Assessment of External Stability of Reinforced Soil Wall using

British Standard BS 8006 and Eurocode 7

Swee-Huat Chan1, Yi-Heng Yoo1, Chee-Siong Lim2, Kim-Chuan Yap2 and Lee-Ching Hiew2
1)
University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus, Malaysia
2)
Geo-Excel Consultants Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia

ABSTRACT

The design of a reinforced soil wall requires checking of both internal and external stability.
Eurocode 7 (EC 7) does not cover the design of reinforced soil walls, therefore the Malaysia
National Annex requires that the design of reinforced soil walls to be carried out in accordance
with BS 8006. Nevertheless, from the perspective that the reinforced soil block is often
analysed as a gravity retaining structure in the assessment of external stability, the current issue
of EC 7 may be used for assessment of sliding, overturning and bearing capacity. This paper
assesses and compares the external stability of reinforced soil walls using the design
approaches recommended in BS 8006 and EC 7. The parametric study includes height of wall,
width of wall and friction angle of retained soil. The analyses show that BS 8006 gives more
conservative results than EC 7 in the assessment of sliding, overturning and bearing capacity.
In EC 7, EQU limit state is generally more critical than GEO limit state in checking the
overturning. Amongst the different design approaches (DA) recommended in EC 7, DA 1 and
DA 3 give the same but more conservative results than DA 2 in the assessment of sliding, DA
1 and DA 2 give the same but more conservative results than DA 3 in the assessment of
overturning, and DA 2 gives more conservative results than DA 1 and DA 3 in the assessment
of bearing failure.

Keywords: reinforced soil wall, external stability, BS 8006, Eurocode 7

1. INTRODUCTION

Reinforced soil (RS) walls are cost-effective earth retaining structures that have been
commonly used in Malaysia in retaining earth of more than 5 m in height. The applications of
RS wall include bridge abutment, embankment wall, slope retention, river wall, etc. RS wall
consists of two main elements, which are engineering backfill and reinforcements. The
reinforced soil characteristic is contributed by the strength of engineering backfill and the
tensile strength of reinforcements. The main concept of RS wall involves the mobilized
frictional forces between soils and reinforcements.

1
The design analysis requires checking of RS wall for internal and external stability. The
external stability examines the RS wall as a soil block in four different potential failures which
are bearing, sliding, overturning and slip circle failures, whereas the internal stability examines
the tensile strength and frictional resistance of reinforcement against lateral earth pressure. The
limit state design philosophy for RS walls involves increasing soil weight and live loading by
the appropriate partial load factors, and reducing the soil properties and reinforcement strengths
by the appropriate partial material factors. The assessed resistances against potential failures
would also need to achieve the required partial resistance factors.

This paper assesses and compares the external stability of reinforced soil walls using the design
approaches recommended in BS 8006 and EC 7. The parametric study includes height of wall,
width of wall, friction angle of retained soil and friction angle of founding soil.

2. EXTERNAL STABILITY

The external stability analysis for reinforced soil wall is similar to the conventional analysis of
a gravity type retaining wall. The reinforced soil wall is analysed as a gravity soil block, which
follows the standard procedure for checking the external stability. There are four possible
failure mechanisms that may occur externally as shown in Figure 1. The external stability
requires checking of: 1) bearing capacity failure; 2) sliding failure; 3) overturning failure; and
4) slip failure. The proposed length of reinforcements (hence dimension of reinforced soil
block) will have to pass all these external checks. In this paper, the check of slip circle failure
is not included.

Figure 1. Potential external stability failures (source from internet)

2
2.1 Bearing Capacity

In order to avoid bearing capacity failure, the bearing pressure imposed by a reinforced soil
structure must not exceed the allowable bearing capacity of the foundation strata. The subsoil
ultimate bearing capacity is generally determined by using the Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity
Theory, which is given by:

 =  +
 + 0.5

where

 = ultimate bearing capacity
 = cohesion

= unit weight of soil
D = embedment depth
B = breath of structure
 ,  &  = bearing capacity factors

2.2 Sliding

Lateral earth pressure and water pressure (if effective drainage is not provided) behind a
reinforced soil structure result in forward sliding. The stability against forward sliding of the
structure at the interface between the reinforced fill and the subsoil should be checked. The
resistance to movement should be based upon the properties of either the subsoil or the
reinforced fill, whichever is the weaker, and consideration should be given to sliding on or
between any reinforcement layers used at the base of the structure (BS 8006).

Passive earth pressure from the embedment soil in front of the reinforced soil structure is often
ignored in evaluating the stability against sliding (as well as overturning and bearing capacity)
due to the potential for the soil to be removed through natural or manmade processes during its
service life (e.g. erosion, utility installation, etc.).

2.3 Overturning

The stability against overturning of a reinforced soil structure is checked by taking moment
about the toe of the reinforced soil structure. The resisting moment is contributed by the weight

3
of reinforced soil block, whereas the overturning moment is caused by the force exerted by the
lateral earth pressure and water pressure (if effective drainage is not provided) behind the
reinforced soil structure.

3. BRITISH STANDARD 8006

BS 8006 contains guidelines and recommendations for the application of reinforcement

techniques to soils. Limit state principles are applied to the design of reinforced soil structures.
The two state limits considered in the analysis are the ultimate limit state and the serviceability
limit state. For checking of external stability, only ultimate limit state is applicable.

The limit state design philosophy for a reinforced soil structure involves increasing soil weight
and live loading by the appropriate partial load factors and reducing the soil properties and
reinforcement base strength by appropriate partial material factors. Limit state design for
reinforced soil employs four principal partial factors all of which assume prescribed numerical
values of unity or greater. Two of these are load factors ff (and ffs) applied to dead loads and fq
applied to live loads. The principal materials factor is fm (and fms). The fourth factor fn is used
to take account of the economic ramifications of failure. This factor is employed, in addition
to the materials factor, to produce a reduced design strength (BS 8006). The summary of partial
factors recommended by BS 8006 is reproduced in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of partial factors (BS 8006)

Partial factors Ultimate limit state
Soil unit mass e.g. wall fill ffs Table 2
Load factors
External live loads e.g. traffic loading fq Table 2
to be applied to tanφ'p fms 1
Soil material factors to be applied to c' fms 1.6
to be applied to cu fms 1
Foundation bearing capacity: to be
fms 1.35
applied to qult
Partial factors of safety Sliding along base of structure or any
horizontal surface where there is soil- fs 1.2
to-soil contact
Partial factor for
Category of structure = 3
economic ramifications fn 1.1
Class of risk = high
of failure

4
 Table 2. Partial load factors for load combinations associated with walls (BS 8006)
Combinations
Effects (for ultimate limit state)
Case A Case B
Mass of the reinforced soil body ffs 1.5 1
Mass of the backfill on top of the reinforced soil wall ffs 1.5 1
Earth pressure behind the structure ffs 1.5 1.5
Traffic load: - on reinforced soil block fq 1.5 0
- behind reinforced soil block fq 1.5 1.5

According to BS 8006, the design should consider the most adverse load that is likely applied
to the structure. In Table 2, Combination A considers the maximum values of all loads and
therefore normally generates the maximum foundation bearing pressure. On the other hand,
Combination B considers the maximum overturning loads together with minimum self-mass
of structure and superimposed traffic load. This combination is normally the worst case for
sliding along the base.

4. EUROCODE 7

Eurocode 7 is based on the limit state design method set out in EN 1990 - Eurocode: Basis of
Structural Design. For each geotechnical design situation, the possible ultimate limit states
(ULSs) and serviceability limit states (SLSs) shall be identified, and it shall be verified that no
relevant limit state is exceeded. There are a total of five ultimate limit states identified in
Eurocode 7, which are as shown in Table 3:

Table 3. Types of ultimate limit state given in Eurocode 7 (BS EN 1997-1)

Ultimate
Description
limit states
Loss of equilibrium of the structure or the ground, considered as a rigid body, in
EQU which the strengths of structural materials and the ground are insignificant in
providing resistance
internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or structural elements,
STR including e.g. footings, piles or basement walls, in which the strength of structural
materials is significant in providing resistance
failure or excessive deformation of the ground, in which the strength of soil or rock
GEO
is significant in providing resistance
loss of equilibrium of the structure or the ground due to uplift by water pressure
UPL
(buoyancy) or other vertical actions
hydraulic heave, internal erosion and piping in the ground caused by hydraulic
HYD
gradients
Note: Limit state GEO is often critical to the sizing of structural elements involved in foundations or retaining
structures and sometimes to the strength of structural elements.

5
For checking of the external stability of a reinforced soil structure, Geotechnical (GEO) limit
state is applicable. In addition, static equilibrium (EQU) limit state is also used to check for
overturning failure.

4.1 Partial Factors for EQU Limit State

For the verification of equilibrium limit sate (EQU), the partial factors in Table 4 shall be
applied.
Table 4. Partial factors for verification of equilibrium limit state (EQU)
Parameter Ultimate limit state EQU
Destablizing γG,dst 1.1
Permanent actions (G)
Stabilizing γG,stb 0.9
Destablizing γQ,dst 1.5
Variable actions (Q)
Stabilizing γQ,stb 0
Angle of shearing resistance (to be applied to tan φ’) γφ’ 1.25
Effective cohesion γc' 1.25
Undrained strength γcu 1.4
Weight density γγ 1

4.2 Partial Factors for GEO Limit State

To accommodate for different local experiences of all CEN members within the framework of
Eurocode 7, three design approaches are made available for verification of GEO limit state.
The design approach for use in a country can be found in its National Annex to Eurocode 7.

For checking of the external stability of a reinforced soil structure, the three design approaches
for verification of GEO limit state are described below. The partial factors applied in each
design approach can be found in Table 5.

(a) Design Approach 1 (DA 1), which has two combinations:

Combination 1: A1 “+” M1 “+” R1
Combination 2: A2 “+” M2 “+” R1
Where A denotes the actions or effects of actions, M the soil parameters, R the
resistances, and “+” implies “to be combined with”.

6
 In Combination 1, partial factors are applied to actions while ground strength
parameters and ground resistances are not factored. In Combination 2, partial factors
are applied to ground strength parameters and variable actions while permanent actions
and ground resistances are not factored.

(b) Design Approach 2 (DA 2):

Combination: A1 “+” M1 “+” R2

In this approach, partial factors are applied to actions and ground resistance while
ground strength parameters are not factored.

(c) Design Approach 3 (DA 3):

Combination: A2 “+” M2 “+” R3

In this approach, partial factors are applied to ground strength parameters and variable
actions while permanent actions and ground resistances are not factored, making it the
same as DA 1, Combination 2.

Table 5. Partial factors for GEO limit state (Source: Mike Dobie, 2011)

7
5. FORMULATIONS

The following configuration of a reinforced soil structure is used for study.

γ, φE ’, c’
c’ = 0
H γ

Dry condition

L γ, φ
, φH ’, c’
c’ = 0

Figure 2. Configuration of reinforced soil wall

5.1 Unfactored Case

In the “Unfactored Case”, no partial factors are applied.

(i) Overturning
Self-weight of RS block  = γ
Surcharge pressure on RS block  =

Design vertical loads  =  +  = γ +


Lever arm of self-weight and surcharge on RS block  =


Characteristic friction angle of soil behind RS block = φ ′

!"#$ φ ′
Coefficient of active earth pressure (assume Rankine’s Theory) K = &"#$ φ% ′
%

Active earth pressure due to soil behind RS wall ' = 0.5γ  K (

Surcharge pressure behind RS block ' =
K
)
Lever arm of active earth pressure  = *
)
Lever arm of surcharge behind RS block * =

?
+,-./01,023 67&89:; 6>)&9
Safety factor against overturning = = = C
%
C
+45,-./01,023 <; :% &<% := @.A>) % B. &)B.
= %

8
 (ii) Sliding
Friction angle of soil below RS block = φ* ′
),-./01,023 67&89 L $ φ′ 6>)&9 L $ φ3 ′
Safety factor against sliding = = =
)45,-./01,023 <; &<% @.A>) % B. &)B.

(iii) Bearing Capacity

Resultant moment at wall toe NOPQ = N"L R#S"#$T − NVW"L R#S#"#$T
 +YZ[
Eccentricity of resultant force X= −
 \4
 +YZ[ +YZ[
Effective breadth  =  − 2X =  − 2 ^ − _ = 2
\4 \4
\4
Bearing pressure
` = a

Terzaghi’s ultimate bearing capacity equation
bSL = Nd  e + Nf
+ 0.5N> γ

where Nd = (Nf − 19 cot φ3 ′

$ φl
φ3 ′
N f = ek L tan o45° + q
2
N> = 26Nf − 19 tan φ3 ′
For cohesion less soil at the base and by ignoring the embedment depth, the above ultimate bearing
capacity equation can be simplified to:
bSL = 0.5N> γ
r1-
Safety factor against bearing capacity =
s

5.2 British Standard 8006

The partial factors applied are given in Tables 1 and 2.

(i) Overturning
Self-weight of RS block  = γ
Surcharge pressure on RS block  =

Design vertical loads V = tu"  + tf  = tu" γ + tf


Lever arm of self-weight and surcharge on RS block  = 
Characteristic friction angle of soil behind RS block = φ ′
L $ φ% ′
Design friction angle of soil behind RS block φV = tan!6 9
vw,
!"#$ φd
Coefficient of active earth pressure (assume Rankine’s Theory) K =
&"#$ φd

Active earth pressure due to soil behind RS wall ' = 0.56tu" γ9 K

9
 Surcharge pressure behind RS block ' = 6tf
9K
)
Lever arm of active earth pressure  =
*
)
Lever arm of surcharge behind RS block * =

?
+,-./01,023 67&89:; 6vy, >)&vz 9
Safety factor against overturning = = = C
%
C
+45,-./01,023 <; :% &<% := @.A>vy, ) % B. &vz )B.
= %

(ii) Sliding
Characteristic friction angle of soil below RS block = φ* ′
-.2 φl -.2 φ3 ′
),-./01,023 67&89 6vy, >)&vz 9
Safety factor against overturning = =
{w, {w,
=
)45,-./01,023 v, 6<; &<% 9 v, 6@.A>vy, ) % B. &vz )B. 9

(iii) Bearing Capacity

Resultant moment at wall toe NOPQ = N"L R#S"#$T − NVW"L R#S#"#$T
 +YZ[
Eccentricity of resultant force X =− \4
 +YZ[ +YZ[
Effective breadth  =  − 2X =  − 2 ^ − _ = 2
 \4 \4
\4
Bearing pressure
` =
a

Terzaghi’s ultimate bearing capacity equation
bSL = Nd  e + Nf
+ 0.5N> γ

For cohesion less soil at the base and by ignoring the embedment depth, the ultimate bearing
capacity equation can be simplified to:
bSL = 0.5N> γ
r1-
Safety factor against bearing capacity =
vw, s

5.3 Eurocode 7

The partial factors applied for EQU and GEO limit states are given in Tables 4 and 5,
respectively.

(i) Overturning
Characteristic self-weight of RS block | = γ
Characteristic surcharge pressure on RS block } =


Lever arm of self-weight and surcharge of RS block  = 

Design vertical actions:

EQU limit state: Unfavourable V =
|,V"L | +
},V"L }

10
 Favourable V,u ~ =
|,"LR | +
},"LR }
GEO limit state: Unfavourable V =
| | +
} }
Favourable V,u ~ =
|,u ~ | +
},u ~ }
Characteristic friction angle of soil behind RS block = φ ′
L $ φ2 e
Design friction angle of soil behind RS block φV = tan!6 9
>φ e

!"#$ φ4
Coefficient of active earth pressure (assume Rankine’s Theory) K =
&"#$ φ4

Active earth pressure due to soil behind RS wall:

EQU limit state 'V = 0.5K 6
|,V"L γ9
GEO limit state 'V = 0.5K 6
| γ9
Surcharge pressure on RS block:
EQU limit state 'V = 6
},V"L
9K 
GEO limit state 'V = 6
}
9K 
)
Lever arm of active earth pressure  =
*
)
Lever arm of surcharge behind RS block * = 
?
+,-./01,023 6\4,y.9
Safety factor against overturning = = %
+45,-./01,023 <4; :% &<4% :=

(ii) Sliding
Friction angle of soil below RS block = φ* ′
-.2 φ3 ′
\4,y. 6 9
),-./01,023 €φl
Safety factor against overturning = =
)45,-./01,023 ‚ 6<4; & <4% 9

(iii) Bearing Capacity

Resultant moment at wall toe NOPQ = N"L R#S"#$T − NVW"L R#S#"#$T
 +YZ[
Eccentricity of resultant force X =−
\4
 +YZ[ +YZ[
Effective breadth  =  − 2X =  − 2 ^ − _ = 2
\4 \4
\4
Bearing pressure
O =
ƒ

Terzaghi’s ultimate bearing capacity equation
bSL = Nd  e + Nf
+ 0.5N> γ

For cohesion less soil at the base and by ignoring the embedment depth, the ultimate bearing
capacity equation can be simplified to:
bSL = 0.5N> γ
r1-
=

Rv s
Safety factor against bearing capacity

11
6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This sections presents the results of a parametric study on the RS wall configuration shown in
Figure 2. Different L/H ratios and friction angles of retained soil are used for study of the
external stability of the RS wall, inclusive of overturning, sliding and bearing capacity. In
order to pass a stability check, the computed factor of safety must be equal to or larger than
one.

The range of friction angle of retained soil (φe ) under study is from 20° to 35°. The unit weights
of the reinforced soil block, retained soil and foundation soil adopted are all 20 kN/m3. The
friction angle of foundation soil (φe* ) adopted is 28°. The computed factors of safety against
overturning, sliding and bearing failures are presented in the following sections.

6.1 Overturning

Figures 3(a) and 3(b) show the computed factors of safety against overturning for all the design
approaches studied. In general, a minimum L/H ratio of 0.5 is required in order to pass the
overturning check in accordance with BS 8006 and Eurocode 7. On the other hand, BS 8006
also states the requirement of L ≥ 0.7H (3m minimum), thus the design approach in BS 8006
is more conservative.

Comparing the various design approaches in Eurocode 7, EQU limit state is generally more
critical than GEO limit state in checking the overturning. Thus, EQU limit state should be used
for checking of overturning.

The analysis results also show that amongst the three design approaches in GEO limit state,
DA 1 Combination 1 and DA 2 give the same but more conservative results than DA 3 in the
assessment of overturning.

12
 Overturning (φ2'=20˚ L=0.5H)
3.00

2.50

BS-A
2.00
Factor of Safety

BS-B
EC7-DA1C1
1.50
EC7-DA1C2
EC7-DA2
1.00
EC-DA3
EC7-EQU
0.50
FoS=1.0

0.00
0 10 20 30 40
Height of Reinforced Soil wall (m)

Figure 3(a). Computed factor of safety against overturning for φeE = 20°° (L=0.5H)

Overturning (φ2'=35˚ L=0.5H)

3.00

2.50

BS-A
2.00
Factor of Safety

BS-B
EC-DA1C1
1.50
EC-DA1C2
EC-DA2
1.00
EC-DA3

0.50 EC-EQU
FoS=1.0
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Height of Reinforced Soil wall (m)

Figure 3(b). Computed factor of safety against overturning for φeE = 35°° (L=0.5H)

13
6.2 Sliding

Figures 4(a) to 4(c) show the computed factors of safety against sliding for all the design
approaches studied. In general, a minimum L/H ratio of 0.5 is required in order to pass the
sliding check in accordance with Eurocode 7. Amongst the three design approaches in
Eurocode 7, DA 1 Combination 2 and DA 3 give the same but more conservative results than
DA 2 in the assessment of sliding.

For low friction angles, a minimum L/H ratio of 0.8 is required in order to pass the sliding
check in accordance with BS 8006, see Figure 4(b). This probably explains why BS 8006
requires L ≥ 0.7H (3m minimum) in the design. In general, the design approach in BS 8006
gives more conservative results than those in Eurocode 7.

Sliding (φ2'=20˚ L=0.5H)

2.40
2.20
2.00
1.80
BS-A
1.60
BS-B
1.40
Factor of Safety

1.20 EC7-DA1C1

1.00 EC7-DA1C2
0.80 ED7-DA2
0.60 EC7-DA3
0.40 FoS=1.0
0.20
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Height of Reinforced Soil wall (m)

Figure 4(a). Computed factor of safety against sliding for φeE = 20°° (L=0.5H)

14
 Sliding (φ2'=20˚ L=0.8H)
2.40
2.20
2.00
1.80
BS-A
1.60
BS-B
1.40
Factor of Safety

1.20 EC7-DA1C1

1.00 EC7-DA1C2
0.80 EC7-DA2
0.60 EC7-DA3
0.40 FoS=1.0
0.20
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Height of Reinforced Soil wall (m)

Figure 4(b). Computed factor of safety against sliding for φeE = 20°° (L=0.8H)

Sliding (φ2'=35˚ L=0.5H)

2.40
2.20
2.00
1.80
1.60 BS-A
1.40 BS-B
Factor of Safety

1.20 EC7-DA1C1
1.00 EC7-DA1C2
0.80 EC7-DA2
0.60 EC7-DA3
0.40
FoS=1.0
0.20
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Height of Reinforced Soil wall (m)

Figure 4(c). Computed factor of safety against sliding for φeE = 35°° (L=0.5H)

15
6.3 Bearing Failure

Figures 5(a) to 5(c) show the computed factors of safety against bearing failure for all the
design approaches studied. In general, a minimum L/H ratio of 0.6 is required in order to pass
the bearing stability check in accordance with Eurocode 7. Amongst the three design
approaches in Eurocode 7, DA 2 gives more conservative results than DA 1 and DA 3 in the
assessment of bearing failure.

For low friction angles, a minimum L/H ratio of 0.7 is required in order to pass the bearing
stability check in accordance with BS 8006, see Figure 4(b). This probably explains why BS
8006 requires L ≥ 0.7H (3m minimum) in the design. In general, the design approach in BS
8006 gives more conservative results than those in Eurocode 7.

Bearing Failure (φ2'=20˚ L=0.6H)

3.50

3.00
BS-A

2.50 BS-B
Factor of Safety

EC7-DA1C1
2.00 EC7-DA1C2
EC7-DA2
1.50
EC7-DA3
1.00 FoS=1.0

0.50

0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Height of Reinforced Soil wall (m)

Figure 5(a). Computed factor of safety against bearing failure for φeE = 20°° (L=0.6H)

16
 Bearing Failure (φ2'=20˚ L=0.7H)
6.00

5.00
BS-A

BS-B
4.00
Factor of Safety

EC7-DA1C1
3.00 EC7-DA1C2

EC7-DA2
2.00
EC7-DA3
1.00 FoS=1.0

0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Height of Reinforced Soil wall (m)

Figure 5(b). Computed factor of safety against bearing failure for φeE = 20°° (L=0.7H)

Bearing Failure (φ2'=35˚ L=0.6H)

5.50
5.00
4.50 BS-A
4.00
BS-B
Factor of Safety

3.50
3.00 EC-DA1C1

2.50 EC-DA1C2
2.00
EC-DA2
1.50
1.00 EC-DA3

0.50 FoS=1.0
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Height of Reinforced Soil wall (m)

Figure 5(c). Computed factor of safety against bearing failure for φeE = 20°° (L=0.6H)

17
7. CONCLUSIONS

(a) The analyses showed that BS 8006 gives more conservative results than EC 7 in the
assessment of sliding, overturning and bearing capacity.

(b) Comparing the various design approaches in Eurocode 7, EQU limit state is
generally more critical than GEO limit state in checking the overturning. Thus,
EQU limit state should be used for checking of overturning.

(c) Amongst the different design approaches (DA) recommended in EC 7, DA 1 and

DA 2 give the same but more conservative results than DA 3 in the assessment of
overturning.

(d) DA 1 and DA 3 give the same but more conservative results than DA 2 in the
assessment of sliding.

(e) DA 2 gives more conservative results than DA 1 and DA 3 in the assessment of

bearing failure.

(f) The analysis results also showed that in general the sliding is often critical compared
to overturning and bearing stability.

REFERENCES

• BS 8006:1995. Code of practice for strengthened/reinforced soils and other fills. British
Standard Institution, London.

• BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005. Eurocode – Basis of structure design. British Standard

Institution, London.

• BS EN 1997-1:2004. Geotechnical design - Part 1: General rules. British Standard

Institution, London.

• Mike Dobie. Technical talk to the Annual General Meeting IEM GETD on 11th June 2011.

18