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 30.1101.12. 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
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:

= R/E min

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

Global factors:
e.g. bearing resistance failure: =2,0

for load case 1

e.g. pile bearing capacity: =2,0

Distinction of three load cases determining the level of safety
Workshop 30.1101.12. 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

1,3

cal c c
1,3

cal tan tan

1,1

EAU: Recommendations of the Committee for Waterfront Structures

Workshop 30.1101.12. 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

ER

R
Ek E k
R

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

E E R

E R

(E R )

=E R

= E R

Resistance factors R derived from global factors assuming

typical partial factors for effects of actions E!

Workshop 30.1101.12. 2011 Delft University of Technology

page 5

History of Geotechnical Design in Germany

Definition of Limit States (in German: Grenzzustnde = 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 30.1101.12. 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 30.1101.12. 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 30.1101.12. 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:

revised DIN 1054

Kempfert (2009)

DIN EN 1997-1 with NA

Workshop 30.1101.12. 2011 Delft University of Technology

page 9

Implementation of Eurocode 7

Eurocode 7 vs. DIN 1054:2005-01

DIN EN 1997-1:2009

not
adopted
design
approaches
and
informative
annexes

DIN 1054:2005

joint
regulations:
e.g.
limit states,
partial
factors,
geotechnical
categories

particular
German
experiences:
e.g. acc. base
pressures,
pile resistances

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 30.1101.12. 2011 Delft University of Technology

page 10

Implementation of Eurocode 7

Current situation

Workshop 30.1101.12. 2011 Delft University of Technology

page 11

Implementation of Eurocode 7

Workshop 30.1101.12. 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 30.1101.12. 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 30.1101.12. 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 projectspecific agreement especially with the approval authorities

Workshop 30.1101.12. 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.

Schuppener & Ruppert (2007)

Workshop 30.1101.12. 2011 Delft University of Technology

EN 1536 (bored piles)

EN 12063 (sheet pile walls)
.
.
.
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
failure
theconstruction
structure
, where
the
strength
construction
inneroffailure
of the structure
, where
the
strength
of
materials
forofthe
resistance

materialsmaterials
for the resistance
the strength of construction
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 30.1101.12. 2011 Delft University of Technology

page 17

New Regulations for Geotechnical Design

Design Situations

Load Cases

Denotation

Load case (LC)

according to
DIN 1054:2005

Permanent design
situation

BS-P

LC 1

Transient design
situation

BS-T

LC 2

Accidental design
situation

BS-A

LC 3

Design situation
for earthquake

BS-E

LC 3

Design
Situation

Workshop 30.1101.12. 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 30.1101.12. 2011 Delft University of Technology

page 19

New Regulations for Geotechnical Design

Partial factors for actions

according to DIN 1054:2010-12 abstract:

Actions and
effects of actions

Design situation
Symbol

BS-P
(LC1)

BS-T
(LC2)

BS-A
(LC3)

STR and GEO-2: Limit state of failure of structures, structural

components and the ground
Effects of actions from
permanent actions,
general
Effects of actions from
unfavourable variable
actions

1,35
(1,35)

1,2
(1,20)

1,1
(1,00)

1,50
(1,50)

1,30
(1,30)

1,10
(1,00)

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

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

Workshop 30.1101.12. 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
Resistance
Symbol
BS-P
BS-T
BS-A
(LC1) (LC2) (LC3)
STR and GEO-2: Limit state of failiure according to
structures, components and foundation ground
Soil resistances
1,30
1,20
Passive earth pressure
1,40
R,e, R,v
and bearing resistance
(1,40) (1,30) (1,20)
1,10
1,10
1,10
R,h
Sliding resistance
(1,10) (1,10) (1,10)
Pile resistance from static and dynamic pile load tests
1,10
1,10
1,10
b
base resistance
(1,20) (1,20) (1,20)
shaft resistance
1,10
1,10
1,10
s
(pressure)
(1,20) (1,20) (1,20)
total resistance
1,10
1,10
1,10
t
(pressure)
(1,20) (1,20) (1,20)

Workshop 30.1101.12. 2011 Delft University of Technology

Black: factors acc. to

DIN 1054:2010-12
Red: factors acc. to
DIN 1054:2005-01

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
c = 25 kN/m
Soil: boulder clay

Details:
five SPT tests, water contents and index tests
bulk weight density: 21.4 kN/m
ground water level 1.0 m below ground level
Workshop 30.1101.12. 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 30.1101.12. 2011 Delft University of Technology

page 23

Consequences for Practical Design Examples

Characteristic soil parameters:

Undrained conditions: cuk=300 kN/m, uk=0
Drained conditions:

ck=15 kN/m, 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 30.1101.12. 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)
B [m]
2,53
2,63
(Undrained condition)
B [m]
3,44
3,45
(Drained condition)
=Rd/Nd or Rk/Nk
(undrained condition)
=Rd/Nd or Rk/Nk
(drained condition)

1,014

1,021

DIN 1054 (1976):

DA2

DA3

2,89

2,53

4,69

3,44

1,880

1,014

2,108

1,017

min = 2,0 (LC1)

1,017

1,027

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 30.1101.12. 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 30.1101.12. 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
0

12

16

20

Linear regression

Tiefe z [m]

-10

-20

-30

qc(z) =-50,34+2,965*z
Workshop 30.1101.12. 2011 Delft University of Technology

page 27

Consequences for Practical Design Examples

Soil layers between 0 and ~15 m assumed to be not
bearing
Design pile length below ~15 m
Average value of cone resistance for this depth
range:
qc = 11,184 MN/m

Table: cone resistance vs. depth from linear regression

Workshop 30.1101.12. 2011 Delft University of Technology

Tiefe
z[m] qc [MN/m]
depth z[m]
15,5
-4,3825
16
-2,9
16,5
-1,4175
17
0,065
17,5
1,5475
18
3,03
18,5
4,5125
19
5,995
19,5
7,4775
20
8,96
20,5
10,4425
21
11,925
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
26
26,75

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. R),
material factors M cannot be applied!

Workshop 30.1101.12. 2011 Delft University of Technology

page 29

Consequences for Practical Design Examples

Results of the pile analysis:

Pile length
L [m]
=Rd/Ed or Rk/Ek

DA1
DA1
(Comb. 1) (Comb. 2)
17,45
1,0131
1,0

DA2
17,25
1,5504

DA3
1,0097

DIN 1054 (1976):

Design pile length: ~17,5 m

min = 2,0 (LC1)!

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

acc. to EAP, 2007)

Workshop 30.1101.12. 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 30.1101.12. 2011 Delft University of Technology

page 31