula for effective stress and rearranging

to separate the effects of earth and water pressure, the formulae
become:

a k a
va ua 1
k a

and

Unfavourable permanent
geotechnical action, G 135
Actual earth pressure
distribution (indicative)

Earth pressure according

to active earth pressure theory
Actual earth pressure
distribution
Favourable permanent
geotechnical action, G 100
Surcharge, Q 0

Earth pressure according to

passive earth pressure theory

Figure 2. Propped retaining wall showing that it is not clear

where the earth pressure changes from being an unfavourable
action to a favourable action

Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 165 Issue GE1

p k p
vp up 1
k p

Since ka is generally less than 1.0, these formulae show that the
vertical total stress on the active side of the wall,
va , and the
water pressure on the active side of the wall, ua , are both
unfavourable, since they increase the pressure on the active side
of the wall. On the passive side of the wall, as the vertical total
stress,
vp , increases so the passive pressure increases, hence the
vertical total stress is favourable. However, since kp is greater
than 1.0, the term (1
kp ) is negative and water on the passive
side reduces the passive resistance; hence it is unfavourable. To
avoid applying different partial factors to the earth and water
pressures it is simplest to use the single source principle.
2.2 Comparable experience
Eurocode 7 places considerable value on comparable experience,
which is defined in clause 1.5.2.2 as follows.
Documented or other clearly established information related to the
ground being considered in design, involving the same types of soil
and rock and for which similar geotechnical behaviour is expected,
and involving similar structures. Information gained locally is
considered to be particularly relevant. (BSI, 2004a)

Therefore, to use comparable experience, the soil and the scale of

the structure must be similar. However, there is a shortage of case
histories for shallow excavations, which limits the circumstances
in which comparable experience can be applied (Driscoll et al.,
2008). Consequently, an alternative method is required (Section 3).
2.3 Deformation
Eurocode 7 requires the engineer to assess deformation when this
could have an effect on neighbouring structures. Where there are
sufficient geotechnical data available, sufficient time for the
analysis and appropriate engineering expertise, then deformation
can be calculated using the finite-element (FE) method of analysis. However, the data and time are not usually available for FE
analysis for these routine excavation supports. Therefore, deformation is best assessed on the basis of case history data such as
the charts by Clough and ORourke (1990).
2.4 Guidance
Previous standards, such as CP2:1951 (Institution of Structural
Engineers, 1951) and BS 8002:1994 (BSI, 1994), attempted to
provide the designer with rules for design and the geotechnical information necessary to do the design. EC7 provides
only the rules for design to ensure safety and economy
(Simpson and Driscoll, 1998) and allows the engineer considerable scope regarding choice of method. Therefore, the
engineer is required to consult other references to non-contradictory complementary information (NCCI) such as Ciria
Report C580 (Gaba et al., 2003). The British Standards
Institution is also publishing NCCI for structures subject to

The design of temporary excavation

support to Eurocode 7
Markham

traffic loading. BSI has also published NCCI for structures

subject to traffic loading in PD 6694-1 (BSI, 2011) which
says very little about embedded retaining walls and refers the
reader to Ciria Report C580 (Gaba et al., 2003).
This leaves the engineer in a difficult position as illustrated by
an international workshop (Orr, 2005: p. 4) which was held to
review ten geotechnical examples that had previously been
distributed to members of the European Technical Committee 10
(ETC10). The committee members prepared solutions to the
design examples and the solutions showed a considerable spread
in the range of results. It was concluded (Simpson, 2005) that
some of the spread was due to contributors applying additional
measures on top of the requirements of EC7, for example using
values of =9 lower than required or applying additional
penetration beyond that required by the equilibrium equations.
However, it is necessary to apply additional measures that are
not covered by EC7 to deal with the likes of passive softening,
arching, minimum effective fluid pressure, eccentricity of load
on props or accidental load on props. Therefore, owing to the
lack of definitive NCCI, engineers will apply existing guidance
in an inconsistent manner, which could result in unsafe or
uneconomic designs (Simpson, 2005).
2.5 Selection of soil parameter values from test results
Historically, there has been little guidance to the designer on
how parameter values should be selected (Simpson and Driscoll,
1998) and engineers have always had to use engineering
judgement to obtain parameter values. The precise method of
doing this has not been well defined, but EC7 attempts to
provide some guidance to the engineer on this subject by
suggesting that parameter values can be obtained using statistical
techniques. The guidance is to be welcomed, but in practice the
statistical techniques are difficult to apply and a large number of
test results is required to produce meaningful results. Geotechnical engineers, by definition, have put their time and effort
into the study of geotechnics and few geotechnical engineers
will also have studied statistics to a sufficiently high level to be
able to apply these statistical techniques (Simpson and Driscoll,
1998); consequently, the use of statistical methods is not
appropriate on the majority of projects (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2007). The exception is on large
projects where there is an abundance of high-quality ground
investigation data and a team can be built up to include
statisticians. This does not apply to the small, temporary
excavations under consideration. So, although these statistical
methods cannot be used directly, they can be used to show the
way in which engineering judgement should be heading (Driscoll et al., 2008).
2.6 Accidental overdig
It is usual to make some allowance for accidental overdig in
design. This is commonly 10% of the depth of excavation below
the bottom strut, up to a maximum of 0.5 m (see BS 8002:1994
(BSI, 1994) and BSC (1997)). Control of dig level during
5

Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 165 Issue GE1

The design of temporary excavation

support to Eurocode 7
Markham

excavation of a cofferdam is very good. Overdig costs money to

excavate, more money to dispose of the arisings, and the overdig
has to be replaced with expensive concrete, hence site management has incentives to minimise overdig. Where 75 mm of
blinding is specified, the target dig level can be 10 mm high so
that there is never any overdig.

monitoring frequency must be stated and reflect the level of risk

and mode of failure.

EC7 allows the depth of accidental overdig to be determined by

risk assessment, in which case the following factors should be
taken into consideration.
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j

Total depth of excavation.

Depth below bottom frame.
Is it possible to get a digger into the excavation to bottom
up? (Figure 3)
Is the ground easy to trim to the required level, or is it likely
to come out in irregular lumps (e.g. weak sandstone)?
Will the excavator driver work from outside the cofferdam?
Will the excavator driver be able to see where he is digging
or will he rely on a banksman?
Will there be experienced supervisors on site throughout the
construction period?
Can remedial action be taken in the event that distress to the
cofferdam is noted?

Where risk assessment shows that it is not necessary to consider

accidental overdig in the design, then a sensitivity analysis should
be undertaken to examine the effects of accidental overdig and care
must be taken to ensure that the result of analysis is still reasonable.
Additionally, the requirement for supervision and construction
control measures must be specified in the geotechnical design
report (Bond and Harris, 2008). Construction control measures
would include a monitoring system with clear trigger levels. The

Figure 3. Trimming formation in an excavation where there can

be good control of the dig level and little or no accidental overdig

2.7 Design in fine-grained soils

The indicative design working life of a temporary structure is
stated in Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design, BS EN 1990:
2002 (BSI, 2002) as 10 years. This is only indicative and
designers can use other values for the design life, but the designer
has to be able to justify the adoption of a shorter design life. The
significance to a temporary retaining wall is that a small
cofferdam can be installed, excavated and removed within a few
weeks or months. For the design of excavation support in London
clay, undrained conditions are commonly assumed for durations
up to six months (Gaba et al., 2003). However, clause 9.6(3) of
EC7 states that for silts and clays water pressures should
normally be assumed to act behind the wall. . .[corresponding] to
a water table at the surface of the retained material. This
produces the same water pressures as assuming a water-filled
tension crack (Figure 4) for the full depth of the wall. Where
water is not expected, EC7 does not contain any rule regarding
minimum effective fluid pressure (MEFP) of the retained soil, but
the UK National Annex (BSI, 2004b) does refer to Ciria Report
C580 (Gaba et al., 2003) as a source of NCCI, which does
require MEFP.
Where there is experience of excavations in similar soil, mixed
total and effective stress design is recommended in Ciria Report
C580 (Gaba et al., 2003) in conjunction with pore water pressures
obtained from a flow net and passive softening. Where there is no
potential for recharge, either at excavation level or within the
soil, on the passive side of the wall, the recommended depth of
passive softening is 0.5 m. Further recommendations are made in
Ciria Report C580 (Gaba et al., 2003) where there is potential for
recharge below formation, possibly by sand or silt layers. However, in this case, the appropriateness of design assuming
undrained conditions is questionable, which leads to the conclu-

Figure 4. Tension crack adjacent to an excavation

Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 165 Issue GE1

The design of temporary excavation

support to Eurocode 7
Markham

sion that the depth of passive softening should be taken as 0.5 m

whenever the design is based on undrained parameters; alternatively, undrained parameters should not be used. This should be
used with the assumption that there is zero adhesion between the
pile and the soil so kac kpc 2.0.

2.10 Factors applied to water pressure

Eurocode 7 is not definitive regarding the factors that should be
applied to water pressure, and the engineer is left with considerable scope regarding the factors to be used and the water levels to
be used. This is discussed by Bond and Harris (2008) and they
show five different ways in which EC7 can be interpreted
regarding water levels and partial factors. Some of the interpretations make the calculations very difficult or lead to unrealistic
situations and Bond and Harris (2008) go on to suggest the
following approach, which is both realistic and reliable. When
earth pressures are factored, the same partial factor (G 1.35) is
applied to the earth and water pressure, which is calculated using
the highest normal water level (i.e. the characteristic value).
Alternatively, when the factor G 1.0 is applied to the effective
earth pressure, the same factor is applied to the water pressure
but the water pressure is calculated using the highest possible
water level. This level can be obtained by applying a margin to
the characteristic water level.

2.8 Thermal effects

Props are affected by temperature because the ground, on the
retained side, restrains the props against thermal expansion.
This paper is concerned only with comparatively shallow sheet
pile walls and, for a frictional soil, passive resistance is
proportional to depth. Therefore, for a frame near ground level,
supporting a sheet pile wall, there will not be much restraint to
temperature effects, so prop loads should not be greatly affected
by temperature. For example a 10 m long prop, with a 258 rise
in temperature would lengthen by 3 mm (1.5 mm at each end).
This would result in the force in the prop being slightly higher
than the active force, but still, probably, less than that due to
the earth pressure at rest. This leads to the conclusion that
temperature changes have little effect on prop loads supporting
flexible walls (Twine and Roscoe, 1999). However, using the
values suggested in Ciria Report C580 (Gaba et al., 2003), a
10 m long, 305 mm 3 305 mm 3 97 kg/m universal column
propping a flexible wall in stiff soil would have a temperature
effect of 300 kN in addition to the prop force from the stability
analysis. The method described in Ciria Report C580 (Gaba et
al., 2003) was based on measurement of prop loads in strutted
excavations and the method does not take account of the depth
of the prop below ground level. For deeper props there will be
more restraint, but for shallow props supporting sheet pile walls
there is less restraint from the ground and the method in Ciria
C580 could be conservative.
2.9 Workload
Eurocode 7 has been criticised for requiring additional work from
the engineer. However, for the relatively simple excavations under
consideration, the amount of additional work is small in comparison to the overall amount of work required (Table 1).

3.

Reliability of existing methods

The difficulty of obtaining accurate predictions of design effects

using numerical methods is illustrated by the benchmarking of
the software Plaxis (Schweiger, 2009). Several engineers used
Plaxis to analyse a strutted retaining wall where the constitutive
model, the soil parameters and the geometry were predefined.
Users were then free to make decisions regarding the type of
elements to use, the tolerance settings, groundwater modelling
and the extent of the grid. The range of calculated maximum
displacement varied between 12 and 28 mm. The calculated
bending moment ranged from 25 to 51 kN m and the calculated
strut force ranged between 84 and 124 kN/m. Where engineers
have to make decisions regarding the software to use, the soil
parameter values, the constitutive model and the mesh, then there
would be a greater range of calculated values. Software for FE
analysis is complex, and incomplete understanding of the constitutive model was at least partially responsible for the Nicoll
Highway collapse (Karlsrud and Andresen, 2007). Schweiger
(2009) concluded that the results of a FE analysis need to be

Existing requirements based on Ciria Report C580 (Gaba et al., 2003)

Requirement of EC7-2

Understand the requirements

Assessment and selection of soil parameter values
The assessment of the load in the support system at an overall factor of safety
of unity
The assessment of the design wall depth at a factor of safety of 1.22.0
depending on the method of analysis chosen
Where required, the serviceability load case
Check sensitivity to accidental overdig and variation in soil parameter values
Production of written calculations
Production of drawings

As existing
As existing
DA1-C1,
DA1-C2
As existing
As existing
Production of geotechnical design report
As existing

Table 1. Comparison of the analysis required by EC7-1 and

existing requirements

Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 165 Issue GE1

The design of temporary excavation

support to Eurocode 7
Markham

checked very carefully and that experience is necessary for

obtaining reliable results from such an analysis.

3.1 Problems with total stress design

There are problems with the gross pressure method where, in a
total stress analysis, the factor of safety reduces as the pile length
increases. With the strength factor method, a related problem can
arise in which there is extreme sensitivity of the calculation
when, on the retained side, the vertical effective stress at
formation is about four times the undrained cohesion below
formation (assuming ka kp 1.0, kac kpc 2.0 and the same
soil on both sides of the wall) (Figure 5). This is because the
active pressure,
a k a
v9a k ac cu and the passive pressure,

p k p
v9p k pc cu are about equal. Therefore, for the conditions
stated, the net pressure below formation,
p

a  0, which
makes the results of calculations oversensitive to small variations
in the parameter values used. This type of problem is always
present with total stress design; the inclusion in the calculation of
MEFP, tension cracks and passive softening complicates the
matter, but the same oversensitivity occurs for some combinations
of circumstances. For example, a propped wall with a 5 m
retained height has been analysed using the factor on strength
method (Table 2) with allowance for passive softening, a MEFP
of 5 kN/m3 and a water-filled tension crack. The driving depth, d,
increases from 5.88 m to 12.26 m as the undrained cohesion is
decreased from 38 kPa to 36 kPa. This is due to the net pressure
below formation being close to zero when the factor of 1.4 is
applied to the strength of the clay. Therefore, total stress design
must be used with caution with the factor on strength method and
the results should be checked for sensitivity to the parameter
values used. This problem also occurs when using the net
available passive resistance method as described in Ciria 104
(Padfield and Mair, 1984). The undue sensitivity only affects the
driving depth of the piles; the prop load and moment in the sheets
are only affected in proportion to the parameter values (Table 3).

These excavations are usually designed by the contractor as part

of the construction process using the site investigation report
commissioned for the permanent works design. On most small
schemes the only laboratory test results available are the results
of index tests and quick undrained triaxial tests. Accurate values
of the stiffness parameters for numerical design are not generally
available and the engineer either has to use approximate input
data or, preferably, use a simple method of design with the soil
parameters that are available (Gaba et al., 2003). Therefore, a
simple robust method is needed for temporary works design. EC7
allows design by calculations; adoption of prescriptive measures;
experimental models; load tests; or by an observational method.
Numerical methods may not give realistic results and can give a
false impression of accuracy; the distributed prop load method
(DPL; Twine and Roscoe, 1999) is not appropriate for excavations less than 6 m deep, neither is the observational method. The
remaining option, use of a limit equilibrium method, provides a
simple, robust design method with an established history of
successful use.
Several comparisons have shown that calculation methods do
not predict actual behaviour well for either limit equilibrium
methods of analysis or for numerical methods of analysis (Day
and Potts, 1989; Gaba et al., 2003; Kort, 2002; Lambe and
Turner, 1970). The comparisons also show that the high
factors of safety recommended by Gaba et al. (2003) in Ciria
Report C580, are necessary for a safe design; however, these
factors are not always used in temporary works design (see
Section 4).

Surcharge, w

50 m

Prop

20 kN/m3
ka kp 10
kac kpc 20
cu 25 kPa
Active pressure

10 m

v 100 kPa

pp kp d kac cu 50 20d

Figure 5. Extreme sensitivity when using the strength factor

method

pa ka v k ac c u 100 20d 2 25 50 20d

Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 165 Issue GE1

The design of temporary excavation

support to Eurocode 7
Markham

cu : kPa

Factor on strength

cud : kPa

Driving depth,
d: m

Maximum moment:
kN m

Prop load:
kN m

38
36

1.4
1.4

27.14
25.71

5.88
12.26

145
207

81
99

Table 2. Oversensitivity when using total stress design with the

gross pressure method of analysis

cu : kPa

Factor on strength

cud : kPa

Driving depth,
d: m

Maximum moment:
kN m

Prop load:
kN m

56
49
45
43

1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4

40
35
32
31

1.04
1.83
4.02
6.78

36
48
44
46

29
30
32
33

Table 3. Oversensitivity when using the net available passive

resistance method of analysis as described in Ciria Report 104
(Padeld and Mair, 1984)

4.

Comparison with existing methods of

design

A comparison has been made, for a range of frictional soils,

between the output from a design to EC7 with the output of a
design to Ciria Report C580 for a propped wall (Figure 6).
Design approach 1 (DA1) has been used for the analysis of
ultimate limit states (ULSs) to EC7. This requires the analysis of
two ULS cases, referred to as combination 1 (DA1-C1) and
combination 2 (DA1-C2). In addition, the serviceability limit
state (SLS) must be considered. In DA1-C1 the main partial
factors are applied to the actions (loads); this is a similar
approach to that used in the other structural Eurocodes. The
engineer can choose where in the calculation to apply the partial
factors and for this comparison the calculations have been carried
out using characteristic values and the effects factored. This
applies the same partial factor to active pressure, passive pressure
and water pressure and is known as the single source principle.

50 m

10 m

Surcharge 10 kPa
Prop
19 kN/m3
w 10 kN/m3
Linear variation of
hydraulic head
(BS 8002: 1994)

Figure 6. Wall analysed for comparison of design to net pressure

method with design to EC7

Using characteristic values for the soil parameters in this manner

results in a calculated factor of safety for toe stability of 1.0 for
DA1-C1. In DA1-C2 the main partial factors are applied to the
material propertie (i.e. the shear strength of the soil). Therefore,
the toe depth is almost always determined from the DA1-C2
calculation.
The water level for each design situation must be assessed by the
engineer, but for this example of temporary excavation support
the highest possible water level has been taken as the characteristic value. Therefore, the margin suggested by Bond and Harris
(2008) and discussed in Section 2.10 has been taken as zero and
the characteristic value of water pressure has been used in the
calculations (G 1.0). A factor of safety of 1.0 (using design
values) has been used in the equilibrium calculations to determine
the pile length. For both the analysis to EC7 and Ciria C580, the
excavation depth has been taken as 5.4 m in the ULS load cases,
which is a 10% increase on the actual depth below the frame to
allow for unplanned excavation. The serviceability load case has
been analysed using characteristic values and there is no
allowance for unplanned excavation.
The analysis shows (Figure 7) that for designs to EC7, the design
moment for high-friction soil (9 408) is obtained from DA1C1, whereas for the other three soils considered the design
moment is obtained from DA1-C2. This shows that it is always
necessary to check both load cases. The design prop load (Figure
8) for all the soils considered was obtained from DA1-C1.
For design to Ciria Report C580, for the four soils considered,
the design moments and propping force are obtained from the
ULS analyses; in other words the prop forces from the ULS
9

Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 165 Issue GE1

The design of temporary excavation

support to Eurocode 7
Markham

600

Design approach 1 combination 1

800

700

Design approach 1 combination 1

Design approach 1 combination 2

550

Design approach 1 combination 2

Ciria C580 ULS load case

500

Ciria C580 ULS load case

Ciria C580 ULS moment derived from SLS

load case (i.e. SLS 135)

450

Ciria C580 SLS load case

600

Prop load: kN

Moment: kN m

400

500

400

350
300
250
200

300
150
100

200

25

100
25

30
35
Angle of shearing resistance: deg

40

30
35
Angle of shearing resistance: deg

40

Figure 8. Comparison of results of design to EC7 with design to

net pressure method prop load

Figure 7. Comparison of results of design to EC7 with design to

net pressure method moment
14

analysis are greater than 1.35 times the prop force from the SLS
analysis (Figure 8). However, this is not the case for all soils
and, as with design to EC7, it is necessary to check both load
cases.

Design approach 1 combination 2

13

Ciria C580 ULS load case

12

Driving depth: m

The analysis to EC7 design approach 1 always produced higher

bending moments in the sheets than the analysis to Ciria Report
C580, by between 3% and 9% (Figure 7) and required longer
sheets (Figure 9) by between 40 mm and 690 mm (0.5% and 6%).
In practice, the sheets are selected from a limited range and are
sized for driveability as well as the moment produced from this
analysis, so this will not make much difference to the final
design. The pile length, in the EC7 calculations, was always
obtained from DA1-C2.

Design approach 1 combination 1

11
10
9
8
7

However, the analysis to Ciria Report C580 always produced

higher design values for the prop forces than the analysis to EC7
design approach 1 by between 61% and 65% (Figure 8). This is
because of the large factors of safety (Table 4) applied at the end
of the calculation using the Ciria Report C580 method. Some
engineers might consider these factors of safety a model factor
also to be applied to the output from a limit equilibrium
10

6
25

30
35
Angle of shearing resistance: deg

40

Figure 9. Comparison of results of design to EC7 with design to

net pressure method driving depth

Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 165 Issue GE1

SLS prop load (unfactored soil parameters)

ULS prop load (factored soil parameters)

The design of temporary excavation

support to Eurocode 7
Markham

Limit equilibrium calculations

Soilstructure interaction calculations

1.85 3 calculated value

The greater of:
1.35 3 Psls
1.85 3 calculated value

1.0 3 calculated value

The greater of:
1.35 3 Psls
1.0 3 calculated value

Table 4. Factors of safety for the design prop loads to Ciria

Report C580 (Gaba et al., 2003)

calculation to EC7. Additionally, it is recommended in Ciria

Report 104 (Padfield and Mair, 1984) that the prop loads from a
limit equilibrium analysis are increased by 25% to allow for
arching. However, neither the model factor nor the 25% increase
are written into EC7, so engineers can produce a design in
accordance with EC7 without using them; this means that a
design to EC7 would not have the same level of reliability as
existing design methods, which was one of the fundamental
requirements of EC7 (Simpson and Driscoll, 1998).
However, the frames for temporary excavations are often designed using lower factors of safety than recommended in Ciria
Report C580. For routine excavation, it is common, throughout
the hire industry, to use moderately conservative soil parameter
values with a limit equilibrium method of analysis and apply a
lumped factor of safety of 1.5 to the analysis output to calculate
the ultimate frame load. This is equivalent to the analysis of the
serviceability loadcase and the calculations show that the ULS
prop load calculated to EC7 for these examples varies from
between 1.59 and 1.60 times that calculated from the serviceability loadcase. Therefore, analysis of the serviceability load
case and a factor of safety of 1.5 on the frame load do not
produce a design with the same reliability as a design to EC7.
Limit equilibrium methods of analysis are not geotechnically
rigorous; usually the movement of the sheets is insufficient to
achieve the fully active or fully passive earth pressures on which
the methods are predicated. However, they do have the advantage
that they are simple to apply and robust in use. That is, the
factors of safety that are used with these methods are method
dependent and have been based on much experience to produce a
safe design. Any limit equilibrium method is permitted by EC7,
but the factors of safety (partial factors) for use with design to
EC7 have been predefined in the National Annex to EC7 (BSI,
2004b). In the past few years, the net available passive resistance
method of design (see Padfield and Mair (1984)) has been widely
used. However, its use with partial factors can produce inconsistent results (Table 3) and it may prove necessary to develop
another method that can be used with the partial factors of EC7.

5.

Conclusions

Currently, in the UK, a variety of methods are used for the design
of temporary retaining walls and, in general, design is at working
load whereas the structural codes use partial factors. In that it is a

limit state and partial factor code, EC7 is a major step forward in
standardisation, but the lack of prescriptive measures will lead to
much disagreement and uncertainty among engineers.
In the UK, only design approach 1 is permitted by the National
Annex to EC7-1 (BSI, 2004b). Even using a single method of
design, different interpretations of EC7 can produce very different results. For example, passive earth pressure can be treated as
a resistance, a favourable action or a negative unfavourable
action, each of which produces a different result to the calculations. Water pressure can also be treated in several different ways
and a consistent approach is required, such as using the single
source principle, which removes some of the complexity of, and
is easier to use than, applying different partial factors to the
different parts of the earth and water pressure diagrams.
Some of the opposition to EC7 can be explained by conservatism of geotechnical engineers and the unwillingness to change
existing practices that are known to work. Interpretation of EC7
produces disagreement, among engineers, regarding whether
numerical modelling is required and interpretation of the
individual clauses. Using EC7, it is necessary for the engineer to
refer to NCCI to complete the design. In the UK, Ciria Report
C580 (Gaba et al., 2003) is cited as NCCI; however, parts of
Ciria C580 are contradictory, so a partial rewrite is required
urgently, to ensure reliability in design and to ensure that EC7,
unlike BS 8002, is widely accepted by temporary works
engineers.
Currently, for cohesive soils, total stress design or mixed total
and effective stress design are often used for temporary excavations. However, whenever total stress parameters are used on the
passive side of the wall, the analysis can become ill-conditioned
and a sensitivity analysis is necessary.
The routine method of design for small temporary excavation
support has become a hybrid method based on Ciria Reports 104
(Padfield and Mair, 1984) and C580 (Gaba et al., 2003). When
used with the partial factors of EC7, the overall factor of safety is
significantly less than recommended in Ciria Report C580 and
the results can be sensitive to the parameter values used, which
makes it essential to check the results for sensitivity to parameter
values and accidental overdig, as well as checking against the
output from an existing method of design.
11

Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 165 Issue GE1

The design of temporary excavation

support to Eurocode 7
Markham

REFERENCES

the International Workshop held in Dublin, Ireland on 31

March1 April 2005. Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Padfield CJ and Mair RJ (1984) Design of Retaining Walls
Embedded in Stiff Clay. Construction Industry Research and
information Association, London, UK, Ciria Report 104.
Puller M and Lee CKT (1996) A comparison between the design
methods for earth retaining structures recommended by
BS8002:1994 and previously used methods. Proceedings of
the Institution of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Engineering
119(1): 2934.
Schweiger HF (2009) Plaxis Benchmarking. Plaxis, Delft, the
Netherlands. See http://www.plaxis.nl/upload/benchmarks/
Benchmark%203%20-%20Embankement%201.pdf (accessed
27/07/2009).
Simpson B (2005) Retaining wall examples 57 Addendum
October 2005. Evaluation of Eurocode 7: Proceedings of the
International Workshop held in Dublin, Ireland on 31
March1 April 2005 (Orr TLL (ed.)). Trinity College,
Dublin, Ireland.
Simpson B and Driscoll R (1998) Eurocode 7 A Commentary.
Building Research Establishment, Watford, UK.
Twine D and Roscoe H (1999) Temporary Propping of Deep
Excavations Guidance on Design. Construction Industry
Research and information Association, London, Ciria Report
C517.

Bond A and Harris A (2008) Decoding Eurocode 7. Taylor and

Francis, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK.

BSC (British Steel Corporation) (1997) Piling Handbook, 7th edn.

British Steel Corporation, Scunthorpe, UK.

BSI (1994) BS 8002: Code of practice for earth retaining

structures. BSI, London, UK.

BSI (2002) BS EN 1990: Eurocode: Basis of structural design.

BSI, London, UK.

BSI (2004a) BS EN 1997: Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design

Part 1: General rules. BSI, London, UK.

BSI (2004b) NA to BS EN 1997: UK National Annex to

Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design Part 1: General rules.

BSI, London, UK.
BSI (2011) PD 6694, pt 1: 2011: Recommendations for the design
of structures subject to traffic loading to BS EN 1997-1:
2004. BSI, London, UK.
Clough GW and ORourke TD (1990) Construction induced
movement of in-situ walls. In Design and Performance of
Earth Retaining Structures (Lambe P and Hansen LA (eds)).
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, USA,
Geotechnical Special Publication no. 25, pp. 439471.
Day RA and Potts DM (1989) A Comparison of Design Methods
for Propped Sheet Pile Walls. The Steel Construction
Institute, Ascot, UK, SCI Publication 077.
Department for Communities and Local Government (2007) A
Designers Simple Guide to BS EN 1997: 2004. Department
for Communities and Local Government, London, UK.
Driscoll R, Scott P and Powell J (2008) EC7 Implications for
UK Practice. Construction Industry Research and Information
Association, London, Ciria Report C641.
Frank R, Baudin C, Driscoll R et al. (2004) Designers Guide to
EN 1997-1 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design General
Rules. Thomas Telford, London, UK.
Gaba AR, Simpson B, Powrie W and Beadman DR (2003)
Embedded Retaining Walls Guidance for Economic Design.
Construction Industry Research and Information Association,
London, UK, Ciria Report C580.
Institution of Structural Engineers (1951) Earth Retaining
Structures. The Institution of Structural Engineers, London,
UK, Code of Practice No. 2, CP2.
Karlsrud K and Andresen L (2007) Design of deep excavations in
soft clay. In Geotechnical Engineering in Urban
Environments: Proceedings of the 14th European Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Madrid,
Spain (Cuellar V, Dapena E, Alonso E et al. (eds)). IOS
Press, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, vol. 1, pp. 7599.
Kort DA (2002) Sheet Pile Walls in Soft Clay. University Press,
Delft, the Netherlands.
Lambe TW and Turner EK (1970) Braced excavations.
Proceedings of the Speciality Conference on Lateral Stresses
in the Ground and Earth Retaining Structures, Cornell
University, Ithaca, New York, 2224 June 1970, pp. 149
218.
Orr TLL (ed.) (2005) Evaluation of Eurocode 7: Proceedings of
12

WH AT DO YO U T HI NK?

To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the

editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as a
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and students.
Papers should be 20005000 words long (briefing papers
should be 10002000 words long), with adequate illustrations and references. You can submit your paper online via
www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals, where you
will also find detailed author guidelines.