Buletinul tiinific al Universitii POLITEHNICA din Timioara

Seria HIDROTEHNICA
TRANSACTIONS on HYDROTECHNICS
Tom 57(71), Fascicola 2, 2012

EUROCODE 7: A New Way to Verify a Slopes Stability

Alexandra Ciopec1

Abstract: The paper intends to detail the new

approach for slope stability design. The Eurocode 7:
Geotechnical Design represents a radical change in
the geotechnical design. The new limit state design
recommended by Eurocode 7 introduces the notion of
partial safety factors which allow a more detailed
consideration of the elements which determine the
stability conditions for the slopes stability. They are
grouped in three categories. The first category refers
to actions applied on the structure, the second to the
material properties and the third to the resistances.
These partial safety factors are introduced in the
calculus from the beginning, in contrast to the former
general factor of safety which had to be verified at the
end of the calculus.
Keywords: slope stability, partial safety factor,
Bishops method, Eurocode 7, geotechnical design

The problem to be solved consists in a slope

stability check following the Eurocode 7 design
prescriptions.
The first step to be solved consists in establishing
the partial safety factors for each of the three Design
Approaches recommended by Eurocode 7.
The slope to be verified is presented in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Slope geometry and ground water location.

1. INTRODUCTION

The soil characteristics and the values for the

actions to be considered in the calculus are:
Soil characteristics:
- Characteristic bulk unit weight:

Eurocode 7. Part 1 has been published as a

prestandard (ENV) in October 1994, for experimental
practical application in the countries member of the
European Committee for Standardisation (CEN).
Eurocode 7 is included in a set of structural
Eurocodes, its objective being establishing a set of
harmonized technical rules for structural and
geotechnical design of buildings and civil
engineering works in the states members of European
Union.
This Eurocode differs from other structural
Eurocodes because of the specificity of materials and
problems with which geotechnical design is
confronted. Differences in principle are occurring in
determination of characteristic and design values of
the soil properties. Eurocode 7 does not prescribe the
derivation of the characteristic value of a given soil
property function of the test results, but requires that
the characteristic value to be estimated from a value
affecting the occurrence of the limit state.
In Romania the Eurocode 7 became a national
norm in June 2004 as SR EN 1997-1 as Eurocode 7:
Proiectarea geotehnica.
The present paper intends to disseminate the
Eurocode 7 prescriptions, particularly in the
domain of the slope stability calculus. The paper
presents the calculus manner for a slope stability
check following the Eurocode 7 prescriptions.
2.
SLOPE
STABILITY
ACCORDING TO EUROCODE 7

Paul Marc2

- Characteristic internal friction angle:

- Characteristic value for cohesion:
Values for actions:
- Characteristic applied load:
The values presented above are characteristic
values. To obtain the design values, which are used
in the calculus, one has to consider the partial
safety factors recommended by Eurocode 7.
To verify the stability conditions of the slope is
necessary to perform all verifications considering
the Design Approaches DA1, DA2 and DA3.
For the calculus of the Design Approaches will
be used partial safety factors. There are three
categories of partial safety factors:
- Partial factors for actions:
and ;
-

Partial factors for soil parameters:

and

- Partial factors for sliding resistance:

.
The Design Approach 1 means the use of two
combinations of partial factors of safety:
- DA1 Combination 1: A1+M1+R1
- DA1 Combination 2: A2+M2+R1
For Design Approach 2, the partial factors of
safety to be considered are:
- DA2: A1+M1+R2

CHECK

1,2

Politehnica University of Timisoara, Department of Land Communication Ways, Foundations and Survey, Ioan Curea
Str., No. 2A, 300224 Timisoara, Romania, [email protected]; , [email protected]

61

directrix was constructed and afterwards this

parabola was corrected.
This graphical solution is only applicable to
dams resting on permeable materials. When dams
are sitting on impermeable soil, the phreatic surface
cuts the downstream slope at a distance up the
slope from the toe.

The Design Approach 3 considers the

following combination of the partial safety factors:
- DA3: (A1 or A2)+M2+R3
The values of the partial safety factors to be
used for all Design Approaches for a GEO design
made before are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Partial safety factors values.
Parameter
DA1- DA1- DA2
C1
C2
Partial safety
factors
1.35
1.00
1.35
1.50
1.30
1.50

A1

A2

1.35
1.50

1.00
1.30

1.00
1.00
1.00

1.25
1.25
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00

1.25
1.25
1.00

1.25
1.25
1.00

1.00

1.00

1.10

1.00

1.00

DA3

Fig. 3. Groundwater level variation.

Following the Casagrandes Method was

determined the variation of the groundwater level
and the values of the pore pressure ratio for each
slice.

The Ultimate Limit State (ULS) analysis of the

overall stability of the slope is performed using the
Bishops Conventional Method.
Figure 2 illustrates a potential circular slipping
surface. Using AutoCAD facilities one can draw
and determine the slipping surface, the area of the
slices, the length of the slipping surface, the angles
between the vertical and the radius drawn to the
mid-point of each slipping surface of the slices.
The centre of the slipping surface was determined
graphically following the prescriptions which
establish the area where is placed the centre for the
most critical circle.

3. BISHOPS CONVENTIONAL METHOD

Contemporary methods of investigating slope
stability are based on assuming a slip surface and the
centre about which it rotates, studying the
equilibrium of the forces acting on this surface and
repeating the process until the worst slip surface is
found.
The worst slip surface is that surface which
yields the lowest factor of safety, F, the factor of
safety being equal with the ratio between the
restraining moment and disturbing moment, each
moment being considered about the centre of
rotation. If stability assessment is to be performed in
accordance to Eurocode 7, the strength parameters of
the soil are first divided by partial factors and
stability is then confirmed by checking the GEO limit
state.
The effective stress methods of analysis now in
general use were evolved by Bishop (1955). The
Bishops conventional method allows a rapid
determination of the factor of safety for a certain
slipping surface.
The formula for the calculus of the factor of
safety of the slipping surface is:
(1)

Fig. 2. Geometrical characteristics of the slices.

The groundwater level variation in the slope

area was determined by the Casagrandes Method
(see Fig. 3).
The graphical method for determining the
phreatic surface in an earth dam was evolved by
Casagrande (1937) and involves the drawing of an
actual parabola and then the correction of the
upstream end. Casagrande showed that this
parabola should start at a point which depicts a
cross-section of a typical earth dam, the focus F
being the upstream edge of the filter. To determine
the directrix was drawn with the compass the arc of
the circle using as centre the point defined before.
The vertical tangent to this arc is the directrix. The
parabola passing through the point which depicts a
cross-section, through the focus and through the

This formula gives a solution generally known

as the conventional method which allows rapid
determination of F when sufficient slip circles are
available to permit the determination of the most
critical. For analysing the stability of an existing tip
it should prove perfectly adequate.
The value of the global factor of safety, F,
determined at the end of the calculus, in the
concept of safety conditions before Eurocodes
appearance should be greater than 1.5 ... 2.0,
function of the safety factor value recommended by
the standards or by the experience of each designer.
By the new concept of Eurocodes, the safety
problem for a structure is analysed through the
influence that have different parameters which are

62

Total weight used in calculus will be equal

with the sum of the load from surcharge and the
weight of the slice as:
(4)
Resistance force to sliding due to cohesion will
be equal with
(5)

used for the calculus. These parameters are divided

into three categories:
- Actions on structures (A): self weight, live
load, wind, snow and so on;
- Material properties (M): from which the
structure is composed, that in the case of
soils are the unit weight and the shear
resistance parameters, and c;
- Resistance of the structural elements (R)
that in case of soils are shallow
foundations bearing capacity, piles bearing
capacity, stability general conditions at the
slopes stability calculus and so on.
According to Eurocode 7 safety concepts, the
value of the over design factor G is enough to be
greater than 1.00 due to the fact that the safety
conditions are fulfilled by the partial factors of
safety considered at the beginning of the calculus.
The calculus by the Bishops procedure will be
performed using the design values of the loads and
of the material properties. Practically, the calculus
was repeated four times (DA1-C1, DA1-C2, DA2
and DA3) for different sets of values for the partial
safety factors.
The design values of the applied load on the
structure are:
Load from surcharge acts only on slices no. 5
and 6:
(2)
where:
- characteristic applied load;
b - width of a slice;
- partial safety factor for actions.
Weight of one slice:
(3)
where:
A - area of a slice;
- characteristic bulk unit weight;
- partial safety factor for weight density.

(6)
where:
- design value for cohesion;
- characteristic value for cohesion;
- partial safety factor for effective cohesion.
Sliding resistance forces results from the
formula:
(7)
(8)
where:
- design value for internal friction angle;
- characteristic value for internal friction angle;
- partial safety factor for shearing resistance.
For the pore pressure ratio calculus were used
the following relationships:
(9)
(10)
(11)
where:
u - pore pressure at any point in soil mass;
- unit weight of the water;
- height of groundwater;
- pore pressure ratio;
- characteristic bulk unit weight;
z - height of the soil column on the vertical passing
through the mid-point of the slice (see Fig. 3).
The calculations for the Bishops conventional
method for the Design Approach DA1-C1 are set
out in the next table (Table 2):

A (m2)

Wd (kN)

a (o)

cos a

sec a

hw (m)

ru

cos a-rusec a

Wd(cos a -ru*sec a)tanFd'

l (m)

cd'*l

sin a

Wd *sina

2.19

1.93

36.0

36.0

-8.0

0.9

1.01

0.61

0.36

0.6

9.0

2.2

33.1

-0.1

-5.02

2.19

5.36

100.2

100.2

3.0

1.0

1.00

1.69

0.36

0.6

25.7

2.2

33.0

0.0

5.24

2.19

7.86

146.9

146.9

14.0

0.9

1.03

2.55

0.37

0.5

34.7

2.2

33.9

0.2

35.54

2.19

9.36

175.0

175.0

25.0

0.9

1.10

2.73

0.34

0.5

37.9

2.4

36.3

0.4

73.94

2.19

8.30

155.2

49.2

204.4

38.0

0.7

1.27

1.80

0.25

0.4

38.9

2.7

41.5

0.6

125.84

2.19

3.23

60.4

49.2

109.6

53.0

0.6

1.66

0.00

0.00

0.6

26.6

3.6

55.0

0.8

87.56

Qd (kN)

b (m)

Gd (kN)

slice

Table 2. Design Approach DA1-C1.

63

and the sum of the disturbing forces, acting all

tangentially to the slipping surface.
The relationship used for computing the over
design factor is the following:
G
(9)

Table 3 presents the calculus of the pore pressure

ratio computed for each slice function of the height of
the groundwater column, hw for each slice and the
height of the soil column corresponding to the midpoint of each slice.
Table 3. Pore pressure ratio calculus.

4. CONCLUSIONS

ru

z (m)

u (kPa)

hw (m)

slice

The value of the obtained over design factor for

the case DA1-C1 was 1.26.

0.61

5.98

0.88

0.36

1.69

16.58

2.45

0.36

2.55

25.02

3.59

0.37

2.73

26.78

4.27

0.34

1.80

17.66

3.79

0.25

0.00

0.00

1.47

0.00

The calculus was performed following the Bishops

Method repeating the calculus for all Design
Approaches according to EN 1997:2004 Eurocode 7:
Geotechnical Design.
Using the specific partial safety factors the
calculus was performed four times for different sets of
values for the partial safety factors.
The values obtained for the over design factor for
each Design Approach are presented in the Table 4:
Table 4. Values for over design factor.
Design
DA1DA1DA2
Approach
C1
C2
Over
design
factor
1.26
1.02
1.14
G

As intermediate results from Table 2 was

obtained the sum of the resisting forces due to the
internal friction of the soil and the sum of the resisting
forces due to the cohesion, respectively the sum of the
sliding forces.
All these forces are acting at the same distance
from the centre of the circular slipping surface which
equals with the radius of the slipping surface and are
acting tangentially to the circle. Consequently, all
these forces will act from the same distance relative to
the centre of the slipping surface.
Due to the fact that all forces (restraining forces
and disturbing forces) are acting at the same distance
relative to the centre of the slipping surface it is not
necessary to be known the length of the slipping
surface radius.
The over design factor can be calculated directly
as the ratio between the sum of the resisting forces

DA3
A1

A2

1.02

It results that the slope fulfils the stability conditions

for the initial considered data, because the over design
factors have for all Design Approaches a value greater
than 1.00.
REFERENCES
[1] I., Smith, Smiths Elements of Soil Mechanics, Eighth
Edition, Blackwell Publishing, 2012, Edinburgh, Scotland
[2] Eurocode 7: Calculul fundatiilor si inginerie geotehnica Design of Foundations and Geotechnical Engineering, Exemple de
calcul - Worked Examples, 1997, BRIDGEMAN Ltd, Timisoara
[3] SR EN 1997-1 Eurocod 7: Proiectare geotehnica; Partea 1:
Reguli generale, 2004

64