EC7 Approach to Plane Failure

Analysis

Dr Marcus Matthews
EC7 Ultimate Limit States
EQU – Loss of equlibrium
STR – Failure or excessive deformation of the structure or
structural elements.... in which the strength of structural
materials is significant in providing resistance
GEO – Failure or excessive deformation of the ground, in which
the strength of the soil or rock is significant in providing
resistance
UPL – Loss of equilibrium of the structure or the ground due to
uplift by water pressure (buoyancy) or other vertical actions
HYD – Hydraulic heave, internal erosion and piping in the
ground caused by hydraulic gradients
Examples of STR and GEO
Ultimate Limit States
STR GEO

GEO STR

GEO GEO

After Bond & Harris (2008)

Examples of EQU, UPL and
HYD Ultimate Limit States
EQU UPL HYD

After Bond & Harris (2008)

Verification of Strength
This involves checking the design effects of actions do not exceed
their corresponding design resistances
Ed = design effects of actions
Ed ≤ Rd Rd = corresponding design resistance

Effects of Actions
This includes internal forces, moments, stresses and strains in structural
members plus the deflection and rotation of the whole structure.

In structural design the verification of the STR limit state involves

action effects that are independent of the strength of the structural
materials. In many Geotechnical designs verification of STR and GEO
limit states involve the effects of actions that depend on the strength
of the ground.
 Examples of Permanent (G), Variable
(Q) and Accidental (A) Actions
Snow Q
Self weight G
Temperature
Q
Wind Q
Shrinkage G
Imposed Q

Impact A

Explosion/fire A

Uneven settlement G
Earthquake A

From Bond and Harris (2008)

Types of Actions
Action Duration Variation with Examples
time
Permanent Likely to act throughout Negligible or Self-weight of
structures, fixed
G given reference period monotonic up to a equipment and road
limit value surfacing, water
thrust*, shrinkage,
uneven settlement
Variable Q Neither negligible Imposed loads on
building floors, beams
nor monotonic and roofs, wind**,
snow**, traffic
Accidental Usually short (unlikely to Significant Explosions, impact
from vehicles*,
A occur during the design magnitude seismic*
working life)
* May be variable, ** may be accidental

From Bond and Harris (2008)

 Verification of Strength for Rock
Slopes
Geometrical
Actions parameters Material properties

Characteristic Nominal Characteristic strength

actions Fk dimensions anom parameters Xk

γA γM
Design actions Design Design strength
Fd dimensions ad parameters Xd

Calculation model
γR
Design effect of Verify Design resistance
actions Ed Ed =< Rd Rd
Partial factors for GEO/STR in persistent and transient design situations – Slopes & Footings
Combination 1
Design Approach 1
Combination 2

Design Approach 2

Design Approach 3

Partial factor set A1 A2 M1 M2 R1 R2 R3

Unfavourable γG 1.35 1.0

Permanent actions (G)
Favourable γG,fav 1.0 1.0
Unfavourable γQ 1.5 1.3
Variable actions (Q)
Favourable γQ,fav 0 0
Coefficient of shearing resistance (tan φ) γφ 1.0 1.25
Effective cohesion (c’) γc’ 1.0 1.25
Undrained strength (cu) γcu 1.0 1.4
Unconfined compressive strength (qu) γqu 1.0 1.4
Weight density (γ) γγ 1.0 1.0
Bearing resistance (Rv) γRv 1.0 1.4 1.0
Sliding resistance (Rh) γRh 1.0 1.1 1.0
Earth resistance 1.0 1.0 1.0
.... Retaining structures γRe
.....Slopes
1.4
1.1
The Single Source Principle
Unfavourable (or destabilising) and favourable (or
stabilising) permanent actions may in some situations
be considered as coming from a single source. If….so,
a single partial factor may be applied to the sum of
these actions or to the sum of their effects. [EN 1997-1
2.4.2 (9)P NOTE]

Either favourable or unfavourable may be used,

whichever gives the most onerous design condition
EN 1997 – 1:2004, Overall Stability, Ultimate
Limit State Design, 11.5.2 Slopes and cuts in
rock masses 1

(1)P The stability of slopes and cuts in rock masses shall be checked
against translational and rotational modes of failure involving isolated
rock blocks or large portions of the rock mass, and also against rock
falls. Particular attention shall be given to the pressure caused by
blocked seepage water in joints and fissures.
(2)P Stability analyses shall be based on reliable knowledge of the
pattern of discontinuities intersecting the rock mass and of the shear
strength of the intact rock and of the discontinuities.
(3) Account should be taken of the fact that failure of slopes and cuts
in hard rock masses, with a well defined pattern of discontinuities, will
generally involve:

— sliding of blocks or rock wedges;

— toppling of blocks or slabs;

— a combination of toppling and sliding.
depending on the orientation of the slope face in relation to that of the
discontinuities.
EN 1997 – 1:2004, Overall Stability, Ultimate
Limit State Design, 11.5.2 Slopes and cuts in
rock masses 2

(4) It should be considered that failure of slopes and cuts in highly

fissured rock masses and in soft rocks and cemented soils may develop
along circular or almost circular slip surfaces passing through portions
of intact rock.
(5) Sliding of isolated blocks and wedges should usually be prevented
by reducing the inclination of the slope by providing berms, and
installing anchors, bolts and internal drainage. In cutting slopes, sliding
should be prevented by selecting the direction and orientation of the
slope face so that movements of isolated blocks are kinematically
impossible.
(6) To prevent toppling failures, anchoring or bolting and internal
drainage should normally be applied.
(7) When considering the long-term stability of slopes and cuts, the
detrimental effects of vegetation and environmental or polluting agents
on the shear strength of discontinuities and on the strength of the
intact rock should be taken into account.
Partial Factors for Joint Water
Pressure
All water pressure treated as a variable action γQ = 1.50 (set A1)
Groundwater
table

It is illogical to apply a
Treat as permanent action γG = 1.35
(set A1) partial factor to a
quantity whose ultimate
Max. possible so γ = 1.0 value is relatively well
known (e.g. if highest
possible water level is
placed at the ground
surface).

Additional water pressure due to water rising to

highest normal to highest possible (grey
shading) γQ = 1.50 (set A1), while remaining
water pressure (blue shading) is treated as
permanent, γG = 1.35 (set A1)
It is illogical to treat water
pressures any differently to other
actions, especially effective earth
pressures which are normally
factored by γG
Forces acting on the sliding surface and
partial factors for actions
Pv

Ph
V
aW
W = Self Wt of sliding block (γG)
W aW = Pseudo static earthquake force (γQ)
U = Joint water force acting on sliding surface (γ = 1.0)
V = Joint water force acting on tension crack (γ = 1.0)
Pv = Vertical foundation force (γQ)
U Ph = Horizontal foundation force (γQ)

Not to scale
 Table of Actions and Effects
Design Approach 1, Combination 1 (use set A1)
Force Magnitude Parallel Partial Design parallel Perpendicular Partial Design
(kN/m) component factor component component factor Perpendicular
(kN/m) (kN/m) (kN/m) component
(kN/m)

W 687 +394 γG +394 x 1.35 +563 γG +563 x 1.35

=1.35 =+532 =1.35 = +760

aW 687 x 0.26 +146 γQ +146x 1.50 = -102 γQ -102 x 1.50

= 178 1.50 +219 1.50 = -153

V 27 +25 γ +25 x 1.0 = -11 γ -11 x 1.0 =

=1.0 +25 =1.0 -11

U 113 0 γ 0 -113 γ -113 x 1.0 =

=1.0 =1.0 -113

Pv 2000/10 = +118 γQ +200 x 1.50 = +164 γQ +164 x 1.50

200 1.50 +177 1.50 = +246

Ph 1000/10 = +82 γQ +100 x 1.50 = -57 γQ -57 x 1.50 =

100 1.50 +123 1.50 -86

Totals SEd =1076 Nnd = 644

 Table of Actions and Effects
Design Approach 1, Combination 2 (use set A2)
Force Magnitude Parallel Partial Design parallel Perpendicular Partial Design
(kN/m) component factor component component factor Perpendicular
(kN/m) (kN/m) (kN/m) component
(kN/m)

W 687 +394 γG +394 x 1.00 +563 γG +563 x 1.00

=1.00 =+394 =1.00 = +563

aW 687 x 0.26 +146 γQ +146x 1.30 = -102 γQ -102 x 1.30

= 178 1.30 +190 1.30 = -133

V 27 +25 γ +25 x 1.0 = -11 γ -11 x 1.0 =

=1.0 +25 =1.0 -11

U 113 0 γ 0 -113 γ -113 x 1.0 =

=1.0 =1.0 -113

Pv 2000/10 = +118 γQ +200 x 1.30 = +164 γQ +164 x 1.30

200 1.30 +153 1.30 = +213

Ph 1000/10 = +82 γQ +100 x 1.30 = -57 γQ -57 x 1.30 =

100 1.30 +107 1.30 -74

Totals SEd =869 Nnd = 446

Material Properties
Design angle of shearing resistance
 
−1  tan φk 
φd = tan  
γ
 φ 
φk = φb + i = 30 + 20 = 50o

Combination 1, γφ = 1.0 (set M1) Combination 2, γφ = 1.25 (set M2)

 tan 50 
−1 o  tan 50 
φd = tan   = 50 −1
φd = tan   = 44 o

 1.0   1.25 
Resistance
Partial factor for resistance for combinations 1 & 2 (from set R1), γRe = 1.0

Design shear resistance

N nd tan φd
S Rd =
γ Re
Combination 1
644 tan 50
S Rd = = 767 kN / m
1.0
Combination 2

446 tan 44
S Rd = = 425kN / m
1 .0
Verification of Strength Against Plane
Failure
Degree of utilisation
The design is unacceptable
S Ed if the degree of utilisation
Λ GEO =
S RD is > 100%

1076
Combination 1 Λ GEO = 100% = 140% Unacceptable
767

869
Combination 2 Λ GEO = 100% = 205% Unacceptable
425
EC7 Design Approach 1 for
different design scenarios
Design Degree of Degree of FoS
scenario utilisation for utilisation for
combination 1 combination 2
Dry slope 59% 73% 1.70
During prolonged 73% 100% 1.25
rainfall
Prolonged rainfall 135% 208% 0.75
+ earthquake
Foundation loading 140% 205% 0.69
+ prolonged
rainfall +
earthquake
Foundation loading + 85% 116% 1.10
prolonged rainfall +
earthquake
But with sense of
horizontal foundation
force reversed
Slope Reinforcement
Pv
Degree of Utilisation ΛGEO = 1.0

Ph
For combination 1
V 1076 − T sin β
Λ GEO =
aW (644 + T cos β )Tan50 = 1.0
1.0
W T 1076 − T sin β = (644 + T cos β )Tan50
1076 − T sin β = 767 + 1.2T cos β
U T (1.2 cos β + sin β ) = 309
309
T=
Not to scale (1.2 cos β + sin β )
 Anchor Force required to achieve a degree of utilisation
of 1.0 (Design Approach 1, Combination 1)

b (degrees) T (kN/m) 330

310
0 258
290
10 228
270
20 210
T (kN/m)

250
30 201
230

40 198 210

50 201 190

60 211 170

150
70 229 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
β (degrees)
80 259

90 309
Slope Reinforcement
Pv
Degree of Utilisation ΛGEO = 1.0

Ph
For combination 2
V 869 − T sin β
Λ GEO =
aW (446 + T cos β )Tan44 = 1.0
1.0
W T 869 − T sin β = (446 + T cos β )Tan 44
869 − T sin β = 431 + 0.97T cos β
U T (0.97 cos β + sin β ) = 438
438
T=
Not to scale (0.97 cos β + sin β )
Anchor Force required to achieve a degree of utilisation
of 1.0 (Design Approach 1, Combinations 1 & 2)

T (kN/m)
β (degrees)
500
Comb1 Comb2

0 258 452 450

10 228 388 400

20 210 349
350
T (kN /m )

Comb1
30 201 327 Comb2
300
40 198 316
250
50 201 315

200
60 211 324

70 229 344 150

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
80 259 380 β (degrees)

90 309 438
Reference
Bond, A. & Harris, A. (2008). Decoding Eurocode 7,
Taylor & Francis, London, 598pp
ISBN 978-0-415-40948-3