## 5 Results and Discussion

Table 7: ODF factors for persistent design situation (i): wind as leading variable action. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Overturning**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Sliding**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Bearing**} \\ \hline  & **CTE** & **EC** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Dif.** \\ **(\%)** \\ \end{tabular} & **CTE** & **EC** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Dif.** \\ **(\%)** \\ \end{tabular} & **CTE** & **EC** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Dif.** \\ **(\%)** \\ \end{tabular} & **CTE** & **EC** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Dif.** \\ **(\%)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Case 1 & 1.44 & 2.01 & 39.70\% & - & - & - & 1.02 & 1.05 & 2.26\% \\ Case 2 & 1.24 & 1.69 & 36.02\% & 1.34 & 1.64 & 22.38\% & 0.23 & 0.24 & 2.23\% \\ Case 3 & 1.23 & 1.67 & 35.78\% & 1.10 & 1.35 & 22.44\% & 0.08 & 0.09 & 7.75\% \\ \hline Average & - & - & 37.16\% & - & - & 22.41\% & - & - & 4.08\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: ODF factors for seismic design situation (ii): vertical downward acceleration. In general, the results obtained following the expressions of EC are greater than CTE-DB-SE. Checking for overturning, this difference ranges change from 35.31% on average in the persistent situation with the wind as leading variable action (Table 7) to 45.95% on average in the case of the seismic situation with upward vertical acceleration (Table 9). Checking for sliding, this variation is between 22.20% on average in seismic situation with upward vertical acceleration (Table 9) and 50.87% on average in the case of the persistent situation with the wind as leading variable action (Table 7). Additionally, as for the verification of bearing, the maximum difference between both codes is 25.30% on average, which corresponds to the persistent situation with the imposed load as the leading variable action (Table 6). Nevertheless, in the seismic situation with upward vertical acceleration, the results obtained according to the CTE are slightly higher. Comparing Tables 6 and 7 reveals that the fact of considering the imposed load or the wind as the leading variable action has significant influence checking the bearing resistance. Although both actions practically have the same magnitude, the location of the point of application of the wind action at a higher level leads to a significant reduction in overturning stability. Likewise, if Tables 8 and 9 are compared, it can be seen that better results are obtained when checking for overturning and sliding in case of vertical upward acceleration. This enhancement of security is explained by the downward inertial force acting on the wall, raising both the stabilizing moment and the axial load at foundation level. Table 10 shows to what extent a possible seismic event influences safety levels. The persistent situation with imposed load as the leading variable action, which is more favorable under normal conditions of use, and the seismic situation with downward vertical acceleration, which is more unfavorable when an earthquake occurs, are taken as references for comparison. Checking for overturning, the reduction in safety is around 59% on average in both codes. Regarding verification of sliding, the reduction in safety is 31.61% on average according to the CTE and 44.44% on average according to the Eurocode. For the verification of bearing, taking into account Cases 2 and 3, the reduction in safety is 52.10% on average in the CTE and 54.78% on average in the EC. In Case 1, an apparent increase in seismic safety is observed when considering the CTE. The high level of backfill on the barbican side leads to partial factors for bearing resistance (\(\gamma_{R}^{\text{s}}\)) practically identical in persistent and seismic situations, although slightly lower in the latter situation as it might be expected (Table 5). However, the partial factor for bearing resistance (\(\gamma_{R}\)) is significantly reduced when moving from a persistent situation to a seismic situation according to the CTE (Table 2).