En 1997

EUROCODES
Background and Applications

Dissemination of information for training workshop

18-20 February 2008

Brussels

EN 1997
Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design

Organised by
European Commission: DG Enterprise and Industry, Joint Research Centre

with the support of
CEN/TC250, CEN Management Centre and Member States

Wednesday, February 20 Palais des Acadmies

EN 1997 - Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design
Bordet room
9:00-10:00 General presentation of EC 7
Geotechnical design part 1 General
rules
R. Frank
Ecole Nationale des Ponts et
Chausses
10:00-11:00 Section 2: Basis of geotechnical design B. Schuppener
Bundesanstalt fr Wasserbau
11:00-11:15 Coffee
11:15-12:15 Section 3 Geotechnical data and 6
Spread foundations
T. Orr
Trinity College Dublin
12:15-14:00 Lunch
14:00-15:00 Section 7 Pile foundations R. Frank
Ecole Nationale des Ponts et
Chausses
15:00-16:00 Section 8 Anchorages and Section 9
Retaining structures
B. Simpson
Arup
16:00-16:15 Coffee
16:15-17:15 Section 10 Hydraulic failure, Section 11
Overall stability and Section 12
Embankments
T. Orr
17:15-18:15 Eurocode 7 part 2: Ground investigation
and testing
B. Schuppener

All workshop material will be available at
http://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu

GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PART 1 GENERAL
RULES

R. Frank
Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chausses

Brussels, 18-20 February2008 Dissemination of information workshop 1
EUROCODES
Background and Appli cati ons
General presentation of EUROCODE 7
Geotechnical design
Workshop Eurocodes: background and applications
Brussels, 18-20 February 2008
Roger FRANK, Professor
Ecole nationale des ponts et chausses, Paris
EUROCODES
1. Introduction
2. Contents of Eurocode 7 - Parts 1 & 2
3. Some aspects of Eurocode 7-1
Characteristic values
ULS Design Approaches
SLS Serviceability limit states
EUROCODES
EN 1990 EN 1990
EN EN 1991 1991
EN 1992 EN 1992 EN 1993 EN 1993 EN 1994 EN 1994
EN 1995 EN 1995 EN 1996 EN 1996 EN 1999 EN 1999
Basis of Structural Basis of Structural
design design
Actions on Actions on
structures structures
Material Material
resistance resistance
EN 1997 EN 1997 EN 1998 EN 1998
Geotechnical Geotechnical
and and seismic seismic
design design
STRUCTURAL EUROCODES
EUROCODES
EN 1997 EN 1997- -1 (2004) 1 (2004) : : Part 1 Part 1 - - General rules General rules
EN 1997 EN 1997- -2 (2007) 2 (2007) : : Part 2 Part 2 - - Ground investigation Ground investigation
and testing and testing
Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design
EUROCODES
2. Contents of Eurocode 7
Parts 1 & 2
EUROCODES
Background and Appli cati ons Contents of Part 1 (EN 1997-1)
Section 1 General
Section 2 Basis of geotechnical
design
Section 3 Geotechnical data
Section 4 Supervision of
construction, monitoring
and maintenance
Section 5 Fill, dewatering, ground
improvement and
reinforcement
EUROCODES
Section 6 Spread foundations
Section 7 Pile foundations
Section 8 Anchorages
Section 9 Retaining structures
Section 10 Hydraulic failure
Section 11 Site stability
Section 12 Embankments
Contents of Part 1 (cntd)
EUROCODES
Informative annexes
Annexes D & E : Bearing capacity of
foundations
R/A' = c' N
c
b
c
s
c
i
c
+
q' N
q
b
q
s
q
i
q
+
0,5 ' B ' N
R /A' =
v0
+ k p*
le
Annex C
Acti ve
earth
pressure
Annex C Passi ve earth
pressure
Annex F : Settlement of foundations
s = p b f / E
m
EUROCODES
Part 2 (EN 1997-2 ): Geotechnical design -
Ground investigation and testing
Laboratory and field tests :
* essential requirements for the equipment and
tests procedures
* essential requirements for the reporting and
the presentation of results
* interpretation of test results and derived values
They are NOT test standards see TC 341
EUROCODES
Background and Appli cati ons Contents of Part 2 (EN 1997-2)
Section 1 General
Section 2 Planning and reporting
of ground investigations
Section 3 Drilling, sampling and
gw measurements
Section 4 Field tests in soils and
rocks
Section 5 Laboratory tests on soils
and rocks
Section 6 Ground investigation
report
> Also a number of Informative annexes Informative annexes
EUROCODES
3. Some aspects of Eurocode 7-1
Characteristic values and design values
ULS Design Approaches ULS Design Approaches
SLS and deformations of structures SLS and deformations of structures
EUROCODES
Typeof test
F=fieldL=laboratory
Correlations
Test results and
derived values
1 2 3 4
F 1 F 2 L 1 L 2
C1
Cautiousselection
Geotechnical model andcharacteristic
value of geotechnical properties
Designvaluesof geotechnical
properties
Application of
partial factors
Information
fromother
sourceson
thesite, the
soilsand
rocksand
theproject
EN 1997 -1
EN 1997 -2
C1 C2
Geotechnical properties
EUROCODES
Characteristic value
of geotechnical parameters
P The characteristic value characteristic value of a geotechnical
parameter shall be selected as a cautious
estimate of the value affecting the occurrence of
the limit state.
If statistical methods are used, the characteristic
value should be derived such that the calculated
probability of a worse value governing the
occurrence of the limit state under consideration is
not greater than 5%.
EUROCODES
Design value of a parameter : X
d
=X
k
/
M
Design values of actions and resistances
fulfilling for STR/GEO ULS : E
d
R
d
E
d
=E {
F
.F
k
} and R
d
=R {X
k
/
M
}
(=at the source, MFA)
or E
d
=
E
.E {F
k
} and R
d
=R {X
k
}/
R
(RFA)
Design values of geotechnical
parameters
EUROCODES
Ultimate limit states Ultimate limit states Eurocode 7 Eurocode 7- -1 1
EQU : loss of equilibrium of the structure
STR : internal failure or excessive deformation
of the structure or structural elements
GEO : failure or excessive deformation of the
ground
UPL : loss of equilibrium due to uplift by water
pressure (buoyancy) or other vertical actions
HYD: hydraulic heave, internal erosion and
piping caused by hydraulic gradients
EUROCODES
J .A Calgaro J .A Calgaro
E E
d d
< <R R
d d
EN1990 EN1990 - - Ultimate limit states EQU and STR/GEO Ultimate limit states EQU and STR/GEO
EUROCODES
1,50
0
1,35
1,00
Set A1
G
Symbol
Variable
Unfavourable
Favourable
Permanent
Unfavourable
Favourable
Action (
F
)
1,30
0
1,00
1,00
Set A2
1,25 1,00
c
Effecti ve cohesion
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
Set M1
1,25
Angle of shearing
resistance
1,40
cu
Undrained shear
strength
qu
Symbol
1,00 Weight density
1,40 Unconfined strength
Set M2 Soil parameter (
M
)
A2 + M2 + R1
Or A2 + M1 or M2 + R4
A1 + M1 + R1
&
1
A1 + M1 + R2 2
A1 or A2 + M2 + R3
Combinations
3
Approach
1,1
1,4
Set R2
1,00 1,00
Rh
Sliding
1,00
Set R1
1,00
Rv
Bearing Portance
Symbol Set R3 Resistance (
R
)
R
for Spread
foundations
STR/GEO: persistent and transient situations
EUROCODES
STR/GEO STR/GEO : : accidental situations accidental situations
Actions : all values of Actions : all values of
F F
(and (and
M M
) =1.0 ) =1.0
Resistances : Resistances :
all values of all values of
R R
(and (and
M M
) depend ) depend
on the particular accident on the particular accident
Seismic situations: Seismic situations: see Eurocode 8-5
EUROCODES
Ultimate limit states (UPL)

P
T
Anchorage
W
T
Anchored
structure

W
u
Former ground surface
Sand
Clay
Gravel
Clay
Sand
Clay
Gravel
b
bottom of
an
excavation

Sand
Sand
Sand
Injectedsand
u
Water
tight
surface
slab below
water level
W
T T
u
Water
tight
surface
b
buried
hollow
structure

u
v
Watertight surface lightweight
embankment
during flood
G
dst;d
+ Q
dst;d
G
stb;d
+ R
d
Examples of situations where uplift
might be critical
EUROCODES
Background and Appli cati ons Ultimate limit states (HYD)
Sand
Water
Heave due
to
seepage
of water
Permeable
subsoil
piezometric level in
the permeable
subsoil
low
permeability
soil
Piping
u
dst;d

stb;d
u
dst;d

stb;d
Example of situation where heave or piping might be critical
EUROCODES
Ultimate limit states of static equilibrium Ultimate limit states of static equilibrium (EQU) (EQU) : :
E E
d,dst d,dst
E E
d,stb d,stb
Ultimate limit states of resistance Ultimate limit states of resistance (STR/GEO) (STR/GEO) : :
E E
d d
R R
d d
Ultimate limit state of uplift Ultimate limit state of uplift (UPL) (UPL) : :
G G
dst;d dst;d
+Q +Q
dst;d dst;d
G G
stb;d stb;d
+R +R
d d
Ultimate limit state of hydraulic failure Ultimate limit state of hydraulic failure (HYD) (HYD) : :
u u
dst;d dst;d

stb;d stb;d
or S or S
dst;d dst;d
G G
stb;d stb;d
Verifications of ULS Verifications of ULS
EUROCODES
EN1990 EN1990 - - Serviceability limit states SLS Serviceability limit states SLS
Verifications : Verifications :
C C
d d
= =limiting design value of the relevant limiting design value of the relevant
serviceability criterion serviceability criterion
E E
d d
= =design value of the effects of actions design value of the effects of actions
specified in the serviceability criterion, determined specified in the serviceability criterion, determined
on the basis of the relevant combination on the basis of the relevant combination
all all
F F
and and
M M
=1.0 =1.0
E E
d d
C C
d d
EUROCODES
settlement s, differential
settlement s, rotation
and angular strain
relative deflection and
deflection ratio /L
and relative rotation
(angular distortion)
(after Burland and Wroth,
1975)

smax
s m
ax
Movements and deformations of structures Movements and deformations of structures
EUROCODES
Background and Appli cati ons Conclusions
- a tool to help European geotechnical
engineers speak the same language
- a necessary tool for the dialogue between
geotechnical engineers and structural
engineers
Eurocode 7 Eurocode 7helps promoting research
- it stimulates questions on present geotechnical
practice from ground investigation to design
models
Eurocode 7 : Eurocode 7 :
EUROCODES
and to really conclude :
It should be considered that knowledge of the
ground conditions depends on the extent and
quality of the geotechnical investigations. Such
knowledge and the control of workmanship are
usually more significant to fulfilling the
fundamental requirements than is precision in
the calculation models and partial factors.
EUROCODES
Thank you for your attention !

SECTION 2: BASIS OF GEOTECHNICAL
DESIGN

B. Schuppener

Brussels, 18-20 February 2008 Dissemination of information workshop 1
EUROCODES
EN 1997-1: Section 2: Basis of geotechnical design
EN 1997
Eurocode: Geotechnical design
Section 2: Basis of
geotechnical design
Dr.-Ing. Bernd Schuppener,
Federal Waterways Engineering and Research Institute,
Karlsruhe, Germany
EUROCODES
2.1 Design requirements
2.2 Design situations
2.3 Durability
2.4 Geotechnical design by calculation
2.5 Design by prescriptive methods
2.6 Load tests
2.7 The Observational Method
2.8 The Geotechnical Design Report
Annex A + B
2 Basis of geotechnical design
EUROCODES
(1)P For each geotechnical design situation it shall be
verified that no relevant limit state, as defined in EN
1990:2002, is exceeded.
limit states
(4) Limit states should be verified by one or a combination
of the following:
use of calculations as described in 2.4;
adoption of prescriptive measures, as described in 2.5;
experimental models and load tests, as described in 2.6;
an observational method, as described in 2.7.
EUROCODES
(8)P In order to establish minimum requirements
for the extent and content of geotechnical investigations,
calculations and
construction control checks,
the complexity of each geotechnical design shall be
identified together with the associated risks.
(10) To establish geotechnical design requirements,
three Geotechnical Categories, 1, 2 and 3, may be
introduced.
Geotechnical Categories
EUROCODES
(14) Geotechnical Category 1 should only include
small and relatively simple structures:
for which it is possible to ensure that the fundamental
requirements will be satisfied on the basis of
experience and qualitative geotechnical investigations;
with negligible risk.
(9) For structures and earthworks of low geotechnical
complexity and risk, such as defined above, simplified
design procedures may be applied.
EUROCODES
(17) Geotechnical Category 2 should include
conventional types of structure and foundation with no
exceptional risk or difficult soil or loading conditions.
(18) Designs for structures in Geotechnical Category 2
should normally include quantitative geotechnical data
and analysis to ensure that the fundamental
requirements are satisfied.
(19) Routine procedures for field and laboratory testing
and for design and execution may be used for
Geotechnical Category 2 designs.
EUROCODES
(20) Geotechnical Category 3 should include structures
or parts of structures, which fall outside the limits of
Geotechnical Categories 1 and 2.
(21) Geotechnical Category 3 should normally include
alternative provisions and rules to those in this standard.
NOTE Geotechnical Category 3 includes the following examples:
very large or unusual structures;
structures involving abnormal risks, or unusual or exceptionally
difficult ground or loading conditions;
structures in highly seismic areas;
structures in areas of probable site instability or persistent ground
movements that require separate investigation or special measures.
EUROCODES
(1)P Both short-term and long-term design situations
shall be considered.
2.2 Design Situations (EN 1997-1)
EUROCODES
(1)P At the geotechnical design stage, the
significance of environmental conditions shall be
assessed in relation to durability and to enable
provisions to be made for the protection or
adequate resistance of the materials.
2.3 Durability
EUROCODES
(1)P The selection of characteristic values for geotech-
nical parameters shall be based on results and derived
values from laboratory and field tests, complemented by
well-established experience.
2.4.5.2 Characteristic values of geotechnical parameters
(2)P The characteristic value of a geotechnical parameter
shall be selected as a cautious estimate of the value
affecting the occurrence of the limit state.
EUROCODES
4)P The selection of characteristic values for geotechnical
parameters shall take account of the following:
...
the type and number of samples;
the extent of the zone of ground governing the
behaviour of the geotechnical structure at the limit state
being considered;
the ability of the geotechnical structure to transfer loads
from weak to strong zones in the ground. ..
EUROCODES
(10) If statistical methods are employed in the selection of
characteristic values for ground properties, such methods
should differentiate between local and regional sampling
and should allow the use of a priori knowledge of
comparable ground properties.
(11) If statistical methods are used, the characteristic
value should be derived such that the calculated
probability of a worse value governing the occurrence of
the limit state under consideration is not greater than 5%.
NOTE In this respect, a cautious estimate of the mean value is a
selection of the mean value of the limited set of geotechnical
parameter values, with a confidence level of 95%; where local failure
is concerned, a cautious estimate of the low value is a 5% fractile.
EUROCODES
Slope failure in a cut
c
u
= 68 MN/m
c
u
= 73 MN/m
c
u
= 65 MN/m
c
u
= 71 MN/m
c
u
= 60 MN/m
c
u
= 55 MN/m
c
u
= 50 MN/m
c
u
= 62 MN/m
c
u
= 76 MN/m
c
u
= 64 MN/m
c
u
= 75 MN/m
Selection of characteristic values:
EUROCODES
c
u
= 68 MN/m
c
u
= 73 MN/m
c
u
= 65 MN/m
c
u
= 71 MN/m
c
u
= 60 MN/m
c
u
= 55 MN/m
c
u
= 50 MN/m
c
u
= 62 MN/m
c
u
= 76 MN/m
c
u
= 64 MN/m
c
u
= 75 MN/m
Selection of characteristic values:
EUROCODES
Determination of the characteristic value X
k
by statistical
methods:
X
k
= X
mean
(1 - k
n
V
x
)
where
X
mean
arithmetical mean value of the parameter values;
V
x
the coefficient of variation
k
n
statistical coefficient which depends on the number
n of test results, the level of confidence and a priori
knowledge about the coefficient of variation (case
V
x
unknown or V
x
known).
EUROCODES
X
k
(local)
Number n
of test
results
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Value of
parameter
Normal distribution
through tests results
Mean of test results X
mean
X
mean
k
n,mean
V
x
X
mean
X
k
(mean)
s
x
s
x
X
mean
k
n,fractile
V
x
EUROCODES
Determination of characteristic values proposed
by Schneider (1999):
X
k
= X
mean
- 0.5 s
x
EUROCODES
Example: results of triaxial tests used for the selection of the
characteristic values using statistical methods (V
x
unknown)
Borehole / test
Statistical result
c
[kPa]
[]
tan
[-]
BH 1/1 3 31 0,601
BH 1/2 4 30 0,577
BH 2/1 1 35 0,700
BH 2/2 7 28 0,532
Mean value cmean = 3.75 (tan )mean = 0.603
Standard deviation sc = 2.50 s = 0.071
Coefficient of variation Vc = 0.667 Vtan = 0.118
EUROCODES
Table: summary of the statistical evaluation of the example
Characteristic values of
shear parameter
Basis and method
of statistical evaluation
k [] ck [kPa]
and c of 4 tests
for the case Vx unknown
27.5 0.8
and c of 4 tests
for the case Vx known
29.0 2.5
Schneider (1999) 29.5 2.5
EUROCODES
(1)P The definition of actions shall be taken from EN
1990:2002. The values of actions shall be taken from EN
1991, where relevant.
Section 1 of EN 1997-1:
1.5.2.1 Geotechnical action
Action transmitted to the structure by the ground, fill
standing water or groundwater.
2.4.2 Actions
EUROCODES
NOTE (to (9)P) Unfavourable (or destabilising) and
favourable (or stabilising) permanent actions may in some
situations be considered as coming from a single source. If
they are considered so, a single partial factor may be
applied to the sum of these actions or to the sum of their
effects.
2.4.2 Actions
EUROCODES
2.4.2 Actions
W
top
W
bottom
W
d,dst =
(W
bottom
- W
top
)
dst
W
d =
W
bottom

dst
- W
top

stb
EUROCODES
characteristic values
geotechnical parameter
actions
design values
geotechnical ultimate limit states
design approaches DA1, DA2 and DA 3
serviceability limit states
EUROCODES
2.4.6.1 Design values of actions
(2)P The design value of an action (F
d
) shall either be
assessed directly or shall be derived from representative
values F
rep
using the following equation:
F
d
=
F
F
rep
(2.1a)
with
F
rep
= F
k
(2.1b)
where
F
is the partial factor on geotechnical actions or
effects of geotechnical actions and is a combination factor.
(3)P Appropriate values of shall be taken from EN
1990:2002.
EUROCODES
(2)P The design value of an action (F
d
) shall either be
assessed directly or shall be derived from representative
values F
rep
using the following equation:
F
d
=
F
F
rep
(2.1a)
with
F
rep
= F
k
(2.1b)
where
F
is the partial factor on geotechnical actions or
effects of geotechnical actions and is a combination factor.
(4)P The partial factor
F
for persistent and transient
situations defined in Annex A shall be used in equation
(2.1a).
EUROCODES
0 0 Favourable
1,3 1,5
Q
Unfavourable Variable
1,0 1,0 Favourable
1,0 1,35
G
Unfavourable Permanent
A2 A1
Set
Symbol Action
Table A.3: Partial factors on actions (
F
) or the effects of actions (
E
)
NOTE The values to be ascribed to
G
and
Q
for use in a
country may be found in its National annex to EN 1990.
The recommended values for buildings in EN 1990:2002
for the two sets A1 and A2 are given in Table A.3.
EUROCODES
2.4.6.2 Design values of geotechnical
parameters
(1)P Design values of geotechnical parameters (X
d
) shall
either be derived from characteristic values using the
following equation:
X
d
= X
k
/
M
(2.2)
or shall be assessed directly.
(2)P The partial factor
M
for persistent and transient
situations defined in Annex A shall be used in equation
(2.2).
EUROCODES
2.4.6.2 Design values of geotechnical
parameters
Table A.4 - Partial factors for soil parameters (
M
)
Set
Soil parameter Symbol
M1 M2
Shearing resistance
1
1,0 1,25
Effective cohesion
c
1,0 1,25
Undrained strength
cu
1,0 1,4
Unconfined strength
qu
1,0 1,4
Unit weight density
1,0 1,0
EUROCODES
(1)P Where relevant, it shall be verified that the following limit
states are not exceeded:
..
failure or excessive deformation of the ground, in which the
strength of soil or rock is significant in providing resistance
(GEO);
loss of equilibrium of the structure or the ground due to
uplift by water pressure (buoyancy) or other vertical actions
(UPL);
hydraulic heave, internal erosion and piping in the ground
caused by hydraulic gradients (HYD).
2.4.7 Ultimate limit states
2.4.7.1 General
EUROCODES
(1)P When considering a limit state of rupture or excessive
deformation of a structural element or section of the
ground (STR and GEO), it shall be verified that:
E
d
R
d
(2.5)
E
d
: the design value of the effects of all the actions;
R
d
: the design value of the corresponding resistance
of the ground and/or structure.
2.4.7.3 Verification of
resistance for GEO and STR
EUROCODES
Load and Resistance Factor Approach
R
d
E
d
R
k
(
k
, c
k
) /
R
E
k
(
k
, c
k
)
E
R
k
: characteristic values of ground resistance
R
: partial factor for the ground resistance
E
k
: characteristic value of the effect of action
E
: partial factor for the effect of action or the
action
k
,c
k
: characteristic values of the shear parameter
EUROCODES
Design values of shear parameter
k
, c
k
characteristic value of shear parameter
d
, c
d
design values of the shear parameter
partial factor for the angle of shearing

resistance
c
partial factor for the cohesion intercept
tan
d
= (tan
k
) /
c
d
= c
k
/
c
EUROCODES
Material Factor Approach
R
d
(
d
, c
d
) E
d
(
d
, c
d
)
R
d
: design value of the ground resistance
E
d
design value of the effects of actions of the
ground
d
design value of the angle of shearing
resistance
c
d
design value of the cohesion intercept
EUROCODES
G
k
E
Q
Q
k
E
G
q
k
R
v
= (V, H, M, , c)
Example for the three
Design Approaches of EN 1997-1
R
v,d
V
d
V, H, M
EUROCODES
Action or effects of actions
Design
Approach
structure ground
Resistance
ground

1

2222
G
= 1.35;
G,inf
= 1.00;
Q
= 1.50
R;e
=
R;v
= 1.40
R;h
= 1.10
332
G
= 1.35;
G,inf
=1.00
Q
= 1.50
=
c
= 1.25
2.4.7.3 Verification of resistance for GEO and STR
EUROCODES
Design
Approach
Structure Ground
Resistance
ground
Comb. 1 G
= 1.35; G,inf
= 1.00; Q
= 1.50
= c
= 1.0
1
Comb. 2 G
= 1.00; Q
= 1.30
= c
= 1.25
2 G
= 1.35; G,inf
= 1.00; Q
= 1.50 R;e
= R;v
= 1.40
R;h
= 1.10
3 G
= 1.35; G,inf
=1.00
Q
= 1.50
= c
= 1.25
Design Approach 1
EUROCODES
Design Approach 1
G
d
=
G
G
k
= 1.35 G
k
Q
d
=
Q
Q
k
= 1.50 Q
k
E
G,d
=
G
E
G
(
d
,c
d
)=1.35E
G
(
k
,c
k
)
E
Q,d
= E
Q
(
k
, c
k
, q
d
)
q
d
=
Q
q
k
= 1.50 q
k
R
v,d
= R
v
(V
d
, H
d
, M
d
,
d
, c
d
)
=
c
= 1.0
d
=
k
, c
d
= c
k
=
c
= 1.0
d
=
k
, c
d
= c
k
Combination 1
G
d
=
G
G
k
= 1.00 G
k
Q
d
=
Q
Q
k
= 1.30 Q
k
E
G,d
=
G
E
G
(
d
, c
d
) = 1.00 E
G
(
d
, c
d
)
q
d
=
Q
q
k
= 1.30 q
k
tan
d
= tan
k
/
= tan
k
/1.25
c
d
= c
k
/
c
= c
k
/ 1.25
tan
d
= tan
k
/
= tan
k
/1.25
c
d
= c
k
/
c
= c
k
/ 1.25
E
Q,d
= E
Q
(
d
, c
d
, q
d
)
R
v,d
= R
v
(V
d
, H
d
, M
d
,
d
, c
d
)
Combination 2
R
v,d
V
d
V
d
, H
d
, M
d
V
d
, H
d
, M
d V
d
, H
d
, M
d
V
d
, H
d
, M
d
EUROCODES
Design
Approach
Structure Ground
Resistance
ground
Comb. 1
G
= 1.35;
G,inf
= 1.00;
Q
= 1.50
=
c
= 1.0
1
Comb. 2
G
= 1.0;
Q
= 1.30
=
c
= 1.25
2
G
= 1.35;
G,inf
= 1.00;
Q
= 1.50
R;e
=
R;v
= 1.40
R;h
= 1.10
3
G
= 1.35;
G,inf
=1.00
Q
= 1.50
=
c
= 1.25
Design Approach 2
EUROCODES
G
d
=
G
G
k
= 1.35 G
k
Q
d
=
Q
Q
k
= 1.50 Q
k
E
G,d
=
G
E
G
(
d
, c
d
)=1.35E
G
(
k
,c
k
)
E
Q,d
= E
Q
(
d
, c
d
, q
d
)
q
d
=
Q
q
k
= 1.50 q
k
R
v,k
= F(M
d
, V
d
, H
d
,
d
, c
d
)
R
v,d
V
d
=
c
= 1.00
d
=
k
, c
d
= c
k
=
c
= 1.00
d
=
k
, c
d
= c
k
Design Approach 2
DA 2
V
d
, H
d
, M
d
V
d
, H
d
, M
d
R
v,d
= R
v,k
/
Rv
= R
v,k
/1.40
G
k
Q
k
E
Q,k
= E
Q
(
k,
c
k
, q
k
)
q
k
R
v,k=
(M
k
, V
k
, H
k
,
k
, c
k
)
V
d
=
G
V
G,k
+
Q
V
Q,k
V
d
= 1.35 V
G,k
+ 1.50 V
Q,k
E
G,k
= E
G
(
k,
c
k
)
=
c
= 1.0
d
=
k
, c
d
= c
k
=
c
= 1.0
d
=
k
, c
d
= c
k
DA 2*
V
k
, H
k
, M
k
V
k
, H
k
, M
k
R
v,d
= R
v,k= /
Rv
= R
v,k
/1.40
EUROCODES
Design
Approach
Structure Ground
Resistance
ground
Comb. 1 G
= 1.35; G,inf
= 1.00; Q
= 1.50
= c
= 1.0
1
Comb. 2
G
= 1.0;
Q
= 1.30
=
c
= 1.25
2
G
= 1.35;
G,inf
= 1.00;
Q
= 1.50
R;e
=
R;v
= 1.40
R;h
= 1.10
3
G
= 1.35;
G,inf
=1.00
Q
= 1.50
=
c
= 1.25
Design Approach 3
EUROCODES
G
d
=
G
G
k
= 1.35 G
k
Q
d
=
Q
Q
k
= 1.50 Q
k
E
Q,d
= E
Q
(
d
, c
d
, q
d
)
q
d
=
Q
q
k
= 1.30 q
k
R
v,d
= (V
d
, H
d
,
d
, c
d
)
V
d
= V
G,d
+V
Q,d
E
G,d
=
G
E
G
(
d
,c
d
) = 1.00 E
G
(
d
,c
d
)
tan
d
= tan
k
/
= tan
k
/1.25
c
d
= c
k
/
c
= c
k
/ 1.25
tan
d
= tan
k
/
= tan
k
/1.25
c
d
= c
k
/
c
= c
k
/ 1.25
Design Approach 3
R
v,d
V
d
EUROCODES
2.4.8 Serviceability limit states
(1)P Verification for serviceability limit states in the ground or
in a structural section, element or connection, shall either
require that:
E
d
C
d,
(2.10)
or be done through the method given in 2.4.8 (4).
E
d
: effects of the actions e.g. deformations, differential
settlements, vibrations etc.
C
d
: limiting values
(2) Values of partial factors for serviceability limit states
should normally be taken equal to 1,0.
(5)P This limiting value shall be agreed during the
design of the supported structure
EUROCODES
(2) The maximum acceptable relative rotations for open
framed structures, infilled frames and load bearing or
continuous brick walls are unlikely to be the same but are
likely to range from about 1/2000 to about 1/300, to
prevent the occurrence of a serviceability limit state in the
structure. A maximum relative rotation of 1/500 is
acceptable for many structures. The relative rotation
likely to cause an ultimate limit state is about 1/150.
Annex H
(informative)
Limiting values of structural deformation and
foundation movement
EUROCODES
2.7 Observational method
(1) When prediction of geotechnical behaviour is difficult,
it can be appropriate to apply the approach known as "the
observational method", in which the design is reviewed
during construction.
(2)P The following requirements shall be met before
construction is started:
acceptable limits of behaviour shall be established;
the range of possible behaviour shall be assessed and
it shall be shown that there is an acceptable probability
that the actual behaviour will be within the acceptable
limits;
EUROCODES
a plan of monitoring shall be devised, which will reveal
whether the actual behaviour lies within the acceptable
limits. The monitoring shall make this clear at a
sufficiently early stage, and with sufficiently short
intervals to allow contingency actions to be undertaken
successfully;
the response time of the instruments and the procedures
for analysing the results shall be sufficiently rapid in
relation to the possible evolution of the system;
a plan of contingency actions shall be devised, which
may be adopted if the monitoring reveals behaviour
outside acceptable limits.
2.7 Observational method
EUROCODES
2.8 Geotechnical Design Report
(1)P The assumptions, data, methods of calculation and
results of the verification of safety and serviceability
shall be recorded in the Geotechnical Design Report.
(2) The level of detail of the Geotechnical Design
Reports will vary greatly, depending on the type
of design. For simple designs, a single sheet may be
sufficient.
EUROCODES
Information to be verified during construction.
Notes on maintenance and monitoring.
Concrete cas on un-softened glacial till with c
u
60 kPa (pocket
penetrometer)
Calculations (or index calculations)
Characteristic load 60 kN/m.
Local experience plus Local Building Regulations (ref ..) indicates
working bearing pressure of 100 kPa acceptable. Therefore adopt footings 0.6
m wide, minimum depth 0.5 m (Building Regs) but depth varies to reach c
u
60
kPa test on site.
Description of site surroundings:
Formerly agricultural land.
Gently sloping (4)
Assumed stratigraphy used in design with properties:
Topsoil and very weathered glacial till up to 1 m thick, overlying
firm to stiff glacial till (c
u
60 kPa on pocket penetrometer).
Codes and standards used (level of acceptable risk)
Eurocode 7
Local building regs
Section through structure showing actions: Report used:
Ground Investigation report (give ref. date)
Factual:
Bloggs Investigations Ltd report ABC/123 dated 21 Feb 95
Interpretation:
Ditto
Approved by: Date
Checked by: Date
Made by: Date
Sheet no of Job No. Job Title
New start housing development
Structure Reference:
Strip foundations
2.8 Geotechnical Design Report
EUROCODES
Summary
Section 2: Basis of geotechnical design:
introduces Geotechnical Categories as options,
describes geotechnical design situations
defines characteristic values of
geotechnical actions and
the selection of ground parameter
defines geotechnical ultimate limit states
defines three Design Approaches as options and
introduces the Observational Method as an
equivalent geotechnical design method
EUROCODES
Thank you

SECTION 3 GEOTECHNICAL DATA AND 6
SPREAD FOUNDATIONS

T. Orr

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
EN 1997-1: Sections 3 and 6
Your
Iogo

EN 1997-1 Eurocode 7
Section 3 Geotechnical Data
Section 6 Spread Foundations
Trevor L.L. Orr
Ireland
Eurocode 7 Workshop
Brussels 20
th
February 2008
EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
Section 3
EN 1997-1: Section 3
GeotechnicaI Data

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
Section 3 - Overview
The fact that EN 1997-1 has a separate section on Geotechnical Data
demonstrates that the determination of geotechnicaI data is an essential
part of the geotechnicaI design process
This is because soil is a naturaI materiaI, unlike the manufactured
materials in the other structural Eurocodes, where the data for these
materials is specified
Section 3 Geotechnical Data provides the general requirements for:
the coIIection of geotechnical data
the evaIuation of geotechnical parameters
The presentation of geotechnical information
t is linked to Section 2 which presents the factors to be considered
when determining geotechnical parameter values and the requirements
for seIecting characteristic vaIues
t is also linked to Part 2 which gives the requirements for deriving the
vaIues of geotechnical parameters from field and laboratory tests

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
GeotechnicaI Investigations
The importance of carefuIIy pIanned, appropriateIy executed and
reported investigations that provide sufficient data concerning the ground
is stressed in 3.1 and 3.2
Provisions for two types of investigations are given:
PreIiminary investigations
Design investigations
ControI investigations
Requirements are given for the reporting of ground investigations in a
Ground Investigation Report

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
Stages in Determining Parameter VaIues
The procedures involved in determining the design vaIues of
geotechnical parameters from field or laboratory test resuIts may be
considered as consisting of three stage or steps (Frank et al. 2004)
The first step is to go from measured values, taking account of the test
conditions, and assess the geotechnicaI parameter vaIues (i.e. the
properties of soil or rock at a particular location in the ground) 2.4.3 and
3.3
The second step is to take account of the design situation and assess the
characteristic vaIue as a cautious estimate of the geotechnical parameter
values affecting the occurrence the limit state 2.4.5.2
The third step is to obtain the design parameter vaIue by applying a
partial factor to the characteristic value 2.4.7.3.3

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
Characteristic VaIues from Measured VaIues
Measured VaIues
Step 1
Covered by:
EN 1997-1,
Clauses 2.4.3, 3.3
and
EN 1997-2
Test ResuIts
Results of field tests at particular points in the ground
or locations on a site or laboratory tests on particular
specimens
Test related correction, independent
of any further analysis
Theory, empirical relationships or
correlations to obtain Derived values
Assessment of influence of test and
design conditions on parameter value
Selection of relevant test results e.g.
peak or constant volume strengths
GeotechnicaI Parameter VaIues
Quantified for design calculations
Cautious estimate of geotechnical parameter
value taking account of:
Test conditions, Nature of ground
Particular limit state, Nature of structure
Characteristic Parameter VaIue
Step 2
Covered by
EN 1997-1,
Clause 2.4 5.2

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
EvaIuation of GeotechnicaI Parameters
The factors to be considered when evaluating soil and rock
parameters are given in the following sub-sections of 3.3:
Characteristics of soil and rock types
Weight density
Density index
Degree of compaction
Soil shear strength
Soil stiffness
Quality and properties of rock masses
Permeability and consolidation parameters of soil and rock
Geotechnical parameters from field tests:
CPT
SPT
Vane test
Weight sounding test
Pressuremeter test
Dilatometer test
Compactability test

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
Ground Investigation Report
Section 3 states that the results of a geotechnical investigation
shall be presented in a Ground Investigation Report
The Ground nvestigation Report should form part of the
GeotechnicaI Design Report
A comprehensive list of items to be included in this report is
provided
The Ground nvestigation Report should normally include:
A presentation of all the geotechnical information i.e. a factuaI
report
A geotechnical evaluation of the information, stating the
assumptions made in the interpretation of the test results i.e. an
interpretative report

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
Section 6
EN 1997-1: Section 6
Spread Foundations

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
Limit States
Provisions apply to pads, strip and raft foundations
Relevant to foundations for gravity retaining waIIs and bridges as
well as buildings
List of Iimit states to be considered and compiled is given:
Loss of overall stability
Bearing resistance failure
Failure by sliding
Combined failure in ground and structure
Structural failure due to ground movement
Excessive settlements
Excessive heave due to swelling frost heave and other causes
Unacceptable vibrations
Some of above are ultimate limit states and some are serviceability
limit states both need to be considered
Note term bearing resistance is used instead of bearing capacity
Failure by overturning is not a reIevant limit state failure by
bearing resistance will occur first

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
ControIIing Limit State
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Foundation width (m)
D
e
s
i
g
n

b
e
a
r
i
n
g

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
P
a
)
ULS
SLS
As the Ioad that a foundation has to support increases, and hence
as the foundation width increases, the controIIing Iimit state
changes from bearing failure (ULS) to excessive settlement (SLS).
Hence need to check both ULS and SLS

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
CaIcuIation ModeI
EquiIibrium Equation to be satisfied F
d
> R
d
Equation is in terms of forces, not ensuring stresses do not exceed the
aIIowabIe stress, as in traditional design
Hence the modeI for bearing resistance failure is a rectangular pIastic
stress bIock at the limiting stress beneath the foundation, similar to the
plastic stress block in the ultimate limit state design of a concrete beam
The design bearing resistance force, R
d
acts through the centre of this
stress bIock over effective foundation area, A'
Need to consider both drained and undrained conditions
F
V
, F
H
M,
W
1
W
2
R
d
A
V
P
V
d
A
H
from Frank et al.

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
Design Method
Direct Method
Carry out a separate anaIysis for each Iimit state. Calculation method shall
model as closely as possible the failure mechanism envisaged, e.g.
Bearing resistance model for ULS
Settlement calculation for SLS
Indirect Method
Using comparable experience and field or laboratory measurements or
observations, chosen in relation to SLS loads, so as satisfy the requirements
of all limit states
Example : considering SLS for conventional structures founded on clays, the
ratio between the bearing resistance of the ground, at its initial characteristic
shear strength, to the applied serviceability loading, R
u,k
/ F
k
, should be
calculated (6.6.2(16)):
f R
u,k
/ F
k
< 3, calculation of settlements should aIways be undertaken
f R
u,k
/ F
k
< 2, calculation of settlements should take account of non-
Iinear stiffness effects of the ground

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
Spread Foundation ExampIe
Design Situation:
Square pad foundation for a building, 0.8m embedment depth; groundwater level at
base of foundation. Central vertical load. Allowable settlement is 25mm.
Characteristic vaIues of actions:
Permanent vertical load = 900 kN + weight of foundation;
Variable vertical load = 600 kN;
Concrete weight density = 24 kN/m
3
.
Ground Properties:
Overconsolidated glacial till, c
u;k
= 200 kPa, c'
k
= 0kPa, '
k
= 35
o
,
k
= 22kN/m
3
SPT N = 40, m
v;k
= 0.015 m
2
/MN.
Require foundation width, B
To satisfy both ULS (drained and undrained conditions) and SLS
Using recommended partiaI factors vaIues
G
k
= 900kN, Q
k
= 600kN
GWL
B = ?
d = 0.8 m
*

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
Direct Method
ULS calculations for 3 Design Approaches
DA1 - Combination 1
Combination 2
DA2
DA3
For:
Undrained Conditions
Drained Conditions
SLS calculation

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
Undrained Conditions
GeneraI Equation for

undrained design bearing resistance

R
u;d
/ A' for all Design
Approaches

Annex D - Eqn. D.1:
R
u;d
/ A' = (( + 2) c
u;d
b
c
s
c
i
c
+ q
d
) /
R
= (( + 2)(c
u,k
/
c
u

) b
c
s
c
i
c
+

q
k
) /
R
= (( + 2)(c
u;k
/
c
u

) b
c
s
c
i
c
+

d) /
R
where : c
u;k
, c
u;d
= characteristic and design values of cu
b
c
= 1.0 for a horizontal foundation base
s
c
= 1.2 for a square foundation and
i
c
= 1.0 for a vertical load
` = 22.0 = weight density of the soil
cu
= partial factor on c
u
= partial factor on soil weight density, always = 1.0
R
= partial resistance factor
Substituting known values in Eqn. D.1:
R
u;d
/ A' = (5.14 x (200 /
c
u
) x 1.0 x 1.2 x 1.0 + 1.0 x 22 x 0.8) /
R
= (6.17 x 200 /
c
u

+ 17.6) /
R
G I E i R /A' (1234 0 / 1 6) /

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
Design for DA1 - Undrained Conditions
Design Approach 1 - Combination 1
Check V
d
> R
d
for a 1.32 m x 1.32 m pad, where V
d
= F
d

- Design vaIue of the verticaI action
V
d
=
G
(G
k
+ G
pad;k
) +
Q
Q
k
=
G
(G
k
+ A
c
d) +
Q
Q
k

where Gpad;k = characteristic weight of the concrete pad,
c
= weight density of concrete, d = depth of the
pad and
Q
= partial factor on variable actions. Substituting values for parameters gives:
V
d
= 1.35 (900 + 1.32
2
x 24.0 x 0.8) + 1.5 x 600 = 2160.2 kN
- Design vaIue of the bearing resistance
R
d
= 1.32
2
(1234.0 /
cu
+ 17.6) /
R
= 1.742(1234.0 / 1.0 + 17.6) / 1.0 = 2180.8 kN
The ULS design requirement V
d
5 R
d
is fuIfiIIed as 2160.2 kN < 2180.8 kN.
Check V
d
> R
d
for a 1.39 m x 1.39 m pad
V
d
=
G
(G
k
+ G
pad;k
) +
Q
Q
k
= 1.0 (900 + 1.39
2
x 24.0 x 0.8) + 1.3 x 600 = 1717.1 kN
R
d
= 1.39
2
(1234.0 / 1.4 + 17.6 ) / 1.0 = 1737.0 kN
d
5 R
d
is fuIfiIIed as 1717.1 kN < 1737.0 kN
SinceB= 1.39m for DA1.C2 > B=1.32m for DA1.C1
DA1 D i Width f U d i d C diti DA1 1 39 ( i b DA1 C2)

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
Designs for DA2 and DA3 - Undrained Conditions
Design Approach 2
Check V
d
> R
d
V
d
=
G
(G
k
+ A
c
d) +
Q
Q
k

V
d
= 1.35 (900 + 1.57
2
x 24.0 x 0.8) + 1.5 x 600 = 2178.9 kN
R
d
= 1.57
2
(1234.0 /
cu
+ 17.6) /
R
= 2.465(1234.0 / 1.0 + 17.6) / 1.4 = 2203.6 kN
d
5 R
d
DA2 Design Width for Undrained Conditions: DA2 = 1.57m
Design Approach 3
Check V
d
> R
d
V
d
=
G
(G
k
+ G
pad;k
) +
Q
Q
k
= 1.35 (900 + 1.56
2
x 24.0 x 0.8) + 1.5 x 600 = 2178.1 kN
R
d
= 1.56
2
(1234.0 / 1.4 + 17.6 ) / 1.0 = 2187.8 kN
d
5 R
d

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
OveraII Factor of Safety (OFS)
OFS = R
u;k
/ V
k
For permanent load only and undrained conditions:
V
k
= G
k
V
d
=
G
G
k
R
u;k
/ A' = ( + 2) c
u;k
b
c
s
c
i
c
R
u;d
/ A' = (( + 2) (c
u;k
/
cu
) b
c
s
c
i
c
) /
R
f V
d
= R
u;d
, OFS = R
u;k
/ V
k
= (R
u;d
x
cu
x
R
) / (V
d
/
G
) =
G
x
cu
x
R
Hence OFS for 3 Design Approaches
1.89 1.0 1.4 1.35 DA3
1.89 1.4 1.0 1.35 DA2
1.4 1.0 1.4 1.0 DA1.C2
1.35 1.0 1.0 1.35 DA1.C1
OFS
R
(R) G
cu
(M)
G
(A)
OFS vaIues Iess than value of 2 3 traditionally used for design,
particularly for DA1
Hence SLS more IikeIy to control foundation design on cohesive soils
Greater use of SLS in future as models and analytical methods for
predicting foundation settlements improve

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
GeneraI Equation for

drained design bearing resistance

R
d;d
/ A' for all Design
Approaches
Annex D, Eqn. D.2:
R
d;d
/A' = (c'
d
N
c;d
b
c;d
s
c;d
i
c;d
+ q'
d
N
q;d
b
q;d
s
q;d
i
q;d
+ 0.5 '
d
B' N
;d
b
;d
s
;d
i
;d
) /
R
Where all parameters are design vaIues and c terms ignored as c' = 0:
A' = effective foundation area (reduced area with load acting through its centre)
N
q;d
= e
tan'd tan
2
(/4 + '
d
/2)
N
;d
= 2 (N
q
- 1) tan'
d
s
q;d
= 1 + sin '
d
s
;d
= 0.7
R
d
= A' (q'
d
N
q;d
s
q;d
+ 0.5 '
d
B'N
;d
s
;d
) /
R

'
d
= tan
-1
(tan '
k
) /
M
= tan
-1
(tan35/1.25) = 29.3
o
Bearing resistance checked for ground water level at ground surface. f
w
= 9.81 kN/m
3
:
'
d
= (22.0 x 1.0 9.81) x 1.0 = 12.19 kN/m
3
q'
d
= '
d
d = 12.19 x 1.0 x 0.8 = 9.75 kPa
Drained Conditions

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
Design for DA1 - Drained Conditions
Check V
d
> R
d
V
d
=
G
(G
k
+
c
'A d) +
Q
Q
k

= 1.35 (900 + (24.0 - 9.81) x 1.62
2
x 0.8 + 1.5 x 600 = 2155.2 kN
Note: Submerged weight of foundation used. Alternatively could use total weight and subtract uplift force due to water
pressure under foundation
R
d
= R
d
= A (q' N
q
s
q
+ 0.5'B'N
) /
R
= 1.62
2
(9.75 x 33.3 x 1.57 + 0.5 x 12.19 x1.62 x 45.23 x 0.7) / 1.0 = 2158.2 kN
d
5 R
d
Check V
d
> R
d
for a 2.08m x 2.08 m pad
V
d
=
G
(G
k
+
c
'A d) +
Q
Q
k
= 1.0 (900+ (24.0 - 9.81) x 2.08
2
x0.8) + 1.3x600 = 1729.1 kN
R
d
= 2.08
2
(9.75 x 16.92 x 1.49 + 0.5 x 12.19 x 2.08 x 17.84 x 0.7) / 1.0 = 1748.4 kN
d
5 R
d
b=2.08m for DA1.C2 > b =1.62mfor DA1.C1
DA1 D i Width D i d C diti DA1 2 08 i b DA1 C1

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
Designs for DA2 and DA3 - Drained Conditions
Design Approach 2
Check V
d
> R
d
V
d
=
G
(G
k
+
c
'A d) +
Q
Q
k
V
d
= 1.35 (900 + (24.0 9.81) x 1.87
2
x 0.8) + 1.5 x 600 = 2168.6 kN
R
d
= 1.87
2
(9.75 x 33.3 x 1.57 + 0.5 x 12.19 x 1.87 x 45.23 x 0.7) / 1.4 = 2174.6 kN
d
5 R
d
Design Approach 3
Check V
d
> R
d
V
d
=
G
(G
k
+
c
'A d) +
Q
Q
k
= 1.35 (900 + (24.0 9.81) x 2.29
2
x 0.8) + 1.5 x 600 = 2195.4 kN
R
d
= 2.29
2
(9.75 x 16.92 x 1.49 + 0.5 x 12.19 x 2.29 x 17.84 x 0.7)/1.0 = 2203.1 kN
d
5 R
d
is fuIfiIIed as 2195.4 < 2203.1 kN

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
SLS Design
Calculate settlement using adjusted eIasticity method
s = p B f / E
m

E
m
= design value of the modulus of elasticity
f = settlement coefficient
p = bearing pressure
Assume E
m
= E' = 1.5N = 1.5 x 40 = 60 MPa
f = (1
2
) where = 0.25 and = 0.95 for square foundation
Then f = (1 0.25
2
) x 0.95 = 0.89
p = (G
k
+ Q
k
)/B
2
= (900 + 600) / 2.08
2
= 346.7 kPa for smallest foundation
Hence settlement:
s = p B f / E
m
= 346.7 x 2.08 x 0.89 x1000 / 60000 = 10.7 mm
As s < 25 mm, SLS condition satisfied

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
Summary of Designs
2.9 2.29 1.56 DA3
2.0 1.87 1.57 DA2
2.3 2.08 1.39 DA1.C2
(1.62) (1.32) DA1.C1
R
u,k
/ F
k
ratio
Drained
width (m)
Undrained
width (m)
ULS design: For each Design Approach, the drained condition determines the
foundation width for this design situation
SLS design: The calculated settlement of the smallest foundation of width 2.08m,
under the characteristic load is 11 mm, which is less than the allowable settlement
of 25mm, so that the SLS condition is satisfied in this example
The ratio R
u,k
/ F
k
is Iess than 3 and greater than 2 for all the Design Approaches,
hence the settIement should be caIcuIated

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
ConcIusions
Section 3 provides the requirements for the coIIection, evaIuation and
presentation of geotechnicaI data as an integral part of the geotechnical
design process
Section 6 provides a comprehensive framework with the principIes for
design of spread foundations
The designer of spread foundations is expIicitIy required to:
Consider all relevant limit states
Consider both ULS and SLS
Consider both drained and undrained conditions (where relevant)
Distinguish between actions on the foundation and resistances
Treat appropriately:
Forces from supported structure (permanent or variable)
Forces due to water pressure (actions not resistances)
Since overaII factors of safety for ULS design are generaIIy Iower than
traditionally used for foundation design, it is likely that settlement
considerations and hence SLS requirements will controI more foundation
designs, particularly on cohesive soils and when using DA1
f recommended ULS partial factors are adopted, Eurocode 7 is likely to
encourage foundation designers to focus more on SLS considerations

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
Thank You Thank You

SECTION 7 PILE FOUNDATIONS

R. Frank
Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chausses

EUROCODES
Design of pile foundations
following Eurocode 7-Section 7
Workshop Eurocodes: background and applications
Brussels, 18-20 Februray 2008
Roger FRANK, Professor
Ecole nationale des ponts et chausses, Paris
EUROCODES
Background and Applications Contents of Part 1 (EN 1997-1)
Section 1 General
Section 2 Basis of geotechnical
design
Section 3 Geotechnical data
Section 4 Supervision of construction,
monitoring and maintenance
Section 5 Fill, dewatering, ground
improvement and reinforcement
Section 6 Spread foundations
Section 7 Pile foundations
Section 10 Hydraulic failure
Section 11 Site stability
EUROCODES
EN 1997-1:
E A sample semi-empirical method for bearing
resistance estimation
H Limiting foundation movements and structural
deformation
EN 1997-2:
D.7 Example of a method to determine the
compressive resistance of a single pile (CPT)
D.6 Example of a correlation between
compressive resistance of a single pile and
cone penetration resistance
E.3 Example of a method to calculate the
compressive resistance of a single pile (PMT)
Informative annexes Informative annexes
EUROCODES
Section 7 of EN 1997-1
Pile load tests Pile load tests
Axially loaded piles Axially loaded piles
- - ULS compressive or tensile resistance ULS compressive or tensile resistance
( ( bearing capacity bearing capacity ) )
- - Vertical displacements of pile foundations: Vertical displacements of pile foundations:
serviceability of the supported structure serviceability of the supported structure
Transversely loaded piles Transversely loaded piles
Structural design of piles Structural design of piles
EUROCODES
Background and Applications Specificity of pile foundations
Need to take into account the actions due to ground
displacement :
- downdrag (negative skin friction)
- heave
- transverse loading
********************
* the design values of the strength and stiffness of the
moving ground should usually be upper values
* the ground displacement is treated as an action and an
interaction analysis is carried out,
or
* an upper bound of the force transmited by the ground is
introduced as the design action.
EUROCODES
Background and Applications General
EUROCODES
Background and Applications Pile load tests
EUROCODES
EUROCODES
Background and Applications Axially loaded piles
EUROCODES
ULS Compressive or tensile ULS Compressive or tensile
resistance of piles (bearing resistance of piles (bearing
capacity) capacity)
EUROCODES
ULS - From static load test results
7.6.2.2 Ultimate compressive resistance from static load tests
(8)P For structures, which do not exhibit capacity to transfer loads from "weak" piles to
"strong" piles, as a minimum, the following equation shall be satisfied:
( ) ( )
=
2
min m c;
1
mean m c;
k c;
; Min

R R
R (7.2)
where 1 and 2 are correlation factors related to the number of piles tested and are
applied to the mean (Rc;m) mean and the lowest (Rc;m)min of Rc;m respectively.
NOTE The values of the correlation factors may be set by the National annex. The
recommended values are given in Table A.9.
EUROCODES
Characteristic resistance from
measured resistances
Table A.9 - Correlation factors to derive characteristic values from static pile load tests
(n - number of tested piles)

for n = 1 2 3 4 5
1 1,40 1,30 1,20 1,10 1,00
2 1,40 1,20 1,05 1,00 1,00

EUROCODES
ULS From ground test results :
Model pile method
7.6.2.3 Ultimate compressive resistance from ground test results
(5)P The characteristic values Rb;k and Rs;k shall either be determined by:
( )
( ) ( )
= =
+
= + =
4
min cal c;
3
mean cal c; cal c; cal s; cal b;
k s; k b; k c;
; Min

R R R R R
R R R (7.8)
where 3 and 4 are correlation factors that depend on the number of profiles of tests, n,
and are applied respectively: to the mean values (Rc;cal )mean = (Rb;cal +Rs;cal)mean =
(Rb;cal)mean +(Rs;cal)meanand to the lowest values (Rc;cal )min =(Rb;cal +Rs;cal)min,
NOTE The values of the correlation factors may be set by the National annex. The
recommended values are given in Table A.10.
EUROCODES
Table A.10 - Correlation factors to derive characteristic values from ground test results
(n - the number of profiles of tests)
for n = 1 2 3 4 5 7 10
3 1,40 1,35 1,33 1,31 1,29 1,27 1,25
4 1,40 1,27 1,23 1,20 1,15 1,12 1,08

Characteristic resistance from
calculated resistances
EUROCODES
ULS From ground test results :
Alternative method
7.6.2.3 Ultimate compressive resistance from ground test results
(8) The characteristic values may be obtained by calculating:
Rb;k = Ab qb;k and
=
i
i i s
q A R
k ; s; s; ;k
(7.9)
where qb;k and qs;i;k are characteristic values of base resistance and shaft friction in the
various strata, obtained from values of ground parameters.
NOTE If this alternative procedure is applied, the values of the partial factors b and s
recommended in Annex A may need to be corrected by a model factor larger than 1,0.
The value of the model factor may be set by the National annex.
EUROCODES
ULS ULS - - Permanent and transient Permanent and transient
design situations design situations - - Load factors Load factors
EUROCODES
ULS ULS - - Permanent and transient Permanent and transient
design situations design situations - - Resistance factors Resistance factors
EUROCODES
Characteristic Characteristic value : value :
R R
k k
=R / =R / where R = where R =
Rd Rd
R R
cal cal
or R =R or R =R
m m
(1) (1)
Design Design value : value :
R R
d d
=R =R
k k
/ /
t t
or or R R
d d
=R =R
bk bk
/ /
b b
+R +R
sk sk
/ /
s s
(2) (2)
Applied Applied compression/tension compression/tension load load : :
F F
d d
= =
F F
F F
k k
(3) (3)
General condition General condition for ULS being : for ULS being :
F F
d d
R R
d d
(4) (4)
equations (1) to (4) lead to : equations (1) to (4) lead to :
F F
k k
R / R /
F F
. .
t t
. . =R / FS =R / FS (5) (5)
Design resistance Design resistance
EUROCODES
Piles in compression : Piles in compression :
Piles in tension : Piles in tension :
Piles in group Piles in group
EUROCODES
EUROCODES
Vertical displacements of pile foundations
(serviceability of supported structure)
Vertical displacements under SLS conditions must
be assessed and checked against limiting value :
* Piles in compression
- downdrag must be taken into account
- settlement due to group action must be taken into
account
* Piles in tension
- check upward displacements in the same manner
EUROCODES
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pile Load (MN)
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)

LoadTest 2
PileLoadTest Results

Load Settlement Settlement
(MN) Pile1(mm) Pile2(mm)

0 0 0
0.5 2.1 1.2
1.0 3.6 2.1
1.5 5.0 2.9
2.0 6.2 4.1
3.0 10.0 7.0
4.0 18.0 14.0
5.0 40.0 26.0
5.6 63.0 40.0
6.0 100.0 56.0
6.4 80.0
LoadTest 1
Example from pile load test results (Orr, 2005)
driven piles B =0.40 m D =15.0 m
allowable settlement is 10 mm
loads : G loads : G
k k
=20,000 kN and Q =20,000 kN and Q
k k
=5,000 kN =5,000 kN
EUROCODES
Background and Applications Results
From Table, for n =2 pile load tests : for n =2 pile load
tests :
1
=1.30 and
2
=1.20
R
k
=Min{5.3/1.30; 5.0/1.20}= Min{4.08; 4.17}=4.08
DA 1 DA 1- -2 : F 2 : F
d d
=26.5 MN and R =26.5 MN and R
d d
=3.14 MN. =3.14 MN.
9 piles are needed (neglecting group effects) 9 piles are needed (neglecting group effects)
& &
DA1 DA1- -1 : F 1 : F
d d
d d
=4.08 =4.08
9 piles are also needed (neglecting group effects) 9 piles are also needed (neglecting group effects)
DA 2 : F DA 2 : F
d d
d d
=3.71 MN =3.71 MN
10 piles are needed (neglecting group effects). 10 piles are needed (neglecting group effects).
EUROCODES
SLS Serviceability check
* G
k
+Q
k
= 25MN
* load per pile : through analysis of the 2 load
curves for s <10 mm
* Same analysis as for ULS (
1
=1.30 and
2
=1.20)
leads to R
k
=Min{3.25/1.30; 3.0/1.20}
= 2.5 MN
* thus, 10 piles are needed (neglecting group
effects)
EUROCODES
Transversely loaded piles
Adequate safety against failure (ULS)
F
tr
R
tr
One of the following failure mechanisms should
be considered :
- short piles : rotation or translation as a rigid
body
- for long slender piles : bending failure of the
pile with local yielding and displacement of
the soil near the top of the pile
EUROCODES
Transverse resistance R
tr
:
* from head transverse displacement pile
load test
* from ground tests results and pile strength
parameters
The theory of beams with subgrade reaction
moduli can be used
EUROCODES
Transverse displacement
The following must be taken into
account:
- non linear soil : E()
- flexural stiffness of the piles : EI
- fixity conditions (connections)
- group effect
- load reversals and cyclic loading
EUROCODES
Background and Applications Conclusions
* importance of static pile load tests
* an innovative approach to pile capacity
taking account of number of load tests or
number of soil profiles
* need of assessing serviceability of structures
through displacement calculations
Designing pile foundations with Eurocode 7 : Designing pile foundations with Eurocode 7 :
EUROCODES
Thank you for your attention !

SECTION 8 ANCHORAGES
SECTION 9 RETAINING STRUCTURES

B. Simpson
Arup

1
EUROCODES
EN1997-1: Anchorages and Retaining structures
Brian Simpson
Arup Geotechnics
2
EN 1997-1
Geotechnical design General Rules BP106.9
BP111.5 BP112.6 BP124-T1.31
1 General
3 Geotechnical data
4 Supervision of construction, monitoring and maintenance
5 Fill, dewatering, ground improvement and reinforcement
6 Spread foundations
7 Pile foundations
8 Anchorages
9 Retaining structures
10 Hydraulic failure
11 Overall stability
12 Embankments
Appendices A to J
3
8 Anchorages
BP124-F3.6
8.1 General
8.2 Limit states
8.3 Design situations and actions
8.4 Design and construction considerations
8.5 Ultimate limit state design
8.6 Serviceability limit state design
8.7 Suitability tests
8.8 Acceptance tests
8.9 Supervision and monitoring
4
2
7
10
8 Anchorages
Section depends on EN1537 - Execution of special
geotechnical work - Ground anchors
Not fully compatible with EN1537. Further work on
this is underway.
BS8081 being retained for the time being.
11
EN1537:1999
12
EN1537:1999
Execution of special geotechnical work - Ground anchors
3
13
EN1537:1999 Execution of special geotechnical work - Ground anchors

- provides details of test procedures (creep load etc)
14
Partial factors in
anchor design
15
Partial factors in anchor design

EUROCODES
Brian Simpson
Arup Geotechnics
EUROCODES
Fundamentals Design Approaches
Main points in the code text
Examples:
Comparisons with previous (UK) practice
Comparison between Design Approaches
Lessons from the Dublin Workshop
EUROCODES
Examples:
4
19
Genti ngHighlands BP87.59 BP106.30 BP111.22 BP112.43 BP119.43 BP124-F3.9 BP130.33 BP145a.8 Genti ngHighlands BP87.60 BP106.31 BP111.23 BP112.44 BP119.44 BP124-F3.10 BP130.34 BP145a.9
21
FOS >1 for characteristic soil strengths

BP87.61 BP106.32 BP111.24 BP112.45
BP119.45 BP124-F3.11 BP130.35 BP145a.10
- but not big enough
22
The slope and retaining wall are al l part of the same

problem. BP87.62 BP106.33 BP111.25 BP112.46
BP119.46 BP124-F3.12 BP130.36 BP145a.11
Structure and soil must be designed
together - consistently.
23
Approaches to ULS design

The merits of
Design Approach 1 in Eurocode 7
Brian Simpson
Arup Geotechnics BP145a.1
ISGSR2007 - First International Symposium on
Geotechnical Safety and Risk
EUROCODES
Examples:
5
25
EN 1997-1
Geotechnical design General Rules BP106.9 BP111.5 BP112.6 BP124-T1.31
1 General
3 Geotechnical data
4 Supervision of construction, monitoring and maintenance
5 Fill, dewatering, ground improvement and reinforcement
6 Spread foundations
7 Pile foundations
8 Anchorages
10 Hydraulic failure
11 Overall stability
12 Embankments
Appendices A to J
26
9.1 General
9.2 Limit states
9.3 Actions, geometrical data and design situations
9.5 Determination of earth pressures
9.6 Water pressures
27
9.2 Limit states

28
9.2 Limit states

29
9.3.2 Geometrical data

30
9.3.2 Geometrical data

100%
10%
100%
10%
6
31

32

33
9.4.2 Drainage systems

34

35

36
9.5.3 Limiting values of earth pressure

Annex C also provides charts and formulae for the active
and passive limit values of earth pressure.
7
37
Annex C Sample procedures to determine limit values

of earth pressures on vertical walls
Based on Caquot and
Kerisel (and Absi?).
No values for adverse wall
friction, which can lead to
larger K
a
and much smaller
K
p
.
38
Wall friction
Adverse wall friction may be
caused by loads on the wall
from structures above, inclined
ground anchors, etc.
39
C.2 Numerical procedure for obtaining passive pressures

Also provides Ka
Programmable formulae (though not simple)
Incorporated in some software (eg Oasys FREW, STAWAL)
Precise source not known (to me), but same values as
Lancellotta, R (2002) Analytical solution of passive earth
pressure. Gotechnique 52, 8 617-619.
Covers range of adverse wall friction.
Slightly more conservative than Caquot & Kerisel when and
/ large but more correct?
40
Ka, Kp charts in Simpson & Driscoll

41
Comparison with Caquot & Kerisel

Kp(C&K) /
Kp(EC7) %
Ka(C&K) /
Ka(EC7) %
42

8
43
9.7.2 Overall stability

44
9.7.3 Foundation failure of gravity walls

45
9.7.4 Rotational failure of embedded walls

46
9.7.5 Vertical failure of embedded walls

47
9.7.6 Structural design of retaining structures

48
9.7.6 Structural design of retaining structures

9
49
9.7.7 Failure by pull-out of anchorages

50

51
9.8.2 Displacements
EUROCODES
Examples:
53
8m propped wall BP87.71 BP111.33 BP112.49

8m propped wall - data BP78.26 BP111.34
BP112.50 BP119.50 BP124-F3.15

CASE: DA1
-1
DA1
-2
EC7
SLS
Unplannedoverdig(m) 0.5 0.5 0
Diglevel: Stage1 -8.5 -8.5 -2.5
Stage2 -8.0
Characteristic' ( ) 24 24 24
(or M) ontan' 1 1.25 1
Design ' 24 19.6 24
'/' active 1 1 1
'/' passive 1 1 1
Ka 0.34 0.42 0.34
Factor onKa 1 1 1
DesignKa 0.34 0.42 0.34
Kp 4.0 2.9 4.0
Factor onKp 1 1 1
DesignKp Excd. side
Retd. side
4.0 2.9 4.0
1.0
Q 1 1.3 1
10
8m propped wall - length and BM BP78.28
BP111.35 BP112.51 BP119.51 BP124-F3.16

CASE: DA1
-1
DA1
-2
EC7
SLS
Unplannedoverdig(m) 0.5 0.5 0
Design ' 24 19.6 24
DesignKa 0.34 0.42 0.34
DesignKp Excd. side
Retd. side
4.0 2.9 4.0
1.0
Q 1 1.3 1
Computer program STW STW F
Datafile
PROP11 PROP1 BCAP3A
Wall length(m) 15.1
*
17.9
*
17.8
**
Max bendingmoment
(kNm/m)
1097 1519 -236
+682
Factor onbendingmoment 1.35 1 1
ULS designbending
moment (kNm/m)
1481 1519 -236
+682

* Computed ** Assumed
Redistribution of earth pressure BP87.75 BP111.36 BP112.52
BP119.52 BP124-F3.17
57
Compare CIRIA 104 BP87.2 BP111.54 BP112.54 BP119.53 BP124-F3.18

58
10kPa (13kPa)
0
-8m (-8.5m)
=24 (19.6)
59
xb
ca
p
5
-F
e
b
0
7
c E
ve
n
t 3
R
u
n
3
In
cre
m
e
n
t 1
1
1
:2
8
2
1
-0
2
-0
7
: B
e
n
d
in
g
m
o
m
e
n
t
-2
0
.0
0
-1
6
.0
0
-1
2
.0
0
-8
.0
0
0
-4
.00
0
.0
y co
o
rd
in
a
te
(x =
-0
.5
0
0
0
m
)
S
ca
le
x 1
:1
0
1
y 1
:1
3
6
8
1
-1
2
0
0
.
-1
0
0
0
.
-8
0
0
.0
-6
0
0
.0
-4
0
0
.0
-2
0
0
.0 .0
2
0
0
.0
4
0
0
.0
Bending moment[kNm/m]
630kN/m
8m propped wall - length and BM BP78.32
BP111.38 BP112.55 BP119.54 BP124-F3.19

CASE: CIRIA
Fs
CIRIA
Fs
BS
8002
DA1
-1
DA1
-2
EC7
SLS
DA1
-1
DA1
-2
DA1
-2
DA1
-2
Unplannedoverdig(m) 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Design ' 16.5 24 20.4 24 19.6 24 24 19.6 19.6 19.6
DesignKa 0.49 0.36 0.41 0.34 0.42 0.34 0.34 0.42 0.42
DesignKp Excd. side
Retd. side
2.1 3.4 2.8 4.0 2.9 4.0
1.0
4.0 2.9
1.0
2.9
1.0

Q 1 1 1 1 1.3 1 1 1.3 1.3 1.3
Computer program STW STW STW STW STW FREW FREW FREW FREW SAFE
Datafile
PROP4 PROP5 PR1B-03 PROP11 PROP1 BCAP3A BCAPBA BCAP1A BCAP4A XBCAP5
Wall length(m) 20.4
**
14.1
**
17.9
*
15.1
*
17.9
*
17.8
**
17.8
**
17.8
**
17.8
**
17.8
**
Max bendingmoment
(kNm/m)
1870
##
776 1488 1097 1519 -236
+682
-241
838
1359 -308
1158
-229
1131
Factor onbendingmoment 1.5 1.0? 1.35 1 1 1.35 1 1 1
ULS designbending
moment (kNm/m)
1164 1488? 1481 1519 -236
+682
-325
1131
1359 -308
1158
-229
1131

* Computed ** Assumed ##Not usedindesign
11
8m excavation - comparison of methods BP78.34
BP111.39 BP112.56 BP119.55 BP124-F3.20
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
C
I
R
IA
1
0
4
B
S
8
0
0
2
E
C
7
-
S
T
W
E
C
7
-
F
R
E
W
E
C
7
-
S
A
F
E
Length (m)
BM/50
Prop F/50
Redistribution of earth pressure BP87.75 BP111.36 BP112.52
BP119.56 BP124-F3.21
63
German practice for sheet pile design - EAB (1996) BP87.39 BP111.37 BP112.53
BP119.57 BP124-F3.22
64
Weissenbach, A, Hettler, A and

Simpson, B (2003). Stability of
excavations.
In Geotechnical Engineering
Handbook,
Vol 3: Elements and Structures
(Ed U Smoltczyk). Ernst & Sohn
/ Wiley.
65
SAFE Grundbau2 BP116.24 BP119.58 BP124-F3.24

8m
k
=35
= 17 kN/m
3
/ = 2/3 (active)
K
a
= 0.224
?
2m
q=80kPa
= 20 kN/m
3
22.4
30.5
15.3
Weissenbach, A, Hettler, A and Simpson, B (2003) Stability of excavations. In Geotechnical Engineering
Handbook, Vol 3: Elements and Structures (Ed U Smoltczyk). Ernst & Sohn / Wiley.
3.32m
66
Grundbau in STAWAL BP119.59 BP124-F3.25

[1]
.0
[2] [2]
-8.000
Toe
-10.59m
.0 .0
199.3kN/m
Actual Pressures
Water Pressure
Moment
Shear
-240.0 -160.0 -80.00 .0 80.00 160.0 240.0
-600.0 -400.0 -200.0 .0 200.0 400.0 600.0
-240.0 -160.0 -80.00 .0 80.00 160.0 240.0
Pres sure [kPa]
Bending Moment [kNm/m]
Shear Force [kN/m]
Scale x1:128 y1:128
-14.00
-12.00
-10.00
-8.000
-6.000
-4.000
-2.000
.0
2.000
R
e
d
u
c
e
d
L
e
v
e
l [m
]
12
67
Grundbau: DA1 and DA2 XBP119.60 BP124-F3.26

C:\bx\Grundbau\Prague\[grundbau.xls]
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Char DA1-1 DA1-2 DA2
Penetration cm
BM kNm/m
Strut force kN/m
L=10.6
L=10.7
EUROCODES
Examples:
69
Eurocode 7 Workshop
Dublin, 31 March to 1 April 2005 BP130.1
Organised by
European Technical Committee 10
Technical Committee 23 of ISSMGE
GeoTechNet Working Party 2
Retaining Wall Examples 5 to 7
70
Example 5 Cantilever Gravity Retaining Wall BP130.2

0.75m
B =?
6m
0.4m
Fill
Sand
20
o
Surcharge15kPa
Design situation
- 6mhighcantilever gravity retainingwall,
- Wall andbasethicknesses0.40m.
- Groundwater level is at depthbelow thebaseof thewall.
- Thewall is embedded 0.75mbelowground level in front of thewall.
- Theground behind thewall slopes upwards at 20
o

Soil conditions
-
Sandbeneathwall: c'k =0, 'k =34
o
, =19kN/m
3
- Fill behindwall: c'k =0, 'k =38
o
, =20kN/m
3

Actions
- Characteristic surchargebehindwall 15kPa
Require
- Widthof wall foundation, B
- Designshear force, S andbendingmoment, M inthewall
71
Example 5 BP130.3
0.75m
B =?
6m
0.4m
Fill
Sand
20
o
Surcharge15kPa
20
o
K
a
z
72
Example 5 BP130.4
0.75m
B =?
6m
0.4m
Fill
Sand
20
o
Surcharge15kPa
20
o
K
a
z
13
73

Example 5 - Gravity wall
1 b
2 N
1
2
3 N
1
N
1
N
N
N
N
N
1=3
2 2=N
b b
1
2
3
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 5 5 5 8 8 16 16 17 G C C C C C C C
B
A
S
E

W
I
D
T
H

m
C:\BX\BX-C\EC7\Dublin\[Dublin-results.xls]
1 , 2 or 3 EC7 DA1, DA2 or DA3
b EC7 DA1 Comb 1 only
N national method
Contributor
74
Example 5 Cantilever Gravity Retaining Wall BP130.2 BP124.A6.11

0.75m
B =?
6m
0.4m
Fill
Sand
20
o
Surcharge15kPa
Design situation
- 6mhighcantilever gravity retainingwall,
- Wall andbasethicknesses 0.40m.
- Groundwater level is at depthbelow thebaseof thewall.
- Thewall is embedded0.75mbelowground level in front of thewall.
- Theground behind thewall slopes upwards at 20
o

Soil conditions
-
Sandbeneathwall: c'k =0, 'k =34
o
, =19kN/m
3
- Fill behindwall: c'k =0, 'k =38
o
, =20kN/m
3

Actions
Require
- Widthof wall foundation, B
- Designshear force, S andbendingmoment, M inthewall
Additional specifications provided after the workshop:
1 Thecharacteristicvalueof theangleof slidingresistanceontheinterfacebetweenwall andconcreteunder the
baseshouldbetakenas30.
2 Theweight densityof concreteshouldbetakenas25kN/m3.
3 ThebearingcapacityshouldbeevaluatedusingtotheEC7AnnexD approach.
4 Thesurchargeisavariableload.
5 It shouldbeassumedthat thesurchargemight extenduptothewall (iefor calculatingbendingmomentsinthe
wall), or might stopbehindtheheel of thewall, not surchargingtheheel (iefor calculatingstability).
75
Example 5 Cantilever Gravity Retaining Wall BP124.A6.12

C:\BX\BX-C\EC7\Dublin\[Dublin-results (version 1).xls] 23-J un-05 00:02
Exampl e 5 - Gravi t y wal l
3
2
1
b b
2=N 2
1=3
N
N
N
N
N
1
N
1
N 3
2
1
N 2
b 1
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 5 5 5 8 8 16 16 17 E C C C C C C C
B
A
S
E

W
I
D
T
H

m
76
E
E{
F
F
rep
; X
k
/
M
; a
d
} = E
d
R
d
= R{
F
F
rep
; X
k
/
M
; a
d
}/
R
77

Unfavourable (horizontal) force and
resistance factored. Favourable
(vertical) force not factored in deriving
inclination or eccentricity, or for
comparison with resistance.
Column no. 5
Unfavourable (horizontal) force and
resistance factored. Favourable
(vertical) force not factored in deriving
inclination or eccentricity, but factored
for comparison with resistance.
Column no. 4
Characteristic eccentricity; unfavourable
(horizontal) force andresistance
factored. Favourable (vertical) force not
factored in deriving inclination or for
comparison with resistance.
Column no. 3
Characteristic eccentricityand
inclination; forces and resistance
factored.
Column no. 2
Characteristic values of all parameters.
Column no. 1
0.68 0.50 0.91 1.04 2.02 Rd/Vd
471 471 628 981 1392 Rd (kN/m)
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1 (R)
659 659 879 1373 1392 R (kN/m)
0.41
See
note 0.41 0.30 0.30 Inclination H/V
285 285 285 285 207 Horizontal force kN/m
690 941 690 941 690 Vertical force kN/m
2.17 2.17 2.61 2.61 2.61 EffectivewidthB' (m)
0.79 0.79 0.57 0.57 0.57 Eccentricity (m)
3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 Base width
5 4 3 2 1 Column no.
78

C:\BX\BX-C\EC7\Dublin\[Dublin-results.xls] 27-J un-05 21:43
Exampl e 5 - Gravi ty wal l
3 2 1
b b
2=N
2
1=3
1
b
2
1
N
1
N N
N N
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 5 5 5 8 8 16 16 17 G C C C C C C C
B
E
N
D
I
N
G

M
O
M
E
N
T

k
N
m
/
m

.
14
79

Exampl e 5 - Gravi t y wal l
3 2 1
b b
2=N
2
N N
N
N
1
N
1 b
1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 5 5 5 8 8 16 16 17 E C C C C C C C
S
H
E
A
R

F
O
R
C
E

k
N
/
m

.
80

Serviceability:
No criteria in the instructions
Mainly ignored
(K
a
+K
0
) ?
Middle third ?
Very large range of results
Importance of sequence of calculation and factoring
this is the main difference between the design approaches for
this problem
Factors of safety must allow for errors and
misunderstanding
81
Example 6 Embedded sheet pile retaining wall BP130.9

Sand
10kPa
3.0m
D=?
1.5m

Design situation
- Embedded sheet pileretaining wall for a
3mdeep excavation with a10kPa
surchargeon thesurfacebehind thewall
Soil conditions
-
Sand: c'k =0, 'k =37
o
, =20kN/m
3
Actions
- Characteristic surchargebehind wall
10kPa
- Groundwater level at depth of 1.5m
below ground surfacebehind wall and at
theground surfacein front of wall
Require
- Depth of wall embedment, D
- Design bending moment in thewall, M
82

Sand
10kPa
3.0m
D=?
1.5m

Design situation
- Embeddedsheet pileretainingwall for a
3mdeepexcavationwitha10kPa
surchargeonthesurfacebehindthewall
Soil conditions
-
Sand: c'k =0, 'k =37
o
, =20kN/m
3
Actions
- Characteristic surchargebehindwall
10kPa
- Groundwater level at depthof 1.5m
below groundsurfacebehindwall andat
thegroundsurfaceinfront of wall
Require
- Depthof wall embedment, D
- Designbendingmoment inthewall, M
Additional specifications provided after the
workshop:
1 Thesurchargeis avariableload.
2 Thewall is apermanent structure.
83

Huge range of results
Values of Kp ?
C&K / EC7 / Coulomb ??
What about overdig?
2.4.7.1(5) Less severe
values than those
recommended in Annex A may
be used for temporary
structures or transient design
situations, where the likely
consequences justify it.
Kp(C&K) /
Kp(EC7) %
84
Example 7 Anchored sheet pile quay wall BP130.16

10kPa
D =?
1.5m
Tiebar anchor
3.0m
3.3m
Sand
Water
GWL
8,0m

Design situation
- Anchoredsheet pileretainingwall for an8m
highquay usingahorizontal tiebar anchor.
Soil conditions
- Gravelly sand- 'k =35
o
, =18kN/m
3

(abovewater table) and20kN/m
3
(below
water table)
Actions
- 3mdepthof water infront of thewall anda
tidal lagof 0.3mbetween thewater infront of
thewall andthewater inthegroundbehind
thewall.
Require
15
85

10kPa
D =?
1.5m
Tiebar anchor
3.0m
3.3m
Sand
Water
GWL
8,0m

Design situation
- Anchoredsheet pileretainingwall for an8m
highquayusingahorizontal tiebar anchor.
Soil conditions
- Gravellysand- 'k =35
o
, =18kN/m
3

(abovewater table) and20kN/m
3
(below
water table)
Actions
- Characteristicsurchargebehindwall 10kPa
- 3mdepthof water infront of thewall anda
tidal lagof 0.3mbetweenthewater infront of
thewall andthewater inthegroundbehind
thewall.
Require
Additional specifications provided after the
workshop:
1 Thesurchargeis avariableload.
2 Thewall is apermanent structure.
3 Thelength of thewall is to betheminimum
allowable.
86

Exampl e 7 - Bendi ng moment s
b
N
N N 2
3
3
1
b N
1 1
b
1*
N
N
b
b
b
N
N
N
N
b
c 1
b
1
N
b
1
2
3
N
N
N
3
1
2
b
1
2
3
N
3
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 7 7 7 7 8 9 D12121213141616B C C C C C 1515151515
B
E
N
D
I
N
G

M
O
M
E
N
T

k
N
m
/
m

.
- not the end of the design
87
Eurocode 3, Part 5
Economies of up to 30% due to plastic design
BP87.78 BP130.26
88
The significance of yield in structural elements BP114.32 BP116.50 BP130.27

89

Large range of results
SSI important
Optimise: length, BM, anchor force?
Design doesnt end at the bending moment
Nobody considered SLS
90
The wall must be 12m long.

What tie force is required? BP87.114
BP99.90 BP130.37
16
91
As a cantilever, length would be about 14m. BP87.115 BP99.91

BP130.38
92
DA1 Comb 2 gi ves a tie force of 75kN BP87.116

BP99.92 BP130.39
93
But characteristic calculation gives zero tie force, for 12m length. BP87.117
BP99.93 BP130.40
EUROCODES
Slopes and walls all one problem
Design Approaches matter!
Good basic check lists
Values of K
a
and K
p
Overdig
Not enough attention to SLS (by users, at least)
Examples:
Results broadly similar to existing practice
DAs: big effect on gravity walls; small effect on embedded
Very wide range of results
Effect of DAs for gravity walls and K
p
for embedded
Human error important partly offset by safety factors
Need to work with EC3-5
EUROCODES
Brian Simpson
Arup Geotechnics

SECTION 10 HYDRAULIC FAILURE
SECTION 11 OVERALL STABILITY
SECTION 12 EMBANKMENTS

T. Orr

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
EN 1997-1: Sections 10, 11 and 12
Your
Iogo

Section 10 Hydraulic Failure
Section 11 Overall Stability
Trevor L.L. Orr
Ireland
Eurocode 7 Workshop
Brussels 20
th
February 2008
EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
Section 10 - HydrauIic FaiIure
Eurocode 7 is mainly concerned with failure modes involving the
strength, stiffness or compressibility of the ground, e.g.
Bearing resistance failure of spread foundations
Failure by rotation of embedded retaining walls, and
Excessive settlement of spread foundations
Section 10 of Eurocode 7 is concerned with hydraulic failure where
the strength of the ground is not significant in providing resistance
and where failure is induced by excessive pore-water pressures or
pore-water seepage
The hydraulic modes of failure include:
Failure by upIift (buoyancy)
Failure by heave
Failure by internaI erosion
Failure by piping

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
HydrauIic FaiIure UItimate Limit States
n Eurocode 7 the hydraulic failure ULSs are divided into UPL and
HYD and recommended partial factor values are provided for each
A UPL ultimate limit state is loss of equilibrium of a structure or the
ground due to uplift by water pressure (buoyancy) or other vertical
actions
A typical UPL situation is uplift of a deep basement due to
hydrostatic static groundwater pressure
An HYD ultimate limit state is hydraulic heave, internal erosion and
piping in the ground caused by hydraulic gradients
A typical HYD situation is heave of the base of a deep excavation
due to seepage around a retaining wall
Since the strength of the ground is not significant in UPL or HYD
situations, only one set of recommended partial factors is provided for
each of these ULSs, not three Design Approaches as for GEO ULSs

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
Eurocode 7 - Section 10
Figures from EN 1997-1 showing HydrauIic FaiIures
Conditions that may cause piping
UpIift of a hollow buried cylinder Conditions that may cause heave

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
StabiIising Forces in UPL and HYD
For both ULS and HYD limit states one needs to check there is not
loss of equilibrium with regard to stabilising and destabilising forces
The stabilising force in UPL is mainly due to the self-weight of
structure, but some stabilising force is provided by the ground
resistance on the side of structure due to the strength of the ground
HYD failure occurs when, due to the hydraulic gradient, the pore
water pressure at a point in the soil exceeds the effective stress or the
upward seepage force on a column of soil exceeds the effective
weight of the soil
Stabilising force in HYD is provided entirely by the weight of the soil
The strength of the ground is not considered to be involved at all in
HYD in resisting the force of the seeping water

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
UPL EquiIibrium Equation
UPL EquiIibrium
One equation given:
V
dst;d
5 G
stb;d
+ R
d
2.8
where:
V
dst;d
= design verticaI disturbing Ioad
= G
dst;d
(design perm. Ioad) + Q
dst;d
(design var. Ioad)
G
dst;d
= b x u
dst;d
(design upIift

water pressure force)
R
d
= T
d
(design waII friction force)

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
HYD EquiIibrium Equations
Two equations given for HYD equiIibrium
First eqn: u
dst;d
5
std;d
2.9a
(total stress eqn. - only equation in Eurocode 7 in terms of stress)
Second eqn: S
dst;d
5 G'
stb;d
2.9b
(seepage force and submerged weight eqn.)
i.e. (
w
i Vol)
d
> (' Vol)
d
where i = h/d
(
w
h/d)
d
> (')
d

(
w
h)
d
> ('d)
d

u
dst;d
> '
stb;d
(effective stress eqn.)
u
dst;d
= design excess pore water pressure
d
h
Relevant soil
column
Groundwater level at ground
surface
Standpipe
Excess hydraulic
head
Design effective soil weight, G'
stb,d
Design seepage force, S
dst,d
Design total pore water pressure, u
dst,d
Design total vertical stress,
stb,d

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
Recommended UPL and HYD PartiaI Factors
s;t'
cu
c'
'
Material properties,
M
plus pile tensile
resistance and anchorage resistance
Q;dst33
G;stb
G;dst
Actions,
F
Partial factors
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.25
1.25
1.5
0.9
1.0
UPL
-
-
-
-
-
1.5
0.9
1.35
HYD
Note: - n UPL, a factor of 1.0 is recommended for destabiIising permanent actions,
e.g. uplift water pressures. The required safety is thus obtained by factoring stabiIising
permanent actions by 0.9.
- n HYD, no partial material factors are provided as no soiI strength is involved.

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
OveraII Factor of Safety (OFS) for UpIift
Equation 2.8:
V
dst;d
> G
stb;d
+ R
d
For no R
d
(i.e. soil resistance on side of buried structure ignored)
G;dst
V
dst;k
=
G;stb
G
stb;k
Overall factor of safety (OFS) = G
stb;k
/ V
dst;k
=
G;dst
/
G;stb

Applying recommended partial factors
G;dst
/
G;stb
= 1.0/0.9 = 1.11
Hence OFS = 1.11

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
OFS for Heave using EC7 Equations
Equation 2.9b
S
dst;d
> G
stb;d
G;dst
S
dst;k
>
G;stb
G'
stb;k
G;dst
w
i V >
G;stb
' V
OFS
(b)
= G
stb;k
/ S
dst;k
=
G;dst
/
G;stb
= '/ (
w
i) = i
c
/i = criticaI hydrauIic
gradient / actuaI hydrauIic gradient
OFS
(b)
=
dst
/
stb
= 1.35/0.9 = 1.5
d
h
Relevant soil
column
Groundwater level at ground
surface
Standpipe
Excess hydraulic
head
Design effective soil weight, G'
stb;d
Design seepage force, S
dst;d
Design total pore water pressure, u
dst;d
Design total vertical stress,
stb;d
Equation 2.9a
u
dst;d
>
stb;d

G;dst
w
d +
G;dst
w
h >
G;stb
'd +
G;stb
w
d
OFS
(a)
=
G;dst
/
G;stb
= ('d +
w
d) / (
w
h +
w
d)
= (i
c
+ 1)/(i + 1) = 1.5
i
c
/i = 1.5 + 0.5/i
if i = 0.5 then i
c
/i = OFS
(b)
= 2.5
i.e. more cautious than using Eqn. 2.9b because
w
d
occurs on both sides of equation and is muItipIied by

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
Comment on HYD OveraII Safety
HYD ultimate limit states include internaI erosion and piping as well as heave
The OFS value traditionally used to avoid piping is often very much greater
than the 1.5 provided by the HYD partial factors; e.g. 4.0
Hence, EN 1997-1 gives additionaI provisions to avoid the occurrence of
internaI erosion or piping
For internal erosion, it states that:
Filter criteria shall be used to limit the danger of material transport by
internal erosion
Measures such as filter protection shall be applied at the free surface of
the ground
Alternatively, artificial sheets such as geotextiles may be used
If the filter criteria are not satisfied, it shall be verified that the design value of
the hydraulic gradient is well below the critical hydraulic gradient at
which soil particles begin to move. i
c
value depends on the design conditions
EN 1997-1 states that piping shall be prevented by providing sufficient
resistance against internal soil erosion through by providing:
sufficient safety against heave
sufficient stabiIity of the surface Iayers

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
UpIift Design ExampIe
T
15.0m
Structural loading g
k
= 40kPa
5.0m R
U
G
Design situation:
- Long basement, 15m wide
- Sidewall thickness = 0.3m
- Characteristic structural loading = 40 kPa
- Groundwater can rise to ground surface
- Soil is sand with '
k
= 35
o
, g = 20 kN/m
3
- Concrete weight density = 24 kN/m3
Require base thickness, D
U = Uplift water pressure force =
w
15

(5 + T)
G = Weight of basement plus structural load
R = Resisting force from soil on side walls
Range of design values obtained: D = 0.42 0.85m
Why?

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
ModeI for UPL EquiIibrium CaIcuIation
ModeI Assumptions
nclude or ignore R ?
R = A = A
h
'tan' = AK
v
'tan' where bA = sidewall area
What vaIue for K?
K is a function of ' and . Should K = K
0
or K
a
?
What vaIue for waII friction ?
s a function of '? Should = ' or 2/3' ?
How shouId partiaI factors be appIied to obtain R
d
?
No UPL resistance factors are provided in EN 1997 to obtain R
d
from

R
k

i.e. there is no UPL equivalent to DA2
Design according to EN 1997-1 and assuming
h
' = K
a
v
'
1) With R
k
= AK
a;k
v
'tan'
k
appIy partiaI factor
M
to '
k
to obtain K
a;d

and
d
as for DA1, C2 and

hence

get R
d
(Clause 2.4.7.4(1))
2) Treat R
as a permanent stabilising vertical action and appIy

G;stb
to R
k
to obtain R
d
(Clause 2.4.7.4(2))

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
Determination of Design VaIue of R
d
Assume K = K
a
and is obtained from EN 1997-1 for = 2/3'
1) CIause 2.4.7.4(1): Apply partial factor
M
to '
k
to obtain K
a;d
and
d
and

hence

R
d
No factors appIied: '
k
= 35
o
and = 2/3' K
a;k
= 0.23
k
= 2/3'
k
= 23.3
o
R
k
= AK
a;k
v
'tan
k
= 0.099A
v
'
a)
M
= 1.25

appIied to obtain '
d
and
d
by reducing '
k
and hence
k
'
d
= 29.3
o
and = 2/3' K
a;d
= 0.29
d
= 2/3'
d
= 19.5
o
R
d
= AK
a;d
v
'tan
d
= 0.103A
v
'
Since R is a resistance, need R
d
< R
k
: R
d
= (0.103/0.099)R
k
R
d
= 1.04 R
k
unsafe
b)
M
appIied to increase '
k
but to reduce
'
d
= 41.2
o
and
d
= 19.0
o

d
/'
d
= 19.0/41.2 = 0.46 K
a;d
= 0.18
R
d
= AK
a;d
v
'tan
d
= 0.062A
v
'
R
d
= (0.062/0.099)R
k
R
d
= 0.69 R
k
safe
2) CIause 2.4.7.4(2): Treat R
as a permanent stabilising vertical action and apply
G;stb
to R
k
to obtain R
d
R
d
=
G;stb
R
k
= 0.9 R
k
safe

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
Comments on UpIift Design ExampIe
Reasons for Range of SoIutions to UpIift Design ExampIe:
Whether R Ignored or incIuded
ModeI chosen for R = A
h
' tan
K = K
0
or K
a
= 0.5' or (2/3)'
How R
d
is obtained
Treated as a resistance or a stabilising action
How partial factors are applied
What partial factors are applied

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
Heave Design ExampIe
Design Situation
- 7m deep excavation
- Sheet pile wall
- Pile penetration 3m below excavation level
- 1.0 m water in excavation
- Weight density of sand = 20 kN/m
3
Require H
Height of GWL behind wall above excavation
level
GWL
1.0m
Sand = 20kN/m
3
3.0m
7.0
m
H = ?
Water
Range of design values obtained: H = 1.7 6.6m
Why?

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
Reasons for Range of SoIutions to Heave ExampIe
Assumption Regarding PWP distribution around the waII (i.e.
pwp at toe of wall)
Some used equation for pwp at toe from EAU Recommendations
Some obtained pwp at toe from flownet
Some assumed a linear dissipation of pwp around wall - this gives least
conservative designs
Choice of EquiIibrium Equation
Some used Equation 2.9a with partial factors applied to total pwp and
total stress. This involves applying different partial factors to
hydrostatic pwp on either side of equation and gave an overall factor of
safety that is 1.5d/h greater than Equation 2.9b
Most design solutions were based on Equation 2.9b i.e. comparing
seepage force and effective soil weight
Treatment of Seepage Force
Some treated seepage force as a variable action
Most considered it a permanent action

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
ConcIusions on Section 10
- UpIift and heave ultimate limit states involving failure due to water
pressures are important in geotechnical design and are different to
geotechnical designs involving the strength of soil
- Need to clearly identify what the stabiIising actions and the destabiIising
actions are
- This is best achieved by working in terms of actions (forces) rather than
stresses
- Need to apply partiaI factors appropriateIy to get the design stabilising
and destabilising actions for both uplift and heave design situations
- Designs against uplift and heave failure are cIarified using Eurocode 7 as
the Eurocode equilibrium equations and partial factors provide a better
understanding of the design situation

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
Section 11: OveraII StabiIity
- Overall stability situations are where there is Ioss of overaII stabiIity of
the ground and associated structures or where excessive movements
in the ground cause damage or loss of serviceability in neighbouring
structures, roads or services
- TypicaI structures for which an analysis of overall stability should be
performed:
- Retaining structures
- Excavations, slopes and embankments
- Foundations on sloping ground. natural slopes or embankments
- Foundations near an excavation, cut or buried structure, or shore
t is stated that a sIope anaIysis should verify the overaII moment and
verticaI stabiIity of the sliding mass. f horizontal equilibrium is not
checked, inter-slice forces should be assumed to be horizontal.
This means that Bishop's method is acceptable, but not Fellenius'

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
OveraII FaiIure Modes
Examples of overaII faiIure modes involving ground failure
around retaining structures presented in Section 11 of EN 1997-1

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
Section 12: Embankments
Section 12: Embankments of EN 1997 provides the principIes for
the design of embankments for smaII dams and for
infrastructure projects, such as road embankments
No definition is given for the word small but Frank et al. state that it
may be appropriate to assume small dams include dams (and
embankments for infrastructure) up to a height of approximately 10m
A long list of possible limit states, both GEO and HYD types, that
should be checked is provided including:
Loss of overall stability
Failure in the embankment slope or crest
Failure by internal erosion
Failure by surface erosion or scour
Excessive deformation
Deformations caused by hydraulic actions
Limit states involving adjacent structures, roads and services are
included in the list

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
ParticuIar Features of Section 12
Since embankments are constructed by placing fiII and sometimes involve
ground improvement, the provisions in Section 5 should be applied
For embankments on ground with low strength and high compressibility,
EN 1997-1 states that the construction process shall be specified, i.e.
in Geotechnical Design Report, to ensure that the bearing resistance is not
exceeded or excessive movements do not occur during construction
Since the behaviour of embankments on soft ground during construction is
usually monitored to ensure failure does not occur, it is often appropriate to
use the ObservationaI Method for design
The importance of both supervision and monitoring in the case of
embankments is demonstrated by the fact that there is a separate sub-
section on the supervision of the construction of embankments and the
monitoring of embankments during and after construction in Section 12
The only other section of Eurocode 7 that has provisions for both
supervision and monitoring is the section on ground anchorages

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
ConcIusions on Sections 10, 11 and 12
Sections 10, 11 and 12 set out the provisions for designing
against hydrauIic faiIure and overaII stabiIity and for the design
of embankments
The focus is on the reIevant Iimit states to be checked and the
equiIibrium conditions to be satisfied
No caIcuIation modeIs are provided
The relevance and importance of other sections of EN 1997-1 is
demonstrated, for example:
The section on Fill and Ground mprovement
The sub-section on the Observational Method
The sub-section on the Geotechnical Design Report
The section on Supervision and Monitoring
These sections have been accepted by the geotechnicaI
community in Europe

EUROCODES
Background and
AppIications
Thank You Thank You

EUROCODE 7 PART 2: GROUND
INVESTIGATION AND TESTING

B. Schuppener

EUROCODES
Eurocode 7 part 2: Ground investigation and testing
Eurocode 7 -
Geotechnical design
-
Part 2
Dr.-Ing. Bernd Schuppener,
Federal Waterways Engineering and Research Institute,
Karlsruhe, Germany
EUROCODES
2.4.1 General
(2) It should be considered that knowledge of the
ground conditions depends on the extent and quality of
the geotechnical investigations. Such knowledge and
the control of workmanship are usually more significant
to fulfilling the fundamental requirements than is
precision in the calculation models and partial factors.
Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design
Part 1: General rules
EUROCODES
1.1.2 Scope of Eurocode 7-2
(1) EN 1997-2 is intended to be used in conjunction with EN
1997-1 and provides rules supplementary to EN 1997-1
related to:
planning and reporting of ground investigations;
general requirements for a number of commonly used
laboratory and field tests;
interpretation and evaluation of test results;
derivation of values of geotechnical parameters and
coefficients.
Note:
Establishment of characteristic values is covered in EN
1997-1.
EUROCODES
Hierarchy of standards
EC 7 Geotechnical design - part 2
EC 7 Geotechnical design - part 2
EN ISO 14688
EN ISO 14689
Identification
and
classification of
soil and rock
EN ISO 14688
EN ISO 14689
Identification
and
classification of
soil and rock
EN ISO 22475
Sampling and
groundwater
measure-
ments
EN ISO 22475
Sampling and
groundwater
measure-
ments
EN ISO 22476
Field testing
Part 1 to 13
EN ISO 22476
Field testing
Part 1 to 13
CEN ISO/TS 17892
Laboratory tests
Part 1 -12
CEN ISO/TS 17892
Laboratory tests
Part 1 -12
EUROCODES
Content of Eurocode 7-2
1. General
2. Planning of ground investigations
3. Soil and rock sampling and
groundwater measurements
4. Field tests in soil and rock
5. Laboratory tests on soil and rock
6. Ground investigation report
23 Annexes
EUROCODES
1.5.3 Specific definitions used in EN 1997-2
1.5.3.1 derived value
value of a geotechnical parameter obtained from
test results by theory, correlation or empiricism
(see 1.6)
1.5 Definitions
EUROCODES
1.6 Test results and derived values
EUROCODES
2.1 Objectives
2.1.1 General
2.1.2 Ground
2.1.3 Construction materials
2.1.4 Groundwater
2.2 Sequence of ground investigations
2.3 Preliminary investigations
2.4 Design investigations
2.4.1 Field investigations
2.4.2 Laboratory tests (dealt with later)
2.5 Controlling and monitoring
2 Planning of ground investigations
EUROCODES
2.1 Objectives
2.1.1 General
(1)P Geotechnical investigations shall be planned in such a
way as to ensure that relevant geotechnical information
and data are available at the various stages of the project.
Geotechnical information ...
(6) Before designing the investigation programme, the
available information and documents should be evaluated in
a desk study.
(7) Examples of information and documents that can be used
are:
geological maps and descriptions;
previous investigations at the site and in the surroundings;
aerial photos and previous photo interpretations;
topographical maps;
EUROCODES
2.1.2 Ground
(1)P Ground investigations shall provide a description of
ground conditions relevant to the proposed works and
establish a basis for the assessment of the geotechnical
parameters relevant for all construction stages.
(2) The information obtained should enable assessment of
the following aspects, if possible:
the suitability of the site with respect to the proposed
construction and the level of acceptable risks;
the deformation of the ground caused by the structure or
resulting from construction works, its spatial distribution
and behaviour over time;
2.1 Objectives
EUROCODES
the safety with respect to limit states (e.g. subsidence,
ground heave, uplift, slippage of soil and rock masses,
buckling of piles, etc.);
the following aspects, if possible (continued):
the loads transmitted from the ground to the structure
(e.g. lateral pressures on piles) and the extent to which
they depend on its design and construction;
the foundation methods (e.g. ground improvement,
whether it is possible to excavate, driveability of piles,
drainage);
the sequence of foundation works;
the effects of the structure and its use on the
surroundings;
2.1 Objectives
EUROCODES
any additional structural measures required (e.g.
support of excavation, anchorage, sleeving of bored
piles, removal of obstructions); the effects of construction
work on the surroundings;
the type and extent of ground contamination on, and in
the vicinity of, the site;
the effectiveness of measures taken to contain or
remedy contamination.
the following aspects, if possible (continued):
2.1 Objectives
EUROCODES
(3) The information obtained should be sufficient to assess
the following aspects, where relevant:
the scope for and nature of groundwater-lowering work;
possible harmful effects of the groundwater on
excavations or on slopes
any measures necessary to protect the structure;
the effects of groundwater lowering, desiccation,
impounding etc. on the surroundings;
the capacity of the ground to absorb water injected
during construction work;
whether it is possible to use local groundwater, given its
chemical constitution, for construction purposes.
2.1 Objectives
2.1.4 Ground water
EUROCODES
Desk studies
Preliminary investigations
Controlling and monitoring
Supervision of construction (EC 7-1)
Design investigations
2.2 Sequence of ground investigations
EUROCODES
(2) When selecting the locations of investigation points, the
following should be observed:
the investigation points should be arranged in such a
pattern that the stratification can be assessed across
the site;
the investigation points for a building or structure should
be placed at critical points relative to the shape,
structural behaviour and expected load distribution (e.g.
at the corners of the foundation area);
for linear structures, investigation points should be
arranged at adequate offsets to the centre line,
depending on the overall width of the structure, such as
an embankment footprint or a cutting;
2.4.1.3 Locations and depths of the investigation points
EUROCODES
- for structures on or near slopes and steps in the terrain
(including excavations), investigation points should also be
arranged outside the project area, these being located so
that the stability of the slope or cut can be assessed.
- Where anchorages are installed, due consideration
should be given to the likely stresses in their load transfer
zone;
the investigation points should be arranged so that they do
not present a hazard to the structure, the construction
work, or the surroundings (e.g. they may cause changes to
the ground and groundwater conditions);
following should be observed (continued):
EUROCODES
the area considered in the design investigations should
extend into the neighbouring area to a distance where
no harmful influence on the neighbouring area is
expected;
for groundwater measuring points, the possibility of
using the equipment installed during the ground
investigation for continued monitoring during and
after the construction period should be considered.
following should be observed (continued):
EUROCODES
(6)P The depth of investigations shall be extended to
all strata that will affect the project or are affected by the
construction.
NOTE For the spacing of investigation points and investi-
gation depths, the values given in Annex B.3 can be used
as guidance.
For dams, weirs and excavations below groundwater
level, and where dewatering work is involved, the depth
of investigation shall also be selected as a function of
the hydro-geological conditions.
For slopes and steps in the terrain shall be explored to
depths below any potential slip surface.
EUROCODES
Annex B.3 Examples of
recommendations for the spacing and
depth of investigations
(1) The following spacing of investigation points should be
used as guidance:
for high-rise and industrial structures, a grid pattern with
points at 15 m to 40 m distance;
for large-area structures, a grid pattern with points at not
more than 60 m distance;
for linear structures (roads, railways, channels, pipelines,
dikes, tunnels, retaining walls), a spacing of 20 m to 200 m;
for special structures (e.g. bridges, stacks, machinery
foundations), two to six investigation points per foundation;
for dams and weirs, 25 m to 75 m distance, along vertical
sections.
EUROCODES
(2) For the investigation depth z
a
the following values
should be used as guidance. (The reference level for z
a
is
the lowest point of the foundation of the structure or
structural element, or the excavation base.) Where more
than one alternative is specified for establishing z
a
, the one
which yields the largest value should be applied.
NOTE For very large or highly complex projects, some of the
investigation points should extend to greater depths than those
specified under Annex B.3 (5) to B.3 (13).
Annex B.3 Examples of
recommendations for the spacing and
depth of investigations
EUROCODES
(5) For high-rise structures and
civil engineering projects, the larger
value of the following conditions
should be applied:
z
a
6 m;
z
a
3,0 b
F
.
where b
F
is the smaller side length
of the foundation.
Annex B.3: Spacing and depth of
investigations
EUROCODES
(6) For raft foundations and
structures with several
foundation elements whose
effects in deeper strata are
superimposed on each other:
z
a
1,5b
B
where b
B
is the smaller side of
the structure,
investigations
EUROCODES
(7) Embankments and cuttings, the larger value of the
following conditions should be met:
a) For dams:
0,8h < z
a
< 1,2h
z
a
6 m
where h is the embankment
height.
b) For cuttings:
z
a
2,0 m
z
a
0,4h
where h is the dam height or
depth of cutting.
investigations
EUROCODES
Road
Trench
For roads and airfields:
z
a
2 m below the proposed formation level.
For trenches and pipelines, the larger value of:
z
a
2 m below the invert level;
z
a
1,5b
Ah
where b
Ah
is the width of excavation.
investigations
EUROCODES
(9) For small tunnels and
caverns:
b
Ab
< z
a
< 2,0b
Ab
where b
Ab
is the width of
excavation.
The groundwater conditions
described in (10) b) should
also be taken into account.
investigations
EUROCODES
(10) Excavations a)
Where the piezometric
surface and the ground-
water tables are below the
excavation base, the
larger value of the following
conditions should be met:
z
a
0,4h
z
a
(t + 2,0) m
where: t is the embedded
length of the support; and h
is the excavation depth.
investigations
EUROCODES
b) Where the piezometric
surface and the ground-
water tables are above the
excavation base, the
larger value of the following
conditions should be met:
z
a
(1,0H + 2,0) m
z
a
(t + 2,0) m
where H is the height of the
groundwater level above
the excavation base; and t
is the embedded length of
the support.
investigations
EUROCODES
(12) For cut-off walls:
z
a
2 m
below the surface of the
stratum impermeable to
groundwater.
investigations
EUROCODES
(13) For piles the following
three conditions should be met:
z
a
1,0b
g
z
a
5,0 m
z
a
3D
F
where D
F
is the pile base
diameter; and b
g
is the smaller
side of the rectangle circum-
scribing the group of piles
forming the foundation at the
level of the pile base.
investigations
EUROCODES
2.4.1.4 Sampling
(2)P For identification and classification of the ground, at
least one borehole or trial pit with sampling shall be
available. Samples shall be obtained from every separate
ground layer influencing the behaviour of the structure.
(3) Sampling may be replaced by field tests if there is
enough local experience to correlate the field tests with
the ground conditions to ensure unambiguous
interpretation of the results.
(7) Samples should be taken at any change of stratum
and at a specified spacing, usually not larger than 3 m. In
inhomogeneous soil, or if a detailed definition of the ground
conditions is required, continuous sampling by drilling
should be carried out or samples recovered at very short
intervals.
EUROCODES
2.5 Controlling and monitoring
(1)P A number of checks and additional tests shall be made
during the construction and execution of the project,
when relevant, in order to check that the ground conditions
agree with those determined in the design investigations
and that the properties of the delivered construction
materials and the construction works correspond to those
presumed or specified.
(2)P The following control measures shall be applied:
check of ground profile when excavating;
inspection of the bottom of the excavation.
EUROCODES
(1)P Samples shall contain all the mineral constituents of
the strata from which they have been taken. They shall not
be contaminated by any material from other strata or from
additives used during the sampling procedure.
3.4 Soil sampling
(2)P Three sampling method categories shall be
considered (EN ISO 22475-1), depending on the desired
sample quality as follows:
category A sampling methods: samples of quality class
1 to 5 can be obtained;
category B sampling methods: samples of quality class
3 to 5 can be obtained;
category C sampling methods: only samples of quality
class 5 can be obtained.
EUROCODES
(6)P Soil samples for laboratory tests are divided in five
quality classes with respect to the soil properties that are
assumed to remain unchanged during sampling and
handling, transport and storage.
3.4 Soil sampling
EUROCODES
3.4 Soil sampling
Soil properties / quality class 1 2 3 4 5
Unchanged soil properties
particle size
water content
density, density index, permeability
compressibility, shear strength
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Properties that can be determined:
sequence of layers
boundaries of strata broad
boundaries of strata fine
Atterberg limits, particle density, organic content
water content
density, density index, porosity, permeability
compressibility, shear strength
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
A
Sampling category according to EN ISO 22475-1 B
C
Table 3.1 - Quality classes of soil samples for laboratory testing and sampling
categories to be used
EUROCODES
4 Field tests in soil and rock
4.1 General
4.2 General requirements
4.3 Cone penetration and piezocone penetration
tests (CPT, CPTU)
4.4 Pressuremeter tests (PMT)
4.5 Flexible dilatometer test (FDT)
4.6 Standard penetration test SPT
4.7 Dynamic probing tests (DP)
4.8 Weight sounding test (WST)
4.9 Field vane test (FVT)
4.10 Flat dilatometer test (DMT)
4.11 Plate loading test (PLT)
EUROCODES
(1) The objective of the cone penetration test (CPT) is to
determine the resistance of soil and soft rock to the
penetration of a cone and the local friction on a sleeve.
(2)P The CPT consists of pushing a cone penetrometer
vertically into the soil using a series of push rods. The cone
penetrometer shall be pushed into the soil at a constant
rate of penetration. The cone penetrometer comprises the
cone and if appropriate a cylindrical shaft or friction sleeve.
The penetration resistance of the cone q
c
as well as, if
appropriate, the local friction on the friction sleeve shall be
measured.
4.3 Cone penetration tests
EUROCODES
Porewater pressure measurement:
u
1
: on the cone face
u
2
: at the cylindrical extension of the cone
u
3
: directly behind the friction sleeve
4.3 Cone penetration and
piezocone penetration tests (CPT, CPTU)
EUROCODES
q
c
cone resistance (bar)
f
s
sleeve friction (bar)
friction ratio R
ft
=100F
s
/q
c
Sandy fill
fine and
medium
sand
Glacial till
EUROCODES
q
c
cone
penetration
resistance
friction ratio R
ft
= f
S
/q
c
100
friction ratio R
ft
= f
S
/q
c
100
EUROCODES
D.1 Example for deriving values of the effective angle of
shearing resistance and drained Youngs modulus
D.2 Example of a correlation between the cone penetration
resistance and the effective angle of shearing resistance
D.3 Example of a method to determine the settlement for
spread foundations
D.4 Example of a correlation between the oedometer modulus
and the cone penetration resistance
D.5 Examples of establishing the stress-dependent oedometer
modulus from CPT results
D.6 Example of a correlation between compressive resistance
of a single pile and cone penetration resistance
D.7 Example of a method to determine the compressive
resistance of a single pile.
4.3 Cone penetration tests - Annex D
EUROCODES
Table D.1: Effective angle of shearing resistance () and drained Youngs
modulus of elasticity (E) from cone penetration resistance (q
c
)
4.3 Cone penetration tests
a
Values given are valid for sands. For silty soil a reduction of 3 should be made. For
gravels 2 should be added.
b
E' is an approximation to the stress and time dependent secant modulus. Values given
for the drained modulus correspond to settlements for 10 years. They are obtained
assuming that the vertical stress distribution follows the 2:1 approximation.
Annex D.1
EUROCODES
5.1 General
5.2 General requirements for laboratory tests
5.3 Preparation of soil specimens for testing
5.4 Preparation of rock specimens for testing
5.5 Tests for classification, identification and description of soil
5.6 Chemical testing of soil and groundwater
5.7 Strength index testing of soil
5.8 Strength testing of soil
5.9 Compressibility and deformation testing of soil
5.10 Compaction testing of soil
5.11 Permeability testing of soil
5.12 Tests for classification of rocks
5.13 Swelling testing of rock material
5.14 Strength testing of rock material
5 Laboratory tests
EUROCODES
Table P.1 Triaxial compression tests. Recommended minimum number of
tests for one soil stratum
5.8 Strength testing of soil - Annex P
EUROCODES
Table Q.1 Incremental oedometer test. Recommended
minimum number of tests for one soil stratum
a
One oedometer test and classification tests to verify compatibility
with comparable knowledge (see Q.1 (2)).
1
a
2 2 Range of values of E
oed
20 %
2 2 3 20 % < Range of values of E
oed
< 50 %
2 3 4 Range of values of E
oed
50 %
Extensive Medium None (in the relevant stress range)
Comparable experience Variability in
oedometer modulus E
oed
5.9 Compressibility and deformation
testing of soil - Annex Q
EUROCODES
a
A single test and classification tests to verify compatibility with
existing knowledge.
1
a
2 3 k
max
/k
min
10
2 3 5 10 < k
max
/k
min
100
3 4 5 k
max
/k
min
> 100
Extensive Medium None
Comparable experience Variability in
measured coefficient of
permeability (k)
Table S.1 - Permeability tests. Recommended minimum number of
soil specimens to be tested for one soil stratum.
5.11 Permeability testing of soil
Annex S
EUROCODES
6 Ground investigation report
6.2 Presentation of geotechnical information
6.3 Evaluation of geotechnical information
6.4 Establishment of derived values
EUROCODES
(1)P The results of a geotechnical investigation shall be
compiled in the Ground Investigation Report which shall
form a part of the Geotechnical Design Report.
(2)P The Ground Investigation Report shall consist of, if
appropriate
a presentation of all available geotechnical information
including geological features and relevant data;
a geotechnical evaluation of the information, stating the
assumptions made in the interpretation of the test
results.
EUROCODES
(1)P The presentation of geotechnical information shall
include a factual account of all field and laboratory
investigations.
(2) The factual account should include the following
information, as relevant:
6.2 Presentation of geotechnical information
.....
....
EUROCODES
6.3 Evaluation of geotechnical information
(1)P The evaluation of the geotechnical information shall
be documented and include, if appropriate:
the results and a review of the field investigations,
laboratory tests and all other information;
a description of the geometry of the strata;
detailed descriptions of all strata including their physical
properties and their deformation and strength
characteristics;
comments on irregularities such as cavities.
(1)P If correlations have been used to derive geotechnical
parameters or coefficients, the correlations and their
applicability shall be documented.
6.4 Establishment of derived values
EUROCODES
1.6 Test results and derived values
EUROCODES
Thank you

En 1997

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

En 1997

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

En 1997

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the purpose of the workshop?

What is the purpose of the workshop?

What are the main sections covered in Part 1 of Eurocode 7?

What are the main sections covered in Part 1 of Eurocode 7?

EUROCODES

Background and Applications

partial factor for the angle of shearing

= partial factor on soil weight density, always = 1.0

EN1537:1999 Execution of special geotechnical work - Ground anchors

Partial factors in anchor design

FOS >1 for characteristic soil strengths

The slope and retaining wall are al l part of the same

Approaches to ULS design

9.2 Limit states

9.2 Limit states

9.3.2 Geometrical data

9.3.2 Geometrical data

9.4 Design and construction considerations

9.4 Design and construction considerations

9.4.2 Drainage systems

9.5 Determination of earth pressures

9.5 Determination of earth pressures

9.5.3 Limiting values of earth pressure

Annex C Sample procedures to determine limit values

C.2 Numerical procedure for obtaining passive pressures

Ka, Kp charts in Simpson & Driscoll

Comparison with Caquot & Kerisel

9.7 Ultimate limit state design

9.7.2 Overall stability

9.7.3 Foundation failure of gravity walls

9.7.4 Rotational failure of embedded walls

9.7.5 Vertical failure of embedded walls

9.7.6 Structural design of retaining structures

9.7.6 Structural design of retaining structures

9.7.7 Failure by pull-out of anchorages

9.8 Serviceability limit state design

8m propped wall BP87.71 BP111.33 BP112.49

Compare CIRIA 104 BP87.2 BP111.54 BP112.54 BP119.53 BP124-F3.18

Weissenbach, A, Hettler, A and

SAFE Grundbau2 BP116.24 BP119.58 BP124-F3.24

Grundbau in STAWAL BP119.59 BP124-F3.25

Grundbau: DA1 and DA2 XBP119.60 BP124-F3.26

Example 5 Cantilever Gravity Retaining Wall BP130.2

Example 5 Cantilever Gravity Retaining Wall BP130.5

Example 5 Cantilever Gravity Retaining Wall BP130.2 BP124.A6.11

Example 5 Cantilever Gravity Retaining Wall BP124.A6.12

Example 5 Cantilever Gravity Retaining Wall BP130.5

Example 5 Cantilever Gravity Retaining Wall BP130.5

Example 5 Cantilever Gravity Retaining Wall BP124.A6.12

Example 5 Cantilever Gravity Retaining Wall BP124.A6.14

Example 5 Cantilever Gravity Retaining Wall BP130.8

Example 6 Embedded sheet pile retaining wall BP130.9

Example 6 Embedded sheet pile retaining wall BP130.9

Example 6 Embedded sheet pile retaining wall BP130.14

Example 7 Anchored sheet pile quay wall BP130.16

Example 7 Anchored sheet pile quay wall BP130.16

Example 7 Anchored sheet pile quay wall BP130.23

The significance of yield in structural elements BP114.32 BP116.50 BP130.27

Example 7 Anchored sheet pile quay wall BP130.28