3 Overall stability, foundation failure and sliding

3.1 Relevant standards

The following standards are valid for the verification of safety against
sliding and foundation failure, and also for determining the active earth

l
pressure:

ria
Sliding: DIN 1054
Foundation failure: DIN 4017
Slope failure: DIN 4084
Earth pressure: DIN 4085

ate
3.2 Safety against failure by hydraulic heave (R 115)

Failure by hydraulic heave occurs when a body of earth in front of a

structure is loaded by the upward flow force of the groundwater. In this
state the passive earth pressure is reduced. A failure state occurs when
dM
the vertical component S of the flow force is equal to or greater than the
dead load G of the body of earth under uplift, which lies between the
structure and an assumed, theoretical failure surface. The body of earth
is then raised and the passive earth pressure is lost completely.
All heave failure surfaces to be considered in the analysis extend - in
homogeneous soil - progressively outward from the base of the structure.
The surface with the smallest safety factor as determined by test
calculations forms the basis for assessing safety. Advice on the approach
hte

in the case of a stratified subsoil is given in R 113, section 4.7.7.2.

According to DIN 1054, section 11.5, it should be checked that the
following condition applies for limit state LS 1A for the upward flow
within the failure body in front of the base of the wall:
rig

where:
S$ = characteristic value of flow force in body of earth in flow
= partial safety factor for flow force in limit state LS 1A to
DIN 1054 table 2
py

G$ = characteristic value of weight under uplift for body of

earth in flow
yG,stb
= partial safety factor for favourable permanent actions in
limit state LS 1A to DIN 1054 table 2
The flow force S$ can be calculated using a flow net as per R 113,
Co

section 4.7.7, fig. R 113-2, or R 113, section 4.7.5. S$ is the product of

the volume of the heave failure body multiplied by the weight density of

67

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

 l
ria
ate
Fig. R 115-1. Safety against failure by hydraulic heave - relevant dimensions

the water ywand by the mean flow gradient measured in this body in the
vertical.
dM If water flows upwards through the soil in front of the base of the wall,
the flow force should be considered in a body of soil whose width may
generally be assumed to be equal to half the embedment depth of the
wall (DIN 1054, section 11.5 (4)). In more accurate calculations, other
boundaries to the body of soil should be examined as well.
Fig. R 115-2 shows the method according to TERZAGHI-PECK [17, p. 2411,
fig. R 115-3 the method according to BAUMGART-DAVIDENKOFF [ 168,
p. 611.
hte

In the rectangular failure body with a width equal to half the embedment
depth t of the structure, the characteristic value of the vertical flow force
S i can be found approximately from the following equation:
rig

L L

where:
h, = effective hydraulic head at base of wall (difference between
standpipe water level at base of sheet piling and underwater
py

table level)
h, = effective hydraulic head at boundary of failure body opposite
base of wall
According to BAUMGART-DAVIDENKOFF [ 168, p. 661 verification of safety
Co

against hydraulic heave failure can also be calculated in a simplified way

as follows. In this instance only one flow channel of the upward flow
directly in front of the vertical part of the building element is considered:

68

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

 (Yw ' i, ' YH Yf ' YG,stb

where:
yf = soil weight density, submerged
yw = gradient density of water

l
i = mean hydraulic gradient in path considered (i = h, / t )

ria
In this approach as well, the effective hydraulic head h, at the base of the
sheet piling can be calculated using a flow net according to R 113,
section 4.7.4 or 4.7.5.

ate
+7.00
V

dM
heave failure body

idealised pressure distribution

hte

acting on failure body

Fig. R 115-2. Safety against a failure by hydraulic heave in a dredge pit bottom according to the
TERZAGHI-PECK method, determined with the flow net as per R 113, section 4.7.7

+7.00
rig
py
Co

Fig. R 115-3. Safety against a failure by hydraulic heave in a dredge pit bottom according to the
BAUMGART-DAVIDENKOFF method

69

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

 For a sheet piling structure situated in a vertical flow of water, a simplified
hydraulic head level above the base of the sheet piling h, may be assumed
(after [12]):

h, =
hw, ' 4c + hw, ' Ji

l
&+A

ria
from which we get:

where:

ate
h, = difference between standpipe water level at base of sheet
piling and lower water level
hF = standpipe water level at base of sheet piling
h,, = depth of soil in flow on upper water side of sheet piling
h,,= water level above base of sheet piling on upper water side
dMh,,= water level above base of sheet piling on lower water side
t = embedment depth of sheet piling
In the case of a horizontal inflow, the residual hydraulic head at the base
of the sheet piling increases considerably and in such cases the approxi-
mate approach may not be used!
The decrease in hydraulic head is not linear over the height of the sheet
piling and therefore it is not permitted to calculate h, from the develop-
hte

ment of the flow path along the sheet piling! Advice on determining the
hydraulic head at the base of the sheet piling and the factor of safety
against heave failure in stratified subsoils can be found in R 165,
section 4.9.4.
The danger of an impending hydraulic heave failure in an excavation
may be indicated by wetting of the ground in front of the sheet piling;
the ground then seems soft and springy. If this occurs, the excavation
rig

should immediately be partly flooded at least, or a surcharge introduced

in front of the sheet piling. Only afterwards may corrective measures be
introduced, e.g. as suggested in R 116, section 3.3, 5th and subsequent
paragraphs, or, if considered preferable, in the form of a local earth
surcharge in the excavation, or by relieving the flow pressure from below
py

by lowering the groundwater level.

Generally, safety against hydraulic heave failure is calculated for the
final condition, i.e. after the steady flow around the wall has become
established. In less permeable soils, the lowering of the pore water
pressure in the soil often, however, takes place at a much slower rate
Co

than the external pressure changes acting on the soil due to changes in
the water level (e.g. tides, waves, lowering of the water level) and

70

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

 l
ria
ate
Fig. 115-4.Lowering of the hydraulic head along the sheet piling according to the flow
net as per fig. R 115-2
dM
excavation work. The lower the permeability k and the saturation S of
the soil and the quicker the changes in pressure, the longer is the delay
[210]. A process is "quick" when the rate of application vZAof the external
pressure reduction (e.g. lowering of the water level in the excavation) is
greater than the critical permeability k of the soil (vZA> k ) [211]. The
hte

soil is considered as unsaturated below the groundwater table as well; in

particular, degrees of saturation of the soil amounting to 0,8 < S < 0,99
are frequently encountered directly below the groundwater table and in
the case of a low water depth (h, < 4-10 m). Natural pore water contains
microscopic gas bubbles which have a considerable effect on the physical
behaviour during pressure changes; such water cannot be considered as
an ideal (incompressible) fluid. The pressure compensation in the pore
rig

water is therefore always connected with a mass transport, i.e. the (non-
steady) flow of pore water in the direction of a lower hydraulic head.
Quick changes in the water level therefore always require verification
for the non-steady excess pore water pressure Au(z) for the initial condi-
tion in addition to verification of adequate safety against heave failure
py

in the final condition with a steady flow. The object of the verification is
to avoid the limit states for stability and serviceability. Serviceability
can be impaired by unacceptable loosening (heave) of the base of the
excavation, or undesirable base and (lateral) wall deformations [21 I].
The distribution of the excess pore water pressure Au(z) over the depth
Co

of soil z can be calculated using the following simplified equation (after

Kohler [210]):

71

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

 Au(z) = yw . Ah (1 -
where:
Ah = lowering of water level (or depth of excavation)
yw = weight density of water

l
b = pore water pressure parameter from fig. R 115-5

ria
z = depth of soil
The pore water pressure parameter b (unit of measurement: l/m) can be
found from fig. R 115-5 based on the relevant time period t, and the
permeability k of the soil.
For a depth z the dead load G,, of the body of soil with unit width 1, unit

ate
length 1 and density y' is:
Gb, = y'. z
Due to the excess pore water pressure, a vertical, upward, seepage force
develops in the soil and acts on the body of soil:
dM . yw . Ah
yn!,,,,,,
= (1 -
The ratio of weight to seepage force is most unfavourable at the section
in which the excess pore water pressure reaches its maximum. In this
case this is at depth z = zCrit:
hte

pore water pressure parameter b i l l m l

t, = 1 sec
rig

t, = 10 sec

t, = 100 sec

t, = 1000 sec
py

t, = 10 000 sec

t, = 100 000 sec

1.10~ 1.10~ I *io3
permeabihty k imlsl
Co

Fig. R 115-5.Parameter b for determining the flow force for unsteady flow depending on
time t A

72

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

 When zCfit< 0 no further verification is necessary.
If zCritlies below the base of the sheet piling, the verification should be

l
carried out for the base.

ria
If the condition

is fulfilled, then adequate safety is guaranteed from the outset.

The verification of adequate safety against hydraulic heave failure for

ate
non-steady flow processes requires verification of equilibrium at least:

3.3 Piping (foundation failure due to erosion) (R 116)

dM
The risk of piping exists when soil at the bottom of a river or excavation
can be washed out by a flow of water. The process is initiated when the
exit gradient of the water flowing around the waterfront structure is
capable of moving soil particles up and out of the soil. This continues in
the soil in the opposite direction to the flow of water and is therefore
called retrogressive erosion. A channel roughly in the shape of a pipe
forms in the ground and develops along the flow path with the steepest
hte

gradient in the direction of the upper water level. The maximum gradient
always occurs at the interface between structure and wall. If the channel
reaches a free upper watercourse, erosion causes widening of the channel
within a very short time and leads to a failure similar to heave failure. In
doing so, a mixture of water and soil flows into the excavation with a
high velocity until equilibrium is achieved between outer water and
excavation. A deep crater forms behind the wall.
rig

The presence of loose soils or weak spots in the base support area (e.g.
inadequately sealed boreholes) and loose zones in the immediate vicinity
of the walhoil interface behind the wall are the conditions that tend to
promote piping, but also a sufficient amount of water (free upper
watercourse) and a relatively high hydraulic gradient.
py

The occurrence of a failure condition in homogeneous non-cohesive soil

is shown schematically in fig. R 116-1.
A possible piping failure is first indicated on the lower water table or on
the base of the excavation by swelling of the ground and the ejection of
soil particles. At this early stage the impending failure can still be
Co

prevented by depositing adequately thick, graded or mixed gravel filters

to prevent further soil from being washed out.

73

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

 l
ria
a) Start of washout of soil at base of b) Continuation of washout of soil behind
excavation sheet piling

ate
soiliwater mixture

dM /

c) Breakthrough to elevated pool d) collapse after breakthrough to elevated pool

Fig. R 116-1. The development of piping around waterfront structures

However, if the condition has already reached an advanced stage

hte

(recognisable through the intensity of the water flow in the erosion

channels already formed), the breakthrough to the upper watercourse
can no longer be predicted. In such a case immediate equalisation of the
water tables must be brought about by raising weir gates, flooding the
excavation or similar measures. Only after this has been accomplished
is it possible to undertake permanent remedial measures, such as placing
a sturdy filter on the low side, grouting the eroded pipes from the
rig

lower end, vibroflotation or high-pressure injection to compact or stabilise

the soil in the endangered area, lowering the groundwater table, or placing
a dense covering on the bottom of the upper watercourse which extends
well beyond the endangered area.
The risk of piping cannot generally be determined by calculation, and must
py

be considered for every individual case owing to the diversity of the de-
signs and boundary conditions. Other conditions being equal, the risk of
piping increases in proportion to the increase in the hydraulic head be-
tween the upper and lower water levels, as well as with an increase in the
presence of loose, fine-grained, non-cohesive material in the subsoil, parti-
Co

cularly when there are embedded sand lenses or veins in soils not other-
wise at risk of erosion. In cohesive soil there is generally no risk of piping.

74

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

 Even if there is no free upper watercourse, erosion channels can still
begin from the lower water side. In general, however, these peter out in
the subsoil because there is insufficient free water available for a critical
erosion effect. If by chance an extraordinarily capacious water-bearing
stratum is encountered, water flowing out of this stratum can initiate the
erosion process anew.

l
If conditions prevail that appear to make piping possible, precautions to

ria
prevent this should be planned from the very beginning of work on site
in order to take appropriate countermeasures immediately if this should
prove necessary. In particular, in such cases it is important to drive the
sheet piling to an adequate depth in order to reduce the gradient of the
flows around the sheet piling. The minimum embedment depth to prevent

ate
erosion failures can be determined according to R 113, section 4.7.7.
Defects in the walls (e.g. interlock declutching in sheet piling) shorten
the seepage path of the flow around the wall and hence steepen the
gradient dramatically. Therefore, such defects are to be considered with
respect to a hydraulic heave failure provided there is a real risk of these
in the actual circumstances.
dM
3.4 Verification of overall stability of structures on elevated piled
structures (R 170)

3.4.1 General
Verification of overall stability of structures on elevated piled structures
can be carried out using DIN 4084.
hte

3.4.2 Data
The following must be available for verification:
(1) Data on the design and dimensions of the piled structure, applicable
loads and internal forces, most unfavourable water levels and live
loads.
rig

( 2 ) Soil mechanics characteristics of the subsoil, especially the weight

densities(x y) and the shear parameters (@, c) of the in situ soil
types, which in cohesive soils are also to be determined for the initial
state (cp,, cu).If required, the time-dependent influences of surcharges
or excavations on the shear strengths are also to be taken into
py

consideration for cohesive soils.

3.4.3 Application of the actions (loads)

The following loads in most their unfavourable combinations are to be
taken into account:
Co

(1) Loads in or on the sliding body, especially individual actions due to

live or other external loads.

75

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

 ( 2 ) Dead load of the sliding body and the soil surcharge thereon, taking
into account the groundwater table (weight densities and y').
(3) Water pressure loads on the slip plane of the failure mechanisms
being examined due to pore water pressure, determined as per R 113,
section 4.7.

l
3.4.4 Application of the resistances

ria
(1) The resistances (axial and dowelling forces) of the rows of piles
within the pile bent plane are distributed along the equivalent length
according to fig. R 170-1. They are calculated with the least favour-
able values as per DIN 4084, section 6.
( 2 ) The passive earth pressure may be calculated with the kinematically

ate
compatible passive earth pressure angle Sp. In special cases the

Iv, superstructure jv,

dM
hte

a) System of the ground elevation

rig

W
1
py
Co

b) Revealed failure body 1 and 2 with caiculated forces c) Vector polygon

Fig. R 170-1. Sketch for determining overall stability of an elevated pile-founded structure

76

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

 question arises as to whether the displacement required for mobilising
the passive earth pressure does not already impair the utilisation of
the structure. But this is generally not necessary when using design
values for the shear parameters. In addition, the supporting section
of soil must be permanently available. Any possible future harbour
dredging must therefore be taken into account in advance.

l
(3) The favourable effect of deeper embedded stabilising walls or aprons

ria
may be taken into account.
(4) Effects of earthquake actions are to be covered in accordance with
R 124, section 2.13. For verification with combined failure mecha-
nisms having straight failure lines as per DIN 4084, the seismic force
may be calculated as a horizontal mass force.

ate
dM
hte
rig
py
Co

77

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.knovel.com