Engi Neeri NG Manual S

Eng
ine
eri
ngma
nua
ls
Par
t1
Engineering manuals for GEO5 programs
Part 1
Chapter 1. Analysis settings and settings administrator ................................... 3
Chapter 2. Design of Cantilever wall ............................................................... 11
Chapter 3. Verification of gravity wall ............................................................. 22
Chapter 4. Design of non-anchored restraint retaining wall .......................... 31
Chapter 5. Design of anchored retaining wall .................................................. 38
Chapter 6. Verification of retaining wall with one anchor row ...................... 42
Chapter 7. Verification of multi-anchored wall ............................................... 51
Chapter 8. Analysis of slope stability ................................................................ 63
Chapter 9. Stability of slope with retaining wall .............................................. 72
Chapter 10. Design of geometry of spread footing ........................................... 81
Chapter 11. Settlement of spread footing ......................................................... 86
Chapter 12. Analysis of consolidation under embankment ............................ 92

Introduction
Engineering manuals are new teaching material for GEO5 software. They were developed as a reaction
to hotline and frequently asked questions of users. The objective of each chapter is to explain how to
solve the concrete engineering problems using GEO5 software.
Each chapter is divided to a few sections:
Introduction theoretical introduction to the problem
Assignment here the problem is described with all input data needed for solving the problem in
selected the program
Solution in this section, the problem is solved step by step
Conclusion has the conclusion of the problem and the final verification of the construction. It tells
if the structure is satisfactory or not and if there are any modifications needed.
In each chapter there are also notes, which explain the problem in general as well as links to other
materials.
The basic educational materials of GEO5 software suite (from FINE s r.o.) are:
Context help explains the functions of the program in detail

Video tutorials show the basic work with the software and its effective use
Engineering manuals explain how concrete engineering problems are solved
Verification manuals verify the satisfaction of the results, by comparing the results from
programs with hand calculation or other programs
The first chapter explains how to set standards and chose an analysis method, which is the same for all
GEO5 programs. In further chapters one standard is selected, by which the construction is verified.
2
Engineering manuals for GEO5 programs - Part 1 www.finesoftware.eu
Chapter 1. Analysis settings and settings administrator
This chapter explains the correct use of Settings administrator that serves to choose standards,
partial factors and verification methodology. It is the basic step needed for all GEO5 programs.
Introduction
GEO5 software is used in 90 countries worldwide. Engineering tasks are the same everywhere
to prove that the construction is safe and well designed.
The basic characteristic of structures (eg. geometry of wall, terrain, localization of anchors etc.)
are the same all over the world; the way of proving that the construction is safe and the theory
of analysis used are different. Large quantities of new theories and mainly partial factors of analysis
lead to input of large amounts of data and complicated programs. The Settings administrator was created
in GEO5 for version 15 to simplify this process.
In the Settings administrator are defined all input parameters, including standards, methods and
coefficients for the current country. The idea is that each user will understand the Settings defined in the
program (or will define a new Setting of analysis), which the user then uses in their work.
To the Settings administrator and Settings editor the user then goes only occasionally.
Assignment:
Perform an analysis of a gravity wall per the picture below for overturning and slip according to
these standards and procedures:
1) CSN 73 0037
2) EN 1997 DA1
3) EN 1997 DA2
4) EN 1997 DA3
5) Safety factor on SF=1.6
3
Scheme of the gravity wall for analysis
Solution
Firstly, input the data about the construction and geological conditions in the frames:
Geometry, Assign and Soils. Skip the other frames because they are not important for this
example.
Frame Geometry input of dimensions of the gravity wal

4
Table with the soil parameters
Unit weight Angle of Cohesion Angle of friction

Soil
internal friction of soil structure soil
kN m 3
ef
cef kPa
(Soil classification)
MG Gravelly silt,
19,0 30,0 0 15,0
firm consistency
In the frame Assign, the first soil will be assigned automatically to the layer or layers.
This can be changed when necessary.
When the basic input of construction is done, we can choose standards, and then finally run the
analysis of the gravity wall.
In the frame Settings click the button Select and choose number 8 Czech Republic old
standards CSN (73 1001, 73 1002, 73 0037).
Dialog window Settings list
Note: The look of this window depends on standards that are currently active in the Settings
administrator more information in the help of the program (press F1). If the setting you want to use
isn`t on the list in the dialog window Settings list, you can activate it in the Settings administrator.
Now, open up the frame Verification and after analyzing the example record the utilization of
construction (in the frame Verification) - 53,1% resp. 66,5%.
5
Frame Verification results of the analysis using CSN 73 0037 standard
Then return to the frame Settings and choose number 3 Standard EN 1997 DA1.
6
Again, open the frame Verification and record the result (55,6% and 74,7%)
for EN 1997, DA1.
Frame Verification results of analysis for EN 1997, DA1
Repeat this procedure for settings number 4 Standard EN 1997 DA2 and number 5
Standard EN 1997 DA3.
The analyzed utilization of constructions is (77,8% and 69,7%) for EN 1997, DA2 or (53,5%
and 74,7%) for EN 1997, DA3.
7
Variant 5 (analysis using Safety factors) is not as simple. In the frame Settings click on
Edit. This will show you the current analysis settings. Change the verification methodology to Safety
factors (ASD) and then input safety factor for overturning and sliding resistance as 1.6.
Dialog window Edit current settings: Gravity wall
Press OK and run the analysis. (69,0% and 77,1%).
Frame Verification analysis results for SF = 1.6
8
If you would like to use this setting more often, it is good to save this setting by clicking
on Add to administrator, rename is as shown below, and next time use it as a standard setting.
Dialog window Add current settings to the Administrator
Dialog window Settings list then looks like this
9
Verification
Utilization in percentage using each standard is:
Overturning Slip
1) CSN 73 0037 53,1 66,5

2) EN 1997 DA1 55,6 74,7
3) EN 1997 DA2 77,8 69,7
4) EN 1997 DA3 53,3 74,7
5) Safety factor on SF=1.6 69,0 77,1
The analysis is satisfactory using the selected analysis standards.
Note: This simple method can be used to compare retaining structures or stability analyses. When
analyzing foundations, the load (basic input data) must be computed according to relevant standards.
That is the reason why it doesnt make sense, to compare foundation design by various standards
with the same values of load (nominal values).
10
Chapter 2. Design of Cantilever wall
In this chapter, the design of cantilever wall and its overall analysis is described.
Assignment
Design a cantilever wall with a height of 4,0 m and analyze it by EN 1997-1 (EC 7-1, Design
approach 1). The terrain behind the structure is horizontal. The ground water table is 2,0 meters deep.
Behind the wall acts a strip surcharge with a length of 5,0 meters and with a magnitude of 10 kN/m2.
The foundation soil consists of MS Sandy silt, stiff consistency, S r 0,8 , allowable bearing capacity
is 175 kPa. The soil behind the wall will consist of S-F Sand with trace of fines, medium dense soil.
The cantilever wall will be made of reinforced concrete of class C 20/25.
Scheme of the cantilever wall - Assignment
Solution:
For solving this problem, we will use the GEO5 program, Cantilever wall. In this text, we will
explain solving this example step by step.
In the frame Settings click on Select and then choose analysis setting Nr. 3 Standard
EN 1997 DA1.
11
In the frame Geometry choose the wall shape and enter its dimensions.
Frame Geometry
12
In the frame Material enter the material of the wall.
Frame Material Input of material characteristics of the structure
Then, define the parameters of soil by clicking Add in the frame Soils. Wall stem
is normally analyzed for pressure at rest. For pressure at rest analysis, select Cohesionless.
Dialog window Add new soils
13
Note: The magnitude of active pressure depends also on the friction between the structure and soil.
The friction angle depends on the material of construction and the angle of internal soil friction
3
normally entered in the interval 1 2
3
ef
Angle of Cohesion Angle of

Soil Profile Unit weight internal of soil friction
kN m 3
structure soil
m friction
cef kPa
ef
S-F Sand with trace of

0,0 4,0 17,5 28,0 0,0 18,5
fines, medium dense soil
MS Sandy silt, stiff

from 4,0 18,0 26,5 30,0 17,5
consistency, S r 0,8
In the frame Terrain choose the horizontal terrain shape.
Frame Terrain
The ground water table is at a depth of 2,0 meters. In the frame Water select the type of water
close to the structure and its parameters.
14
Frame Water
In the next frame define Surcharge. Here, select permanent and strip surcharge on the terrain
acting as a dead load.
Dialog window New surcharge
In the frame FF resistance select the terrain shape in front of the wall and then define other
parameters of resistance on the front face.
15
Frame FF resistance
Note: In this case, we do not consider the resistance on the front face, so the results will be
conservative. The FF resistance depends on the quality of soil and allowable displacement of the
structure. We can consider pressure at rest for the original soil, or well compacted soil. It is possible to
consider the passive pressure if displacement of structure is allowed. (for more information, see HELP
F1)
Then, in the frame Stage settings choose the type of design situation. In this case,
it will be permanent. Also choose the pressure acting on the wall. In our case, we will choose active
pressure, as the wall can move.
Frame Stage settings
Note: Wall stem is dimensioned always on earth pressure at rest, i.e., the wall cant be moved.
The possibility of evaluating the stem and the wall of the active pressure is considered only in
exceptional cases - such as the effects of the earthquake (seismic design situation with partial coefficient
equals 1.0).
16
Now, open up the frame Verification, where you analyze the results of overturning and slip
of the cantilever wall.
Frame Verification
Note: The button In detail in the right section of the screen opens a dialog window with detailed
information about the analysis results.
Analysis results:
The verification of slip is not satisfactory, utilization of structure is
Overturning: 52,8 % M vzd 208,33 M kl 109,97 [kNm/m] SATISFACTORY.
Slip: 124,6 % H vzd 65,78 H pos 81,94 [kN/m] NOT OK.
Now we have several possibilities how to improve the design. For example, we can:
- Use better soil behind the wall

- Anchor the base
- Increase the friction by bowing the footing bottom
- Anchor the stem
These changes would be economically and technologically complicated, so choose the easiest
alternative. The most efficient way is to change the shape of the wall and introduce a wall jump.
17
Change of the design: change of the geometry of the wall
Return to the frame Geometry and change the shape of the cantilever wall. For increasing
the resistance against slip we introduce a base jump.
Frame Geometry (Changing dimensions of cantilever wall)
Note: A base jump is usually analyzed as an inclined footing bottom. If the influence of the base jump
is considered as front face resistance, then the program analyses it with a straight footing bottom, but
FF resistance of the construction is analyzed to the depth of the down part of the base jump
(More info in HELP F1)
Then analyze the newly designed construction for overturning and slip.
18
Frame Verification
Now, the overturning and slip of the wall are both satisfactory.
Then, in the frame Bearing capacity, perform an analysis for design bearing capacity
of the foundation soil 175 kPa.
Frame Bearing capacity
Note: In this case, we analyze the bearing capacity of the foundation soil on an input value, which we
can get from geological survey, resp. from some standards. These values are normally highly
conservative, so it is generally better to analyze the bearing capacity of the foundation soil in the
19
program Spread footing that takes into account other influences like inclination of load, depth of
foundation etc.
Next, in the frame Dimensioning chose wall stem check. Design the main reinforcement
into the stem 10 pcs. 12 mm, which satisfies in point of bearing capacity and all design principles.
Frame Dimensioning
Then, open up the frame Stability and analyze the overall stability of the wall. In our case,
we will use the method Bishop, which result in conservative results. Perform the analysis
with optimization of circular slip surface and then leave the program by clicking OK.
Results or pictures will be shown in the report of analysis in the program Cantilever wall.
20
Slope stability program
Conclusion/ Result of analysis bearing capacity:
Overturning: 49,5 % M vzd 218,52 M kl 108,16 [kNm/m] SATISFACTORY
Slip: 64,9 % H vzd 99,27 H pos 64,47 [kN/m] SATISFACTORY
Bearing capacity: 86,3 Rd 151,06 175,00 [kPa] SATISFACTORY
Wall stem check: 78,7 % M Rd 169,92 M Ed 133,71 [kNm] SATISFACTORY
Overall stability: 40,8 % Method Bishop (optimization) SATISFACTORY
This cantilever wall is SATISFACTORY.
21
Chapter 3. Verification of gravity wall
In this chapter an analysis of an existing gravity wall for permanent and accidental design situations is
performed. Construction stages are also explained.
Assignment
Using EN 1997-1 (EC 7-1, DA2) standard, analyze an existing gravity wall for stability, overturning,
and slip .
Road traffic acts on the wall with magnitude of 10 kPa. Check the possibility to install the barrier on the
top of the wall. An accidental load from a car crash is considered as 50 kN/m and it acts horizontally at
1,0 m. Dimensions and shape of the concrete wall can be seen in the picture below. Inclination of the
terrain behind the construction is 10 , the foundation soil consists of silty sand. The friction angle
between the soil and wall is 18 .
Determination of bearing capacity and dimensioning of the wall is not part of this task. In this analysis,
consider effective parameters of soil.
Scheme of the gravity wall assignment
Solution:
For analyzing this task, use the GEO5 program Gravity wall. In this text, we will describe
the steps of analyzing this example in two construction stages.
1st construction stage analyzing the existing wall for road traffic.
2nd construction stage analyzing impact of vehicle to the barrier on the top of the wall.
Basic input: Stage 1
22
In the frame Settings click on Select and choose Nr. 4 Standard EN 1997 DA2.
Then, in the frame Geometry, select the shape of the gravity wall and define its parameters.
Frame Geometry
23
In the next step, input the material of the wall and geological profile. Unit weight of wall is
24 kN m 3 . Wall is made from concrete C 12/15 and steel B500. Then define parameters of soil
and assign them to the profile.
Angle of Cohesion
Soil Unit weight Angle of friction
of soil
internal friction structure soil
(Soil classification) kN m 3 ef cef kPa
MS Sandy silt,
18,0 26,5 12,0 18,0
firm consistency
Note: The magnitude of active pressure depends also on friction between the structure and soil in the
3
angle 1 2
3
ef . In this case we consider the influence of friction between the structure
and soil with value of 2 ef ( d =18 ), when analyzing earth pressure. (More info in HELP F1).
3
In the frame Terrain select the shape of terrain behind the wall. Define its parameters, in terms
of embankment length and slope angle as shown below.
Frame Terrain
In the next frame, define Surcharge. Input the surcharge from road traffic as Strip, with
its location on terrain, and as a type of action select Variable.
24
Dialog window Edit surcharge
In the frame FF resistance choose the shape of the terrain in front of the wall and define the
other parameters of front face resistance.
Frame Front face resistance
Note: In this case, we do not consider resistance on the front face, so the results will be conservative.
The FF resistance depends on the quality of soil and allowable displacement of the structure. We
consider pressure at rest for the original soil or well compacted soil. It is possible to consider passive
pressure only if displacement of structure is allowed. (More info in HELP F1).
25
In the frame Stage settings select the type of design situation. In the first construction stage,
consider the permanent design situation.
Now open up the frame Verification, where we analyse the gravity wall for overturning
and slip.
Frame Verification stage 1
Note: The button In detail in the right section of the screen opens a dialog window with detailed
information about the results of the analysis.
26
Dialog window Verification (in detail)
Note: For analyses based on EN-1997, the program determines if the force acts favorably or
unfavorably. Next each force is multiplied by the corresponding partial factor which is them on the
report.
Then, open up the frame Stability and analyze the overall stability of the wall. In our case, we
will use the method Bishop, which results in conservative results. Perform an analysis
with optimization of circular slip surface and then validate everything by clicking OK.
Results or pictures will be shown in the report of analysis in the program Gravity wall.
Program Slope stability stage 1
Analysis results: Stage 1

27
When analyzing bearing capacity, we are looking for values of overturning and slip of the wall
on the footing bottom. Then we need to know its overall stability. In our case, the utilization of the wall
is:
Overturning: 70,0 % M vzd 376,91 M kl 263,73 [kNm/m]

SATISFACTORY.
Slip: 90,6 % H vzd 152,53 H pos 138,17 [kN/m]
SATISFACTORY.
Overall stability: 72,3 % Method Bishop (optimization)
SATISFACTORY.
28
Basic input: Stage 2
Now, add construction stage 2 using tool bar in the upper left corner of the screen.
Toolbar Stage of construction
In this stage, define the load from the impact of the vehicle to the barrier, using the frame
Input forces. The load is accidental and considers the impact of a vehicle with a weight of 5 tons.
Dialog window Edit force construction stage 2 (accidental design situation)
Then open the frame Stage settings change the design situation on accidental.
The data in the other frames that we entered in stage 1 has not changed, so we dont have to
open these frames again. Select the frame Verification to perform the verification on overturning
and slip again.
29
Frame Verification stage 2
Analysis results: Stage 2

From the results, we see, that the existing wall is not satisfactory for impact of a vehicle
to the barrier. In this case, utilization of the wall is:
Overturning: 116,3 % M vzd 488,62 M kl 568,13 [kNm/m] NOT OK.
Slip: 102,9 % H vzd 138,39 H pos 142,35 [kN/m] NOT OK.
Conclusion
The existing gravity wall in case of bearing capacity satisfies only for the first construction
stage, where road traffic acts. For the second construction stage, which is represented as impact to the
barrier on the top of the wall by a vehicle of 5 tons, the wall is not satisfactory.
As a solution to increase bearing capacity for overturning and slip it is possible to introduce soil
anchors. alternatively it is possible to place a barrier on the edge of the road, so the wall is not loaded by
a force from the crashing car.
30
Chapter 4. Design of non-anchored restraint retaining wall
In this chapter is the design of non-anchored retaining wall for permanent and accidental loads
(flooding).
Assignment
Design non-anchored retaining wall from pile sheeting using the EN 1997-1 (EC 7-1, DA3)
standard in non-homogenous geologic layers. The depth of excavation is 2,5 m. The ground water table
is at a depth of 1,0 m. Analyze the construction also for flooding; when the water is 1,0 m above the top
of the wall (mobile anti-flood barriers should be installed).
Scheme of non-anchored wall from pile sheeting assignment
Solution:
For solving this problem, we will use the GEO5 program, Sheeting design. In this text, we will
explain each step to solve this example:
1st construction stage: permanent design situation

2nd construction stage: accidental design situation
Design of geometry of the pile sheeting
Analysis result (conclusion).
31
Basic input: Construction stage 1
In the frame Settings click on Select and then choose Nr. 5 Standard EN 1997 DA3.
Then, input the geological profile, parameters of soil and assign them to the profile.
32
Angle of Cohesion
Soil Profile Unit weight Angle of friction
internal of soil
structure soil
m kN m 3
friction
cef kPa
ef
S-F Sand with trace

of fines, medium 0,0 1,5 17,5 29,5 0,0 14,0
dense soil
SC Clayey sand,
1,5 2,5 18,5 27,0 8,0 14,0
medium dense soil
CL, CI Clay with

low or medium
from 2,5 21,0 19,0 12,0 14,0
plasticity,
firm consistency
In the frame Geometry, select the shape of bottom of the excavation and input its depth.
Frame Geometry
Note: coefficient of reduction of earth pressure below the ditch is considered while analyzing braced
sheeting (retaining wall with soldier beams) only; for a standard sheeting pile wall it equals 1,0 For
more information, see HELP (F1).
In this case, we do not use the frames Anchors, Props, Supports, Pressure
determination, Surcharge and Applied forces. The frame Earthquake also has no influence
for this analysis, because the construction is not located in seismic-active area. In the frame Terrain, it
remains horizontal.
33
In the frame Water input the GWT value 1,0 m.
Frame Water 1st construction stage
Then, in the frame Stage settings, select the design situation as permanent.
Now, open up the frame Analysis and click on the button Analyze. This will perform
the analysis of the retaining wall.
Frame Analysis
Note: For cohesive soils is recommended by many standards to use minimal dimensioning pressure
acting on the retaining wall. The standard value for the coefficient of minimal dimensioning pressure is
Ka = 0,2. It means that minimum pressure on the structure is 0,2 of geostatic stress never less.
34
Within the design of pile sheeting retaining wall, we are interested in the depth of construction
in the soil and internal forces on the structure. For the 1st construction stage, the results of analysis are:
Length of structure: 4,83 m

Needed depth in the soil: 2,33 m
Maximum bending moment: M 1,max 28,21 kNm m
Maximum shear force: Q1,max 56,98 kN m
In the next stage, we are going to show you how to analyse the minimum depth in soil
and internal forces in the soil for the accidental design situation floods.
Basic input Construction stage 2
Now, select stage 2 on the toolbar Stage of construction on the upper left corner of your
screen. (If needed, add a new one)
Toolbar: Stage of construction
In the frame Water, change the GWT behind the structure to a value -1,0 m. We will not
consider water in front of the structure.
Frame Water
35
Then, in the frame Stage settings, select the design situation Accidental.
All other values are the same as in the 1st construction stage, so we dont have to change data
in other frames, so we go on to the frame Analysis and click again on the button Analyze.
Frame Analysis
In the 2nd construction stage the analysis results are:
Length of structure: 6,56 m

Needed depth in the soil: 4,06 m
Maximum bending moment: M 2,max 142,00 kNm m
Maximum shear force: Q2,max 185,17 kN m

Using the maximum bending moment, we will design pile sheeting.
The minimum length of pile sheeting is set as the maximum of necessary length from construction
stage 1 and construction stage 2.
Design of pile sheeting:

36
We design the pile sheeting based on the maximum bending moment using the table of pile sheeting
with allowable bearing capacities shown below.
Design of pile sheeting according to CSN EN 10 248-1 standards.
Based on the chart, we will select the pile sheeting VL 503 (500 340 9,7 mm), the steel
grade S 270 GP, of which the maximum bending moment is M max 224,0 kN m .
Safe design of structure is verified by equation:
M dov 224 kN m M max 142 kNm m
Analysis result:
In the design of non-anchored restraint retaining wall, we are verifying values of minimum
depth of the structure in the soil, and the internal forces in the structure:
Minimum depth of the structure in first stage: 2,33 m

Minimum depth of the structure in second stage: 4,06 m
So, we will design a pile sheeting with depth in the soil of 4,1 m and overall length
of 6,6 meters.
Conclusion:
The designed pile sheeting retaining wall VL 503 from S 270 steel with length of 6,6 meters satisfies.
37
Chapter 5. Design of anchored retaining wall
In this chapter, we will show you how to design a retaining wall with one row of anchors.
Assignment:
Design a retaining wall with one anchor row made from pile sheeting using EN 1997-1 (EC 7-1,
DA3) standard. The depth of ditch is 5,0 m. The anchor row is 1,5 m below the surface. The soils,
geological profile, ground water table and shape of terrain are the same as in the last task. Remove
construction stage two so as to not consider flooding.
Scheme of the anchored wall from pile sheeting assignment
Solution:
For solving this problem, we will use a GEO5 program, Sheeting design. In this text, we will
explain each step of this example:
Analysis 1: permanent design situation - wall fixed at heel

Analysis 2: permanent design situation - wall hinged at heel
Analysis result (conclusion)
38
Basic input: Analysis 1
Leave the frames Settings, Profile, Soils, Terrain, Water and Stage settings from
the previous problem without changes. Also, delete construction stage 2 if you are reusing the file from
problem 4.
In the frame Geometry, input the depth of the ditch as 5,0 m.
Open up the frame Anchors and click on the button Add. For this case, add one anchor row
in the depth of 1,5 m below the top of the wall with anchor spacing at 2,5 m. Also define the length of
the anchors (which has no effect in the Sheeting design program, it is only for visualization) and slope
of the anchors (15 degrees).
In frame Stage Settings choose permanent.
Frame Anchors
In the frame Analysis select support at heel. For now, select Wall fixed at heel. Now
perform the analysis.
Frame Analysis Stage of construction 1 (Wall fixed at heel)
39
In our case, we need to know the sheet pile embedment depth and also the anchor force. For the wall
fixed at heel, the values are:
Length of construction: 10,72 m

Depth in soil: 5,72 m
Anchor force: 165,77 kN
Maximum moment: 89,16 kNm/ m
Maximum shear force: 128,27 kN / m
Now, perform an analysis for wall hinged at heel (construction stage 2). Then, compare the results
and, depending on comparison, design the embedment depth.
Basic input: Analysis 2
Now, add a new verification in the upper left corner of the frame.
Toolbar: Verification
Select the option Wall hinged at heel and perform the analysis.
Frame Analysis Stage of construction 2 (Wall hinged at heel)
40
For the wall hinged at heel, the values are:
Length of construction: 7,85 m

Depth in soil: 2,85 m
Anchor force: 201,68 kN
Maximum moment: 119,35 kNm/ m
Maximum shear force: 69,84 kN / m
The results of analysis
The overall length of the structure should be in the interval of Hfixed Hhinged. For wall fixed at
heel is the length of the structure is longer, but the anchor force is smaller. For wall hinged at heel, it is
the opposite, so larger anchor force and shorter length of the construction. It is the users task to design
the dimensions of the structure.
Conclusion
In our design, we will use pile sheeting VL 503 from steel S 270 with an overall length of 9,0
m, anchors with size of force 240 kN with anchor spacing of 2,5 m. In the next chapter, we will check
this structure in the program Sheeting check.
Note: The design cannot be taken as the final and it needs to be checked in the Sheeting check program,
because on the real structure there is redistribution of earth pressure due to anchoring.
41
Chapter 6. Verification of retaining wall with one anchor row
In this chapter, we will show you how to verify a designed retaining wall with verification of inner
stability of the anchors and overall stability of the structure.
Assignment
Verify the retaining wall that you designed in task 5.
Solution:
For solving this problem, we will use the GEO5 program, Sheeting check. In this text,
we will explain each step to solve this task:
Construction stage 1: excavation of ditch to a depth of 2,0 m + geometry of the wall

Construction stage 2: anchoring of the wall + excavation of ditch to a depth of 5,0 m.
To make our work easier, we can copy the data from the last task, when we designed the wall
in the Sheeting design program by clicking in this program on Edit on the upper toolbar and
selecting Copy data. In Sheeting check program click on Edit and then Paste data. Now we
have most of the important data from the last task copied in to this program, so we dont have to input
much of the needed data.
Dialog window Insert data
42
In the frame Settings, select again the number 5 Standard EN 1997, DA3. Select the
analysis of depending pressures as Reduce according to analysis settings. Leave the coefficient
for minimum dimensioning pressure as 0,20.
Frame Settings (Analysis of pressures)
Note: the selection Analysis of depending pressures do not reduce allows the analysis of limit
pressures (active and passive) without the reduction of input parameters by partial factors. This is
better for estimation of real behavior of construction. On the other hand, it does not follow EN 1997-1
Standard. (More info in HELP F1)
Then, open up the frame Modulus k h , and choose the selection analyze Schmitt.
This method for the determination of modulus of subsoil reaction depends on the oedometric modulus
and stiffness of the structure. (More info in HELP F1)
Frame Modulus k h
Note: the modulus of subsoil reaction is an important input when analyzing a structure by the method
of dependent pressures (elasto-plastic nonlinear model). The modulus k h affects the deformation,
which is needed to reach active or passive pressures. (More info in HELP F1)
In the frame Soils enter the following values for each soil type. Poissons ratio and the oedometric
modulus were not entered in the previous program, so they must be entered here.
43
Soil Type Poissons ratio Oedometric Modulus
(Soil classification) Eoed MPa
SF - Sand with trace of fines,

0,30 21,0
medium dense
SC - Clayey sand, medium dense 0,35 12,5
CL - Clay with low or medium

0,40 9,5
plasticity, firm consistency
In the frame Geometry define the parameters of the sheet pile type of wall, section length,
coefficient of pressure reduction below ditch bottom, geometry and material of the construction.
From the sheet pile database, select the VL 503 (500 340 9,7 mm).
Dialog window Edit section
44
Now, in the frame Excavation define the first ditch depth 2,50 m for the first
construction stage.
Frame Excavation Stage of construction 1
Now, go to frame Analysis. In the left part of the frame, you can see the modulus of subsoil
reaction, in the right section earth pressures and displacement. (For more information, see HELP F1)
Frame Analysis Stage of construction 1
45
Add another construction stage as indicated below. Here we define the anchoring of the wall
and overall excavation. We cannot change the frames Settings, Profile, Modulus Kh, Soils
and Geometry, because these data are the same for all construction stages. We will only change data
in the frames Excavation and Anchors.
In the frame Excavation, change the depth of the ditch to the final depth 5,0 m.
Frame Excavation Stage of construction 2
Then, go to the frame Anchors and click on the button Add. For this structure, we will add
a row of anchors to a depth 1,5 m below the top of the wall (below the surface). Also define other
important parameters: overall length of the Anchor input as 10 m, slope angle as 15 and anchor spacing
as 2,5 m. Enter a pre-stress force equal to 240 kN and the diameter of the anchor.
Frame Anchors Stage of construction 2
46
Note: The stiffness of the anchors is taken into account in next stages of construction.
Due to the deformation of construction the forces in anchors are changing. (More info in HELP F1).
We dont change any other input data. Now, perform the analysis to view the maximums
of internal forces and maximum displacement of the anchored structure.
Frame Analysis Stage of construction 2
Frame Analysis (Internal forces) Stage of construction 2
47
Frame Analysis construction stage 2 (Deformation and pressure on the structure)
Verification of material and cross section:
Maximum moment behind the construction is 116,03 kN/m
Sheet pile VL 503 (500 340 9,7 mm), quality of steel S 270 GP satisfies.
(Allowable moment = M u 224,0 kN m M max 116,0 kNm m )
Maximum displacement of structure 30,1 mm is also satisfactory.
Verification of anchor stability
48
Now, open the frame Internal stability. You can see, that the internal stability of anchors
is not satisfactory. This means, that the anchor could tear from the soil.
Frame Internal stability not satisfactory result (anchor length 7,0 m, k = 0,2)
The reason for this is that the anchor is too short, so in the frame Anchors, change its length
to 9,0 meters. This newly designed anchor then satisfies the internal stability requirements.
Frame Internal stability satisfactory result (anchor length 9,0 m, k = 0,2)
49
The last needed check is overall stability of the structure. Click on the button External
stability. This will open the Slope stability program. In the frame Analysis click on Analyze. We
can now see, that the slope stability is acceptable. For external stability we consider length of anchor 7,0
m.
Frame External stability
Analysis results - conclusion:
Analysis done:
Bearing capacity of cross section:

51.8 % M u 224,0 kN m M max 116,0 kNm m SATISFACTORY.
Internal stability: 81,0 % Fvzd 296,24kN F 240kN SATISFACTORY.
Overall stability: 84.8 % Method Bishop (optimization) SATISFACTORY.
In this case, the designed construction satisfies in all checked parameters.
50
Chapter 7. Verification of multi-anchored wall
In this chapter, we are showing how to design and verify a multi-anchored wall.
Introduction
The basic assumption of the method is that the soil or rock in the vicinity of wall
behaves as ideally elastic-plastic Winkler material. This material is determined by the modulus
of subsoil reaction k h , which characterizes the deformation in the elastic region
and by additional limiting deformations. When exceeding these deformations the material
behaves as ideally plastic.
The following assumptions are used:
The pressure acting on a wall may attain an arbitrary value between active and passive
pressure but it cannot fall outside of these boundaries.
The pressure at rest acts on an undeformed structure ( w 0 ).
Assignment
Verify a multi-anchored wall made from steel soldier piles I 400 with a length
of 21,0 m. Depth of the ditch is 15,0 m. The terrain is horizontal. The surcharge acts
at the surface and is permanent with size of 25,0 kN m 2 . The GWT behind the construction
is 10,0 m below the surface. Spacing between centres of steel profiles is 2,0 m.
Scheme of the wall anchored in multiple layers

51
Table with the soil and rock parameters
Unit Angle of Poissons
Cohesion Deformation
Soil, rock Profile Weight internal Ratio
(classification) m
kN m 3 friction
of soil
cef kPa
modulus
Edef MPa

ef
CL, CI Clay
with low or
medium 0,0 2,0 19,5 20 16 6,0 0,4
plasticity,
firm consistency
CS Sandy
clay, 2,0 4,5 19,5 22 14 7,0 0,35
firm consistency
R4 (good rock),
4,5 12,0 21 27,5 30 40,0 0,3
low strength
R3 (good rock),
12,0
medium 22 40 100 50,0 0,25
16,6
strength
R5 (poor rock),
16,6
very low 19 24 20 40,0 0,3
17,4
strength
R5 (poor rock),
17,4
very low 21 30 35 55,0 0,25
25,0
strength
R5 (poor rock),
very low from 25,0 21 40 100 400,0 0,2
strength
Angle of friction between structure and soil is 7,5 for all layers.
Also, the saturated Unit weight equals the Unit Weight above. Note that the Modulus
of deformation is being used for soil materials.
Table with position and geometry of the anchors
Anchor Depth Length Root Slope Spacing Anchor force

no. z m l m l k m b m F kN
1 2,5 19,0 0,01 15,0 4,0 300,0
2 5,5 16,5 0,01 17,5 4,0 350,0
3 8,5 13,0 0,01 20,0 4,0 400,0
4 11,0 10,0 0,01 22,5 4,0 400,0
5 13,0 8,0 0,01 25,0 4,0 400,0
All anchors have a diameter d 32,0 mm , modulus of elasticity E 210,0 GPa .

Anchor spacing is b 4,0 m .
52
Solution
For solving this task, use the GEO5 program Sheeting Check. The analysis will be
performed in the classical way without reduction of input data so the real behavior
of the structure will be grasped. Internal stability of the anchor system and overall stability
will be checked with a safety factor of 1,5. This solution assumes you have entered the soil
types and profiles, and permanent load as listed above.
In the frame Settings select option no. 1 Standard safety factors. We consider
the minimum dimensioning pressure as k 0,2 . We leave the number of FEs to discretize
wall as 30.
Frame Settings
Then, go to frame Geometry and input the basic dimensions of the section,
and also the coefficient of pressure reduction below the ditch bottom, which is in this case 0,4.
Dialog window New section

53
Note: The coefficient of reduction of earth pressures below the excavation reduces
the pressures in the soil. For classical retaining walls this is equal 1,0. For braced sheeting it
is less than or equal to one. It depends on size and spacing of braces (More info in help F1).
Now, we will describe the building of the wall stage by stage. It is necessary to model
the task in stages, to reflect how it will be constructed in reality. In each stage it is necessary
to look at values of internal forces and deformation.
If the braced sheeting is not stable in some stage of construction or if the analyzed
deformation is too large, then we need to change structure for example to make the wall
embedment longer, make the ditch shallower, increase the anchor forces etc.
In construction stage 1, the ditch is made to depth of 3,0 m. In the stage 2,

anchor is placed at a depth of 2,5 m. The GWT behind the structure is at a depth of 10,0 m
beneath the surface.
Frame Anchors Construction stage 2
54
In the 3rd construction stage, the ditch is excavated to a depth of 6,5 m. In the 4th stage,
anchor is placed at a depth of 5,5 m. The GWT is not changed so far.
In the 5th construction stage, the ditch is excavated to a depth of 9,0 m. In the 6th stage,
anchor is placed at the depth of 8,5 m. The depth of GWT is not changed.
55
In 7th construction stage, the ditch is excavated to a depth of 11,5 m. In 8th construction
stage, an anchor is placed at the depth of 11,0 m. The GWT in front of the wall is now
at a depth of 12,0 m below the surface. The GWT behind the structure is not changed.
In the 9th construction stage, the ditch is excavated to a depth of 13,5 m. In the 10th
stage, an anchor is placed at the depth of 13,0 m. The GWT in front of the structure is 15,5 m
below the surface.
56
In the 11th, and last, construction stage, the ditch is excavated to a depth of 15,0 m.
We will not add new anchors. The GWT in front of the wall is at a depth of 15,5 m.
Behind the wall it is at a depth of 10,0 m.
Note: Due to deformation of the structure the forces in anchors are changing. These changes
depend on the stiffness of the anchors and the deformation of the anchors head. The force can
decrease (due to loss of pre-stress force) or increase. The forces can be pre-stressed in any
stage of construction again to the required force.
57
Results of analysis
On the pictures below are the analysis results (internal forces, displacement of structure
and earth pressure) of the last, 11th construction stage.
Frame Analysis (Kh + pressures) Stage of construction 11
Frame Analysis (Internal forces) Stage of construction 11
Frame Analysis (Deformation + stresses) Stage of construction 11
58
All the stages are satisfactorily analyzed that means that the structure is stable
and functional in all stages of the construction. The deformation must also be checked that it is
not too large, as well as that the anchor force does not exceed the bearing capacity
of the anchor (The user must check this as this is not checked by the program Sheeting check).
Maximum displacement of the wall is 34,1 mm, which is satisfactory.
Note: If the program does not find a solution in some of the construction stages, then the data
must be revised e.g. to make the structure longer, make the forces in anchors larger,
change the number or position of anchors, etc.
Verification of cross-section of the structure

Open the frame Envelopes in the 1st construction stage, where you see the maximum
and minimum values of variables.
Maximum shear force (minimum): 137,11 kN m

Maximum bending moment (minimum): 182,60 kNm m
Frame Envelopes
The bending moment is calculated per one meter (foot) of structure, so we have
to calculate the moment acting on the soldier beam. The spacing of soldier beams (I-sections)
in our example is 2,0 m, so the resulting moment is 182,60 2,0 365,2 kNm.
59
Users can perform the verification of cross-section I 400 manually or using another
program such as FIN EC STEEL.
Verification (cross-sections I 400) output from FIN EC STEEL program
Overall utilization of cross-section: 60,2 %
Verification of bearing capacity: M y , R 606,582 kNm M max 365,2 kNm
This designed cross-section I (IPN) 400 satisfies analysis criteria.
Note: Dimensioning and verification of concrete and steel walls is not part of the program
Sheeting Check, but is planned for a future version.
Analysis of internal stability

Go to the frame Internal stability in the last construction stage and look at maximum
allowable force in each anchor and the specified safety factor. The minimum safety
factor is 1.5.
Note: The verification is done this way. At first we iterate the force in the anchor, resulting
in equilibrium of all forces acting on the earth wedge. This earth wedge is bordered
by construction, terrain, the middle of the roots of anchors and the theoretical heel of structure.
If an anchor is not satisfactory the best way to resolve the issue is to make it longer or decrease
the pre-stressed force.
60
Frame Internal stability
Verification of external stability

The last required analysis is external stability. The button will automatically open
the program Slope stability, where you perform overall stability analysis.
61
Program Slope stability
Conclusion
The structure was successfully designed with a maximum deformation of 34,1 mm.
This is satisfactory for this type of construction. Additionally, the limits of forces in anchors
were not exceeded.
Verification of bearing capacity of cross-section SATISFACTORY
Internal stability SATISFACTORY

Anchor nr. 4 (analyzed safety factor): SFmin 5,84 > SFa 1,50 .
External stability SATISFACORY

Safety factors (Bishop optimization): SF 2,92 > SFs 1,50 .
The designed sheeting satisfies evaluation criteria.
62
Chapter 8. Analysis of slope stability
In this chapter, we are going to show you how to verify the slope stability for critical
circular and polygonal slip surfaces (using its optimization), and the differences between
methods of analysis of slope stability.
Assignment
Perform a slope stability analysis for a designed slope with a gravity wall. This is a
permanent design situation. The required safety factor is SF = 1,50. There is no water in the
slope.
Scheme of the assignment
Solution
For solving this problem, we will use the GEO5 program, Slope stability. In this text,
we will explain each step to solve this problem:
Analysis nr. 1: optimization of circular slip surface (Bishop)

Analysis nr. 2: verification of slope stability for all methods
Analysis nr. 3: optimization of polygonal slip surface (Spencer)
Analysis result (conclusion)
63
Basic input Analysis 1:
In the frame Settings click on Select and choose option nr. 1 Standard safety
factors.
Then model the interface layers, resp. terrain using these coordinates:
Adding interface points
Firstly, in the frame Interface input the coordinate range of the assignment. Depth of deepest
interface point is only for visualization of the example it has no influence on the analysis.
64
Then, input the geological profile, define the parameters of soil, and assign them to the profile.
Note: In this analysis, we are verifying the long-term slope stability. Therefore we are solving
this task with effective parameters of slip strength of soils ( ef , cef ). Foliation of soils worse
or different parameters of soil in one direction - are not considered in the assigned soils.
65
Soil Unit weight Angle of internal Cohesion of soil Assigned Soil

kN m 3 friction ef cef kPa Region
MG Gravelly silt, 1
19,0 29,0 8,0
firm consistency
S-F Sand with trace 3
17,5 31,5 0,0
of fines, dense soil
MS Sandy silt, stiff 4
18,0 26,5 16,0
Model the gravity wall as a Rigid Body with a unit weight of 23,0 kN m 3 . The slip
surface does not pass through this object because it is an area with large strength. (More info in
HELP F1)
In the next step, define a surcharge, which we consider as permanent and strip with its
location on the terrain surface.
Dialog window New surcharges
66
Note: A surcharge is entered on 1 m of width of the slope. The only exception is concentrated
surcharge, where the program calculates the effect of the load to the analyzed profile. For
more information, see HELP (F1).
Skip the frames Embankment, Earth cut, Anchors, Reinforcements and

Water. The frame Earthquake has no influence on this analysis, because the slope is not
located in seismically active area.
Then, in the frame Stage settings, select the design situation. In this case, we consider
it as Permanent design situation.
Analysis 1 circular slip surface
Now open up the frame Analysis, where the user enters the initial slip surface using
coordinates of the center ( x, y ) and its radius or using the mouse directly on the desktop by
clicking on the interface to enter three points through which the slip surface passes.
Note: In cohesive soils rotational slip surfaces occur most often. These are modeled using
circular slip surfaces. This surface is used to find critical areas of an analyzed slope. For non-
cohesive soils, an analysis using an polygonal slip surface should be also performed for slope
stability verification (see HELP F1).
Now, select Bishop as the analysis method, and then set type of analysis as Optimization.
Then perform the actual verification by clicking on Analyze.
67
Frame Analysis Bishop optimization of circular slip surface
Note: optimization consists in finding the circular slip surface with the smallest stability the
critical slip surface. The optimization of circular slip surfaces in the program Slope stability
evaluates the entire slope, and is very reliable. For different initial slip surfaces, we get the
same result for a critical slip surface
The level of stability defined for critical slip surface when using the Bishop evaluation
method is satisfactory :
SF 1,82 SFs 1,50 SATISFACTORY.
Analysis 2:
Now select another analysis on the toolbar in upper right corner of your Analysis frame
in GEO5.
Toolbar Analysis
In the frame Analysis, change the analysis type to Standard and as method select All
methods. Then click on Analyze.
68
Frame Analysis All methods standard type of analysis
Note: Using this procedure, the slip surface made for all methods corresponds to critical slip
surface from the previous analysis scenario using the Bishop method. For better results the
user should choose the method and then perform an optimization of slip surfaces.
The values of the level of slope stability are:
Bishop: SF 1,82 SFs 1,50 SATISFACTORY.
Fellenius / Petterson: SF 1,61 SFs 1,50 SATISFACTORY.
Spencer: SF 1,79 SFs 1,50 SATISFACTORY.
Janbu: SF 1,80 SFs 1,50 SATISFACTORY.
Morgenstern-Price: SF 1,80 SFs 1,50 SATISFACTORY.
achuanc: SF 1,63 SFs 1,50 SATISFACTORY.
Note: the selection of method of analysis depends on experience of the user. The most popular
methods are the method of slices, from which the most used, is the Bishop method. The Bishop
method does yield conservative results.
For reinforced or anchored slopes other rigorous methods (Janbu, Spencer and Morgenstern-
Price) are preferable. These more rigorous methods meet all conditions of balance, and they
better describe real slope behavior.
It is not needed (or correct) to analyze a slope with all methods of analysis. For example, the
Swedish method Fellenius Petterson yields very conservative results, so the safety factors
could be unrealistically low in the result. Because this method is famous and in some countries
required for slope stability analysis, it is a part of GEO5 software.
69
Analysis 3 polygonal slip surface
In the last step of analysis, input the polygonal slip surface. As a method of analysis,
select Spencer, as analysis type select optimization, enter a polygonal slip surface and
perform the analysis.
Frame Analysis Spencer optimization of polygonal slip surface
The values of the level of slope stability are:
SF 1,58 SFs 1,50 SATISFACTORY.
Note: Optimization of a polygonal slip surface is gradual and depends on the location of the
initial slip surface. This means that it is good to make several analyses with different initial slip
surfaces and with different numbers of sections. Optimization of polygonal slip surfaces can be
also affected by local minimums of factor of safety. This means the real critical surface does
need to be found. Sometimes it is more efficient for the user to enter the starting polygonal slip
surface in a similar shape and place as an optimized circular slip surface.
70
Local minimums
Note: We often get complaints from users that the slip surface after the optimization
disappeared. For non-cohesive soils, where cef 0 kPa the critical slip surface is the same
as the most inclined line of slope surface. In this case, the user should change parameters of
the soil or enter restrictions in which the slip surface cant pass.
Conclusion
The slope stability after optimization is:
Bishop (circular - optimization): SF 1,82 SFs 1,50

SATISFACTORY.
Spencer (polygonal - optimization): SF 1,58 SFs 1,50
SATISFACTORY.
This designed slope with a gravity wall satisfies stability requirements.
71
Chapter 9. Stability of slope with retaining wall
In this chapter, we are going to describe the stability analysis of an existing slope, then how to
model a sheeting wall being built, and how to check its internal and external stability.
Assignment:
Perform an analysis of an existing slope and then verify the design of an underground
wall for construction of parking areas. When performing the analysis, consider the permanent
design situation in all construction stages. Verify the stability using safety factors. The safety
factor needed is SFs 1,50 . All stability analyses are performed using the Bishop method with
optimization of circular slip surface.
Scheme of assignment
The wall is made from concrete class C 30/37, the thickness of the wall is h 0,5 m .
The calculated shear resistance of the wall is VRd 325 kN m .
Solution:
For solving this task, use the GEO5 program Slope Stability. In this text, we will describe the
solution of this task step by step.
Construction stage 1: slope modeling, determination of safety factor of the existing

slope;
Construction stage 2: making the earth cut for the parking (only as a working stage)
Construction stage 3: construction of the wall, analysis of internal and external stability;
72
Analysis results (Conclusion).
Construction stage 1: slope modeling
In the frame Settings, click on Select and then choose analysis settings nr. 1
Standard safety factors.
Then, model the interface of layers, resp. terrain using these coordinates.
Interface coordinates
Note: If data is entered incorrectly, it can be undone using the button UNDO (shortcut Ctrl-
Z). In the same manner, we can use the opposite function REDO (Shortcut Ctrl-Y).
Buttons Undo and Redo
73
Then define the soil parameters and assign them to the profile.
Soil Unit weight Angle of internal Cohesion of soil

kN m 3 friction ef cef kPa
SM Silty sand,
18,0 29,0 5,0
medium dense soil
ML, MI Silt with low or
medium plasticity, stiff 20,0 21,0 30,0
MS Sandy silt,
18,0 26,5 12,0
firm consistency
In the frame Stage settings choose permanent design situation.
Analysis 1 stability of existing slope
Now open up the frame Analysis and run the verification of stability of the original
slope. As a verification method select Bishop and then perform the optimization of circular
slip surface. How to input slip surface and optimization principle is described in more detail in
the previous chapter and in HELP (F1).
74
Analysis 1 stability of the original slope
The factor of safety of the original slope as analyzed by Bishop is:
SF 2,26 SFs 1,50 Satisfactory.
Construction stage 2: earth cut modeling

Now add the second construction stage using the button in the upper left corner of the
window.
Toolbar Construction stages
Add the earth cut to the interface by adding individual points of the considered earth cut
(similar to adding points to the current interface) in the frame Earth cut. The excavation for
the sheeting wall is 0,5 m wide. After you are done with adding the points click on OK.
75
Coordinates of the earth cut
Note: If you define two points with same x coordinate (see picture), the program asks if you
want to add the new point to the left or right. The scheme of resulting input of the point is
highlighted with red and green color in the dialog window.
Frame Earth cut
Construction stage 3: construction of the retaining wall
Now design the sheeting wall. In the frame Embankment add the points of the
interface of the embankment. With these we actually model the face of the structure of the wall
(see picture).
76
The points of embankment
Frame Embankment
Analysis 2 internal stability of retaining wall
To verify the internal stability on the circular slip surface it is necessary to model
the structure as a stiff soil with fictitious cohesion, and not as rigid body. If it is modeled as a
rigid body, the slip surface cannot intersect the structure.
Note: shear resistance of the RC retaining wall is modeled with help of fictitious cohesion,
which we can determine as:
VRd 325,0
c fict 650 kPa
h 0,5
where: h m width of the wall,

77
VRd kN m shear resistance of the wall.
Now return to the 1st construction stage and add a new soil with name Material of the
retaining wall. Define the value of the fictitious cohesion as cef 650 kPa , the angle of
internal friction as a small value (for example ef 1 ) since the program doesnt allow to
input 0. Define the unit weight as 25 kN m 3 , which corresponds to structure from

reinforced concrete.
Analysis 3 slope stability behind the earth cut and retaining wall (internal stability)
The analysis results of internal stability show that the slope with the earth cut and the
retaining wall is stable:
SF 1,60 SFs 1,50 Satisfactory.
Analysis 3 external stability of retaining wall

Now add another analysis using toolbar in the left downward corner of the program.
Toolbar More Analyses
78
Before running the analysis of the external slope stability, add restrictions on the optimization
procedure using lines that the slip surface cant intersect when it executes the optimization
procedure (More info in HELP F1). In our example the restriction lines are the same as the
borders of the pile sheeting.
Analysis 4 - restrictions on the optimization procedure
Note: for analysis of external slope stability it is appropriate to input the retaining wall as a
solid body. When the wall is modeled as a solid body, the slip surface doesnt intersect it
during the optimization evaluation.
79
Analysis 4 slope stability with earth cut and retaining wall (external stability)
From the results of external stability we can see, that the slope with the earth cut and
retaining wall is stable:
Conclusion
The objective of this chapter was to verify the slope stability and design of earth cut
with retaining wall for the construction of a car park with analysis of internal and external
stability. The results of analyses are:
This slope with earth cut and retaining wall from concrete (with width of 0,5 m) in terms of
long-term stability satisfies evaluation criteria.
Note: this designed retaining wall would need to be checked for stress from the bending
moment of loading from active earth pressure. This bending moment can be analyzed in the
GEO5 programs Sheeting design and Sheeting Check.
For the same bending moment it is also necessary to design and check reinforcements for
example in program FIN EC Concrete 2D.
80
Chapter 10. Design of geometry of spread footing
In this chapter, we are going to show you how to design spread footing easily and effectively.
Assignment:
Using EN 1997-1 (EC 7-1, DA1) standards, design the dimensions of a concentric spread
footing. Forces from columns act on the top of foundation. Input forces are: N , H x , H y , M x , M y . The
terrain behind the structure is horizontal; foundation soil consists of S-F Sand with trace of fines,
medium dense soil. At 6,0 m is Slightly weathered slate. The GWT is also at a depth of 6,0 m. The
depth of foundation is 2,5 m below the original terrain.
Scheme of the assignment analysis of bearing capacity of spread footing
Solution
For solving this problem, we will use the GEO5 program Spread footing. Firstly, we input all
the data in each frame, except Geometry. In the Geometry frame, we will then design the spread
footing.
Basic input
In the frame Settings, click on Select and then choose nr. 3 Standard EN 1997 DA1.
81
Frame Settings list
Also select an analysis method in this case Analysis for drained conditions. We will not
analyze settlement.
Frame Settings
Note: Usually, spread footings are analyzed for drained conditions= using the effective parameters of
soil ( ef , cef ). Analysis for undrained conditions is performed for cohesive soils and short-term
performance using total parameters of soil ( u , cu ). According to EN 1997 total friction considered is
always u 0 .
In the next step enter the geological profile, soil parameters and assign them to the profile.
Table with the soil parameter

Cohesion
Soil, rock Profile Unit weight Angle of internal of soil
friction ef
(classification) m kN m 3 cef kPa
S-F Sand with trace of

0,0 6,0 17,5 29,5 0,0
fines, medium dense soil
Slightly weathered slate from 6,0 22,5 23,0 50,0
82
In the next step, open up the frame Foundation. As a type of foundation, choose Centric spread
footing and fill in the dimensions such as depth from the original grade, depth of footing bottom,
thickness of foundation and inclination of finished grade. Also, input the weight of overburden, which is
the backfill of spread footing after construction.
Frame Foundation
Note: The depth of the footing bottom depends on many different factors such as natural and climatic
factors, hydrogeology of the construction site and geological conditions. In the Czech Republic the
depth of footing bottom is recommended to be at least 0,8 meters beneath the surface due to freezing.
For clays it is recommended that the depth be greater, such as 1,6 meters. When analyzing the bearing
capacity of a foundation, the depth of the foundation is considered as the minimal vertical distance
between the footing bottom and the finished grade.
In the frame Load enter the forces and moments acting on the upper part of foundation:
N , H x , H y , M x , M y . These values we obtained from a structural analysis program and we can import
them to our analysis by clicking on Import.
Frame Load
Note: For design of dimensions of spread footing, generally the design load is the deciding load. ,
However, in this case we are using the analysis settings EN 1997-1 - DA1, and you must enter the value
of service load too, because the analysis requires two design combinations.
83
Dialog window Edit load
In the frame Material, input the material characteristics of the foundation.
Skip the frame Surcharge, as there is no surcharge near the foundation.
Note: Surcharge around the foundation influences the analysis for settlement and rotation of the
foundation, but not bearing capacity. In the case of vertical bearing capacity it always acts favorably
and no theoretical knowledge leads us to analyze this influence.
In the frame Water enter the ground water depth as 6,0 meters.
We are not going to enter a sand gravel bed because we are considering permeable cohesionless
soil at the of footing bottom.
Then open up the frame Stage settings and select permanent as the design situation.
Design of dimensions of the foundation
Now, open the frame Geometry and apply the function Dimensions design; with which the
program determines the minimum required dimensions of the foundation. These dimensions can be
edited later.
In the dialog window it is possible to input the bearing capacity of foundation soil Rd or select
Analyze. We will choose Analyze for now. The program automatically analyzes the foundation
weight and weight of soil below foundation and determines the minimum dimensions of the foundation.
84
Dialog window Foundation dimensions design
Note: Design of centric and eccentric spread footing is always performed such that that the dimensions
of foundation are as small as they can be and still maintain an adequate vertical bearing capacity. The
option Input designs the dimensions of a spread footing based on the entered bearing capacity of the
foundation soil.
We can verify the design in the frame Bearing cap..
Frame Bearing capacity

Vertical bearing capacity: 97,7 % Rd 545.22 532.59 [kPa]
SATISFACTORY.
Conclusion:
The bearing capacity of designed foundation (2,0x2,0 m) is satisfactory.
85
Chapter 11. Settlement of spread footing
In this chapter, we describe how analysis of settlement and rotation of a spread footing is
performed.
Assignment:
Analyze the settlement of centric spread footing designed in last chapter (10. Design of
dimensions of spread footing). The geometry of the structure, load, geological profile and soils
are the same as in the last chapter. Perform the settlement analysis using the oedometric
modulus, and consider the structural strength of soil. Analyze the foundation in terms of limit
states of serviceability. For a structurally indeterminate concrete structure, of which the spread
footing is a part, the limiting settlement is: sm,lim 60,0 mm.
Scheme of the assignment analysis of settlement of spread footing
Solution:
86
For solving this task, we will use the GEO5 program Spread footing. We will use the
data from the last chapter, where almost all required data is already entered.
Basic Input:
The design of spread footing in the last task was performed using the standard EN 1997,
DA1. Eurocodes do not order any theory for the analysis of settlement, so any common
settlement theory can be used. Check the setting in the frame Settings by clicking on Edit.
In the tab Settlement select the method Analysis using oedometric modulus and set
Restriction of influence zone to based on structural strength.
Dialog window Edit current settings
Note: The structural strength represents the resistance of a soil against deformation from a
load. It is only used in Czech and Slovak Republic. In other countries, the restriction of the
influence zone is described by percentage of Initial in-situ stress. Recommended values of
structural strength are from CSN 73 1001 standards (Foundation soil below the foundation)
In the next step, define the parameters of soils for settlement analysis. We need to edit
each soil and add values for Poissons ratio, coefficient of structural strength and oedometric
modulus, resp. deformation modulus.
87
Angle of Coeff. of
Unit Deformation Poissons
Soil, rock internal structural
weight modulus ratio
(classification)

kN m 3 friction Strength
ef m
Edef MPa
S-F Sand with
trace of fines, 17,5 29,5 0,3 15,5 0,3
medium dense soil
Slightly weathered
22,5 23,0 0,3 500,0 0,25
slate
Analysis:
Now, run the analysis in the frame Settlement. Settlement is always analyzed for
service load.
88
Frame Settlement
In the frame Settlement it is also needed to input other parameters:
- Initial in-situ stress in the footing bottom is considered from the finished grade
Note: the value of in-situ stress in the footing bottom has influence on the amount of settlement
and the depth of influence zone a larger initial in-situ stress means less settlement. The option
of in-situ stress acting on the footing bottom depends on the time the footing bottom is open. If
the footing bottom is open for a longer period of time, the soil compaction will be less and it is
not possible to consider the original stress conditions of the soil.
- In Reduction coefficient to compute settlement, select the option Consider foundation

thickness effect (1).
89
Note: the coefficient 1 reflects the influence of the depth of the foundation and gives more
realistic results of the settlement
Results of analysis
The final settlement of the structure is 16,9 mm. Within an analysis of limit states of
serviceability we compare the values of the analyzed settlement with limit values, which are
permissible for the structure.
Note: The stiffness of structure (soil-foundation) has a major influence on the settlement. This
stiffness is described by the coefficient k if k is greater then 1, the foundation is considered to
be stiff and settlement is calculated under a characteristic point (located in 0,37l or 0,37b from
the center of the foundation, where l and b are dimensions of foundation). If coefficient k is
lower then 1, the settlement is calculated under the center of foundation.
- Analyzed stiffness of foundation in direction is k 137,10 . The settlement is computed

under the characteristic point of foundation.
Note : Informative values of allowable settlement for different kinds of structures can be found
in various standards for example CSN EN 1997-1 (2006) Design of geotechnical structures.
The Spread footing program also provides results for the rotation of the foundation, which is
analyzed from the difference of settlement of centers of each edge.
Rotation of the foundation principle of the analysis

90
Rotation in direction x : 0,75 (tan1000)
Rotation in direction y : 1,776 (tan1000)
Conclusion
This spread footing in terms of settlement satisfies evaluation criteria.
Settlement: s m,lim 60,0 s 16,9 [mm].
It is not necessary to verify rotation of this foundation.
91
Chapter 12. Analysis of consolidation under embankment
In this chapter, we are going to explain how to analyze consolidation under a
constructed embankment.
Introduction:
Soil consolidation takes into account the settlement time (calculation of earth
deformation) under the effect of external (constant or variable) loads. The surcharge leads to an
increase in earth formation stress and the gradual extrusion of water from pores, i.e. soil
consolidation. Primary consolidation corresponds to the situation in which there is a complete
dissipation of pore pressures in soil, secondary consolidation affects rheological processes
in the soil skeleton (the so called "creep effect"). This is a time-dependent process influenced
by a number of factors (e.g. soil permeability and compressibility, length of drainage paths,
etc.). With regards to the degree of consolidation we distinguish the following cases of ground
settlement:
final settlement corresponding to 100% consolidation from the respective surcharge
partial settlement corresponding to a particular degree of consolidation from
the respective surcharge
Assignment:
Determine the settlement value under the centre of an embankment constructed
on impermeable clay one year and ten years after its construction. Make the analysis using
CSN 73 1001 standards (using oedometric modulus), limit of influence zone consider using
coefficient of structure strength.
Scheme of the assignment consolidation
92
Solution:
The GEO 5 Settlement program will be used to solve this task. We are going to model
this example step by step:
1st construction stage interface modeling, calculation of the initial geostatic stress.
2nd construction stage adding a surcharge by means of an embankment.
3rd up to 5th construction stages calculation of embankment consolidation
at various time intervals (according to the assignment).
Evaluation of results (conclusion).
Basic assignment (procedure): Stage 1

Check the "Perform consolidation analysis" field in the "Settings" frame. Then select
specific settings for calculation of the settlement from "Settings list". This setting describes
the analysis method for calculation of the settlement and restriction of influence zone.
Frame "Settings"
Note: This calculation considers the so called primary consolidation (dissipation of pore
pressure). Secondary settlement (creep), which may occur mainly with non-consolidated and
organic soils, is not solved within this example.
Then we enter the layer interface. The objective is to select two layers between which
the consolidation takes place.
93
Frame "Interface"
Note: If there is a homogeneous soil, then in order to calculate the consolidation,

it is necessary to enter a fictitious layer (use the same parameters for the two soil layers that
are separated by the original interface), preferably at the depth of the deformation zone.
Then we define the "Incompressible subsoil" (IS) (at a depth of 10 m) by means of
entering coordinates similarly to interface modeling. No settlement takes place under the IS.
The soil parameters are entered in the next step. For soils being consolidated, it is
required to specify either the coefficient of permeability " k " or the coefficient of consolidation
" c v ". Approximate values can be found in HELP (F1).
Dialog window "Modification of soil parameters"
94
Poissons Coeff. of
Oedometric Coeff. of
Soil Unit weight Ratio structural
kN m 3
modulus
Eoed MPa
strength
permeability
k m day
m
Clayey soil 18,5 0,3 1,0 0,1 1,0 10 5
Embankment 20,0 0,30 30,0 0,3 1,0 10 2
Sandy silt 19,5 0,30 30,0 0,3 1,0 10 2
Then we assign the soils to the profile. The frame surcharge in the 1st construction stage
is not taken into consideration, since in this example it will be represented by the actual
embankment body (in stages 2 to 5). In the next step, we shall enter the ground water table
(hereinafter the "GWT") using the interface points, in our case at ground level.
In the frame Stage settings, you can only modify layout and refinement of holes, so
leave the standard settings.
The first "Calculation" stage represents the initial geostatic stress at the initial
construction time. However, it is necessary to specify the basic boundary conditions for the
consolidation calculation in further stages. The top and bottom interface of the consolidating
soil is entered, as well as the direction of water flow from this layer i.e. the drainage path.
95
"Analysis" Construction stage 1
Note: If you enter "Incompressible subsoil", you shall then consider the direction of flow of
water from the consolidating soil only upwards
Basic assignment (procedure): Stages 2 to 5

Let's now move to the 2nd construction stage by tool bar at the top left of the desktop.
Toolbar Construction stage

We define the embankment itself by entering coordinates. A specific soil type
is assigned to the embankment.
"Stage 2 Embankment interface points"
96
"Stage 2 Embankment + Assignment"
Note: The embankment acts as a surcharge to the original ground surface. It is assumed that
a well-executed (optimally compacted) embankment theoretically does not settle. In a practice,
settlement may occur (poor compaction, soil creep effect), but the program Settlement does not
address this.
In the "Analysis" frame enter the time duration of the 2nd stage corresponding to the
actual embankment construction time. The actual calculation of the settlement cannot be
performed yet because, when determining consolidation, it is first necessary to know the whole
history of the earthwork structure loading, i.e. all construction stages.
97
Frame "Analysis Construction Stage 2"
Since the embankment is built gradually, we are considering the linear load growth
in the 2nd construction stage. In subsequent stages, the duration of the stage is entered (1 year
i.e. 365 days 3rd stage, 10 years i.e. 3,650 days 4th stage and the overall settlement 5th
stage) and the whole loading is introduced at the beginning of the stage.
The calculations are performed after enter the last construction stage, which is on the "Overall
settlement", is turned on (you can check it at any stage apart from the first one).
Frame "Calculation Construction Stage 5"
Analysis results
Upon the calculation of the overall settlement, we can observe partial consolidation
values below the centre of the embankment. We have obtained the following maximum
settlement values in individual construction stages:
Stage 1: only geostatic stress settlement not calculated.

Stage 2 (surcharge by embankment): for 30 days 29.2 mm
Stage 3 (unchanged): for 365 days 113.7 mm
Stage 4 (unchanged): for 3,650 days 311.7 mm
Stage 5: the overall settlement 351.2 mm
98
"Analysis Construction stage 5 (Overall settlement)"
As we are interested in the embankment settlement after its construction,

we will switch to the results view in the 3rd and 4th stages (the button "Values") to "compared
to stage 2" which subtracts the respective settlement value.
99
"Analysis Settlement (differences compared to previous stages)"
Conclusion:
The embankment settlement (under its centre) within one year from its construction is
84.5 mm (= 113.7 29.2) and after ten years 282.5 mm (= 311.7 29.2).
100

Engi Neeri NG Manual S

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engi Neeri NG Manual S

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eng

Chapter 1. Analysis settings and settings administrator ................................... 3

Chapter 2. Design of Cantilever wall ............................................................... 11

Chapter 3. Verification of gravity wall ............................................................. 22

Chapter 4. Design of non-anchored restraint retaining wall .......................... 31

Chapter 5. Design of anchored retaining wall .................................................. 38

Chapter 6. Verification of retaining wall with one anchor row ...................... 42

Chapter 7. Verification of multi-anchored wall ............................................... 51

Chapter 8. Analysis of slope stability ................................................................ 63

Chapter 9. Stability of slope with retaining wall .............................................. 72

Chapter 10. Design of geometry of spread footing ........................................... 81

Chapter 11. Settlement of spread footing ......................................................... 86

Chapter 12. Analysis of consolidation under embankment ............................ 92

Each chapter is divided to a few sections:

Introduction theoretical introduction to the problem

Solution in this section, the problem is solved step by step

Context help explains the functions of the program in detail

Frame Geometry input of dimensions of the gravity wal

Unit weight Angle of Cohesion Angle of friction

Dialog window Settings list

Dialog window Settings list

Frame Verification results of analysis for EN 1997, DA1

Dialog window Edit current settings: Gravity wall

Press OK and run the analysis. (69,0% and 77,1%).

Frame Verification analysis results for SF = 1.6

Dialog window Add current settings to the Administrator

Dialog window Settings list then looks like this

Dialog window Settings list

Utilization in percentage using each standard is:

1) CSN 73 0037 53,1 66,5

The analysis is satisfactory using the selected analysis standards.

Scheme of the cantilever wall - Assignment

Frame Material Input of material characteristics of the structure

Dialog window Add new soils

Table with the soil parameters

Angle of Cohesion Angle of

S-F Sand with trace of

MS Sandy silt, stiff

In the frame Terrain choose the horizontal terrain shape.

Dialog window New surcharge

Frame Stage settings

The verification of slip is not satisfactory, utilization of structure is

Overturning: 52,8 % M vzd 208,33 M kl 109,97 [kNm/m] SATISFACTORY.

Slip: 124,6 % H vzd 65,78 H pos 81,94 [kN/m] NOT OK.

- Use better soil behind the wall

Frame Geometry (Changing dimensions of cantilever wall)

Frame Bearing capacity

Conclusion/ Result of analysis bearing capacity:

Overturning: 49,5 % M vzd 218,52 M kl 108,16 [kNm/m] SATISFACTORY

Slip: 64,9 % H vzd 99,27 H pos 64,47 [kN/m] SATISFACTORY

Bearing capacity: 86,3 Rd 151,06 175,00 [kPa] SATISFACTORY

Wall stem check: 78,7 % M Rd 169,92 M Ed 133,71 [kNm] SATISFACTORY

Overall stability: 40,8 % Method Bishop (optimization) SATISFACTORY

This cantilever wall is SATISFACTORY.

between the soil and wall is 18 .

Scheme of the gravity wall assignment

Dialog window Settings list

Table with the soil parameters

Dialog window Add new soils

Frame Front face resistance

Frame Stage settings

Frame Verification stage 1

Program Slope stability stage 1