Ec7 Wallap
Ec7 Wallap
Notation
aULS, aSLS ULS and SLS seismic accelerations
SLS
agR
ULS
Accidental action
c'
Xk
c'k
Xd
cU
a , p
cUk
Characteristic value of cU
'
cSOFT
cv = cs
cSOFTk
DA1
Design Approach 1
EU
peak
E'
Generic action
Fk
Cu
Frep
Fd
Permanent action
Mw
Ko
Pp
MWd
MWult
Pp
PPd
PPult
N60
SPT N value
Poisson's ratio
Variable action
p.1
Referred
to as
References
EN 1990 Eurocode: Basis of structural design
Underlying principles of Eurocodes for all types of structures
EN 1991 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures
Design guidance and definitions of Actions for all types of structures
EN 1997-1 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design - General rules
General principles and requirements to ensure safety, stability and
durability of earthworks and foundations. Not an easy read.
EN 1997-2 (Ground investigation and testing) is not discussed in this note
EC7
EC8
BS8102:1990
BS8102
CIRIA 104
CIRIA Report C580, Embedded retaining walls - guidance for economic design
A.R.Gaba, B.Simpson, W.Powrie, D.R.Beadman.
CIRIA, 2003.
The UK National Annex to Eurocode 7 lists C580 as a source of
Non-contradictory, complementary information.
(B+H pp.402-403)
An invaluable source of guidance and information.
C580
DG
Decoding Eurocode 7
Andrew Bond and Andrew Harris
Taylor and Francis, 2008
A readable guide to the Eurocode geotechnical labyrinth. With this, C580
and the Designers' Guide (above) you may never need to read EN 1997-1.
Good coverage of general principles. Excellent presentation (and resolution)
of conflicting interpretations of EC7. Precise references to Eurocode itself.
B+H
nd
p.2
2.0 Definitions
2.1
Limit States
Limit state
Acronym
Description
Information obtained
from Wallap analyses
EQU
No
n/a
STR
Failure of structural
members by excessive
deformation, formation
of a mechanism or
rupture
FAT
GEO
Failure or excessive
deformation of the
ground
UPL
Yes
Warning issued in
extreme cases. Uplift
pressures must be
assessed separately
HYD
Yes
None. Hydraulic
gradients must be
assessed separately
Table 1
2.2
Actions are loads and other phenomena (e.g. thermal stresses, impacts, vibrations) which act on the
structure. Actions are divided into:
B+H p.36 2.9
Direct actions
Indirect actions
Effects are the stresses and bending moments within the soil mass and structural members (wall and
struts) due to the design loads (actions) which will tend to cause failure of the soil / structure.
Resistance of a structural member is its capacity to withstand actions without failing e.g. the moment
resistance of a wall, passive resistance of a soil mass. The resistance of a member is a function of its
geometry and the strength of the material(s) of which it is made.
p.3
Material properties (e.g. tensile strength of steel or shear strength of soil) determine the available
resistance of parts of the structure.
Generic values of actions, effects, resistances and material properties are denoted by the symbols:
Actions
Effects
Resistances
Material properties
F
E
R
X
A safe design is achieved by applying partial factors to some or all of the above. For a simple structure
e.g. a cable supporting a single tensile load, the Effect (tensile force in the cable) is proportional to the
Action (the tensile load) and the Resistance (load capacity of the cable) is proportional to the Material
strength (tensile strength of the cable). In such a simple case we would achieve the same margin of safety
and the same design whether we apply our partial factor to the Action, Effect, Resistance or Material
property. However, for retaining walls there are significant choices to be made in the application of partial
factors. Traditional methods of retaining wall design have usually balanced Effects (active pressures)
against factored Resistances (passive pressures). EC7, by contrast, prescribes the use of partial factors
on Actions and Material properties.
2.3
Actions
Type of action
Symbol
Examples
Permanent
Variable (live)
Accidental
Description
Relevant
actions
SLS
Persistent
Normal use
G+Q
Transient
G+Q
Accidental
G + A (+Q)
G + A (+Q)
G + A (+Q)
Seismic
calculation required
not applicable
Table 3
Persistent and Transient situations both include Permanent and Variable actions. Seismic loads are often
described as Accidental actions requiring only a ULS analysis. However, one expects structures:
and also to resist significant damage (SLS) under more frequent smaller earthquakes.
Thus Table 3 includes the requirement of a SLS analysis for less severe earthquakes. See Section 4.10
for further treatment of the parameters required for seismic design.
p.4
Material properties
Derivation
Test results
Derived
values, X
(reduction of many
test values to a
single value)
Characteristic
values Xk
Material properties e.g. soil strength, are introduced into the calculation as characteristic values (Xk). For
non-geotechnical materials (e.g. steel and concrete) characteristic strengths are taken as the value which
would be expected to be exceeded by 95% of samples. Due to the great variability of geotechnical
materials and the difficulties in obtaining representative samples, EC7 redefines the characteristic value
as
a cautious estimate of the value affecting the occurrence of the limit state.
B+H 5.3.2
Bond and Harris (p.138) propose that "cautious estimates" can be equated with the "representative
values" defined in BS8002 as
conservative estimates of the properties of the soil as it exists in situ
properly applicable to the part of the design for which it is intended
B+H 5.3.3
p.5
BS 8002 prescribes that for parameters such as weight density which show little variation in value, the
representative value "should be the mean of the test results". Where greater variations occur (e.g. soil
strength) or where values cannot be fixed with confidence, the representative value "should be a cautious
assessment of the lower limit of the acceptable data". This seems a sensible approach to adopt for
WALLAP analyses.
Note. The use of the term "representative" in BS 8002 is quite different from that in EC7 - see
Section 2.3.3 above.
The Eurocode "cautious estimate" can also be equated with the definition in C580 of the term
"moderately conservative"
A cautious estimate of soil parameters.. Worse than the probabilistic
mean but not as severe as a worst credible parameter value. Sometimes
termed a conservative best estimate.
To summarise:
(EC7)
(BS 8002)
(C580)
B+H p.51
where M is a partial factor whose value depends on a) the Limit State under consideration - SLS or ULS
b) whether drained or undrained conditions operate
b) the Design Approach adopted
C580 (Design Approach B) requires the use of "worst credible" parameters i.e. the worst value of soil
parameters that the designer realistically believes might occur. These may be regarded as comparable to
Eurocode design values (ULS case) i.e. the characteristic value divided by its (ULS) partial factor.
3.0
A design approach is the method by which the required margin of safety is achieved. One can enhance
the applied loads or decrease material strengths or consider a combination of these. EC7 has not
managed to achieve a unified approach in relation to ULS design. Instead it offers a choice of three
distinct Design Approaches which reflect the traditions, geology and preferences of the member countries.
Each country has developed a National Annex to EC7 which specifies choices, parameters and
information relevant to the practice in that country.
The EC7: UK National Annex specifies the use of DA1. Design Approaches 2 and 3 will not be discussed
further in this note.
p.6
Combination 1
Combination 2
We do not factor all parameters in one combination on the grounds that it would be unduly pessimistic to
assume that loads and soil strength might have worst credible values at the same time
p.7
3.2.3 Comment
We note that, apart from Overdig and Variable loads, which are pre-factored by 1.1, the input parameters
are identical to the input for a SLS analysis. Similarly the resulting bending moments and strut forces get
factored by 1.35 to obtain their design values. Looking at Section 7.1.1 we see that the DG interpretation
of Combination 1 leads to design bending moments and strut forces which are only marginally greater
than those obtained from an SLS design. We also note that any FoS obtained from this (Combination 1)
analysis would be a lumped factor for which it is difficult to define a suitable design value. However we still
have Combination 2 to ensure that stability is achieved and that design bending moments are safe.
Moreover the DG interpretation of Combination 1 is in essence not a proper ULS analysis. The point of a
ULS analysis is to factor the input parameters as close to their source as possible whereas this scheme
lumps all the unfactored parameters together and then factors the resulting structural forces.
Amongst reputable consulting engineers opinion is divided. The evangelical Euro-zealots carry out the
above Combination 1 analysis as a matter of routine and may even insist that others do so too (in addition
to SLS and DA1-2 analyses). The Euro-sceptics consider the implications of DA1-1 and find that they can
generally ignore it if Applied Loads are not significant.
3.2.4 Combination 1 options in WALLAP
Out of respect for published interpretations of Combination 1, WALLAP offers the Designers' Guide
approach as "standard" under the heading DA1 Combination 1 in the FoS options. However our own
"straight forward" interpretation of Combination 1 (as outlined above) is also available under the heading
DA1 Comb. 1 (Alternative). This option is accessed under User Defined Limit State No.1 when you enter
the "Limit State description".
3.3 Accidental and Seismic Situations
Accidental situations include fire, impact, explosion and accidental removal of a strut. In Accidental and
Seismic design situations one adopts a single Design Approach in which all Permanent Actions and
Material Properties are given their unfactored characteristic values (see Section 4.10.1).
The situation in regard to Variable Actions is not so simple. It would be unreasonably pessimistic to
assume that all Variable Actions (e.g. traffic, snow, wind) operate simultaneously at the moment of the
Accidental or Seismic event. Detailed recommendations, which will depend on the type of structure (e.g.
bridge abutment, harbour wall) and the nature of the accidental load, are beyond the scope of this note.
p.8
p.9
The terms Moderately Conservative and Worst Credible require some clarification in order to obtain actual
values for design. EC7 [Clause 2.4.6.1(6)P] defines them as follows:
Moderately Conservative water pressures (SLS) are the most unfavourable values which
could occur in Normal Circumstances.
Worst Credible water pressures (ULS) represent the most unfavourable values that could
occur during the Design Lifetime of the structure.
The estimation of "most unfavourable" water pressures during Normal Circumstances and Design Lifetime
is strongly influenced by the type of soil being retained as described in the following sections.
4.4.2 Impermeable and semi-permeable soils
In impermeable soils and in the absence of reliable drainage EC7 specifies that water level should
normally be taken at the surface of the retained material for both the SLS and ULS cases (Normal
Circumstances and Design Lifetime)
Long standing British practice (BS8102: 1990) is more lenient. The depth of the water table in the retained
soil can be assumed to be 25% of the retained height of soil but in any case not greater than 1m.
It is suggested by some authors that EC7 is unrealistically strict in this respect and that the BS8102
approach is to be preferred. Whichever approach is adopted one uses the same water pressure profiles
for the SLS and ULS cases.
4.4.3 Water filled tension crack in undrained medium or stiff clay
If there is the possibility of a water-filled tension crack in undrained cohesive soil then this must be
assumed to occur in both the SLS and ULS cases. Even though the crack is assumed to fill to ground
level, the crack itself will not extend to the toe of the wall. WALLAP allows the user to specify the
maximum depth of water filled tension cracks which will usually be (much) less than the theoretical
maximum depth and generally not greater than 2 or 3m. See C580 (4.1.6) for further advice.
When modelling long term drained conditions in clay the water-filled tension crack option is not applicable
and then the criteria of Section 4.4.2 should be adopted. However, even in the long term one should
check for undrained behaviour with a water-filled tension crack as this may be more severe.
4.4.4 Permeable soils or in the presence of a reliable drainage system
For the SLS case (Normal Circumstances) the assessment of water pressures is based on:
1. Water pressures observed during the period (say a year or two) immediately prior to
construction e.g. standpipes, piezometers, tide levels etc..
2. Reasonably foreseeable changes in ground water regime due to climatic variation and
long term effects of construction.
For the ULS case (Design Lifetime) one takes the SLS as a base line and estimates the rise in the water
table under the most adverse conceiveable conditions.
4.4.5 Water pressures for DA1 - Combination 1 (ULS)
DA1-1 is a ULS case but the generally adopted procedure (see Section 3.2) is to carry out the WALLAP
analysis using unfactored (SLS) parameters and then factor the resulting bending moments and strut
forces.
Thus, although the above discussion has referred consistently to using Moderately Conservative water
pressures for the SLS case and Worst Credible water pressures for the ULS case, you will see that in the
summary tables of SLS and ULS parameters, you are advised to use Moderately Conservative water
pressures for DA1 Combination 1.
This approach assumes that the effect of factoring bending moments makes due allowance for the
difference between SLS and ULS water pressures. One is unlikely to incur gross errors as DA1
Combination 2 considers ULS water pressures.
4.5 Soil strength
Characteristic (as defined in Section 2.4.1) values of soil strength should be derived in the usual way
from field tests, laboratory tests or extrapolation from data from similar sites. C580, 5.4.4 gives much
useful information on the derivation of strength parameters.
The decision on whether to carry out a drained or undrained analysis at any particular stage of the
construction sequence is discussed in the WALLAP User Guide, in C580 and in any standard text on
retaining wall design. It is not a matter which is addressed by EC7.
p.10
in soils which exhibit brittle behaviour or marked strain softening e.g. highly
overconsolidated clays and very dense granular soils (SPT N value > 40).
For most situations, characteristic values of ' can safely be based on peak . Any concerns about brittle
behaviour will be addressed by the use of critical state values in the ULS analysis.
The next question is how to derive the ULS design value from the characteristic value. One could simply
apply the prescribed factor (1.25) in Table 4. However for very dense granular soils, peak ' may be much
greater than cv and it might be prudent to use cv as the ULS design value.
To summarise, it is recommended that SLS calculations are normally based on characteristic values of
peak and that ULS calculations are based on either factored values of peak or unfactored values of cv
where this is less than factored peak .
4.5.2 Drained cohesion
Drained cohesion is not a fundamental soil property and values should be obtained from tests within the
appropriate stress range. Values of apparent cohesion obtained from triaxial tests should be used with
caution. High values generally indicate too high a rate of testing. Characteristic values of cohesion can be
derived directly from the triaxial data.
4.5.3 Undrained cohesion
Characteristic values of undrained cohesion are often derived form in situ test (SPT values). There is
often a great deal of data with a large scatter. Advice on interpreting these data can be found in Decoding
Eurocode 7 Ch.5.
Design values for ULS analysis are obtained by applying the partial factors in Table 4 to the characteristic
values.
4.5.4 Strength of softened soil at excavation level
Undrained cohesive soils are liable to softening at excavation level on the retaining side during
construction. It is customary to allow for a reduction in strength of up to 30% within the top 0.5m or so.
C580, 5.9.1 offers guidance on the degree and depth of softening. The actual amount of softening to be
allowed will depend on many factors including permeability of the soil, control of ground water and speed
of construction.
The softened strength should be regarded as the characteristic strength since it represents a moderately
cautious view of conditions which will actually pertain during in construction. The softened soil will in most
cases be removed by excavation before completion of the works. Nevertheless the softened strength will
feature in the SLS analysis of the permanent works. Any movements and bending moments which
develop as a result of softening will form part of the cumulative bending moments and displacements.
The ULS strength should, in principle, be obtained by factoring the characteristic strength. There is no
clear guidance on this point and it must therefore remain a matter of judgement as to whether the
application of the usual partial factor (1.4) would lead to unreasonably conservative strength values.
p.11
Wall material
Active
Passive
Active
Passive
Steel
tan( cv)
tan( cv)
Cast concrete
CIRIA 104
tan( k)
CIRIA 104
tan( k)
tan(cv)
tan(cv)
BS8002
tan(k)
BS8002
tan(k)
Pre-cast concrete
tan( cv)
tan( cv)
E' = 0.8 EU
E' = F.N60 (MPa) for coarse grained soils
where F= 1.0 for normally consolidated soils
and F= 2.0 for overconsolidated soils
p.12
For further discussion of correlations between undrained shear strength and Young's modulus see the
WALLAP User Guide and also C580 (5.4.5).
The values obtained from the above correlations are characteristic values suitable for the SLS analysis.
EC7 does not specify partial factors for soil modulus but C580 recommends that moduli for ULS
calculations should be taken at 50% of their SLS values. This reflects the non-linear nature of soil
elasticity and the lower modulus at higher strains. (B+H p.419 12.5.1)
Young's modulus under seismic conditions is the subject of much debate. Seismic events are associated
with high strain rates and large total strains. High strain rates are associated with increased modulus
compared to static conditions whereas large strains are associated with lower modulus. It is sometimes
assumed that the increase in modulus due to high strain rate cancels out the reduction due to large
strains and so one uses SLS values of modulus to model seismic conditions. More detailed advice can be
found in Chapter 6 of Kramer (1996).
Poisson's Ratio for drained soils lies in the range 0.1 to 0.3. The same value is used for SLS and ULS
calculations. Poisson's Ratio for undrained soil is 0.5 by definition although for mathematical reasons
WALLAP like all FE programs can only handle a value close to 0.5.
4.8 Surcharges and loads applied to the wall
4.8.1 Surcharges applied to the ground
C580 states:
For flat ground and walls retaining heights greater than 3m, it is recommended
that a minimum surcharge of 10kPa should be applied to the surface of the
retained ground in design. For walls retaining less than 3m, this surcharge load
may be reduced provided the designer is confident that a minimum surcharge of
10kPa will not apply, during the life of the structure.
This nominal surcharge is regarded as an "unfavourable variable" surcharge. 10kPa is its characteristic
value. For Combination 2 (see Section 3.1) apply a partial factor of 1.3 and for Combination 1 (if
considered) apply a partial factor of 1.5.
Other unfavourable variable surcharges e.g. traffic and cranes, are treated similarly.
Unfavourable permanent surcharges e.g. self weight of building, are only factored in DA1 Combination 1.
4.8.2 Horizontal and moment loads applied to the wall
Unfavourable loads applied directly to the wall are treated in the same way as surcharges. Characteristic
values are used for the SLS case and partial factors are applied in the ULS case. Some loads (e.g.
moment loads applied to the wall) may be both favourable and unfavourable e.g. increasing bending
moments but decreasing deflections. If in doubt a range of values should be considered.
Strut and anchor pre-stress loads are entered as their characteristic (nominal) values (in both SLS and
ULS analyses) and are never factored as they are regarded as permanent favourable actions.
4.8.3 Favourable variable surcharges and loads
Favourable variable loads are not included (partial factor = zero). If a Favourable variable load has a
minimum value then that is regarded as a Permanent load with a partial factor of 1.0
4.9 Strut and anchors
Strut / anchor dimensions and modulus are taken as characteristic (nominal) values for the SLS and ULS
cases. The pull-out resistance and tensile strength of anchors (or the compressive strength of struts) are
not mentioned in WALLAP. It is the designer's responsibility to ensure that struts/anchors have sufficient
capacity to withstand the loads calculated by WALLAP for both the SLS and ULS cases.
Strut and anchor pre-stress loads are entered as their characteristic (nominal) values and are never
factored as they are regarded as permanent favourable actions.
4.10 Seismic loads
Seismic loading is introduced into a WALLAP analysis as a special type of construction stage. The effect
of the earthquake is represented by a horizontal (and/or vertical) acceleration applied to the soil mass i.e.
the dynamic reality is modelled as equivalent static forces. Design values of acceleration are selected
according to location, type of structure and foundation soil, following local codes of practice and
experience. Within the EU the relevant information can be found in the EC8 Annex for the particular
country.
p.13
EC8: Part 1 adopts a performance-based seismic design (PBSD) which relates levels of damage (inelastic
displacements) to the return period of the earthquake. EC8 considers two levels of damage:
No-collapse requirement:
"The structure shallwithstand the design seismic action without local or global
collapse, thus retain its structural integrity and a residual load bearing capacity."
Damage limitation requirement:
to withstand an earthquake without occurrence of damage and limitations of use.
The first is clearly a ULS criterion and is deemed to be satisfied by designing for an earthquake with a
return period of 475 years. Longer return periods may be required for critical structures such as hospitals
or schools. The second is a SLS criterion and is deemed to be satisfied by designing for an earthquake
with a return period of 95 years.
The WALLAP analysis does not automatically take account of the effect of the earthquake on soil
properties or water pressures (e.g. liquefaction). These effects must be calculated separately and
introduced into the construction sequence as additional stages (see Section 4.10.3).
4.10.1 ULS analysis
The first step is to determine the Reference Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA, or agR) for the required
return period (usually 475 years) at the relevant location. This will usually be obtained from a seismic
hazard map.
Two modifications need to be made to the PGA before it can be used in design
The resulting acceleration is taken as the design value for ULS calculations. A PGA of less than 0.05g lies
outside the provisions of EC8 and no special design measures are required.
One does not combine seismic forces with factored loads and soil strengths as this would be
unreasonably pessimistic (B+H 2.13.2 p.52). Thus although the soil strengths are at their characteristic
values the resulting analysis is, in effect, a ULS analysis as it is believed that the combination of
characteristic strengths with seismic load represents a worst conceivable scenario.
4.10.2 SLS analysis
The procedure is as for the ULS analysis but starting with the PGA for an earthquake with a 95 year return
period. If this data is not directly available it can be obtained by extrapolation from the 475 year return
period PGA.
4.10.3 The WALLAP construction sequence
Seismic loading would normally appear at the end of the WALLAP construction sequence. The following
additional adjustments to the data may be required:
If clay deposits are involved it might be appropriate to change the properties of clay layers to their
undrained values before applying the seismic loading stage.
One should make cautious estimates of the new parameters and introduce them into the calculation as
characteristic values. No further factoring of these parameters is called for as, again, this would be
unreasonably pessimistic.
Kramer (1996) discusses the effects of cyclic loading in great detail. Particular care must be taken in
respect of water pressure as this is likely to be the single most significant contributor to loss of stability.
The properties of the affected layers and the new water pressure profiles should be implemented as
additional construction stages before applying the seismic loading stage.
Local yield of the wall can be an important feature of seismic design. The characteristic (un-factored) yield
strength of the wall is entered in the "Wall properties" section of the WALLAP data.
One could consider more than one seismic event e.g. separate or combined vertical and horizontal
accelerations and these can be placed in sequence.
WALLAP and Eurocode 7
05.11.2012
p.14
Subgrade reaction
- independent springs
2D-Finite Element analysis - interactive springs
Either method may be used but the 2D-FE analysis is be more realistic and usually gives smaller (but
realistic) bending moments because it can include soil arching.
The most unfavourable values that could occur during the design life-time
of the structure [ EC7 2.4.6.1(6)P ]
Actions i.e. Surcharges applied to the ground and structural loads applied
to the wall (not soil or water pressure)
Wall friction values are the maximum permitted and may need to be
reduced having regard to the direction and amount of movement of the
wall relative to the ground.
A Partial Factor of 2.0 on Soil Modulus is specified by C580 for the ULS
case but not by EC7. The basis for this approach is that modulus at the
large strains associated with ULS calculations is expected to be lower.
Note: Subscript k denotes a Characteristic value
p.15
Parameter
Parameter
Description
Symbol
Serviceability
Limit State
( SLS )
Wall geometry
(including toe elevation)
Nominal values
Nominal values
Excavation levels
Nominal values
Overdig levels
Ko
Characteristic values
Characteristic values
Water pressures
Density of soil
tan '
tan k
Lesser of tan cv
or (tan k) / 1.25
c'
c'k
c'k / 1.25
cU
cUk
cUk / 1.40
cU of softened soil at
excav. level (see C580, 5.9.1)
cSOFT
cSOFTk
cSOFTk / 1.40
Wall friction 4
Steel
tan a
tan p
tan( cv)
Wall friction 4
Cast concrete
tan a
tan p
tan(cv)
tan(cv) / 1.25
Wall friction 4
Pre-cast concrete
tan a
tan p
tan( cv)
E'
E'k
E'k
EU
EUk
EUk
Unfavourable
1.0
1.0
Favourable
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.3
Nominal values
Nominal values
MWd
see Sections
7.1.1 and 7.2.1
MW-ULS
Poisson's ratio
Partial Factor on
Permanent
3
Actions
Table 6a
WALLAP and Eurocode 7
05.11.2012
p.16
Combination 1
Parameter
Symbol
Combination 1
Combination 1
Alternative interpretation
Factors applied to
effects of actions
Wall geometry
(including toe elevation)
Nominal values
Nominal values
Excavation levels
Overdig levels
Overdig levels
Ko
Characteristic values
Characteristic values
Water pressures
Density of soil
tan '
tan k
tan k
c'
c'k
c'k
cU
cUk
cUk
cU of softened soil at
excav. level (see C580, 5.9.1)
cSOFT
cSOFTk
cSOFTk
Wall friction 4
Steel
tan a
tan p
tan( cv)
tan( cv)
Wall friction 4
Cast concrete
tan a
tan p
tan(cv)
tan(cv)
Wall friction 4
Pre-cast concrete
tan a
tan p
tan( cv)
tan( cv)
E'
E'k
E'k
EU
EUk
EUk
Unfavourable
1.0
1.35
Favourable
1.0
1.0
1.10
1.50
Nominal values
Nominal values
MWd
1.35 x MW-ULS
MW-ULS
Poisson's ratio
Partial Factor on
Permanent
3
Actions
Table 6b
WALLAP and Eurocode 7
05.11.2012
p.17
One construction sequence occupies one WALLAP data file. So generally you will need to create at least
two versions of the data file, one with SLS values and one with ULS values (DA1 Combination 2)
according to the values in Table 6. Details of data entry for Limit State analysis are given in the WALLAP
Help System and the User Guide.
For Accidental situations one can add extra stages to an SLS analysis or implement one of the User
Defined Limit States with partial factors of ones own choice.
Nett
Wall
pressure
disp.
kN/m2
m
1 11.00
5.54
0.031
2 10.00
10.49
0.033
10.49
3
9.50
12.97
0.034
4
8.25
39.92
0.036
5
7.00
45.62
0.035
6
6.50
31.26
0.033
7
6.00
37.16
0.031
8
4.50
-17.05
0.023
9
3.00
-2.91
0.015
10
1.60
15.00
0.008
11
1.00
18.08
0.006
-47.35
12 -0.50
-16.09
0.002
13 -2.00
35.99
-0.000
Strut force at elev. 10.00 =
The strut at elev.
Wall
Rotation
rad.
-2.34E-03
-2.41E-03
-2.26E-03
-3.78E-04
2.537E-03
3.648E-03
4.525E-03
5.671E-03
5.280E-03
4.251E-03
3.600E-03
1.866E-03
1.095E-03
82.6 kN/m
Applied
moments
kN.m/m
(horiz.)
(incl.)
7.00 is slack
Table 7
It is the responsibility of the WALLAP user to verify the design by ensuring that values of these
parameters do not exceed their permitted maximum value for the relevant Limit State. If initial results
show that limiting values are exceeded then the design should be modified and re-analysed. Excessive
bending moments and displacements can be accommodated by increasing the wall thickness or reducing
strut spacings.
p.18
Table 8 summarises the design information obtained form the ULS and SLS analyses. A detailed
discussion is given in Sections 7.1 and 7.2.
Type of analysis
Limit Equilibrium
Design information
obtained with
ULS parameters
Design information
obtained with
SLS parameters
Soil-Structure Interaction
FoS > 1
indicates stability
(for cantilever and
single prop cases)
FoS > 1.25 (drained)
or
FoS > 1.4 (undrained)
Equilibrium BM solution
indicates stability.
ULS bending moments.
ULS strut forces.
is a partial indication of
stability
Table 8
What is being said here is that we have two versions of the design bending moment (MWd). One is derived
directly from the ULS analysis. The other is derived by considering the bending moment from the SLS
analysis to be the characteristic value of a permanent action (the bending moment) which is multiplied by
1.35 (Table 4, Column A1) to obtain the design bending moment. To summarise:
MWd is the greater of MULS or 1.35MSLS
The ultimate bending resistance of the wall, MWult, is related to the design bending moment, MWd, by:
MWd MWult / Mw.
For steel walls Mw = 1.0 i.e. subject to the provisos below you can use the Ultimate Moment Capacities
straight out of the "Table of steel pile moment capacities" in the WALLAP help system. There is no
distinction between moment capacities for temporary and permanent situations.
For reinforced concrete walls a proper design must be carried out for the concrete and steel section.
Eurocode 2 specifies
M = c = 1.5 for concrete
M = s = 1.15 for reinforcing bars
Bear in mind that:
Bending and shear resistance are influenced by vertical loads in the wall.
the characteristic bending strength of the wall may reduce with time e.g.
due to corrosion.
The logic concerning the alternative forces is the same as for the bending moments (Section 7.1.1). To
summarise:
PPd is the greater of PULS or 1.35PSLS
WALLAP and Eurocode 7
05.11.2012
p.19
Having obtained the design load, PPd, one must design an anchor or strut to withstand that load. The
design of props (struts or anchors) lies outside the scope of this note. A full treatment of prop design can
be found in C580 (7.3) and in B+H (Ch.14). The following remarks are for general guidance only.
It is the designer's responsibility to ensure that anchor is of sufficient length such that
the deadman or grouted anchor length (and the passive zone associated with it) lies
outside any potential active failure wedge.
Anchor strength depends on the strength of the tendon and resistance to pull-out.
Pull-out resistance falls off rapidly after its peak value i.e. pull-out failure is brittle.
Tendon strength falls off gradually after peak. Therefore anchors should be designed
so that anchorage strength is greater than tendon strength as this gives a less brittle
design.
7.1.3 Displacements
Calculated displacements in ULS analyses are likely to very large as the structure is on the verge of
failure. There is no prescribed maximum displacement in the ULS condition.
7.1.4 Factor of safety
Factors of Safety at all stages should normally be greater than unity. However the limit equilibrium
analysis does not take account of arching action and so the bending moment and displacement
calculation may often find an equilibrium solution for propped walls even when the FoS is less than unity.
This situation is perfectly satisfactory.
7.2 Verification of Serviceability Limit State
7.2.1 Bending moment
C580 ( 6.6.1) states the SLS verification procedure thus:
The calculated SLS bending moments and shear forces should be used to
check compliance with:
crack width criteria for reinforced concrete walls
and allowable stress criterion for steel sheet pile walls (if applicable)
The allowable stress criterion for steel is not relevant to EC7 as that is taken care of by the ULS bending
moment check (see Section 7.1.1).
7.2.2 Strut / anchor forces
There is no verification of SLS prop loads. The ULS design of props ensures adequate performance.
7.2.3 Displacements
Maximum permitted displacements vary greatly according to circumstances. Criteria may relate to
Acceptable displacements of the new structure.
Damage to neighbouring services or foundations
Damage to finishes of neighbouring structures
Unacceptable differential settlement of neighbouring structures
in relation to performance of services or machinery.
In the absence of any specific criteria, maximum wall displacements should normally be limited to 0.5% of
the excavated height.
7.2.4 Factor of safety
Factor of Safety is not part of the verification of a SLS. Generally you will need to refer to the FoS
calculations of the ULS analysis in order to verify the ULS condition.
However, the factor of safety (by the Strength Factor method) calculated in a SLS analysis may used to
provide partial indication of the ULS condition in some circumstances:
This verification would only be partial because only the soil strengths have been factored while, water pressures,
excavation levels and surcharges all have their SLS values.
p.20