Experiences with the application of Eurocode 7

Formations sur l’application de l’Eurocode 7

T.L.L. Orr
Associate Professor, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland

ABSTRACT
Following the implementation in 2010 of Eurocodes 7 and 8 for geotechnical and seismic design in many European countries, a
series of Workshops was held as part of the XV ECSMGE in Athens to share experiences with the application of these Euro-
codes. The Workshop presentations that focused on Eurocode 7 are summarized in this report. These presentations showed the
different ways in which Eurocode 7 is being implemented in ten countries, not only with different Design Approaches but also
with other differences, such as the introduction of safety classes, and with many countries producing additional rules in the form
of non-conflicting complement information. The presentations on pile design to Eurocode 7 revealed that, in addition to different
Design Approaches, many differences still remain in the way pile resistances are determined and many countries have introdu-
ced model factors for pile design. The challenges in using numerical methods for Eurocode 7 designs were examined and future
developments of Eurocode 7 were discussed.

RÉSUMÉ
Après la mise en oeuvre en 2010 des Eurocodes 7 et 8 pour les calculs géotechniques et sismiques dans de nombreux pays Euro-
péens, une série de séminaires a eu lieu pendant le XV CEMSG à Athènes pour partager les expériences d’application de ces Eu-
rocodes. Les présentations faites lors des séminaires sur l’Eurocode 7 sont résumées dans ce rapport. Ces présentations montrent
les différentes mises en oeuvre de l’Eurocode 7 dans dix pays, non seulement du point de vue des différentes approches de calcul
mais également du point de vue d’autres différences comme l’introduction de classes de sécurité, et avec plusieurs pays produi-
sant des règles complémentaires qui ne contredisent pas celles existantes. Les présentations sur le dimensionnement des pieux
selon l’Eurocode 7 ont montré que, en plus des différentes approches de calcul, beaucoup de différences résident encore dans la
façon dont est déterminée la résistance des pieux et beaucoup de pays ont introduit des facteurs de modèle pour le dimensionne-
ment des pieux. L’utilisation de méthodes numériques pour les calculs avec l’Eurocode 7 a été examinée et les futurs dévelop-
pements et approfondissements des Eurocodes 7 ont été discutés.

Keywords: Eurocode 7, implementation, experiences, pile design, numerical methods

1 INTRODUCTION years later, a day consisting of the following five

Eurocode 7 [1], the new European standard for
geotechnical design, and the other Eurocodes
were implemented for public works in many
CEN (European Committee for Standardization)
member countries on 31 March 2010. Hence, 1½
Workshops on the use of Eurocodes 7 and 8
(EC7 and EC8) was organised as part of the XV
ECSMGE in Athens by those ISSMGE technical
committees (TCs) involved in activities related to
the development of geotechnical design codes:
1. Application of Eurocode 8 ETC12
2. Experiences with the ETC10
 application of Eurocode 7
3. Different national design method- ETC3
ologies for piles according to EC7
4. Limit State Design, EC7 ETC7&TC205
and Numerical Methods
5. Future development and discussion
All above committees
This report summarises the presentations and
issues regarding the use of EC7 identified in the
EC7 Workshops 2 to 5. A report on Workshop 1,
Application of EC8, has been prepared by M.
Maugeri and is also included in this volume.
2 APPLICATION OF EUROCODE 7
Prior to the XV ECSMGE, T. Orr as chair of
ETC10, circulated the following questionnaire to
geotechnical engineers in some countries to learn
about the experiences of applying EC7 in their
countries:
1. Do you find EC7 easy to use?
2. Do you use it for all geotechnical design sit-
uations?
3. Does it provide enough detail? If not, what
more detail would you like?
4. Do you as the geotechnical designer choose
the characteristic value or does the ground
investigation report provide you with a cha-
racteristic value?
5. Are you confident choosing characteristic
soil strengths?
6. Are you happy with the partial factor values
in your National Annex (NA) and confident of
the safety of the resulting designs?
Experiences with the application of EC7 in
Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, It-
aly, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK are
presented below. The replies received to the
above questionnaire are presented in the cases of
Germany, Ireland and Sweden using the number-
ing system above for the questions.
Austria
T Orr reported on experiences with applying
EC7 in Austria, based on information provided
by M. Fross. The Design Approach (DA) al-
lowed in Austria for spread foundations, pile
foundations retaining structures and anchorages
is DA2*, in which partial factors are applied to
the effects of actions, rather than to the actions
themselves, while DA3 is allowed for designs
involving overall stability and slopes. DA3 may
also be used in numerical analyses of retaining
structures. Adopting the option in EN 1990 [2],
the magnitude of the partial factors in the Aus-
trian NA have been related to the design situation
(i.e. persistent, transient and accidental) and the
Consequences Class (CC) for each type of geo-
technical design. For the design of compression
and tension bored piles, the EC7 recommended
partial resistance factor values have been adopted
and model factors introduced so that the overall
safety factors (OSF) are similar to those used
previously. To avoid confusion between the
many partial resistance factors, the symbol η ra-
ther than γR;d has been adopted for the resistance
factors, with ηR;c = 1.3 for bored piles in com-
pression and ηR;t = 2.5 for bored piles in tension.
Finland
T. Länsivaara reported on the situation in Finland
where the Eurocodes are applied under two dif-
ferent ministries: the Ministry of the Environ-
ment (house construction) and the Ministry of
Transport and Communications (infrastructure),
each with a different NA produced to a different
deadline and providing different partial factor
values and implementation rules. These occur
because of different safety requirements and load
combinations adopted in Finland for structures
and infrastructure projects. Furthermore, the pa-
rallel use of existing standards has been extended
to an unspecified date by the Ministry of the En-
vironment. The consequence of this situation is
the possibility of confusion regarding the status
of the NAs and the implementation of EC7.
In Finland most piles are end bearing driven
into dense moraine or rock. Ground investigation
data is not considered very reliable in such con-
ditions and therefore the correlation factors for
resistances based on ground investigation data
have been increased by approximately 30%.
However, since there has been long and good
experience with using dynamic pile testing
(PDA), a model factor of 0.9 for signal matching
may be applied for pile design in rock if PDA is
used. The partial factors on soil strength parame-
ters have been increased for designs close to sen-
sitive structures to limit deformations and to
avoid the need for serviceability calculations.
Also the Consequences Classes have been intro-
duced with three sets of partial factors for design
situations with different risks.
A further problem, related to EC7, that has
occurred in Finland is that the new soil classifi-
cation in EN ISO 14688-2 [3] classifies the Fin-
nish soil savi as sand whereas, using the previous
standard, it was classified as clay. The problem is
how to treat old data relating to this soil.
France
Reporting on the implementation of EC7 in
France, J.-P. Magnan said the main activities at
present are preparing the following design stan-
dards to complement EC7 and the French NA:
− P 94-261: Shallow foundations
− P 94-262: Deep foundations
− P 94-270: Reinforced soil
− P 94-281: Retaining structures (walls)
− P 94-282: Retaining structures (embedded)
− P 94-290: Earth structures.
The EC7 recommended partial factor values
have been adopted and DA2 or DA3, depending
on the design. The EC7 Geotechnical Categories
have been adopted and related to the Conse-
quence Classes. In pile design, either the model
pile or the ground model methods may be used.
When using these methods, model factors of 1.1
and 1.3 respectively are applied to the ξ values as
it is not considered feasible to achieve the pile
resistance with the 95% confidence level upon
which the EC7 recommended ξ values are based.
A further factor is applied to obtain an overall re-
sistance factor close to 1.4.
Questions that have been raised by the work
on EC7 have been the compatibility between
EC7 and EC8 and the equivalence of alternative
methods such as DA2 and DA3 for overall stabil-
ity analyses and the model pile and ground mod-
el methods for pile design.
Germany
M. Ziegler, reporting on the implementation of
EC7 in Germany, stated that:
1. Since German designers are familiar with
DIN 1054:2005 but now have to use EC7 to-
gether with the German NA, its application is
more complicated, because the number of
code pages has increased, although some
parts of the EC7 are not relevant for the Ger-
man user, e.g. DA1. However, the provision
of an EC7 Handbook, containing the EC7
text, NA and supplementary rules in DIN
1054:2010 in one volume with the rules that
apply in Germany highlighted, facilitates its
use. Furthermore a Commentary on this
Handbook, with comments on EC7 and DIN
1054, has also been published. As part of an
endeavour in Germany to simplify the Euro-
codes, a working group consisting of repre-
sentatives from consultants, contractors and
manufacturer, has been established for this.
2. EC7 is used for all geotechnical designs in
Germany. For simple situations, the NA al-
lows the use of experience or empirical pa-
rameter values, e.g. for the bearing capacity
of piles or shallow foundations. In compli-
cated cases the observational method is used.
3. Regarding the amount of details in EC7, there
have always been a lot of additional codes,
recommendations and standardized calcula-
tion methods for design in Germany. Such
detail is not appropriate for EC7 although
many users would like more detailed descrip-
tions of the calculation methods.
4. The characteristic value is usually selected by
the engineer who has investigated the ground
and provided the ground investigation report.
5. Designers accept the selection of the charac-
teristic value by the ground investigator,
mainly for legal reasons.
6. German designers are generally happy with
the partial factor values adopted in the Ger-
man NA because they are calibrated so that
the previous safety level is still maintained.
Greece
Experiences with the implementation of EC7 in
Greece were reported by M. Kavvadas. The draft
Greek NA to Part 1 of EC7 was issued in June
2009 and the draft Greek NA to Part 2 was is-
sued in February 2010. For persistent and tran-
sient design situations, the EC7 recommended
partial factor values have been adopted. For ac-
cidental and seismic design situations, all partial
factors (for actions, resistances and material
properties) are set equal to unity. The Greek NA
states that, for GEO ultimate limit states (ULS),
DA3 is used for embankments, slopes and deep
excavations against overall stability failure,
while DA2 is used for deep foundations, ancho-
rages and retaining structures and DA2* is used
for shallow foundations. For HYD ULSs, Equa-
tions 2.9b in terms of seepage forces and sub-
merged weights, is chosen. When designing piles
from ground test results, a model factor γM = 1.3
is introduced to be compatible with designs
based on profiles of test results using the correla-
tion factor ξ. All Informative Annexes of EC7
Part 2 are maintained as informative so that all
ground testing methods mentioned in this Part, as
well as any other internationally accepted testing
method, may be used.
Prior to the introduction of EC7, the safety
factor normally required in Greece for slope sta-
bility was 1.40 for both effective and total stress
analyses. In an update of the NA, it is planned to
introduce a model factor γR,d = 1.1 in effective
stress analyses for adverse groundwater condi-
tions, e.g. for T = 50 years, so that the OSF =
1.10 x 1.25 = 1.38 ≈ 1.40 while for extreme
groundwater conditions, e.g. for T = 100 years,
γR,d = 1.0 and OSF = 1.0 x 1.25 = 1.25. For seis-
mic situations, the same OSF values are ob-
tained, if partial material factors, γM are un-
changed (as per EC8 – Part 5)
Another change being considered for an up-
date of the Greek NA, is the introduction of Re-
liability Classes (RC) in accordance with EN
1990, with different partial factors for materials
and resistances in each RC for the ULS design of
temporary structures and transient situations, e.g.
temporary slopes and temporary retaining struc-
tures. Since the EC7 recommended partial factor
values are correlated to Reliability Class 2, with
a target probability of failure of 10-4, partial fac-
tor values for RC1 and RC3 will need to be cor-
related with target probabilities of failure of 5 x
10-4 and 10-5 respectively.
Ireland
T. Orr reported that EC7 became the reference
standard for geotechnical design in Ireland on
31st March 2010. However, due to the economic
crisis and decrease in construction activity since
then, limited experience has been obtained so far
in Ireland with the use of EC7. The responses
from Irish geotechnical engineers to the ques-
tionnaire in Section 1 are summarised as:
1. Irish engineers initially thought EC7 was not
easy to use, but once familiar with it, they
find it is easy, although it is more compli-
cated that the traditional method.
2. EC7 is now used for most geotechnical de-
sign situations, apart from anchors and some
earthworks, such as rock slopes.
3. It was generally thought that EC7 provided
enough detail, though some thought the
treatment of the partial factors could be sim-
plified and there could be more information
about the following: a) Pile design using
ground test result, b) Design of ground an-
chors, and c) Treatment of groundwater.
4. Designers choose characteristic values in Ire-
land; these are not given in investigation re-
ports.
5. Irish engineers said their confidence in select-
ing the characteristic value depended on the
quality of the ground investigation. Imple-
menting EC7 has not increased the quality of
ground investigations - some felt the quality
and scope of investigations had decreased.
6. Irish engineers are generally happy with the
EC7 recommended partial factors adopted in
the Irish NA. However, some felt the partial
factors were too high for slope stability ana-
lyses and traditional staged construction on
soft ground may not be feasible using EC7.
Since any one of the three DAs may be used
in Ireland, the Irish engineers were asked which
DA they used for different designs. The majority
use DA1 for most designs situations and some
compare the different DAs. Further comments on
EC7 and its application in Ireland were that:
− It was logical and an improvement on previ-
ous standards
− The availability of three DAs is causing un-
ease as there is pressure to pick the lightest or
safest design, depending on the client. The
time investment to distinguish between the
different DAs is onerous.
Italy
Regarding the implementation of EC7 in Italy,
G. Scarpelli stated that the Eurocodes are still not
directly applicable but their use is substantially
possible through the National Code for Construc-
tions, the DM ’08 (NTC 08), which is a compul-
sory set of prescriptions consistent with all the
Eurocodes and is part of the State Law that go-
verns the design and execution of all reinforced
concrete and steel constructions, both public and
private, in Italy. The NA for Part 1 of EC7 was
approved in July 2010. Assuming the use of the
geotechnical chapter of NTC 08 is equivalent to
using EC7, the typical feedback from practition-
ers is that EC7 is not easy and unduly
complicated. The main change compared to past
practice has been the introduction of partial fac-
tors in place of global factors In Italy, geotech-
nical design always has to consider seismic ac-
tions and this needs to be done in a consistent
way. Most difficulties in seismic design derive
from the separation of EC7 from EC8, which is
fully reflected in NTC 08.
Italian engineers feel that new sections of
EC7 are needed to cover the following aspects:
a) Rock mechanics, b) Tunneling, c) Use of EC7
with computer design codes, d) Dams and e) Ex-
isting structures.
Some critical issues for Italian engineers re-
garding the implementation of EC7 are:
− Being a mandatory code, it must be used for
all geotechnical design situations, including
minor changes to existing structures (this has
a large economic impact on private projects).
− In Italy, DAs 1 and 2 are the possible choic-
es; DA3 is only for slope stability problems;
when left to the designer, the selection of a
particular DA is a source of confusion.
− The use of correlation factors ξ for piles and
anchorages to derive characteristic values
from ground test results is strongly criticized;
this may be appropriate for homogeneous soil
conditions, but these are very rarely found in
the typical Italian geological conditions.
Regarding the selection of characteristic val-
ues, very often these are provided by the ground
investigation report, usually compiled by a geol-
ogist responsible for the site investigation and
laboratory testing. This is never the case with
public works, where a geotechnical consultant is
typically responsible for the soil geotechnical
model and for the geotechnical design.
With regard to the partial factor values:
− The partial factor values have been selected
to obtain equivalent OSF values for ULS that
are greater than or equal to the values in the
previous Code (e.g. OSF = 3 for spread foun-
dations and for DA2 γGx γR = 1.3x2.3 =2.99).
− Such a choice obscures the role of servicea-
bility limit state (SLS) analyses for geotech-
nical design and is strongly criticized by
some designers as not really being in agree-
ment with EC7.
− The practical use of EC7 should encourage in
the near future a revision of the partial factor
values (particularly the values of γR).
− A unique set of partial factors on soil proper-
ties are used for both static and seismic load
cases.
Poland:
K. Gwizdała, reporting on the implementation of
EC7 in Poland, stated that the Polish NA to Part
1 of EC7 provides:
− Detailed scope of the ground investigations
for the different Geotechnical Categories.
− DA3 is adopted for the deign of slopes while
DA2 is adopted for other GEO design
situations, with partial resistance factors
according to Eqn 2.7b and with DA2*
adopted for bearing resistance.
− The selection of Eqn. 2.9b in terms of
seepage force and submerged weight for
designs against heave failure (HYD).
To demonstrate the reasons for the DAs,
partial factors and heave equation adopted in the
Polish NA, Gwizdała presented the results of
several design examples. He compared the
designs of two spread foundations with inclined
and eccentric loads, one on cohesive soil and one
on non-cohesive soil, according to the Polish NA
using DA2* and also using the other DAs. He
then compared the stability of a trench against
heave failure designed using Eqn. 2.7b in the
Polish NA and Eqn. 2.7a. In his final example,
Gwizdała showed the importance in pile design
of taking account of the different amounts of
shaft and base resistance that develop with
settlement in the case of bored and driven piles.
To facilitate implementation of EC7 in
Poland, some universities are offering
postgraduate courses in EC7, some workshops
on EC7 have taken place recently and there is a
website with information on EC7.
Spain
C. Sagaseta stated that the Part 1 of EC7 had
been translated into Spanish and published by
AENOR (Asociación Española de Normalización
y Certificación) in 2011, but the Spanish NA was
not yet available and this constituted a serious
obstacle to the implementation of EC7. A draft
version of the Spanish NA is being prepared. It
will be distributed for review and comment be-
fore receiving official approval expected in 2012.
Translation of Part 2 is currently taking place and
AENOR will probably publish it in 2012. Saga-
seta reported that members of the Spanish sub-
committee on EC7, AENOR SC7-AEN140, have
become integrated into the SC7 Evolution
Groups (EGs) and, as much as possible, the work
undertaken by these groups will be taken into ac-
count as the Spanish NA is prepared.
Sweden
T. Orr presented a report on the implementation
of EC7 in Sweden, based on information pro-
vided by L. Moritz. Work on implementing EC7
in Sweden began in 2005 with the establishment
of an association (IEG) consisting of representa-
tives from ministries, contractors, consultants,
universities and manufacturers. This association
examined projects relating to EC7 and geotech-
nical standards covering the following aspects:
− The differences between EC7 and the old
standards and regulations;
− Calculations to calibrate the partial factors
and analyze the consequences;
− How to use EC7 in practice, which resulted in
application documents for the design of
spread foundations, pile foundations, retain-
ing structures, slopes and embankments, and
structures in rock, and how to treat water in
the design, including hydraulic failure.
IEG also studied the application of EC7 in
field and laboratory investigations and in the ob-
servational method and produced the basis for
the Swedish NA. IEG finished its activities in
spring 2011. One of the benefits of the IEG was
that leading geotechnical experts in Sweden
could discuss and come to an agreement how to
use EC7. Its aim was to involve a lot of people
who would have to work with EC7 so that its
implementation would be easier and more
prompt. This aim was achieved.
In responding to the questionnaire circulated
by T. Orr about the implementation of EC7, L.
Moritz stated that:
1. Swedish engineers thought EC7 was not easy
to use without some additional help, therefore
Sweden has provided more detailed national
rules and associated code requirements.
2. EC7 is now used for all geotechnical design
situations, but it has only started to be used
recently.
3. EC7 does not provide enough details, hence
the additional rules and requirements men-
tioned in (1) above;
4. Designers chose the characteristic values in
Sweden;
5. Swedish geotechnical engineers are not con-
fident choosing characteristic soil strengths
but feel that EC7 gives a very good specifica-
tion about the factors that influence them;
6. Before EC7 was implemented, Swedish engi-
neers were not happy with the new partial
factor values, not only because they wanted
flexible values, as in the former code, but al-
so there was the feeling that the safety level
was wrong and mostly too high. However,
since EC7 has been implemented, it appears
that Swedish engineers are happy with the
partial factors as these concerns are no longer
being expressed.
Switzerland
H. Schneider reported that EC7 was introduced
to practicing engineers in Switzerland in 2004
through nationwide introductory courses. Uni-
versity courses are now based on the EC7 design
philosophy with partial safety factors and young
engineers use EC7 for all routine problems. Most
senior engineers with more than 6-8 years prac-
tice know the EC7 design philosophy and apply
it but many check their EC7 designs against de-
signs to the old global safety factor system.
Transferring experience/confidence from the old
global factors to the new partial factors seems to
be much more difficult than mentally changing
the design system.
UK
Regarding the implementation of EC7 in the UK,
C. Smith, reported that it is being used continu-
ously by larger consulting firms, but probably
less so by very small firms. Although there was a
lot of critical debate during the development of
EC7, the British Standards Institution (BSI) has
received very few criticisms of it and most users
now comment favourably on it. Training pro-
grammes are offered by several organisations,
such as Geocentrix, universities and the Institu-
tion of Civil Engineers. He showed two papers
on the design of piles produced with the piling
industry and now being used fairly readily.
Smith presented examples of two structures
on different soils with spread foundations de-
signed to EC7; in the case of one, the Grand
Egyptian Museum on Aeolian and alluvial soils,
the design was controlled by the SLS while in
the case of the other, the Coventry University
Engineering and Computing Building on sands
and clays, the design was controlled by the ULS.
He also presented the Bahrain-Qatar causeway
bridge, one of the world’s longest bridges, as an
example of a structure outside Europe being de-
signed to EC7 by an international team and the
question arose regarding which NA to use.
Smith noted that some consultants had com-
mented that, while EC7 is very specific regarding
the aspects the Ground Investigation and Geo-
technical Design Reports should cover, it is not
very clear on how feasibility stage studies or ‘de-
sign and build’ contracts should be reported. He
also presented the results of a survey by Bond [4]
on what improvements to EC7 the industry
would like, which are shown in Table 1.
3 PILE DESIGN TO EUROCODE 7
The second Workshop examined the different na-
tional design methodologies for piles according
to EC7. The Workshop was introduced by M.
Bottiau, chairman of ETC3, who also reported on
Table 1: Top 5 topics as voted by UK engineers (based on
Bond [4])
Rank Topic %*
1 Add new parts to EC7 covering detailed design 100
(e.g. footings, walls, pile and slopes)
2 Improve general guidance on selecting charac- 94
teristic soil parameter
3 Improve guidance on selecting water pressures 70
4 Add new parts to EC7 covering reinforced soil 59
5 Simplify/reduce number of DAs 43
* The percentage of votes above the average expected
pile designs in Belgium, and there were 5 other
speakers who reported on pile designs in Estonia,
France, Ireland, Poland and Sweden. The final
presentation compared a pile in London Clay de-
signed using different codes.
Belgium
M. Bottiau presented a report, prepared with N.
Huybrechts and M. De Vos, on pile design in
Belgium. EC7 and the Belgian NA are now
compulsory for public works and represented the
code of good practice for other works. The Bel-
gian Building Research Institute (BBRI) has pub-
lished Guidelines for the implementation of Eu-
rocode 7 in Belgium, which are non-conflicting
complementary information (NCCI) and referred
to in the Belgian NA. The Belgian pile design
method involves the following features:
− General framework for geotechnical design
− Moving from a global to partial safety factors
− More uniform reliability levels
− Evaluating the soil investigation
− Assessing existing pile foundations (quality
control, static load tests)
− A design framework for new types of founda-
tion piles (static load tests).
The first three features listed above are the main
new features. To illustrate the design methodolo-
gy, Bottiau presented the method for designing a
compressive pile from CPT results. The base and
shaft resistances were calculated using the de
Beer method, with reduction factors for pile
shape, an enlarged base, installation effects and
soil type, and values were given for these factors.
Except for driven and jacked piles, model fac-
tors, whose values depend on the pile type and
whether or not an instrumented static load test
has been carried out, are applied to the calculated
resistances. The characteristic resistances are
then obtained by applying correlation factors
whose values depend on the number of CPT tests
per m2 and the flexibility of the structure. Finally
the design resistances are obtained by applying
partial factors, whose values depend on whether
or not there is a quality guarantee for the piles
involving monitoring and certification. When
there is no quality guarantee, the partial factors
are 0.05 greater than the EC7 recommended
DA1-C2 values. The Belgian method links the
safety level of pile designs to the uncertainties
involved since the ξ values are reduced when
there is more ground investigation (more CPT
tests per m2), the model factors are reduced when
instrumented static load tests are carried out, and
the partial factors are reduced when there is qual-
ity control during execution.
Estonia
In reporting on pile design in Estonia, M. Metz
raised the problem of defining the pile resistance
since it is a combination of the base and shaft re-
sistances, which occur at different pile displace-
ments, are calculated using different equations,
and have an influence on each other, depending
on the geotechnical conditions. Hence he posed
the question: Is the pile resistance a single value
or does it have many values? EC7 is now used
for geotechnical design in Estonia, but for a long
time previously, the Russian SNiP code was
mandatory. In this code, the creep limit load, Ny,
determined from pile load tests and taking into
account time dependence, was used as the work-
ing load. A good correlation has been established
between the bearing resistance determined from
dynamic load tests and Ny. Metz said higher pile
displacements were required to mobilize shaft re-
sistance than the minor displacements required
for creep when load is transferred from the pile
to the soil. As an example of situations favoring
the use of N y for pile design, he gave the beha-
vior of piles in varying ground conditions, with
soft ground over hard or hard ground over soft.
France
R. Frank reported on pile design to EC7 in
France where DA2 has been adopted and the
French NA gives ξ values to determine Rk from
pile load tests and an “alternative method” using
correlations with Ménard Pressuremeter (MPM)
test results to determine pile end bearing and
shaft resistances. He also presented a method to
predict the pile settlement based on MPM EM
values for different soil types and questioned if
settlement calculations were only appropriate for
SLS designs. Examining the reliability of pile
designs in France, Frank noted that the maximum
target reliability index values in EC7 for building
foundations for SLS and ULS are β = 1/500 and
1/150 and the maximum total and differential
settlements are 50mm and 20mm, whereas in
practice in France lower β values for SLS and
ULS of 1/250 and 1/1000 to 1/500 are used.
Ireland
K. Gavin reported that Ireland permits the use of
any of the three DAs for geotechnical designs,
including pile design. Depending on the type of
pile, the EC7 recommended partial factors have
been adopted with either increased ξ factors or a
model factor so that the OSF obtained is similar
to that pertaining previously. Since SPTs are
commonly used to investigate the ground condi-
tions, models which correlate pile capacity and
SPT N values are widely used. The shaft adhe-
sion factor, α and the cu are commonly used
when designing piles from ground test results.
Static load tests are often performed to low pile
head displacements and extrapolation to deter-
mine the pile resistance can be unreliable.
Poland
K. Gwizdała presented a report on pile design in
Poland. Polish versions of EC7 Parts 1 and 2
have been published and the NA for Part 1 states
that, except for slopes, DA2* has been adopted
for all design situations, with γE = 1.0 and γE >
1.0. He showed how much more information can
be obtained from a static load test on an instru-
mented pile, by measuring the vertical distribu-
tion of axial force along the core of the pile, than
on a non-instrumented pile. The piles for a
bridge over the Odra River near Wrocław were
presented as an example of where such loading
tests on instrumented piles had successfully been
used. The Polish standard, PN-83/B-02482 pro-
vides values of the unit base and shaft resistances
of piles that, depending on the soil type, are re-
lated either to the Density Index or the Liquidity
Index. Gwizdała concluded by showing the use
of non-linear transfer functions to predict the
load settlement behavior of piles.
Sweden
G. Axelsson reported that, in implementing EC7
in Sweden, the Swedish standard has two NAs,
VVFS for infrastructure and BFS for buildings,
and these are now used for all designs. An
additional document, TD Pile Foundation, has
been published providing guidance on Section 7
of EC7 on pile design. Pile resistance is normally
obtained from dynamic or static pile tests. Pile
driving formulae are not allowed. DA2 has been
adopted for the geotechnical design of piles and
DA3 for the structural design. Three safety
classes, with modification factors of 0.83, 0.91
and 1.0, have been introduced that reduce the
EC7 recommended DA2 and DA3 partial action
factors for two of the safety classes. The adopted
resistance factor values are slightly less than the
EC7 recommended values due to the confidence
in Sweden in pile design methods based on load
tests. In certain cases model factors are also ap-
plied, for example when using dynamic testing
with a CAPWAP analysis, the calculated resis-
tance is divided by a model factor of 0.85, i.e. it
is increased, whereas when using wave equation
analysis the calculated resistance is divided by a
model factor of 1.3. If the pile resistance is cal-
culated from ground test results, depending on
the soil type and testing method, model factors
ranging from 1.1 to 1.6 are applied to reduce the
calculated bearing resistance.
Axelsson listed the following Swedish con-
cerns regarding pile design to EC7:
− Buckling is only checked when cu < 10 kPa
− Pile driving formulae may be used
− Failure is defined as s/D = 10% of the pile
base diameter
− Model factors are needed
− The high level of safety on actions
− No reduction of correlation factors for stiff
structures with dynamic testing
− Calculation of downdrag.
AASHTO
UK EC7 (DA1-2)
Conventional - FOS = 3.0
IRL EC7 (DA2)
AS2159 2009 NL EC7 (DA3)
SNiP
Figure 1. Comparison of pile designs to different codes
General
P. Vardanega presented the results of the design
of a 0.9m diameter pile in London Clay carried
out with E. Kolody, S. Pennington, P. Morrison
and B. Simpson, all of Ove Arup & Partners. He
showed how different characteristic cu values
could be selected due to the scatter in the test da-
ta and depending on the rational adopted. The
pile designs were all based on the α method. The
calculated pile lengths, obtained using a conven-
tional factor of safety of 3.0 and using six codes
of practice, three being EC7 with different NAs
and partial factors, are presented in Figure 1.
These show that the global factors of safety
(FOS) for the piles ranged from about 1.7 in the
case of the Russian SNiP code to about 4.0 for
the AASHTO code, with the FOS for the three
EC7 designs close to 2.5. He concluded that:
− Most codes do not mandate a settlement
check
− The Russian approach tolerates more move-
ments.
and he posed the question regarding pile design:
Are we all designing the same thing?
4 NUMERICAL METHODS
C. Sagaseta, chair of ETC7, chaired Workshop 4
on “Limit state design, Eurocode 7 and Numeri-
cal methods” with 5 presentations on the use of
numerical analyses for ULS designs to EC7.
 H. Schweiger examined the applicability of
numerical methods for EC7 designs, without
recommending a particular DA, and noted some
important issues to be considered. When using
DA1-C1 and DA2, it is not feasible to factor the
earth pressure. Alternatively, the effects of ac-
tions can be factored and this is referred to as
DA2*. Two options are possible with DA3: in
Option 1 the analysis is performed using design,
i.e. factored, strength values. This option pro-
vides no SLS information. In Option 2 the analy-
sis is performed using characteristic parameters,
but for all construction steps a check is made
with reduced parameters. This option provides
SLS as well as ULS information.
Schweiger presented four examples of exca-
vations supported by retaining walls, two
benchmark examples and two case histories, and
compared the maximum calculated design bend-
ing moments and shear forces in the walls using
two soil models. He concluded that:
− DA2 and DA3 lead to different retaining wall
designs (as with conventional analyses);
− The choice of constitutive model and some
modelling assumptions may have a larger ef-
fect than the choice of DA;
− The differences between DA2 and DA3 ap-
pear to be less pronounced for advanced con-
stitutive models.
The arguments in favor of DA2 and DA2* and
against DA3 (or DA1.C2) are that:
− “Real" soil is considered;
− The "Limit state" of working load conditions
is obtained;
− Only one analysis is required (not exactly
true if variable loads are present);
− Unrealistic system behavior (e.g. struts in
tension) is avoided.
The arguments against DA2 and DA2* and for
DA3 (and DA1.C2) are that:
− A partial factor is placed on one of the
uncertainties - the soil parameters
− Soil is both a load and a resistance and this is
not always clear cut but is automatically
taken into account in DA1 and DA3.
While the application of numerical methods
complying with EC7 is possible in general,
Schweiger asked the following questions:
− Should numerical models be used in this
way? Has sufficient experience been accumu-
lated with numerical models to perform ULS
design analyses?
− Due to the significant influence of the consti-
tutive model and other modelling assump-
tions, is it reasonable to use numerical meth-
ods as the basis to design deep excavations?
− The relative stiffness between the soil and the
wall influences the design forces, though the
magnitude seems to be relatively small and to
depend on the constitutive model used.
Hence, should there be partial factors on soil
stiffness?
− The fact that soil is both a load and a resis-
tance is only covered consistently in DA1 and
DA3;
− How should water pressures be dealt with in
DA3 (they are fully factored in DA2)?
− Should K0 be based on the characteristic or
design friction angle?
D. Potts outlined two possible approaches to
account for the FOS in a numerical analysis. Ap-
proach 1 is to start the numerical analysis with
unfactored strength values and gradually increase
the FOS (i.e. reduce the strength at relevant
stages) until failure occurs. The advantages of
this approach are that a single analysis is used to
investigate both SLS and ULS. The disadvan-
tages are inconsistent strength reduction ap-
proaches in different software and some software
can only perform such reductions if simple con-
stitutive models are used.
Approach 2 is to start the numerical analysis
with factorised strength values and continue until
failure occurs. The advantages of this approach
are it is the easier alternative, no software modi-
fication is needed, and it can be used with most
constitutive models. The disadvantages are the
initial stresses may not be consistent with those
in-situ (Ko could be reduced) and an additional
analysis is needed to investigate serviceability.
From the results of numerical analyses of
three examples, consisting of the bearing capac-
ity of a footing on Tresca soil, on Modified Cam
Clay and on soil using Lade’s double hardening
model, he concluded that:
− Different approaches in numerical analyses to
account for FOS can lead to different results;
− Understanding how the software performs the
strength reduction and how this interacts with
the constitutive model is important;
− Guidelines are needed to ensure that this po-
tential pitfall is avoided.
L. Zdrakovic compared the use of the above
two approaches for three retaining wall exam-
ples: a cantilever embedded wall, a single-
propped embedded wall, and a double-propped
embedded wall. She showed that, when analys-
ing embedded retaining walls, both strength re-
duction approaches lead to the same results when
a simple Mohr-Coulomb model is used but can
give different results when a non-linear model is
used. For multi-propped walls, ULSs are likely
to involve structural failure and consequently a
factor of safety also needs to be applied to the
structural strength. However, both strength re-
duction approaches give the same results, even
though the earth pressure redistribution is differ-
ent in the two cases due to the different stages of
the analysis at which plastic moments are mobi-
lised in the wall
C. Smith presented a numerical method that
includes the use of action and resistance factors
to analyse the sliding stability of gravity retain-
ing wall for DA2 designs. His general methodol-
ogy involves first carrying out the analysis using
characteristic values; then giving the wall a
push/pull in all directions and, if it requires a
small push/pull to destabilise it, then it is unsafe.
Factors are applied to obtain the design actions
and resistance and then it is checked if the design
actions are less than or equal to the design resis-
tance. Separate checks are required for each as-
sumed collapse mode and each collapse mode
needs a distinct push/pull force. He stated that
the proposed simple conceptual method works
well using computational limit analysis software
and should work for non-linear FE approaches.
A. Lees referred to the proposed programme
for revising EC7 and the EGs mentioned below.
EG4 for Numerical Methods, which he convenes,
is looking at the use of numerical methods for
EC7 designs. He said he did not anticipate any
issue regarding the use of numerical methods for
SLS design; he anticipated the main issue would
be how to apply partial factors in ULS analyses.
5 CONCLUSIONS AND DEVELOPMENT
Workshop 5, the final workshop, was a general
discussion session based on the earlier EC7 and
EC8 Workshops. This final Workshop was chai-
red by B. Simpson, convener of TC 250, who in-
vited the chairmen of the earlier Workshops to
summarize their outcomes and present the issues
that had arisen for discussion.
Summarizing Workshop 2 on the application
of EC7, Orr said:
− Most countries have implemented EC7
− Generally those using EC7 are happy with it
and confident in the safety of the designs ob-
tained
− Different DAs are used in different countries;
− Model factors have been introduced so as to
achieve appropriate level of safety, particu-
larly for pile design
− Most countries have considered it necessary
to produce supporting national documents
and standards with additional information,
such as calculation models.
Issues identified for discussion were:
− Is more guidance needed in EC7 for pile de-
sign and, if so, does this mean model factors
should be related to calculation models used?
− Is more guidance/clarification needed on the
choice of characteristic values?
− Some countries have introduced Design
Situations and Consequence Classes – should
these be nationally determined?
Bottiau, summarizing Workshop 3 on European
methodologies for pile design to EC7, said:
− Several DAs are used, even for similar prob-
lems, and this makes it a little confusing.
− There are a lot of differences in the methods
are used to determine the pile resistance –
static load tests, ground investigation tests,
direct and indirect calculations.
− Since the use of a particular DA or design
methodology is a question of reliability, he
asked if EC7 users were uncomfortable with
EC7 or with the uncertainties in geotechnics.
− In answering this question, he said EC7 had
brought a greater understanding of the differ-
ent uncertainties in geotechnics.
− Clarification is needed regarding what the
model factor covers.
− Factors are required to take account of instal-
lation effects for different pile types and the
influence of control during installation.
− In many NAs, unsolved questions remain in
pile design regarding design for tension,
downdrag and buckling.
Arising from the presentations in Workshop 4
on EC7 and numerical methods, Sagaseta posed
the following questions for discussion:
− Which DA is or DAs are suitable for numeri-
cal analysis?
− How can EC7 require minimum partial fac-
tors with complex FEM analyses?
− Does stiffness influence ULS analyses?
Among the aspects Simpson raised for dis-
cussion were the development needs of EC7 and
EC8 and training needs. From the earlier presen-
tations and the discussions it was evident there
was a great need for better communication and
more consistency between EC7 and EC8 and it
was determined that this would occur in the fu-
ture. It was also evident that much training is al-
ready taking place.
Regarding the development of EC7, the work
to create EC7 began in 1981 with the first meet-
ing of the first EC7 committee established by the
ISSMGE under the chairmanship of N. Krebs
Ovesen. Its subsequent development involved a
number stages and versions with inputs from
many engineers before Part 1 was approved in
2004 by the formal vote of all the CEN member
countries (Orr [5]) and published as EN 1997-1.
To prepare for its future development, the 13
EGs listed in Table 2 have been established by
SC7 to examine different aspects of EC7, identi-
fy issues causing concern or problems and make
proposals for future revision and development,
though not to redraft the code at this stage.
Simpson showed the proposed timetable for
the development of the Eurocodes with a formal
review of the existing standards due to start in
2013, the preparation of revised standards due to
commence in 2015 and the formal votes on the
revised versions due to take place in 2017. The
EGs have commenced their work and are ad-
dressing many of the issues raised in the Work-
Table 2: SC7 Evolution Groups
EG Topic
0 Management and oversight
1 Anchors
2 Maintenance and simplification
3 Model solutions
4 Numerical methods
5 Reinforced soil
6 Seismic design
7 Pile design
8 Harmonization
9 Water pressures
10 Calculation models
11 Characterization
12 Tunneling
13 Rock mechanics
shops and hence will provide a sound basis on
which to prepare the next version of EC7.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report is based on the presentations made
during the Eurocode 7 Workshops at the XV
ECSMGE in Athens. The author wishes to thank
all the presenters and Michael Pachakis for mak-
ing the presentation files available.
REFERENCES
[1] EN 1997-1 - Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design – Part
1: General rules, CEN European Committee for Stan-
dardization, Brussels, 2004
[2] EN 1990 – Eurocode - Basis of Structural Design, CEN
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels,
2002
[3] ISO 14688-2:2004 Geotechnical investigation and test-
ing -- Identification and classification of soil - Part 1:
Principles for a classification, ISO International Stan-
dards Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
[4] Bond A , Future development of Eurocode 7, presenta-
tion at BGA Symposium - Eurocode 7 Today and To-
morrow, Cambridge, England, 2011
[5] Orr T.L.L, The story of Eurocode 7, Spirit of Krebs
Ovesen Session – Challenges in Geotechnical Engi-
neering, XIV European Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Geotechnical Engineering, Bulletin 23, Danish En-
gineering Society, November 2008