Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia Engineering 57 (2013) 113 – 119

11th International Conference on Modern Building Materials, Structures and Techniques,

MBMST 2013
Design Aid for the Verification of Resistance
to Failure by Hydraulic Heave
Benjamin Aulbacha, Martin Zieglerb ∗, Holger Schüttrumpfc
a, b
Chair of Geotechnical Engineering and Institute of Foundation Engineering, Soil Mechanics,
Rock Mechanics and Waterway Construction, Faculty of Civil Engineering, RWTH Aachen University,
Mies-van-der-Rohe-Straße 1, D-52074 Aachen, Germany
c
Institute of Hydraulic Engineering and Water Resources Management, Faculty of Civil Engineering,
RWTH Aachen University, Mies-van-der-Rohe-Straße 1, D-52074 Aachen, Germany

Abstract

For the determination of the required embedded length for the safety against hydraulic heave several approximate solutions exist.
However, most of these solutions do not take into account the geometrical boundary conditions such as width B and length L of the
excavation as well as the thickness of the aquifer S. Thus, values obtained by such simplified approximate solutions can easily lead to an
unsafe design. For this reason investigations on the safety against hydraulic heave have been carried out at the Chair of Geotechnical
Engineering at RWTH Aachen University. From the results of numerous calculations dimensionless design charts have been generated.
With the help of these design charts the required embedded length T can be determined quite easily taking into account the difference of
the ground water level H, the geometrical boundary conditions of the excavation and the unity weight of submerged soil γ’.

© 2013
© 2013The
TheAuthors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier Ltd.access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Ltd. Open
Selectionand
Selection andpeer-review
peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of the of the Vilnius
Vilnius Gediminas
Gediminas TechnicalTechnical
UniversityUniversity.

Keywords: Hydraulic heave, failure, design, groundwater flow, excavation.

1. Introduction

Within large civil engineering projects very often deep excavations are necessary which reach beneath the ground water
level. However, ground water lowering in cities and densely built-up areas is often not possible as this would lead to
excessive settlements of surrounding buildings. Thus, alternative construction methods have to be applied or the
impermeable sheeting has to be embedded deep enough that any possibility of hydraulic failure is eliminated. In this context
especially hydraulic heave is one of the most dangerous failure mechanisms as it suddenly occurs (cf. [1]) without prior
notice.
For the determination of the required embedded length against hydraulic heave several approximate solutions exist (cf.
[2–6]). However, most of these solutions do not take into account the geometrical boundary conditions such as width B and
length L of the excavation as well as the thickness of the aquifer S. Thus, values obtained by such simplified approximate
solutions can easily lead to an unsafe design. For this reason investigations on the safety against hydraulic heave have been
carried out at the Chair of Geotechnical Engineering at RWTH Aachen University. From the results of numerous
calculations dimensionless design charts have been generated. With the help of these design charts the required embedded
length T can be determined quite easily taking into account the difference of the ground water level H, the geometrical
boundary conditions of the excavation and the unity weight of submerged soil γ’.


* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: aaulbach@geotechnik.rwth-aachen.de; bziegler@geotechnik.rwth-aachen.de; cschuettrumpf@iww.rwth-aachen.de

1877-7058 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2013.04.017
114 Benjamin Aulbach et al. / Procedia Engineering 57 (2013) 113 – 119

2. Geotechnical design according to European Standards

In Europe the verification of resistance to failure by hydraulic heave is set by Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design – Part 1:
General rules (DIN EN 1997-1 2009 [7] / following EN 1997-1). The verification of resistance within the limit state named
HYD can be done in two different ways. On the one hand the design values of the total pore water pressure udst;d and the
total vertical stress σstb;d and on the other hand the design values of the seepage force Sdst;d and the submerged weight G’stb;d
of the same column are compared (see Eq. 1 and Eq. 2).

udst ;d ≤ σstb;d (1)

Sdst ;d ≤ G'stb;d (2)

According to the German National Annex (DIN EN 1997-1/NA 2010 [8]) and the supplementary rules to EN 1997-1
named DIN 1054:2010-12 (DIN 1054 2010 [9]/ following DIN 1054) the second way was chosen for the shown
investigations (cf. [10]). Furthermore, within DIN 1054 it is differentiated between favourable and unfavourable soil. This
implicates that the partial factor for unfavourable actions γG;dst which is normally used within the EN 1997-1 is replaced by
the partial factor for the destabilizing seepage force γH (see Eq. 3).

Sdst ;k ·γ H ≤ G'stb;k ·γ G;stb (3)

At this, gravel, sandy gravel, dense sand with grain sizes bigger than 0.2 mm and stiff clayey soil are defined as
favourable soil whereas loose sand, fine sand, silt and soft cohesive soil are defined as unfavourable soils (cf. [6]). As
hydraulic heave typically occurs in excavations, it mostly belongs to design situation BS-T (transient situations) with
γH = 1.30 for favourable and γH = 1.60 for unfavourable soil. The partial factor for permanent favourable actions amounts to
γG;stb = 0.95 for all design situations (cf. Table 1).
As mentioned before the verification of resistance has to be done by comparison of the favourable and unfavourable
actions of the same column. EN 1997-1 universally specifies that for every relevant soil column safety shall be verified,
whereas DIN 1054 recommends that in case of vertical seepage flow in front of a retaining wall a body of soil should be
investigated which’s width generally is half of the embedded length. This so called Terzaghi-body (cf. [1, 11]) is shown in
the following Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Two-dimensional system including the Terzaghi-body

Within the research project preliminary investigations on the relevant soil column have been carried out which confirmed
that the Terzaghi-body is a good approximation solution for excavations (cf. [12]). For this reason the Terzaghi-body had
been chosen for the following investigations.

3. Investigations for homogenous, isotropic soil under plane conditions

In a first step investigations for homogeneous, isotropic soil under plane conditions had been carried out. For this, four
different unity weights of submerged soil γ’ = 9÷12 kN/m³ were investigated and in each case it was distinguished between
favourable and unfavourable soil by setting the appropriate partial factor (see Table 1).
 Benjamin Aulbach et al. / Procedia Engineering 57 (2013) 113 – 119 115

Table 1. Partial factors of safety according to DIN 1054

Action Symbol BS-P BS-T BS-A

Soil weight,
γG,stb 0.95 0.95 0.95
stabilizing
Seepage force,
γH 1.35 1.30 1.20
favourable soil
Seepage force,
γH 1.80 1.60 1.35
unfavourable soil

Based on the results of these investigations design charts have been generated in which all geometrical boundaries are
normalised to the difference of the groundwater level H (cf. Fig. 1). Hence, the design charts are dimensionless and take into
account the geometric conditions like the width of the excavation B and the thickness of the aquifer S. Finally eight design
charts have been generated which can be found in [12].
The design charts for a unity weight of submerged soil of γ’ = 11 kN/m³ and for favourable as well as unfavourable soil
conditions are exemplified below (see Fig. 2 and 3).
Required embedded length T/H
(BS-T, favourable soil, γ'/γw=1.1)
1.3
S/H = 3.0
1.2
S/H = 2.5
1.1
S/H = 2.0
1.0 S/H = 1.5

0.9 S/H = 1.0

T/H 0.8
0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
B/H

Fig. 2. Design chart for homogenous, isotropic and favourable soil under plane conditions

Required embedded length T/H

(BS-T, unfavourable soil, γ'/γw =1.1)
1.3
S/H = 3.0
1.2
S/H = 2.5
1.1
S/H = 2.0
1.0 S/H = 1.5

0.9 S/H = 1.0

T/H 0.8
0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
B/H

Fig. 3. Design chart for homogenous, isotropic and unfavourable soil under plane conditions
116 Benjamin Aulbach et al. / Procedia Engineering 57 (2013) 113 – 119

On the vertical axis the required embedded length related to the difference of the groundwater level T/H is plotted, while
on the horizontal axis the width of the excavation related to the difference of the groundwater level B/H is plotted.
Furthermore the different curves take into account the thickness of the aquifer S/H.
By the design charts it is shown quite clearly that the width has an enormous influence on the safety. By a decreasing
width B the required embedded length T increases disproportionately as for narrow conditions the bigger part of the
potential is reduced inside the excavation for reasons of continuity. Furthermore, the influence of the aquifer can be seen.
The higher the thickness of the aquifer S the higher is the required embedded length. This also results from continuity as for
thin aquifers more potential is reduced within the reduced sectional area below the retaining wall.
Additional, by the analysis of the numerous investigations and of the results a function has been set up. By this function
the required embedded length can be determined for any value of the unity weight of submerged soil γ’ on the basis of the
embedded length for the reference unity weight γ’ref = 11 kN/m³:

2
T T ⎛ γ'ref ⎞
H
( γ' ) =
H
γ'ref( )·⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (4)
⎝ γ' ⎠

Before applying the function users have to mind whether favourable or unfavourable soil conditions exist and have to
choose the appropriate design chart and value of the embedded length respectively. The results of the function fit very well
with the results of the numerical calculations for different unity weights of submerged soil as an extensive comparison
turned out (cf. [13]). Only for very narrow excavations in thin aquifers greater deviations occur. However, in this case it is
expedient to embed the retaining wall in the deeper aquiclude anyway.
The results as well as the design charts consider the partial factors of the European EN 1997-1 and the German
DIN 1054. Hence, users who want to consider another safety level might have to fit the values obtained by the design charts.
By adapting Eq. 3 it is shown that changing the unity weight of the submerged soil γ’ has the same influence as changing
the safety level and the reciprocal value of overall safety 1/η respectively (see Eq. 5).

γG;stb γ G;stb 1
Sdst ;k ≤ G'stb;k · = V ·γ ' · = V ·γ ' · (5)
γH γH η

For this reason it is also possible to appreciate the required embedded length for the same unity weight of submerged soil
γ’ = 11 kN/m³ but for a different overall safety η. In this case the function has to be replaced by Eq. 6:

2
T T ⎛ ⎞
H
( η) =
H
ηref ( )·⎜⎜ ηη ⎟
⎟
(6)
⎝ ref ⎠

The value of the reference overall safety is ηref ≈ 1.37 for favourable and ηref ≈ 1.68 for unfavourable soil.
It has to be mentioned that only for unity weights of submerged soil of γ’ = 9÷12 kN/m³ Eq. 3 has been verified by
comparison with numerical calculations. For this reason Eq. 6 should be applied for maximum values of the overall safety
of η ≈ 1.6 for favourable and η ≈ 2.0 for unfavourable soil.

4. Investigations for homogenous, isotropic soil under three-dimensional conditions

Also for three-dimensional conditions extensive investigations have been carried out. For this purpose the variable L had
to be adopted by which also the width-length-ratio B/L of the excavation could be described (see Fig. 4).
The ratio was varied from B/L = 1.0 for square to B/L = 0.5 for rectangular to B/L = 0.3 for elongated excavations.
Furthermore, it was distinguished between the corner and the midpoints of the front and the long side of the excavations.
Hence, for every combination of width of the excavation and thickness of the aquifer two embedded lengths have been
determined for square excavations and three embedded lengths have been determined for rectangular excavations
(B/L < 1.0) respectively.
As the number of necessary calculations increases for three dimensional conditions a software module had been
developed together with the Institute of Hydraulic Engineering and Water Resources Management of RWTH Aachen
University. By this module the iterative determination of the required embedded length has been automatised in parts.
 Benjamin Aulbach et al. / Procedia Engineering 57 (2013) 113 – 119 117

Fig. 4. System sketch for three-dimensional conditions

Based on the results, dimensionless design charts have been generated also for these three-dimensional conditions. The
design charts for a unity weight of submerged soil of γ’ = 11 kN/m³, favourable soil conditions and a width-length-ratio of
B/L = 0.3 are exemplified below for the corner (see Fig. 5), the short side (see Fig. 6) and the long side (see Fig. 7).
Required embedded length T/H in the
corner for B/L = 0.3
(BS-T, favourable soil, γ'/γw =1.1)
1.2
S/H = 3.0
1.1
S/H = 2.5
1.0
S/H = 2.0
0.9 S/H = 1.5

0.8 S/H = 1.0

T/H 0.7
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
B/H

Fig. 5. Design chart for the corner area in homogenous, isotropic and favourable soil under three-dimensional conditions

Required embedded length T/H at the

front side for B/L = 0.3
(BS-T, favourable soil, γ'/γw=1.1)
1.2
S/H = 3.0
1.1
S/H = 2.5
1.0
S/H = 2.0
0.9 S/H = 1.5

0.8 S/H = 1.0

T/H 0.7
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
B/H

Fig. 6. Design chart for the short side in homogenous, isotropic and favourable soil under three-dimensional conditions
118 Benjamin Aulbach et al. / Procedia Engineering 57 (2013) 113 – 119

Required embedded length T/H at the

long side for B/L = 0.3
(BS-T, favourable soil, γ'/γw =1.1)
1.2
S/H = 3.0
1.1
S/H = 2.5
1.0
S/H = 2.0
0.9 S/H = 1.5

0.8 S/H = 1.0

T/H 0.7
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
B/H 
Fig. 7. Design chart for the long side in homogenous, isotropic and favourable soil under three-dimensional conditions

The design charts for B/L = 0.5 and B/L = 1.0 and different unity weights of the submerged soil can be found in [12].
The results of the three-dimensional calculations clarify the great influence of the width of an excavation once more.
Furthermore, the comparison of the design charts shows that in the corner area higher embedded lengths are required
compared to the sides and even more compared to the plane conditions (cf. fig. 2). However, for very narrow excavations
the differences decrease as for these conditions the main part of the potential has to be reduced inside the excavation for
reasons of continuity.
In order to consider different unity weights of the submerged soil eight design charts have been generated only for
homogenous, isotropic soil under plane conditions. For three-dimensional conditions even 64 design charts have been
generated to distinguish between the corner and the sides additionally and to consider different values of B/L (cf. [12]).
Thus ongoing investigations are carried out in order to reduce the total number of design charts and to replace the design
charts by only one approximate formula respectively. First results look promising and shall be presented in the near future.

5. Further investigations

In addition to the investigations regarding only the safety against hydraulic heave also investigations have been carried
out how to use the several determined embedded lengths (for the corner and the sides) for an economical and at the same
time safe practical application. For small excavations the whole retaining wall could be realised with the required embedded
length for the corner to be on the safe side. However, this would be an uneconomical way for big excavations as in the
middle of the sides significant lower embedded lengths are required compared to the corner (cf. Figs. 5, 6 and 7). Hence
investigations have been carried out with two steps on each side of the excavations which separate the retaining wall into
corner areas and the side parts. These investigations have shown that using the values from the design charts the steps
optimally should be arranged at a distance from the corner of 0.3·L and 0.3·B respectively (cf. [13]). Based on these results
further investigations have been carried out in more detail. In this context also more steps have been considered for very
wide excavations in order to optimize the economic design. Details can be found in [12].
Additional, the investigations have been extended to layered and anisotropic soils as in both cases the safety can be
reduced compared to homogenous, isotropic conditions. In case of layered soil the reduction of the potential is always
concentrated in the less permeable layer. If the less permeable layer exists directly below the excavation bottom the safety is
reduced compared to homogenous conditions. In addition, if the horizontal permeability is higher than the vertical
permeability less potential is reduced along the horizontal flow path beneath the retaining wall. This causes a higher
potential inside the excavation and therefore a lower safety level compared to isotropic conditions. Also for these
unfavourable conditions design charts can be found in [12].

6. Conclusion

The design charts obtained by numerous calculations show that the geometry of excavations as well as the thickness of
the aquifer is very important for the safety against hydraulic heave. Especially for narrow excavations and in the corner
 Benjamin Aulbach et al. / Procedia Engineering 57 (2013) 113 – 119 119

areas the required embedded length increases. For this reason it has to be advised against the use of approximate solutions
that do not consider the geometry of excavations or the thickness of the aquifer. However, by use of the design charts the
required embedded length can be determined easily and the geometrical boundary conditions are considered at the same
time.
Moreover by the functions it is possible to determine estimated values for the required embedded length also for different
unity weights of the submerged soil as well as for safety levels which differ from the recommendations according to the
European Standards.

Acknowledgements

The Authors would like to thank the Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik for its financial support. Further
acknowledgements deserve the Emscher Genossenschaft, the Hamburg Port Authority and the ICG Düsseldorf GmbH &
Co. KG for their financial support of the current research project. Special thanks go to the Wayss & Freytag Ingenieurbau
AG that has been involved in the first research project and also financially supports the current studies.

References
[1] Terzaghi, K., 1922. Der Grundbruch an Stauwerken und seine Verhütung, Die Wasserkraft, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Wasserwirtschaft, 17. Jahrgang
1922.
[2] Brinch Hansen, J., 1953. Earth Pressure Calculation. The Danish Technical Press, Copenhagen.
[3] Davidenkoff, R., 1970. Unterläufigkeit von Stauwerken. Werner-Verlag, Düsseldorf.
[4] EAB 2008. Recommendations on Excavations. 2. überarbeitete Auflage. Wiley-VCH Verlag.
[5] EAU 2004. Recommendations of the Committee for Waterfront Structures, Harbours and Waterways. Wiley-VCH Verlag.
[6] Weißenbach, A., Hettler, A., 2009. Baugrubensicherung. Grundbau-Taschenbuch, Teil 3, 7.Auflage. Ernst&Sohn, Berlin.
[7] DIN EN 1997-1 2009. DIN EN 1997-1: Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design – Part 1: General rules. German version EN 1997-1:2004 + AC:2009. Beuth
Verlag GmbH, Berlin.
[8] DIN EN 1997-1/NA 2010. DIN EN 1997-1/NA: National Annex – Nationally determined parameters. Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design – Part 1:
General rules. Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin.
[9] DIN 1054 2010. DIN 1054: Subsoil – Verification of the safety of earthworks and foundations. Supplementary rules to DIN EN 1997-1. Beuth Verlag
GmbH, Berlin.
[10] Schuppener, B., 2012. Kommentar zum Handbuch Eurocode 7 – Geotechnische Bemessung. Ernst&Sohn, Berlin.
[11] Terzaghi, K., Peck, R., 1961. Die Bodenmechanik in der Baupraxis. Springer Verlag, Berlin.
[12] Aulbach, B., Ziegler, M., Horsten, S., Huber, N. P., 2012. Sicherheitsnachweise für den hydraulischen Grundbruch – Erweiterung für den räumlichen
Fall und für geschichteten sowie anisotropen Boden. Fraunhofer IRB Verlag.
[13] Ziegler, M., Aulbach, B., Heller, H., Kuhlmann, D., 2009. Der Hydraulische Grundbruch – Bemessungsdiagramme zur Ermittlung der erforderlichen
Einbindetiefe, Bautechnik 86.