Safety considerations for the

HYD limit state

B. Simpson
Arup, London, UK

G. Katsigiannis
Arup and University College, London, UK
HYD Equation 2.9

G S
z
u

EC7 {2.4.7.5(1)P} states: When considering a limit state of failure due to heave
by seepage of water in the ground (HYD, see 10.3), it shall be verified, for every
relevant soil column, that the design value of the destabilising total pore water
pressure (udst;d ) at the bottom of the column, or the design value of the seepage
force (Sdst;d) in the column is less than or equal to the stabilising total vertical
stress (stb;d) at the bottom of the column, or the submerged weight (Gstb;d) of
the same column:
udst;d stb;d (2.9a) total stress (at the bottom of the column)
Sdst;d Gstb;d (2.9b) effective weight (within the column)
2
HYD Equation 2.9

G S
z
u

Annex A of EC7 provides values for partial factors to be used for HYD, G;dst = 1.35
and G;stb = 0.9. But the code does not state what quantities are to be factored.
EC7 {2.4.7.5(1)P} states: When considering a limit state of failure due to heave
Maybe:
by seepageG;dstofudst;k
water inG;stb
theground
stb;k (HYD,
(2.9a) see 10.3), it shall be verified, for every
relevant and 1.35/0.9 =
soil column, that the design value of the destabilising 1.5
total pore water
pressure(uG;dst S ) atthe
dst;ddst;k
G;stb Gstb;kof the(2.9b)
bottom column, or the design value of the seepage
force (Sdst;d) in the column is less than or equal to the stabilising total vertical
In
stress stb;d) atthe
this (format, thefactors
bottom areofapplied to different
the column, or thequantities
submerged inweight
2.9 a and
(Gb.stb;d) of
the same column:
udst;d stb;d (2.9a) total stress (at the bottom of the column)
4 Sdst;d Gstb;d (2.9b) effective weight (within the column)
HYD Equation 2.9 Orr, TLL (2005) Model
Solutions for Eurocode 7
Workshop Examples.
Trinity College, Dublin.

7m
H=?

1m

3m

Uniform permeability

5
HYD Equation 2.9

udst;d stb;d (2.9a) total stress (at the bottom of the column)
Sdst;d Gstb;d (2.9b) effective weight (within the column)
Apply G;dst = 1.35 to: Apply G;stb = 0.9 to: H
Pore water pressure udst;k Total stress stb;k 2.78
Seepage force Sdst;k Buoyant weight Gstb;k 6.84
Excess pore pressure udst;k - wz Buoyant density 6.84
G;dst u(u
Excess head -G;stb
dst;k
dst;k wz)stb;k
/w (2.9a) Buoyant
Orr, density
T.L.L. 2005. 6.84
Model Solutions for Eurocode 7
Excess pore pressure or excess head Total Workshop
density Examples. 6.1
G;dst Sdst;k G;stb Gstb;k (2.9b)
Trinity College, Dublin.
6
HYD Equation 2.9

udst;d stb;d (2.9a) total stress (at the bottom of the column)
Sdst;d Gstb;d (2.9b) effective weight (within the column)
Apply G;dst = 1.35 to: Apply G;stb = 0.9 to: H
Pore water pressure udst;k Total stress stb;k 2.78
Seepage force Sdst;k Buoyant weight Gstb;k 6.84
Excess pore pressure udst;k - wz Buoyant density 6.84
Excess head (udst;k - wz) /w Buoyant density 6.84
Excess pore pressure or excess head Total density 6.1

7
 Safety Against Hydraulic Heave (HYD in EC7)

Conclusions

Not good to factor total water pressures

- Factoring differential or excess water pressure
may be OK. (ie excess over hydrostatic)

8
Terzhagis rectangular block

G' = buoyant weight

b=t/2
S = seepage force
due to excess water pressure

G'
t Dimensions t x t/2

FT = G'/S
S

Das (1983) Fig 2.47

9
 Factors of safety for HYD

Das (1983) Fig 2.47

1
 Permeability profiles
Essential to assess correct water pressures (permeabilities) 8
then FT seems to be irrelevant
6m

Dh/t = 2 4
6m 6m
Dh Dh FT 1.5 2
Runs 1, 2

Level (m)
0
Runs 3, 8
t t t t
-2 Run 4
b b All other
Run 9
-4
cases Run 10
-6 unstable!
Run 12
-8
R 13 5:1
-10
FT = 1.17 -12
1.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03
Permeability m/s
11
Permeability m/s
Why b=t/2? A narrower block would be more critical.
Include friction on the side of the block?

G' = buoyant weight

b=t/2
S = seepage force
due to excess water pressure

G'
t Dimensions t x t/2

FT = G'/S
S

Das (1983) Fig 2.47

12
Equipotentials for uniform permeability FT = 1.5

Dh/t = 2 6m
Dh = 6m
FT 1.5

t = 3m t

Simpson, B & Katsigiannis, G (2015) Safety considerations for the HYD limit state.
Submitted for ECSMGE, Edinburgh.
Effect of friction on the Terzaghi block

10
9
8
7

Factor of safety
6
5 R2
4 R2 + SF
+ friction
3 T line
Dh/t = 2 2
No friction
FT 1.5 1
0 b=t/2
0 2 4 6 8
Column width b (m)
 Effect of friction on
the Terzaghi block

10 2
9 1.8 Dh/t = 2
No friction
8 Dh/t = 2 1.6
7 1.4
FT 1.5 Dh/t = 3 R2
Factor of safety

Factor of safety
6 1.2 R2
R2
Dh/t = 3.33 R2 + SF
5 1 R2 friction R2
R2 ++ SF
SF
R26

Factor
4 0.8 R2 + SF R26
R2
R2 ++ SF
R26 SF
+ friction R26+SF
3 0.6 T line R26+SF
TR26+SF
T line
line
R29
2 0.4 TT line
line
No friction T line
1 0.2 b=t/2
0 0 b=t/2
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 44 66 888
Column width b (m) Column
Column width
width bb (m)
(m)
 Conclusions of EG9
Not good to factor total water pressures
- Factoring differential water pressure may be OK.
Design for F= is no use if the pore pressures (permeability
distribution) are not properly understood.
ULS design water pressure derived without factors (1% chance)
- No factors on effects of water pressure eg seepage force S.
- But could be factors on structural effects of water pressures eg BM
Take directly assessed ULS design water pressures (1% chance)
with factored strengths of materials. Consider all failure
mechanisms. Simple!
Special case: Terzaghi block only consider one mechanism so
add a factor of safety (1.5?).

19
 Opportunity for research: soil is heterogeneous and discontinuous

Relationship of piping to HYD?

- Piping only significant if soil gap-graded?

Stress (v) = force averaged over an area. Water pressure (u) acts at every point.
- Can we rely on v = z at every point?

Is horizontal stress more relevant to preventing break-through?

What are the mechanisms by which failure develops?

20