Safety Concepts and Calibration of Partial Factors

in European and North American Codes of Practice

Delft, 30 Nov 1 Dec 2011

BP198.1

BP201.1

Reasons for British choices

of design approach and
partial factors
Brian Simpson, Arup Geotechnics

Reasons for British choices of design approach and partial factors

BP201.2

British choices
Guiding principles
Piling
References

BP198.2

Reasons for British choices of design approach and partial factors

BP201.2

British choices
Guiding principles
Piling
References

BP198.2

Partial factors for DA1 UK National Annex

Design approach 1
Combination 1--------------------Combination 2 ------------------------Combination 2 - piles & anchors
M1 or ..M2
R4
A1
M1
R1
A2
M2
R1
A2
Permanent
unfav
1,35
Actions
fav
Variable
unfav
1,5
1,3
1,3
1,25
1,25
tan '
Soil
Effective cohesion
1,25
1,25
Undrained strength
1,4
1,4
Unconfined strength
1,4
1,4
Weight density
Bearing
Spread
Sliding
footings
Base
1,7/1.5
Driven
Shaft (compression)
1.5/1.3
piles
1.7/1.5
Total/combined
(compression)
Shaft
in tension
2.0/1.7
Base
2.0/1.7
Bored
Shaft (compression)
1.6/1.4
piles
2.0/1.7
Total/combined
(compression)
Shaft
in tension
2.0/1.7
Base
As
CFA
Shaft
(compression)
for
piles
Total/combined
bored
(compression)
Shaft
in tension
piles
1,1
Anchors Temporary
Permanent
1,1
Retaining Bearing capacity
Sliding resistance
walls
Earth resistance
Earth resistance
Slopes

indicates partial factor = 1.0

C:\BX\BX-C\EC7\[Factors.xls]

EC7
values
1,3
1,3
1,3
1.6
1,6
1,3
1.5
1.6
1.45
1.3
1.4
1.6
1,1
1,1

Reasons for British choices of design approach and partial factors

BP201.2

British choices
Guiding principles
Piling
References

BP198.2

Guiding principles

BP198.2

BP201.2

Broad compatibility with previous designs

but not identity

Cover all problems, geo and structural SSI

Apply the factors where the uncertainties lie
Compatible with FE
Proper distinction between ULS and SLS?
No reliability calculations used

Guiding principles

BP198.2

BP201.2

Broad compatibility with previous designs

but not identity

Cover all problems, geo and structural SSI

Apply the factors where the uncertainties lie
Compatible with FE
Proper distinction between ULS and SLS?
No reliability calculations used

Broad compatibility with previous designs, but not identity

CP2 (1951) Earth retaining structures.
Single factors on passive resistance or sliding.
Still used recently for gravity structures.

CIRIA Report 104 (1984) Embedded retaining walls

Single factors on passive resistance or material factors

BS8002 (1994) Retaining structures

Material factors mobilisation factors (SLS) - = 1.2
Structural design unclear

CIRIA C580 (2003) Embedded retaining walls

Strength factors = 1.2
So some pressure to reduce to 1.2 in National Annex

BS6031 (1981) Earthworks

F = 1.3 to 1.4 for slopes (first-time slides)

BS8004 (1986) Foundations

Single factors F = 2 to 3, depending on ....

LDSA Piling
F = 2 to 3 depending on SI and load testing
8

Guiding principles

BP198.2

BP201.2

Broad compatibility with previous designs

but not identity

Cover all problems, geo and structural SSI

Compatibility with structural design a failing in past BS codes

Apply the factors where the uncertainties lie

Compatible with FE
Proper distinction between ULS and SLS?
No reliability calculations used

The slope and retaining wall are all part of the

same problem.
BP119.46

BP87.62

BP106.33

BP124-F3.12

BP130.36

BP111.25

BP112.46

BP145a.11

Structure and soil must be

designed together - consistently.

10

Ratio of achieved to required

1.2

SAFETY RATIO

Less economic
1.1
1
0.9
0.8

Less safe

0.7

E=-0.7, R=0.8

Dominated by
strength

0.6
0

0.2

Dominated by
loading

0.4

0.6

E/(R+E)
C:\BX\BX-C\EC7\Papers\Paris Aug06\[Paris-Aug06.xls]

11

0.8

Ratio of achieved to required

SAFETY RATIO

1.2

Typical
foundations

1.1
1
0.9
0.8

Slope

E=-0.7, R=0.8

0.7
stability

Tower
foundations

0.6
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

E/(R+E)
C:\BX\BX-C\EC7\Papers\Paris Aug06\[Paris-Aug06.xls]

12

0.8

Ratio of achieved to required

1.2

Uneconomic
E=-0.4, R=1.0

E=-1.0, R=0.4

SAFETY RATIO

1.1
1
0.9
0.8

Unsafe

E=-0.7, R=0.8

0.7
0.6
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

E/(R+E)
C:\BX\BX-C\EC7\Papers\Paris Aug06\[Paris-Aug06.xls]

13

0.8

Ratio of achieved to required

SAFETY RATIO

1.2

Uneconomic

1.1
1
0.9
0.8

Unsafe

0.7
0.6
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

E/(R+E)
C:\BX\BX-C\EC7\Papers\Paris Aug06\[Paris-Aug06.xls] 14-Aug-06 21:52

14

Guiding principles

BP198.2

BP201.2

Broad compatibility with previous designs

15

but not identity

Cover all problems, geo and structural SSI

Apply the factors where the uncertainties lie
Compatible with FE
Proper distinction between ULS and SLS?
No reliability calculations used

Apply the factors where the uncertainties lie

BP198.2

BP201.2

Where the uncertainties can be quantified

16

Ferrybridge power station

actions which tend to cancel each other

BP145a.27

http://www.knottingley.org/history/tales_and_events.htm
17

Apply the factors where the uncertainties lie

BP198.2

BP201.2

Where the uncertainties can be quantified

Generally, factor actions before combining

Possibly not for earth and water pressures physically

unreasonable {2.4.7.3.2(2)}

Geo engineers find it natural to apply factors to

soil strength greatest uncertainty

Seen as the standard against which to compare

Burland, Potts and Walsh (1981)
Foye, Salgado, and Scott (2006)

Piles are different in this respect

18

Uncertainty in model > in soil properties

Design dependent on load testing of complete element
Lot of data and experience
Similar differences between concrete and steel design??

Guiding principles

BP198.2

BP201.2

Broad compatibility with previous designs

but not identity

Cover all problems, geo and structural SSI

Apply the factors where the uncertainties lie
Compatible with FE

DA2 + DA3

DA1 ??

Proper distinction between ULS and SLS?

No reliability calculations used

19

Guiding principles

BP198.2

BP201.2

Broad compatibility with previous designs

but not identity

Cover all problems, geo and structural SSI

Apply the factors where the uncertainties lie
Compatible with FE
Proper distinction between ULS and SLS?

20

Spread foundations often governed by SLS, so can accept

relatively low ULS factors
Use larger overall factors consciously for SLS {2.4.8(4), 6.6.2(16)}
Less clear for pile design

Guiding principles

BP198.2

BP201.2

Broad compatibility with previous designs

Cover all problems, geo and structural SSI
Apply the factors where the uncertainties lie
Compatible with FE
Proper distinction between ULS and SLS?

No reliability calculations used

21

Relied on comparisons with previous codes and designs

Factoring leading variables but conscious that there are very many
secondary variables
SLS is not easily analysed or predicted, so ULS factors are not
independent of SLS
Usually data are very diverse in nature combination of test
results, previous publications, other experience, etc
So fear of omitting important data, even though fuzzy

Reasons for British choices of design approach and partial factors

BP201.2

22

British choices
Guiding principles
Piling
References

BP198.2

7.4

23

Design methods and design considerations

Partial factors for DA1 UK National Annex

Design approach 1
Combination 1--------------------Combination 2 ------------------------Combination 2 - piles & anchors
M1 or ..M2
R4
A1
M1
R1
A2
M2
R1
A2
Permanent
unfav
1,35
Actions
fav
Variable
unfav
1,5
1,3
1,3
1,25
1,25
tan '
Soil
Effective cohesion
1,25
1,25
Undrained strength
1,4
1,4
Unconfined strength
1,4
1,4
Weight density
Bearing
Spread
Sliding
footings
Base
1,7/1.5
Driven
Shaft (compression)
1.5/1.3
piles
1.7/1.5
Total/combined
(compression)
Shaft
in tension
2.0/1.7
Base
2.0/1.7
Bored
Shaft (compression)
1.6/1.4
piles
2.0/1.7
Total/combined
(compression)
Shaft
in tension
2.0/1.7
Base
As
CFA
Shaft
(compression)
for
piles
Total/combined
bored
(compression)
Shaft
in tension
piles
1,1
Anchors Temporary
Permanent
1,1
Retaining Bearing capacity
Sliding resistance
walls
Earth resistance
Earth resistance
Slopes

These factors are applied to

characteristic (ultimate) pile
resistances.

How are characteristic resistances

obtained?
a) From load testing
b) From calculation

indicates partial factor = 1.0

C:\BX\BX-C\EC7\[Factors.xls]

24

EC7
values
1,3
1,3
1,3
1.6
1,6
1,3
1.5
1.6
1.45
1.3
1.4
1.6
1,1
1,1

Pile design by calculation from soil tests

BP168-3.23

Alternatively, calculations my be based on characteristic shaft and base resistance derived by

other means.

What are qb;k and qs;k ?

Where does the model factor go?
25

SLS also covered by ULS factors

26

Apply the factors where the uncertainties lie

BP198.2

BP201.2

Where the uncertainties can be quantified

Generally, factor actions before combining

Possibly not for earth and water pressures physically

unreasonable {2.4.7.3.2(2)}

Geo engineers find it natural to apply factors to

soil strength greatest uncertainty

Seen as the standard against which to compare

Burland, Potts and Walsh (1981)
Foye, Salgado, and Scott (2006)

Piles are different in this respect

27

Uncertainty in model > in soil properties

Design dependent on load testing of complete element
Lot of data and experience

Pile design by calculation - UK National Annex

BP168-3.25

Characteristic soil
strengths (cu,k, tan
k, etc)
Calculation model accurate or
erring on the side of safety

May be used
as ultimate
resistance for
SLS calcs

Calculated shaft and

base resistance
Rd=1.4 or 1.2

Characteristic shaft and

base resistance
s and b

Design shaft and base

resistance (ULS)
28

Value depends
on Test to ULS
Rk
Value
depends on
testing 1%

Broad compatibility with previous designs, but not identity

CP2 (1951) Earth retaining structures.
Single factors on passive resistance or sliding.
Still used recently for gravity structures.

CIRIA Report 104 (1984) Embedded retaining walls

Single factors on passive resistance or material factors

BS8002 (1994) Retaining structures

Material factors mobilisation factors (SLS) - = 1.2
Structural design unclear

CIRIA C580 (2003) Embedded retaining walls

Strength factors = 1.2
So some pressure to reduce to 1.2 in National Annex

BS6031 (1981) Earthworks

F = 1.3 to 1.4 for slopes (first-time slides)

BS8004 (1986) Foundations

Single factors F = 2 to 3, depending on ....

LDSA Piling
F = 2 to 3 depending on SI and load testing
29

Ground Engineering, Dec 09 and Jan 10

Results similar to
previous practice

30

Reasons for British choices of design approach and partial factors

BP201.2

31

British choices
Guiding principles
Piling
References

BP198.2

References

32

BP198.2

BP201.2

Bond, AJ and Simpson, B (2009-10) Pile design to Eurocode 7 and the UK

National Annex (2 parts). Ground engineering, Dec 2009 and Jan 2010.

Burland, J.B., Potts, D.M. and Walsh, N.M. (1981). The overall stability of
free and propped embedded cantilever retaining walls. Ground Engineering,
14 No. 5, 28-38.

Central Electricity Generating Board. 1965. Report of the Committee of

Inquiry into Collapse of Cooling Towers at Ferrybridge Monday 1 November
1965. Central Electricity Generating Board, London.

Foye, K. C., Salgado, R., and Scott, B. (2006). Resistance factors for use in
shallow foundation LRFD. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 132(9), 1208
1218.Guiding principles

Simpson B (2007) Approaches to ULS design - The merits of Design

Approach 1 in Eurocode 7. ISGSR2007 First International Symposium on
Geotechnical Safety & Risk pp 527-538. Shanghai Tongji University, China.

Reasons for British choices of design approach and partial factors

BP201.2

British choices
Guiding principles
Piling
References

Thanks for your attention

33

BP198.2