Workshop

Eurocodes – Background and Applications

Brussels, February 18-20, 2008

Eurocode 8
Part 5: Foundations, retaining structures and
geotechnical aspects (EN1998-5: 2003)
Ezio Faccioli (faccioli@stru.polimi.it)
 Outline
• Object and salient characteristics of EN1998-5:2003
• Ground properties (strength, stiffness and damping parameters)
• Design seismic action and its dependence on ground type
• Requirements of construction site and of foundations soils
• Foundation system: shallow and deep foundations
• Earth retaining structures

Ezio Faccioli
 Object of EN1998-5:2003
The norm:
• “rules for the siting and foundation soil of structures for
earthquake resistance”, and

• “covers the design of different foundation systems, .. of

earth retaining structures ……under seismic actions”

From Part 1:”…. It shall be verified that both the foundation elements and the
foundation soil are able to resist the action effects resulting from the response of
the superstructure without substantial permanent deformations. ”

Ezio Faccioli
 Salient characteristics and innovative aspects
• Complementarity with Eurocode 7 (EN 1997e), which does not cover earthquake resistant
design.
• Introduction and use of dynamic soil properties (τcyc, shear wave velocity vs and damping) in
addition to standard static properties (tan φ′, cu, qu).
“4.2.2 (2) The profile of the shear wave propagation velocity in the subsoil shall be regarded as the
most reliable predictor of the site dependent characteristics of the seismic action at stable sites”
• Different approaches to safety and strength verifications, depending on seismicity level and
type of soil.
“4.1.2.3 (8) Simplified methods (of slope stability analysis), such as the pseudo-static ones, shall not
be used for for soils capable of developing high pore water pressures or significant degradation of
stiffness under cyclic loading”.
• In situ investigations, or gathering of reliable equivalent data, to determine the elastic design
response spectrum.
• Recognition of seismically-induced permanent ground deformations as a design criterion.

Ezio Faccioli
 Ground properties
• Static undrained parameter values (cu, tanφ’ ) can generally be used for strength verifications,
with recommended values of material partial factors (γm).

• For cohesionless soil the strength parameter is the cyclic undrained shear strength τcy,u which
should take the possible pore pressure build-up into account.

• The soil shear modulus:

w 2
G = vS
g
and the soil damping ratio are introduced, for use in SSI calculations, as well as their
dependence on the seismic shear strain in the soil (through the design ground acceleration).

• For the evaluation of the liquefaction potential, the cyclic soil resistance against liquefaction
(based on field performance in past earthquakes) is used, which depends on SPT blowcount or
cone penetration resistance.

Ezio Faccioli
 Design seismic action: dependence on ground type
The reference ground motion model at a point on the surface is the acceleration
elastic response spectrum:

Se (T) = ag f (T; S,TB ,TC ,TD )

The dependence is established through:
• The constant soil factor S, which does not modify the spectrum shape
but only amplifies it, and takes a single value for each ground type ;
• The “control periods” TB ,TC ,TD which modify the shape by enlarging
the spectral plateau
Remark: it would be desirable to make S a smoothly varying function of Vs30,
e. g.:
S = (VS 30 / Va ) bV
with bv and Va constants

Ezio Faccioli
 Identification of ground types

30
VS,30 = Weighted VS
∑ VS
hi
i=1, N i ∑t i hi ti
i=1, N
Depth [m]

Particular cases:
Types S1,S2 Special studies

Ezio Faccioli
 Seismic action: dependence on ground type
In seismic geotechnical verifications, such as:

• Slope stability
• Liquefaction hazard occurrence
• Stability of retaining works
the sesmic action is directly determined by the design ground acceleration agS,
multiplied by a reductive coefficient, as follows:
•(0.5 agS) /g seismic coefficient for pseudo-static slope stability verifications
• 0.65 agS effective acceleration for checking the liquefaction potential in a
saturated sand deposit
• [(ag/g)S)]/r seismic coefficient for computing the dynamic thrust in the
pseudo-static verification of a retaining work.

Ezio Faccioli
 Requirements for siting and foundation soils
Topographic
OBJECTIVE: minimise hazards causedamplification factorsliquefaction
by ground rupture, instability, (ST) in the event of
an earthquake
Amplitude response (averaged over frequency) along slopes of different geometry
Type of Average slope
GROUND STABILITY Sketch
VERIFICATIONS: ST
topographic profile angle,α
• Slope limit state = excessive permanent displacements of ground mass
• Isolated cliffamplification
Topographic and coefficients for the seismic action to be used for slope angles >
α > 15° 1.2
15° slope
• Pseudo-static verification of stability is allowed but:
− Cyclic Δu and strength degradation in saturated soils must be accounted for in areas with
design ground acceleration > 0.15 g 15° to 30° 1.2
Ridge withof crest
− Development cyclic Δu and cyclic stiffness degradation are not high
width significantly
α
• less
Limit than base width
state condition can be checked by simplified dynamic model (rigid block)
> 30° 1.4

Ezio Faccioli
Example of simplified 3D representation of a settlement on a crest: Baiardo
1 Transv. cross section α1 = 22.6
1000 α1 α2
α2 = 22.2
900

y = 0,3946x + 565,43
800

h[m] y = -0,3873x + 1184,8

700

600

500
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
d
[m]

1
α1
2 Long. cross section α1 = 4.3
1200 α2
α2 = 17.2
1000
2
y = -0,0759x + 928,52

800 1
2
600
y = -0,3009x + 1171,7
h[m]
400

200

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
d
[m]

Ezio Faccioli
 Requirements of the construction site:
Proximity to seismically active surface faults
“(1) Buildings of importance classes II, III, IV defined in EN 1998-1:2004, 4.2.5, shall

not be erected in the immediate vicinity of tectonic faults recognised as being

seismically active in official documents issued by competent national authorities.

(2) An absence of movement in the Late Quaternary may be used to identify non
active faults for most structures that are not critical for public safety.

(3) Special geological investigations shall be carried out for urban planning purposes
and for important structures to be erected near potentially active faults in areas of
high seismicity, in order to determine the ensuing hazard in terms of ground
rupture and the severity of ground shaking..”

Ezio Faccioli
Izmit, Turkey, M 7.3 earthquake of August 1999
Fault rupture (double stranded) near Golcuk

Ezio Faccioli
Izmit, Turkey, M 7.3 earthquake of August 1999
Details of fault rupture

Ezio Faccioli
Izmit, Turkey, M 7.3 earthquake of August 1999
Damages to buildings

Ezio Faccioli
 Requirements for siting and foundation soils
POTENTIALLY LIQUEFIABLE SOILS
Detailed guidelines and charts (Annex B) are
provided for evaluating the liquefaction
susceptibility of saturated cohesionless foundation
soils through the well known empirical method
based on NSPT or CPT resistance.
The guidelines are not unduly conservative, because
evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility can be
omitted if:
- The sandy soil layer or lens lies at more than 15
m depth from ground surface
- The design ground acceleration is less than Relationship between stress ratios causing
liquefaction and N1 (60) values for
0.15 g and, at the same time: NSPT is sufficiently
clean and silty sands for M=7,5 earthquakes.
high, or the content of plastic fines in the soil is
sufficiently high.

A minimum safety factor of 1.25 (in terms of shear stresses) is recommended.

Ezio Faccioli
 Ground investigations and studies
OBIECTIVES: Determine average subsoil profile for selecting design response spectrum and
dynamic soil properties
CRITERIA:
• The vs profile at the site is taken as “the most reliable predictor of the site dependent characteristics of
the seismic action at stable sites”
• Estimating the vs profile by empirical correlations (e. g. with NSPT) is allowed, provided the inherent
scatter is taken into account
0.8

0.7
Catania, 13 dec. 1990 - NS
0.6

Vs profile at Catania 0.5

strong motion station on
SA [g]

0.4
deep sediments
0.3
(ground type C/D)
0.2

0.1

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
T [s]

Ezio Faccioli
 Ground investigations and studies
Indicative reduction factors for vs or Gmax, and for internal damping in the soil are provided as a
function of shear strain amplitude (through the peak ground acceleration)

1 35

30
0.8
25

Damping Ratio (%)

0.6
G/Gmax

Shear Modulus 20
Damping Ratio
15
0.4

10
0.2
5

0 0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear Strain (%)

Ezio Faccioli
 Foundation system
BASIC RULE
Only one foundation type to be used for the same structure, unless this consists of dynamically
independent units. E. g. use of piles and shallow foundations in the same structure must be
avoided, except for bridges and pipelines.
DESIGN ACTION EFFECTS
Action effects transmitted to the foundations are evaluated according to capacity design
considerations for dissipative structures (high ductility), while allowable seismic action
combination applies for non-dissipative structures (essentially responding in the elastic range).

DIRECT FOUNDATIONS (Footings)

Stability of footings is to be checked against sliding failure, i. e.

Vsd ≤ Nsd tan δ + Epd

shear friction lateral
force resistance resistance

and against bearing capacity failure (Annex F, see following two slides). Factors to be taken into
account include: Inclination and eccentricity of structural loiad, inertia forces in the soil, pore
pressure effects, non-linear soil behaviour.

Ezio Faccioli
 Foundation system
Bounding surface of external loads
A single expression has been obtained for both cohesive and granular
soils; it is introduced in Annex F of Part 5

HD
e/B = 0
LD

HD e/B = 1/6
LD

3D view of bounding surface Cross-sections for vanishing F and different

load eccentricities

Ezio Faccioli
 Foundation system
Piles and piers
Should be designed to resist both:
(a) Inertia forces from the superstructure, and
(b) Kinematic forces due to the eartquake-induced soil deformations.

The latter apply if all of the following conditions occur:

b1. Class D, S1, or S2 soil profile with consecutive layers of sharply contrasting
stiffness
b2. Design ground acceleration > 0.10 g, and
b3. The supported structure is of importance category III or IV.
Although piles will generally be designed to remain elastic, they may under certain
conditions develop plastic hinges at their head.

Ezio Faccioli
 Kinematic forces on piles
Kinematic forces induced by earthquake on piles in “stable” soils

Design
earthquake

s(z): seismically induced horizontal

displacements in the soil

Ezio Faccioli
 Kinematic forces on piles
Kinematic forces induced by earthquake on piles in “unstable” loose
soils
Stable soil
Horizontal
displacements
Unstable loose induced in soil by
sandy soil eqk (“flow failure”)

Stable
Design
soil
earthquake

Ezio Faccioli
Effects of kinematic forces on piles

(NISEE slide collection)

Ezio Faccioli
 Earth retaining structures
General requirements and considerations

• Permanent displacements/tilting may be acceptable, provided functional or aesthetic

requirements are not violated

• Structural choice is based on static loads , but seismic action may lead to different solution

• Build-up of significant PWP in backfill or supported soil is to be absolutely avoided

• Methods of analysis should in principle account for:

- inertial and interaction effects between structure and soil (even non-linear)

- hydrodynamic effects in the presence of water (in the soil, and on outer face of wall)

- compatibility of deformations of soil, wall, and free tendons)

NB: After introducing requirements for general methods of analysis, the code only provides
prescriptions for pseudo-static verifications
Ezio Faccioli
 Experimental observations (flexible retaining walls)

1) Effects on retaining walls in historical earthquakes

- Liquifiable soils (harbour facilities) Collapse (0.6 – 4m displacements)

Loma Prieta (California, 1989) – MW=7.1
Kobe (Giappone, 1995) – MW=6.9
Bhuj (India, 2001) – MW=7.6

- Non-liquifiable soils Good behaviour (<10cm displacements)

Northridge (California, 1994) – MW=6.8
Kobe (Giappone, 1995) – MW=6.9
Taiwan (1999) – MW=7.6

2) Dynamic experimental tests

- Shaking table
- Dynamic centrifuge tests

Ezio Faccioli
 Earth retaining structures
Simplified (pseudo-static) analysis: the seismic action can be reduced by kind of ductility factor r:

kh = ag γI S/r
kv = ± 0,5 kh (Spectrum Type 1) kv = ± 0,33 kh (Spectrum Type 2)
Values of reduction factor r and residual displacement
Acceptable
Type of retaining structure r residual
displacement, dr (mm)
Free gravity walls that can accept a displacement 2 300agγI S / g

As above, but less”tolerant” 1,5 200ag γI S / g

Flexural reinforced concrete walls, anchored or braced walls, 0

1
reinforced concrete walls founded on vertical piles, restrained
basement walls and bridge abutments

For loose, saturated granular soils, r = 1 and FS against liquefaction not less than 2.
The provisions for pseudo-static analysis follow a standard approach (Mononobe and Okabe),
given in Annex E.

Ezio Faccioli
 Earth retaining structures
Resistance and stability verifications
• Foundation soil The following need be verified:
− Stability of slope
− Stability w. r. to failure by sliding and loss of bearing capacity, for shallow
foundation.
Design actions: permanent gravity loads, horizontal thrust Ed , seismic action.
• Anchorages They shall assure equilibrium and have a sufficient capacity to adapt to the seismic
deformations of the ground . The distance Le between the anchor and the wall shall
exceed the distance Ls, required for non-seismic loads :

Le = Ls (1 + 1.5 S ag)
• Backfill material must be immune from liquefaction.
• Structural strength under the combination of the seismic action with other possible loads, equilibrium must
be achieved without exceeding the strength of any structural element:

Rd : design resistance of the element, evaluated as for the non seismic situation
Rd > S d Sd : design value of the action effect, as obtained from the analysis.

Ezio Faccioli
Examples of numerical analyses: simple flexible wall
(from M. Eng. Thesis of O. Zanoli, Politecnico di Milano, Dec. 2007)
vs [m/s]
Soil profile properties 0 200 400 600 800 1000
0
Ground categories B, C, D: governed by Vs,30 h
10
Coarse grained, dry, γS=20kN/m3, Φ=34°,

Profondità [m]
20
c’=0, ψ=0°, δA=0°, δP= Φ 30
ΔPaE,d
RC flexible wall 40
Pa,d
Unit weight γRC=25kN/m3, νRC=0.3, ERC=28GPa 50 d
PpE,d
Excavation depth h=3, 5, 7m + Embedment (d) 60 Ka,d Ka,k KpE,k
Suolo D Suolo C
K
Suolo BpE,d
d2
Pre-dimensioning (EC 8)

1) Design strength : tan φd=tan φ /1.25

⎧k v = 0
2) Seismic coefficients ⎪
⎨ 1 a gR h3d5 h5d8 h7d11
=
⎪ h rS g
k
⎩ Excavation d. [m] 3 5 7

⎧ 1 Embedment [m] 5 8 11
P = P + ΔP = γ (h + d ) 2 K A + γ (h + d ) 2 ΔK AE
⎪⎪ AE , d A , d AE , d
3) Thrusts ⎨ 2 H total [m] 8 13 18

⎪P 1
⎪⎩ PE ,d = 2 γd K PE
2

4) Rotational equilibrium w. r. to base

5) 20% increase in embedment d
Ezio Faccioli
Examples of numerical analyses: simple flexible wall (from
M. Eng. Thesis of O. Zanoli, Politecnico di Milano, Dec. 2007)

Material models
Soil: coarse grained, homogeneous, Vs=156m/s, elastic-plastic non associated constitutive
model, Mohr-Coulomb rupture criterion(f=32°).
Flexible wall: 13m height, 5m excavation, linear elastic behaviour, E=28 GPa, ν=0.3.

Base excitation 55m

30m

2 groups of 7 accelerograms on
ground type A 150m

10

Zone I Zone II
Acc. spettrale [m/s 2]

8
(amax=0.35g) (amax=0.25g)
6

Average response spectra

4

matching EC8 elastic spectrum 2

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
T[s]

Ezio Faccioli
 Results of EC8 pseudo-static vs. 2D dynamic (FEM) analyses
(from the M. Eng. Thesis of O. Zanoli, Politecnico di Milano)
Bending moment profiles in retaining wall
Eurocode 8: pseudo-static analyses with assigned kh values for r = 1, 2;
Dynamic analyses: average Mmax values over groups of input accelerograms
-3500 -1800

amax=0.35g -1600 amax=0.25g

-3000

-1400

Momento flettente massimo [kNm]

Momento flettente massimo [kNm]
-2500
r=1
-1200
Ground type B
-2000
(Both pseudo-static and r=1 -1000

dynamic FEM analyses -1500 -800

performed with dyn
commercial software
-600
-1000
FLAC) -400
r=2
-500
r=2 -200

0 0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
h (m) h (m)

Maximum
Valori Mmaxdinamici
massimi values Pseudo-static r r=1= 1
Pseudo-statico Pseudo-static r r=2
Pseudo-statico =2 Averagevalori
Media dynamic values
dinamici

Ezio Faccioli
 Results of EC8 pseudo-static vs. 2D dynamic (FEM) analyses
(from the M. Eng. Thesis of O. Zanoli, Politecnico di Milano)
Bending moment profiles in retaining wall
Eurocode 8: pseudo-static analyses with assigned kh values for r=1, 2;
Dynamic analyses: average Mmax values over groups of input accelerograms
-5000 -3000

amax=0.25g
-4500
amax =0.35g -2500
Momento flettente massimo [kNm] -4000

-3500

Momento flettente massimo [kNm]

-2000

Ground type D -3000

(Both pseudo-static and -2500 -1500

dynamic FEM analyses -2000

performed with r=1
-1500
-1000 dyn
commmercial software dyn r=1
FLAC) -1000
-500

-500 r=2 r=2

0 0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

h (m) h (m)

Maximum
Valori Mmaxmassimi
dinamici values Pseudo-static r =1
Pseudo-statico r=1 Pseudo-static rr =2
Pseudo-statico =2 Average
Media dynamic
valori values
dinamici

Ezio Faccioli
Examples of numerical analyses
Complexity of wave propagation phenomena in soil – flexible wall systems
(other example with amax = 0.15g) Snapshots of displacement
field at different instants
2.0
5
1.5

1.0
1
Final
Accelerazione [m/s²]

0.5 Displacement
0.0

-0.5

-1.0

-1.5

2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Tempo [s]

Nonlinear dynamic analyses

performed with FEM code
Gefdyn 3

180 m

Ezio Faccioli
Examples of numerical analyses
Acceleration profile showing amplification of soil-wall seismic motion from
depth to surface (example with amax = = 0.23g)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2 Amax = 0.279 g, z = 0.00 m
-0.3

0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2 Amax = 0.187 g, z = - 2.53 m
-0.3

0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2 Amax = 0.180 g, z = - 4.30 m
-0.3

0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2 Amax = 0.126 g, z = - 6.96 m
-0.3

0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2 Amax = 0.105 g, z = - 8.42
-0.3

0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
Amax = 0.120 g, z = - 11.42
-0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2 Amax = 0.141 g, z = - 13.47
-0.3

Ezio Faccioli
Suggested reference:
Designers’ Guide to EN 1998-1
and EN 1998-5
Eurocode 8: Design of structures
for earthquake resistance.
General rules, seismic actions,
design rules for buildings, foundations
and retaining structures
Michael N. Fardis, Eduardo Carvalho, Amr Elnashai, Ezio Faccioli, Paolo Pinto
and Andre Plumier.
Published by Thomas Telford, UK, 2006

Ezio Faccioli