PAPER

Sa 'equi~ o"
countries in their National Application Documents for ENV 1997-1.

Partial factor approach in ENV1997-t

ENV 1997-1 requires that geotechnical structures be designed for three
cases: A, B and C, and provides a different set of partial factors for use

re",ainincl wa s with each case. The partial factors for the three cases are applied to
characteristic actions and characteristic soil parameter values. ENV
1997-1 goes to some trouble to attempt to define the characteristic value
of soil parameters. This approach is to formalise an area which

wi", > lie 1wai:er previously was undefined in other codes and is expected to lead to the
same values of parameters as those currently used in design.
Case A is relevant in assessing buoyancy limit states and is therefore
not normally relevant in the design of retaining walls.

oac incls w ~en The partial factors for Case B are unity on soil strength and 1.35 on
permanent actions. This design case comes from structural
considerations and is intended to ensure safety against variations or
uncertainties in the applied loads. For example, in the design of a simply

c esiclnec i,o supported concrete beam carrying 1m of soil as shown on Figure 1, the
design moment for the reinforced concrete beam is calculated by
multiplying the characteristic dead load of the beam itself and the
characteristic weight of the soil by 1.35. It would appear logical,

-:urococ e 7 usinc I
therefore, that the earth and water loads should also be multiplied by
this partial factor when calculating the design moments in earth
retaining structures. However in the case of embedded walls it is not
always clear when the earth pressure is a load and when it is a resistance.

)ar:ia 'acI:ors In order to avoid unrealistic design moments that would result if only
the active side were multiplied by 1.35,ENV 1997-1 requires that, for Case
B, all characteristic earth pressures from the same source be multiplied
by this factor, ie increased if the combined effect is unfavourable, but
multiplied by a factor of unity, ie not increased, if the combined effect is
by Dr Eric R Farrell and Dr Trevor L LOrr, Universityof favourable. This terminology does, however, lead to ambiguity in certain
Dublin, Trinity College. situations as will be demonstrated
below.
Case C arises from geotechnical Soil
e purpose of this paper is to highlight the importance of taking considerations and is intended to asma
the most unfavourable water levels in the design of embedded and ensure safety against variations
cantilevered retaining walls designed to Eurocode 7 using partial or uncertainty in the soil
factors. This is of topical interest as ENV 1997-1, the pre-standard ver-
sion of Eurocode EC 7, Part 1: Geotechnical Design, is close to the end
parameter values. Hence, as is
normal practice in geotechnical
f t
of its trial period and the document is currently being reviewed for Reinforced concrete beam
engineering design, safety is
issuing as a Euronorm (EN) with the status of a European standard in ensured by factoring the soil Fige:Slmplysnpportedconcretebeam.
2000. This paper concentrates on the partial factor approach adopted in parameters but not the
ENV 1997-1. permanent loads, such as the self weight of the soil. The partial factors
The paper compares the equivalent lumped factors of safety implied for Case C are 1.25 on tan()k', the characteristic soil shear strength
in the Eurocode design approach for two design situations with the parameter for cohesionless soils, and unity on the permanent loads.
values historically used for these designs. It shows that when These partial factor values were essentially selected to give similar
determining the depth of embedment required for an safety levels in slope stability analyses as the more traditional lumped
anchored/propped embedded retaining wall, Case B gives no margin of safety factor methods.
safety and, as there is no partial factor on water forces in Case C, the Various codes, and ENV 1997-1 is no exception, introduce allowances
overall factor of safety against rotation about the anchor/prop may be for uncertainty in the geometry. An example given in ENV 1997-1 is that
lower, in certain situations, than traditionally used when high water in the case of an embedded retaining wall, which depends on the passive
forces are involved. The paper also shows that the Case B and Case C resistance of the ground in front of the wall for its stability, the ground
partial factors may also give a lower equivalent lumped factor of safety level in front of the wall should be lowered by an amount a, equal to 10'.a
than traditionally used when designing a cantilever retaining wall to of its height, up to a maximum of 0.5m. Such requirements are
resist horizontal siding when high water forces are involved. It is introduced to allow for site or construction conditions which are not
therefore important to consider the most unfavourable water levels that covered by the partial factors on the loads or the soil parameters. In this
can occur in these design situations. paper it is assumed that there is no uncertainty in the geometry so that
Introduction
In order to highlight the points,
the paper discusses the most
unfavourable design situations for
some selected examples making
simplified assumptions. The most
general assumptions are that the
i
soil is purely frictional with no
I /
cohesion and that the variable
actions (ie loads) are insignificant
in relation to the permanent
actions. This latter assumption is
reasonable for many retaining
walls and avoids the complication
of considering the possible effect
of the larger partial factors which
are applied to the variable actions. a, taken as zer
It is also assumed that the boxed
values given in ENV 1997-1 apply,
which is also reasonable as these
have been adopted by most Flg 2. Anchor embedded wall. Flg 3. Forces on embedded wall.

GR(RINI) KN(IINERRIN(')("I'()RKR 1998

 PAPER

~, is equal to zero. The examples below investigate how the values fromwhich P I = (K/K 4)[(Ka4/Ka +X]Pala
chosen in calculations to ENV 1997-1 for the material and load factors
affect the level of safety obtained. The overall factor of safety, F on the moments about the anchor, which is
calculated using the characteristic or unfactored soil strengths, is
Retaining wall design therefore:
The basic equations to be satisfied in the design of earth retaining
structures are the equilibrium conditions:- F resistina moment P I (8)
overturning moment [1+%]%,T,
Disturbing moments < Resisting moments
Substituting for Ppp from Equation 7 gives:
Horizontal force < Horizontal resistance (2)
F = (K/K 4)[(Kaa/Ka)+X]P I (9)
Vertical force < Vertical resistance (3) [I+XJP la
Example 1 -embedded retaining wall Inspection of Equation 9 shows that, where water pressures are the
One of the critical dimensions in the design of the anchored embedded same on both sides of the wall,
retaining wall shown in Figure 2 is the required depth of embedment,
'd'o give a satisfactory safety margin against rotational failure about F = (K/K 4)(K 4/Ka) (10)
the anchor support. This example will show that Case B cannot give any
margin of safety against this failure mechanism, and that the margin of The value of F varies with (t'nd with the angle of friction, 5 between
safety in Case C can be lower than the value previously used in design to the soil and the wall. Graphs showing the variation in F with t]t'or
other codes. These comments also apply to cantilevered embedded a) 5/(t'0 on both sides of the wall, b) for 5/t)'qual to 0.5 on the active
retaining walls. The 'free-earth'ethod of analysis as described in side and 0.67 on the passive side, and c) for 5/ft'qual to 0.67 on the active
Clayton et al (1996) is used. side and 0.5 on the passive side are plotted in Figure 4. The graphs in this
The overall factor of safety against failure by rotation about the figure show that, for tf' 25'nd 5/(t' 0, F is about 1.4 and increases
anchor, F, is defined as: with increase in both ft'nd 5/(t'p to a value of about 2.2 for ft' 40'nd

5/(t' 0.5 on the active side and 0.67 on the passive side.
F = Resisting moment/Overturning moment

where the resisting and overturning moments are obtained using the
characteristic, ie unfactored, loads and material parameters to 2.2
determine the forces on the wall. This overall factor of safety is
equivalent to a lumped factor of safety on the passive resistance. The 2.0
forces on the wall, shown in Figure 3, are the characteristic active
pressure force, P the characteristic passive pressure force, P and the 1.8
characteristic water pressure force, U. The distances of the lines of
action of these forces from the anchor are Iland I respectively. The o 1.6
characteristic water pressure force is obtained in this case from the net 0
water pressure acting on the wall.
Two values of 'd're obtained when designing the wall for rotational
1.4

5/P' = 1/2 active, 2/3 passive
equilibrium according to ENV 1997-1: dB is obtained using the Case B
partial factors and dc is obtained using the Case C partial factors.
1.2 5/p'
5/P'
= 2/3 active, 1/2 passive
= 0, active and passive
For Case B, the partial factor on the soil strength is unity so that the 1.0
partial factor on the actions is applied to the characteristic earth and
water pressure forces. Since the active and passive earth pressures are
considered to be from the same source, as are the water pressures acting 1.5
on both sides of the wall, they should be multiplied by the same partial
factor according to ENV 1997-1. Hence the moment equilibrium 1.4
equation for Case B is:

1.35Pal+ 1.35UI<1.35P I (4) a 1.3

O

It is clear from this equation that exactly the same value of de is obtained O 1.2
C5
whatever partial factor is applied to the forces, whether 1.35or unity, and LL

hence Case B provides no margin of safety, ie F -- 1 in the case of

embedded retaining walls subjected to just permanent loads.
Case C requires the soil strength parameters to be factored such that
tan4ta' (tanft')/1.25 where ft's the design value for the angle of
shearing resistance. The partial factor on the permanent actions is
unity. Thus the safety margin will come from the alteration in the earth
pressure coefficients by using a lower strength parameter. If K, is the
active pressure coefficient determined using haft'(ie no partial factor) and
Kaa is the value determined using (td', then the active pressure at each
depth in Case C is increased by the ratio Kn/K~. Similarly, the passive
pressures is reduced by the ratio K /K. Using the same symbols as
before for the earth pressure forces based on ttt',and since the lever arms
remain the same, the depth d for Case C is obtained by taking
equilibrium about the anchor:
(K 4/Ka)Pala+Ula=( pn/ p)P I (5)
The influence of the water forces can more clearly be illustrated by
relating the moment of the net water pressure to the active pressure, ie:
Ul= X pal, (6)
Substituting for Ul in Equation 5 gives:
((K 4/K,)+X)P I =(K d/K)P I
1.0
25 30 35 40
Characteristic angle of shearing resistance e'
Fig 4 [fOP):Factor of safety wNh eo water forcL
Flg 5:Factor of sefefy wifhlarle woferforcL
Taking an extreme case where the net water pressure is significantly
greater than the active pressure, ie X K,n/K,, then the term
[(K~/K~)+X]PI= 1 (11)
[1+X] P,l,
in which case F approaches K,/K ir The variation in F for this condition
for various values of t]t'nd 5/ft's plotted in Figure 5 which shows that
F is as low as 1.18for P'=25 when 5/t]t'= 0. This is considerably less than
the factor of about 1.5normally adopted in traditional designs for failure
due to rotation about the anchor (Clayton et al, 1996).
In order to illustrate this point about the significance of the net water
pressure, the propped retaining wall shown in Figure 6 was analysed for
Case C (as discussed above, Case B is not relevant as it gives a shorter
depth of embedment). The wall retains 10m of water and the soil

GROl/NI) RNGINRERING 0(iTOBBR 1998

 PAPER

~ Prop

10m

W,

Rg 6. Prepped embedded wall.

properties are c'= 0 and (I/= 25'ith 5/6'= 0 on both the active and
passive sides of the wall. The net differential pore water pressure head
was assumed to vary linearly along the embedded length. The required
depth of embedment was found to be 14.2m.
The value of F for this situation, using the definition given in
Equation 8 and the unfactored active and passive pressures, is 1.27
which is in line with that expected from the above study.
The factor of safety, F used above to illustrate the effect of high water Rg 7. Canlgeeer relalnlng wall.
forces is based on the moment of the net water pressure. A different, and possible combinations of factored forces are possible when assessing the
even lower, factor of safety would be computed if the water pressures
on the active and passive sides were treated separately and the factor of
safety were defined as
Sum of horizontal forces < V'tan (('13)
horizontal equilibrium of the retaining wall for Case B:

The first option, treating the earth and water forces as all coming from
F,= P I,+momentof waterpressureonthepassiveside (12) the same source, gives:
P,I, + moment of water pressure on the active s~ie
This definition gives a factor of safety of 1.13for the above example.
1.35(P,+ U,- P,-Up) <(W, + 1.35W,'+ 1.35U,-1.35Ub) tan Pk'14)
The same approach as that adopted above for the anchored embedded and the second option, treating the earth and water forces above the heel
retaining wall can be used to show that the Case B offers no safety as part of the structure, gives:
margin on the depth of embedment of a cantilevered embedded
retaining wall. Furthermore the equation for the factor of safety
against rotational failure of a cantilevered embedded retaining wall for
1.35(P +U -P -Up)<(W +W,'+U -1.35Ub)tan(('15)
Case C is similar to that determined above for the rotation of an Equation 15 could lead to unrealistic conditions where the water force is
anchored embedded retaining wall about its anchor. high and the weight forces of the wall and soil on its heel are low. For
example, if the soil on top of the heel were peat with a unit weight (7) of
Example 2-canileger retaining wall about 12kN/ms, and the water level behind the wall was at the top of wall,
In this example the margin of safety against sliding failure of the (W, + W,'+ U,-1.35Ub) could result in a negative value of V'.
cantilever retaining wall shown in Figure 7 is examined. The soil is
taken to be cohesionless and the active and passive pressures are taken The traditional factor of safety would give
to act horizontally. The critical dimension for this mechanism is the
length 'b'f the foundation of the wall. The forces on the wall are as F = Resistance available/Actual horizontal force
follows: = (Wc + Ws +Us - Ub )tanpk'/(Ps+U-Pb-Up) (16)
W, = weight of concrete in the retaining wall
W,' weight of soil above the heel less the weight of water above the Rearranging Equation 14 gives:
heel
U, = weight of water in the soil above the heel (P+UPpUp)(W+135W+135U135Ub) tall pk / 135
P, = active earth pressure force
P =passivepressureforceonfrontof toeof wall and inserting this into Equation 16 and rearranging gives:
U, = water force on rear of imaginary vertical plane through the rear
of the heel Fi = (Wc+ Ws +Us -Ub ) /(Wc/1.35+ Ws +Us.Ub) (17)
Up = water force on front of toe of wall
Ub = uplift water force on base Similarly, using Equation 15:
V' vertical effective force on base
H' horizontal reaction
F.,=1.35(W + W '+U -Ub)/(W +W '+U -1.35U) (18)
The active earth pressure force P, and the water pressure force U which gives F2 equal to or less than 1.35
behind the wall act horizontally on the vertical effective back of the wall
abovetherearof theheelof thewall. ThepassiveearthpressureforceP Treating the forces as from the same source, F, gives the lower factor of
also acts horizontally. safety which is less than 1.35.In an extreme case, where W,, the weight of
It is assumed that the soil is cohesionless. The above example poses the concrete wall, is considerably less than the force from the soil and the
the interesting question as to the treatment of the forces above the heel water above the heel, the factor of safety would approach unity for this
of the retaining wall and the uplift pressure force Uon the base. In order Case B.
to analyse the factor of safety against sliding it is necessary to Analysing the safety against sliding for Case C, adopting the same
determine the vertical force on the horizontal plane of sliding on the approach as used previously for Case B, the active earth pressure force is
bottom of the foundation of the wall. When checking the wall for increased while the passive pressure force is decreased in relation to the
horizontal stability for Case B, it could be argued that the contribution to change in the active and passive earth pressure coefficients. Thus
the vertical effective force V'rom the soil and water above the heel are
from the same source as the horizontal earth and water pressure forces (K/K,k)P, + U,-(Kp4/Kpk)Pp Up<(W, + W,'+U,-U,)tan04'19)
and so should be multiplied by 1.35. However, logically, it could be argued
that the soil on top of the heel is part of the structure and should not be As tan ()4'= tanl(k'/1.25
treated as 'from the same source'. In that case it should be treated as a
favourable action with regard to horizontal equilibrium. Hence two ( .k) + -( p-Up ( + '+U.-Ub) l''.25 ( 0)
4 p4 pk)

('oUND EN(DNEEBIN('cTDBEB 1998


HOW COULD AN AMERICAN
VIBRO MANUFACTURE BE
LEADING THE INDUSTRY IN
Vibro TECHNOLOGY?
ANSWER: German engineers,
Italian hydraulic hose, French
Hydraulic motors, Ukrainian
machinists, and American
creativity.
For the most advanced Vibro
equipment at the lowest possible
prices call
American Piledriving
Equipment Inc. (APE)
(253) 872-0141 or
fax (253) 872-8710
or visit our WEB site:
http: //www.apevibro.corn
email: ape@apevibro.corn
We manufacture the smallest and
largest vibros in the world.
IHldhl
::::~"la%SMf1
i ~
r pressure condition must be taken into account in the design of
Reader Enquiry No. 24
(
PAPER
For the case where P, and U, are small, or can be ignored, and
putting U= XP,
(Kad/Kak ) a
+ X Pa (Wc+ Ws +Us. Uh )tan()k'/1.25 (21 )
therefore
1.25((K/Kak)+ X)Pa <(W, + W,'+Us-Uh)tan()k'he (22)
traditional factor of safety defined by Equation 16, gives:
F = (Wc+ Ws'Us. U> )tan()k'/ (Pa+ Ua)
=1.25((K d/K k+X))/(1+X) (23)
Where there is no water force, X = 0 and the factor of safety is
1.25(K,/K)which varies from about 1.5 to 2 for ())'alues of 25'o
5/())k'f 0 to 2/3. Generally the maximum value of
40'nd
dictated by the height of the wall (h), hence the maximum
X would be
value would
be with the water at the top of the wall, ie
X = U /P =('/ 9.81h')/('/ K )/h )
where 7's the submerged unit weight of the soil.
Putting 7' 10kN/m', which is reasonable for most soils, then the value of
X is about 1/K.Equation 23 then becomes
F<1.25((K 4+1)/(K +1)) (24)
which is relatively constant at about 1.32 for values of ()k'rom 25'o
5/())k'between0to2/3. 40'ndforvaluesof
Thus neither Case B nor Case C give a factor of safety of 1.5 which
has traditionally been used for this mechanism. The lower factor of
safety could, however, be justified in this example as the water level
cannot get any higher than the top of the wall. This may not always
be the case; for example, if a wall were constructed with a parapet
which allowed the retention of flood water behind the wall to a level
above the top of the wall, then the factor of safety could be even
lower.
Dlscusslon and conclusions
The use of the partial factor approach in Eurocode 7 results in
margins of safety which are different to those traditionally used in
the design of retaining walls. The actual safety level of these
structures is difficult to determine as the analysis depends on
the soil structure interaction. This paper compares the overall
factor of safety implied by the partial factors in the Eurocode with
those obtained using the more traditional lumped factors of safety
which have been in use in the profession and which have stood the test of
time. While these lumped safety factors are not necessarily correct, it is
important to recognise and discuss any deviations from previous
practice.
The study in this paper has shown that, when using the partial
factors in ENV 1997-1, the overall factor of safety against rotation
of an anchored/propped embedded retaining wall implied by
the partial factors in ENV 1997-1 may be low for low values of ())k'nd
when high water forces are involved. The factor of safety drops
to below 1.3 in certain circumstances. These comments also apply
to the factor of safety against rotation of cantilevered embedded
walls. ENV 1997-1 does state that the most unfavourable water
retaining structure and this study highlights the importance of this
requirement.
The study has also shown that the factor of safety against sliding
of a cantilevered retaining wall subjected principally to water
pressure would be less than the 1.5 which has been used in the
past. However the use of a lower safety factor would be justified in this
case provided the water forces cannot rise any higher than the top of the
wall.
The requirement that the same partial factor be applied to all
forces from the same source in Case B can be confusing and could lead to
unsafe designs. This requires further clarification in the revised
Eurocode.
References
Clayton CRI, Milititsky J, and Woods RI. Earth pressure and ear(h-retaining structures,
Blackie Academic Press, 1996
FNV 1997 I:1994E Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design Part I:General Rules, CEN (European
Committee for Standard isation), Brussels
(IROIINI) IIN(.:INFERIN(1 O('TOBER 1998