Safety Concepts and Calibration of Partial Factors in

European and North American Codes of Practice

Workshop • 30.11 – 01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology

Implementation of Eurocode 7 in Germany

and Consequences for Practical Design

Kerstin Lesny
University of Duisburg-Essen
Institute of Geotechnics
 Outline

History of Geotechnical Design in Germany

Implementation of Eurocode 7

New Regulations for Geotechnical Design

Consequences for Pratical Design - Examples

Conclusions

Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 2

 History of Geotechnical Design in Germany

Geotechnical design in Germany originally based on a global safety

concept with an overall factor of safety η

Safety concept defined in DIN 1054 (1976) with reference to various

design codes (e.g. DIN 4017 for the bearing resistance)

Definition of global factor: η = R/E ≥ ηmin

R, E = deterministic values, named as: cal E, cal R

Global factors:
e.g. bearing resistance failure: η=2,0 for load case 1
e.g. pile bearing capacity: η=2,0

Distinction of three load cases determining the level of safety

Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 3

 History of Geotechnical Design in Germany

Definition of deterministic values of soil parameters

(acc. to EAU):

to be derived directly from the results of soil mechanical tests

basic value is the reduced arithmetic average from n tests
appropriate additions or deductions to consider the heterogeinity of the
ground, uncertainties during soil sampling and testing

e.g. reduction of shear strength paramaters according to E96 of EAU:

c
cal c u ≤ u cal c′ ≤ c′ cal tan ϕ′ ≤ tan ϕ
′
1,3 1,3 1,1

EAU: Recommendations of the Committee for Waterfront Structures

Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 4
 History of Geotechnical Design in Germany

With DIN 1054 (2003) LSD first has been introduced in Germany
parallel to the development of Eurocode 7, revised in 2005

Global factor Partial factors

E≤R R
η
Ek ⋅ γ E ≤ k
γR

deterministic values R, E (cal R, cal E) ≠ characteristic values Ek , Rk

E ⋅ γE ≤ R ⇔E≤ R =E≤ R ⇔ η = γE ⋅ γR
γR (γE ⋅ γR ) η

Resistance factors γR derived from global factors assuming

typical partial factors for effects of actions γE!

Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 5

 History of Geotechnical Design in Germany

Definition of Limit States (in German: Grenzzustände = GZ)

GZ 1A
Loss of equilibrium without failure of the ground, e.g. uplift, floating, hydraulic
heave; partial factors only on actions

GZ 1B
Failure of structures or structural components by failure of the structure or the
ground, e.g. sliding, bearing resistance failure, failure of piles, retaining structures,
etc.; partial factors on characteristic effects of actions and resistances

GZ 1C
Global failure of the ground, e.g. slope failure; partial factors on actions and on
shear strength parameters

GZ 2
Displacements and rotations; partial factors are equal to one

Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 6

 History of Geotechnical Design in Germany

Concept of load cases

… according to DIN 1054 (1976):

LC1: Permanent loads and regularly occuring variable loads

permanent design conditions

LC2: plus irregularly occuring variable loads and loads that only occur
during construction
transient design conditions

LC3: plus extraordinary loads

according to DIN 1054 (2005)

Concept of load cases maintained, but they now depend on combinations

of actions and safety classes

Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 7

 History of Geotechnical Design in Germany

Combinations of actions
Normal combination CA1: Permanent and variable loads

Rare combination CA2: Rare loads or loads occuring only once

Extraordinary combination CA3: Extraordinary actions occuring at the same

time, i.e. catastrophic incidents

Safety classes
Safety class SC1: Normal conditions during the lifetime of the structure

Safety class SC2: Conditions during construction or maintenance of a structure

Safety class SC3: Singular or probably never occuring conditions during the
lifetime of the structure

Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 8

 Implementation of Eurocode 7

Original timetable for the implementation of Eurocode 7 in

Germany as DIN EN 1997-1:

Kempfert (2009) revised DIN 1054

DIN EN 1997-1 with NA
Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 9
 Implementation of Eurocode 7

Eurocode 7 vs. DIN 1054:2005-01

DIN EN 1997-1:2009 DIN 1054:2005

particular
not joint German
adopted regulations: experiences:
design e.g. e.g. acc. base
approaches limit states, pressures,
and partial pile resis-
informative factors, tances
annexes geotechnical
categories

Schuppener & Ruppert (2007)

DIN 1054:2005 as „the German way“ to Eurocode 7 designed to maintain the

special experiences included in German design codes
DIN 1054:2005 had to be completely revised due to overlapping regulations

Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 10

 Implementation of Eurocode 7

Current situation

Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 11

 Implementation of Eurocode 7

Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 12

 Implementation of Eurocode 7

Normen-Handbuch
(Codes Handbook)

Summary of the three codes

published in May 2011

For a better readability of the

three codes!

Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 13

 Implementation of Eurocode 7

according to
DIN EN 1997-1:2009-09

according to
DIN 1054:2010-12

according to
DIN EN 1997-1:2009-09

Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 14

 Implementation of Eurocode 7

Deadline for implementation

For the ultimate implementation of the new codes a deadline regulation has
been established:

Estimated date: 1st of July 2012

This means:

DIN 1054:2005 will be withdrawn

new codes (most probably a set of Eurocodes 0 to 5, 7-1 and 9 with their
NA) officially will be approved and introduced by the building authorities
new codes may already be used before the deadline based on a project-
specific agreement especially with the approval authorities

Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 15

 Implementation of Eurocode 7

Future system of German geotechnical design codes

In DIN 1054:2010-12
reference is made to:
2010-12
Design codes, e.g.
DIN 4017
DIN 4019
DIN 4084
Recommendations
EAB, EAU, EAP, …
additionally:
Construction codes, e.g.
EN 1536 (bored piles)
EN 12063 (sheet pile walls)
Schuppener & Ruppert (2007) .
.
.
Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 16
 New Regulations for Geotechnical Design

Definition of limit states

Limit state

loss of equilibrium of the structure or of the foundation

ground, where the strengths of the resistance are not
decisive

loss of equilibrium of the structure or the foundation

ground due to uplift or by the effect of other vertical
forces

Hydraulic failure, inner erosion and piping in

the ground, caused by flow gradient

inner failure of the structure , where

inner
the failure
inneroffailure
strength theconstruction
of structure , where
of the structure the strength
, where
materials forofthe
construction
resistance
materialsmaterials
the strength of construction for the resistance
for the resistance

fail or very large deformation of the structure, where

the strength of the foundation ground according to the
resistance is not decisive
Kempfert (2009)

Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 17

 New Regulations for Geotechnical Design

Design Situations Load Cases

Load case (LC)

Design
Denotation according to
Situation
DIN 1054:2005
Permanent design
BS-P LC 1
situation
Transient design
BS-T LC 2
situation
Accidental design
BS-A LC 3
situation
Design situation
BS-E LC 3
for earthquake

Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 18

 New Regulations for Geotechnical Design

Design approaches according to DIN 1997-1:2009-09:

Design Approach 1 :
DA1 is not allowed in Germany according to DIN EN 1997-1/NA:2010-12

Design Approach 2:
DA2 is applied for the limit states STR and GEO

In case of load-dependent resistances the resultant resistance is calculated

with characteristic effects of actions: Rk = f(Ek) (also named as DA2*)

Design Approach 3:
DA3 is applied for the limit state GEO in case of global stability or slope
stability analyses

Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 19

 New Regulations for Geotechnical Design

Partial factors for actions

according to DIN 1054:2010-12 – abstract:

Design situation
Actions and
Symbol
effects of actions BS-P BS-T BS-A
(LC1) (LC2) (LC3)
STR and GEO-2: Limit state of failure of structures, structural
components and the ground
Effects of actions from
1,35 1,2 1,1
permanent actions, γG (1,35) (1,20) (1,00)
general
Effects of actions from
1,50 1,30 1,10
unfavourable variable γQ (1,50) (1,30) (1,00)
actions

Black: partial factors acc. to DIN 1054:2010-12

Red: partial factors acc. to DIN 1054:2005-01

Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 20

 New Regulations for Geotechnical Design

Partial factors for resistances

according to DIN 1054:2010-12 - abstract
Design situation Black: factors acc. to
Resistance Symbol DIN 1054:2010-12
BS-P BS-T BS-A
(LC1) (LC2) (LC3) Red: factors acc. to
STR and GEO-2: Limit state of failiure according to DIN 1054:2005-01
structures, components and foundation ground
Soil resistances
Passive earth pressure 1,40 1,30 1,20
γR,e, γR,v
and bearing resistance (1,40) (1,30) (1,20)
1,10 1,10 1,10
Sliding resistance γR,h
(1,10) (1,10) (1,10)
Pile resistance from static and dynamic pile load tests
1,10 1,10 1,10
base resistance γb
(1,20) (1,20) (1,20)
shaft resistance 1,10 1,10 1,10
γs
(pressure) (1,20) (1,20) (1,20)
total resistance 1,10 1,10 1,10
γt
(pressure) (1,20) (1,20) (1,20)

Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 21

 Consequences for Practical Design – Examples

Eurocode 7 Design Examples – Example 1

Square pad foundation

Characteristic loads:
Gv,k = 1000 kN
Gh,k = 0
Qv,k = 750 kN
Qh,k = 500 kN
γc = 25 kN/m³

Soil: boulder clay

Details:
five SPT tests, water contents and index tests
bulk weight density: 21.4 kN/m³
ground water level 1.0 m below ground level

Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 22

 Consequences for Practical Design – Examples

Comparison of design approaches with German design within

DA2

Specific features in the calculation:

Design Approach 1 (combination 1 and 2) and 3

partial factors according to DIN EN 1997-1:2009-09, Tables A.3.1 to A3.3

Design Approach 2
partial factors according to DIN 1054:2010-12, Tables A.2.1 to A2.3

Design method for bearing resistance according to DIN 4017:2006-03

Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 23

 Consequences for Practical Design – Examples

Characteristic soil parameters:

Undrained conditions: cuk=300 kN/m², φuk=0°

Drained conditions: c´k=15 kN/m², φ’k=30°

Derived as experience values acc. to recommendations in

EAU (2004)!

DIN EN ISO 22476-3:2005-04 on SPT testing does not include any

correlations to shear parameters;
Various correlations available in the literature have been examined;
Finally experience values found to be reasonable

Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 24

 Consequences for Practical Design – Examples

Results of the bearing resistance calculation

Pad width DA1(Comb. 1) DA1(Comb. 2) DA2 DA3
B [m]
2,53 2,63 2,89 2,53
(Undrained condition)
B [m]
3,44 3,45 4,69 3,44
(Drained condition)

η=Rd/Nd or Rk/Nk
1,014 1,021 1,880 1,014
(undrained condition) DIN 1054 (1976):
ηmin = 2,0 (LC1)
η=Rd/Nd or Rk/Nk 1,017 1,027 2,108 1,017
(drained condition)

Undrained conditions:
Pad width acc. to DA2 2 minimally larger (2,89 m) than acc. to DA1 and DA3

Drained conditions:
Pad width acc. to DA2 much larger (4,69 m) than acc. to DA1 and DA3

Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 25

 Consequences for Practical Design – Examples

Eurocode 7 Design Examples – Example 6

Bored piles, D = 450 mm, a = 2 m

Characteristic loads for each pile:

Gk = 300 kN
Qk =150 kN

Soil:
Pleistocene fine and medium sand
covered by Holocene layers of loose sand,
soft clay, and peat

Details:
1 CPT at a distance of 5m from the boring
performed and evaluated acc. to DIN 4094-1:2002

Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 26

 Consequences for Practical Design – Examples

Determination of soil parameters

CPT test used for the determination of pile length acc. to DIN 1054:2010-12
and EAP (2007)

Spitzenwiderstand qc[MPa]

0 4 8 12 16 20

-10
Linear regression

Tiefe z [m]
-20

-30

qc(z) =-50,34+2,965*z
Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 27
 Consequences for Practical Design – Examples

Tiefe z[m] qc [MN/m²]

depth z[m]
Soil layers between 0 and ~15 m assumed to be not
15,5 -4,3825
bearing 16 -2,9
16,5 -1,4175
17 0,065
Design pile length below ~15 m 17,5 1,5475
18 3,03
18,5 4,5125
Average value of cone resistance for this depth 19 5,995
range: 19,5 7,4775
20 8,96
20,5 10,4425
21 11,925
qc = 11,184 MN/m² 21,5 13,4075
22 14,89
22,5 16,3725
23 17,855
23,5 19,3375
24 20,82
24,5 22,3025
25 23,785
25,5 25,2675
Table: cone resistance vs. depth from linear regression 26 26,75

Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 28

 Consequences for Practical Design – Examples

Comparison of design approaches with German design within

DA2

Specific features in the calculation:

Calculation according to DA1 (Combination 1) and DA2

DA1 (Combination 2) and DA3 were not included in this calculation:

The applied calculation model acc. to DIN 1054:2010-12 and EAP (2007)
is based on empirical values for the pile resistances;
Partial factors can only be applied on resultant resistance (i.e. γR),
material factors γM cannot be applied!

Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 29

 Consequences for Practical Design – Examples

Results of the pile analysis:

DA1 DA1
Pile length (Comb. 1) (Comb. 2) DA2 DA3
L [m] 17,45 - 17,25 -
η=Rd/Ed or Rk/Ek 1,0131 1,0 1,5504 1,0097

DIN 1054 (1976):

Design pile length: ~17,5 m ηmin = 2,0 (LC1)!

(= minimum embedment depth in competent layer 2,5m

acc. to EAP, 2007)

Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 30

 Conclusions

Implementation of LSD by Eurocode 7 represented a radical

change in the German design philosophy which was based on a
long-term experience and which was commonly justified to be
very reliable
Engineers had to adjust to the new concept of limit states and
partial factors and the new terminology with the introduction of
DIN 1054:2003/2005 parallel to the Eurocode (“the German way”)
With the deadline of July 2012 DIN 1054:2005 can no longer be
used and engineers again need to adjust to changes accompanied
by the implementation of Eurocode 7
In the future three codes (EC7 and its NA plus a revised DIN
1054) are to be used in geotechnical design besides other design
and construction codes
The safety level included in these codes is not based on
probabilistic calculations, but has been derived from the former
global safety concept – i.e. the actual reliability remains unknown
Workshop • 30.11–01.12. 2011 • Delft University of Technology page 31