Conceptual aspects and basic principles of Eurocode 7

'Geotechnical design'
Roger Frank
CERMES (Soil Mechanics Teaching and Research Centre), Paris, France

ABSTRACT
Eurocode 7 on Geotechnical design consists of two Parts: 'General rules (Part 1)' and 'Ground
investigation and testing (Part 2)'. The corresponding pre-standards (ENVs) were published in
the 1990s. Their conversion into full European Norms (ENs) is now completed (September
2005). Part 1 has been ratified in 2004 and Part 2 is to be formally voted in the coming
months. After a historical note on the development of Eurocode 7, the contents and the main
concepts and principles of the two parts of Eurocode 7 are given. Some aspects of particular
interest are described (characteristic values, derived values, ULS verifications in persistent
and transient design situations, SLS verifications and allowable movements of foundations).
Finally, the liaisons with other European and international standardisation works are
summarised.

1. INTRODUCTION : THE EUROCODE PROGRAMME

The system of Structural Eurocodes includes the 10 following sets of standards (EN for
‘European Norm’) :
EN 1990 Eurocode: Basis of structural design
EN 1991 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures
EN 1992 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures
EN 1993 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures
EN 1994 Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures
EN 1995 Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures
EN 1996 Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures
EN 1997 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design
EN 1998 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance
EN 1999 Eurocode 9: Design of aluminium structures
The Structural Eurocodes are design codes for buildings and civil engineering works. They
are based on the Limit State Design (LSD) approach used in conjunction with a partial factor
method.
Except for EN 1990, all Eurocodes are subdivided into several parts. Eurocodes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
and 9 are ‘material’ Eurocodes, i.e. relevant to a given material. EN 1990 (Basis of design),
Eurocode 1 (Actions), Eurocode 7 (Geotechnical design) and Eurocode 8 (Earthquake
resistance) are relevant to all types of construction, whatever the material.
Eurocode 7 should be used for all the problems of interaction of structures with the ground
(soils and rocks), through foundations or retaining structures. It addresses not only buildings
but also bridges and other civil engineering works. It allows the calculation of the
geotechnical actions on the structures, as well the resistances of the ground submitted to the
actions from the structures. It also gives all the prescriptions and rules for good practice
2 Frank

required for properly conducting the geotechnical aspect of a structural project or, more
generally speaking, a purely geotechnical project.
Eurocode 7 on Geotechnical design originally consisted of three parts. Thus, three pre-
standards (ENVs) were published ('ENV', stands for European pre-standard) :
ENV 1997-1 Geotechnical design - Part 1: General rules (1994)
ENV 1997-2 Geotechnical design - Part 2: Design assisted by laboratory testing (1999)
ENV 1997-3 Geotechnical design - Part 3: Design assisted by field testing (1999).
The documents for Parts 2 and 3 are now merged into one single document (for the
conversion into EN) which is called ' Part 2 : Geotechnical design - Ground investigation and
testing '.
This Paper summarises the development and main aspects of Eurocode 7, without recalling
the principles of LSD and of the partial factor method used.
The development of Eurocode 7 was strongly linked to the development of EN 1990:
‘Eurocode: Basis of structural design’, in particular its Section 6 (Verification by the partial
factor method) and its Annexes A1 and A2 (Application for buildings and for bridges,
respectively), in order to reach a format for verifying ground-structure interaction problems
acceptable by all. EN 1990 has been ratified and published in 2002 (CEN 2002).

2. HISTORY OF EUROCODE 7 AND FORTHCOMING DEADLINES

2.1. History

The first Eurocode 7 Group, in charge of drafting a European standard on geotechnical

design, was created in 1981. Under the Chairmanship of N. Krebs Ovesen (Denmark), it was
composed of representatives of the National Societies for Geotechnical Engineering of the
countries forming the European Community (in 1981, the European Community included 10
countries: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg,
Netherlands and United Kingdom; Portugal and Spain joined in 1986; Austria, Finland and
Sweden in 1995, and Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,
Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia and joined in 2004. Thus, today the European Union
(EU) is composed of 25 Member States).
In 1987 a first model code on general rules for geotechnical design (corresponding to
Eurocode 7- Part 1) was drafted and published (EC 7, 1990).
In 1990, the task of drafting design codes for buildings and civil engineering works was
transferred to the Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN, European Committee for
Standardization) and CEN/TC 250 (Technical Committee 250) in charge of all the ‘Structural
Eurocodes’ was created. In particular, SC 7, Sub-Committee 7, is in charge of Eurocode 7 on
‘Geotechnical design’.
Since January 2004, 28 national standards bodies are members of CEN: the 25 countries of
the present EU, plus the 3 members of EFTA, i.e. Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. The
bodies of other countries from Central and Eastern Europe are ‘affiliate’ members and are
expected to become members soon.
N. Krebs Ovesen (Denmark) was the first Chairman of CEN/TC 250/SC 7, from 1990 until
1998 and the Vice-Chairman was B. Simpson (UK). The author was the Chairman of SC 7
from 1998 to 2004. Since June 2004, Bernd Schuppener (Germany), Vice-Chairman of SC 7
in the period 1998-2004, is the new Chairman and G. Scarpelli (Italy) is the new Vice-
Chairman. Leendert Buth (NEN, the Dutch Standardisation Organisation) is the Secretary of
SC 7 since its creation.
 Frank 3

In 1993, SC 7 adopted the ENV 1997-1 pre-standard: ‘Geotechnical design - Part 1: General
Rules’, prepared by Project Team 1. PT 1 was composed of N. Krebs Ovesen (Convenor,
Denmark), T. Orr (Secretary, Ireland), F. Baguelin (France), W. Heijnen (Netherlands), E.
Maranha das Neves (Portugal), B. Simpson (UK) and U. Smoltczyk (Germany). ENV 1997-1
was officially published by CEN in October 1994 in the English language (CEN, 1994). The
versions in French and German, the two other languages of CEN publications, appeared in
1995-1996.
It was clear, at that time, that (much) more work still needed to be done before reaching a full
European standard (EN) acceptable to all members of CEN. WG1 (Work Group 1 with 19
countries involved at that time) started the work in January 1997, slightly before the official
positive vote for the conversion into an EN was obtained (May 1997).
An important fact helped in obtaining this positive vote. It was the recognition by
CEN/TC 250 that geotechnical design is unique and cannot be considered to be the same as
other design practices needed in the construction industry. The models commonly used vary
from one country to the other and cannot be harmonised easily, simply because the geologies
are different and form the rationale for the so-called ‘local traditions’… This recognition is
confirmed by a resolution taken by TC 250 (Resolution N 87, meeting of Paris, 6 September
1996): ‘CEN/TC 250 accepts the principle that ENV 1997-1 might be devoted exclusively to
the fundamental rules of geotechnical design and be supplemented by national standards’.
The work for the conversion of ENV 1997-1 into EN 1997-1 ‘Geotechnical design – Part 1:
General rules’ was performed from 1997 to 2003. The drafting of the new document was the
task of PT 1, composed of U. Smoltczyk (Convenor, Germany), C. Bauduin (Belgium),
G. Bosco (Italy), R. Driscoll (UK), as well as R. Frank and B. Schuppener. The positive vote
on the versions in the 3 working languages of CEN (English, French and German) was
obtained in 2004 (the vote was nearly unanimous : 26 countries out of 28 expressed a positive
vote). CEN finally published Eurocode 7 – Part 1 (EN 1997-1) in November 2004 (CEN,
2004a)
Eurocode 7 originally consisted of two other Parts: Part 2, devoted to geotechnical design
assisted by laboratory testing and Part 3, devoted to geotechnical design assisted by field (in
situ) testing. PT 2 and PT 3 drafted the corresponding ENVs (ENV 1997-2 and 1997-3) which
were adopted by SC 7 in 1997. This work was completed rather quickly (1994 to 1996) and
faced no serious controversial issue.
These pre-standards were published by CEN in 1999 in English (CEN 1999a, 1999b) and in
2000-2001 in French and German. In October 2001, the members of CEN voted positively for
their conversion into European Norms. The two Project Teams (SC 7/PT 2 and PT 3) in
charge of the conversion worked from 2002 to 2004. The Convenor for both PTs was
N. Foged (Denmark). The members were J. Bohac (Czech Republic), V. Escario (Spain),
J.P. Magnan (France), K.J. Meltzer (Germany), J. Powell (UK) and M. Smits (Netherlands),
as well as R. Frank and B. Schuppener. They merged the two documents into the single
document called 'Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design - Part 2: Ground investigation and testing’
(EN 1997-2, CEN 2004b). The formal vote on the 3 language versions will be launched late
2005 or early 2006.

2.2. Implementation

The publication of the corresponding Eurocode Part by each national standardisation body
with its National Annex (in the official language(s) of the country) will have to be completed
4 Frank

within two years after publication by CEN. This allows not only for the time needed for
translation (in the case of countries using language(s) different from English, French or
German), but also for a so-called ‘national calibration period’ (for fixing the nationally
determined parameters, for adaptation of national provisions to allow the use of the Eurocode
Part, etc.).
Then will start the so-called ‘coexistence period’ (with other national standards). In principle,
this period should not exceed 3 years. In fact, for a given Eurocode, or part of a Eurocode, the
date of withdrawal of national standards covering the same subject will depend, in particular,
on the state of development of the other Eurocodes or Parts of Eurocodes needed to design a
structure entirely according to the new Eurocode approach. Thus, ‘packages’ have been
defined, i.e. sets of different Eurocodes (or Parts thereof) and, in principle, only when a whole
package is ready can the corresponding national standards be withdrawn. It is presently
anticipated that the first ‘packages’ including Eurocode 7- Part 1 will be the ones for concrete
buildings (Eurocode 2, package 2/1) and steel buildings (Eurocode 3, package 3/1)
Moreover, the ‘legal’ status of standards/norms is different in each country and it is evident
that the regulatory bodies of the various countries have an important role to play in order to
make the use of the Eurocodes mandatory. This is why, since 1999, a group of Eurocode
National Correspondents (ENCs) has been formed by the European Commission, working in
close link with CEN/TC 250. This group has drafted a ‘Guidance Paper’ to co-ordinate the
implementation of the Eurocodes into the national regulations. (CE, 2003a). Furthermore, the
European Commission has recently issued a strong recommendation to the Member States
inviting them to adopt the Eurocodes in their national regulations (CE, 2003b).

3. CONTENTS OF DOCUMENTS

3.1. Part 1 : General rules

Eurocode 7 - Part 1 is a rather general document giving only the principles for geotechnical
design inside the general framework of LSD. These principles are relevant to the calculation
of the geotechnical actions on structures (buildings and civil engineering works) and to the
design of the structural elements themselves in contact with the ground (footings, piles,
basement walls, etc.). Detailed design rules or calculation models, i.e. precise formulae or
charts are only given in informative Annexes. As already mentioned, the main reason is that
the design models in geotechnical engineering differ from one country to the other, and it was
not possible to reach a consensus, especially when many of these models still need to be
calibrated and adapted to the LSD approach…
The discussions inside SC 7 for the conversion of ENV 1997 – Part 1 into EN focused mainly
on :
- the definition of characteristic values for geotechnical parameters (see Section 4, below);
- load cases for checking the ultimate limit states (ULS) in persistent and transient design
situations, i.e. the new three Design Approaches (DA1, DA 2 and DA 3) replacing the
former cases A, B and C in ENV 1997-1 (see Section 4, below);
- separate treatment for embankments and slopes, and drafting of a section (chapter) to
include all clauses on overall stability;
- new sections on anchorages and on hydraulic failure, respectively.
Thus, Eurocode 7 – Part 1 includes the following sections (CEN, 2004a) :
Section 1 General
Section 2 Basis of geotechnical design
 Frank 5

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 8 Anchorages
Section 9 Retaining structures
Section 10 Hydraulic failure
Section 11 Overall stability
Section 12 Embankments
Sections 8 on anchorages, 10 on hydraulic failure and 11 on site stability are new sections
with regard to the pre-standard (ENV 1997-1, CEN 1994).
A number of Annexes are included. They are all informative, except for Annex A which is
'normative' (i. e. mandatory). The list of the Annexes for EN 1997-1 is the following :
Annex A (normative) Partial factors for ultimate limit states
Annex B Background information on partial factors for Design Approaches 1, 2 3
Annex C Sample procedures to determine limit values of earth pressures on vertical walls
Annex D A sample analytical method for bearing resistance calculation
Annex E A sample semi-empirical method for bearing resistance estimation
Annex F Sample methods for settlement evaluation
Annex G A sample method for deriving presumed bearing resistance for spread
foundations on rock
Annex H Limiting foundation movements and structural deformation
Annex J Checklist for construction supervision and performance monitoring
Annex A is important, as it gives the partial factors for ULS in persistent and transient design
situations ('fundamental combinations'), as well as correlation factors for the characteristic
values of pile bearing capacity. But the numerical values for the partial or correlation factors
given in Annex A are only recommended values. The exact values of the factors can be changed
by each national standardisation body in the so-called National Annex. All other Annexes are
informative (i. e. not mandatory in the normative sense). Some of them, though, contain
valuable material which can be accepted, in the near future, by most of the countries. The
National Annex can give a ' normative(s) ' status to one or to several of the 'informative'
Annexes, i.e. it (they) will be mandatory in the corresponding country.
As explained in Section 2 above, each country is also free to supplement the general rules of
Eurocode 7 by national application standards, in order to specify the calculation models and
design rules to be applied in the country. The contents of these national standards will also
depend on the choices made with regard to the application of the informative Annexes of
Eurocode 7. Whatever their contents they will have to respect in all aspects the principles of
Eurocode 7.

3.2. Part 2: Ground investigation and testing

The role of this part of Eurocode 7 devoted to laboratory and field testing is to give the
essential requirements for the equipment and test procedures, for the reporting and the
presentation of results, for their interpretation and, finally, for the derivation of values of
geotechnical parameters for the design. It complements the requirements of Part 1 in order to
ensure a safe and economic geotechnical design.
6 Frank

It makes the link between the design requirements of Part 1, in particular Section 3
‘Geotechnical data’, and the results of a number of laboratory and field tests.
It does not cover the standardisation of the geotechnical tests themselves. Another Technical
Committee (TC) on 'Geotechnical investigation and testing' has precisely been created by
CEN to consider this matter (TC 341). In this respect the role of Part 2 of Eurocode 7 is to
‘use’ and refer to the detailed rules for test standards covered by TC 341.
Eurocode 7 – Part 2 includes the following Sections (CEN, 2004b) :
Section 1 – General
Section 2 – Planning of ground investigations
Section 3 – Soil and rock sampling and groundwater measurements
Section 4 – Field tests in soils and rocks
Section 5 – Laboratory tests on soils and rocks
Section 6 – Ground investigation report
The Section on field tests in soils and rocks includes :
- cone penetration tests CPT(U)
- pressuremeter tests PMT
- rock dilatometer tests RDT
- standard penetration tests SPT
- dynamic penetration tests DP
- weight sounding tests WST
- field vane tests FVT
- flat dilatometer tests DMT
- plate loading tests PLT
The Section on laboratory testing of soils and rocks deals with :
- preparation of soil specimens for testing
- preparation of rock specimens for testing
- tests for classification, identification and description of soils
- chemical testing of soils and groundwater
- strength index testing of soils
- strength testing of soils
- compressibility and deformation testing of soils
- compaction testing of soils
- permeability testing of soils
- tests for classification of rocks
- swelling testing of rock material
- strength testing of rock material
There are provisions on how to establish and use the so-called ‘derived values’ from the tests
(see paragraph 4.3 below). Some of these provisions are meant to give guidance for using the
sample calculation models in the Annexes of Part 1. Part 2 also includes a number of
informative Annexes with precise examples of derived values of geotechnical parameters and
coefficients used commonly in design.
As is the case in Part 1, most of the derivations or calculation models given are informative,
but there is also fairly good agreement about using them in the future throughout Europe. In
any case, they are a clear picture of the approaches existing on the continent for the use of in
situ or laboratory test results in the design of geotechnical structures.
 Frank 7

4. SOME ASPECTS OF EUROCODE 7

4.1. Verification procedures and geotechnical categories

The discussions about verifications of geotechnical design usually focus on approaches

performed through calculations. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that calculations are not
the only means for checking that the basic requirements are fulfilled.
Eurocode 7 – Part 1 offers, in fact, various possibilities (clause 2.1 in EN1997-1) :
‘(4) Limit states should be verified by one or a combination of the following:
- use of calculations […];
- adoption of prescriptive measures, […];
- experimental models and load tests, […];
- an observational method, […].’
This paragraph is clear enough. However, it may be useful to add that :
- the adoption of prescriptive measures indicates that, in some circumstances (see the
geotechnical categories below), one may avoid calculations which may look long and
cumbersome with regard to the problem under consideration ;
- the use of experimental models and load tests recalls that the fundamentals of
geotechnical design and of its calculation rules are the monitoring of the behaviour of
real structures, with recourse, when necessary, to full scale tests ;
- finally, mentioning the observational method, shows one of the directions devoted to
contemporary geotechnical design (with full consistency with the fundamentals
mentioned above).
With regard to the observational method, Eurocode 7 adds that (clause 2.7 in EN 1997-1) :
'(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;
— 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.'
(note that, in the Eurocodes, when the letter 'P' accompanies the number of a paragraph, it
means that it is a principle, i.e. a fundamental requirement; paragraphs not marked with 'P' are
only 'application rules').
The use of the observational method should grow considerably in the coming years (see
Huybrechts et al., 2005).
In order to define the design requirements and the levels needed for the geotechnical
investigation, Eurocode 7 introduces three geotechnical categories (clause 2.1 in EN 1997-1).
It is a way of introducing, one can say, 'consequences classes ' (see Annex B of EN 1990,
CEN, 2002).
Geotechnical category 1 corresponds to the simple structures that can be designed and
executed, with negligible risk, only on the basis of experience and with a qualitative
geotechnical investigation. One can place in this category retaining walls of moderate height
8 Frank

or direct foundations for individual houses, in simple geotechnical conditions (no stability nor
water problems, etc.).
Geotechnical category 2 covers conventional geotechnical structures, without exceptional risk
(i.e. without difficult geotechnical conditions or loadings). Eurocode 7 requirements
concerning calculations and ground investigations fully apply to category 2 structures (clause
2.1 in EN 1997-1) :
'(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.
NOTE The following are examples of conventional structures or parts of structures complying with
Geotechnical Category 2:
— spread foundations;
— raft foundations;
— pile foundations;
— walls and other structures retaining or supporting soil or water;
— excavations;
— bridge piers and abutments;
— embankments and earthworks;
— ground anchors and other tie-back systems;
— tunnels in hard, non-fractured rock and not subjected to special water tightness or other requirements.'
Category 3 includes all geotechnical structures with abnormal risks, for which Eurocode 7
requirements may not be sufficient to ensure an acceptable level of safety. The risks can
derive from the ground conditions or from the loading conditions. Examples of structures
falling into this category are large dams, foundations of nuclear power plants, structures on
unstable ground, etc. Eurocode 7 clearly indicates that (clause 2.1 in EN 1997-1) :
'(21) Geotechnical Category 3 should normally include alternative provisions and rules to
those in this standard [EN 1997-1].'
In the Eurocode system, as mentioned earlier, the calculation method prescribed is the LSD
approach used in conjunction with a partial factor method. Problems encountered in
geotechnical engineering projects are often due to reasons not linked to design calculations.
For geotechnical practice, Eurocode 7 – Part 1 also mentions that (clause 2.4.1 in EN 1997-
1) :
‘(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.’

4.2. Characteristic values

The present ‘philosophy’ with regard to the definition of characteristic values of geotechnical
parameters is contained in the following clauses of Eurocode 7 – Part 1 (clause 2.4.5.2 in
EN1997-1) :
‘(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.’
‘(7) […]the governing parameter is often the mean of a range of values covering a large
surface or volume of the ground. The characteristic value should be a cautious estimate of
this mean value.’
These paragraphs in Eurocode 7 – Part 1 reflect the concern that one should be able to keep
using the values of the geotechnical parameters that were traditionally used (the determination
 Frank 9

of which is not standardised, i.e. they often depend on the individual judgment of the
geotechnical engineer, one should confess). However two remarks should be made at this
point : on the one hand, the concept of 'derived value' of a geotechnical parameter (preceding
the determination of the characteristic value), has been introduced (see paragraph 4.3) and, on
the other hand, there is now a clear reference to the limit state involved (which may look
evident, but is, in any case, a way of linking traditional geotechnical engineering and the new
limit state approach) and to the assessment of the mean value (and not a local value; this
might appear to be a specific feature of geotechnical design which, indeed, involves 'large'
areas or 'large' ground masses).
Statistical methods are mentioned only as a possibility :
‘(10) If statistical methods are employed […], such methods should differentiate between
local and regional sampling […].’
‘(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.’
This comes from the general feeling, in many countries, that the characteristic value of a
geotechnical parameter cannot be fundamentally different from the value that was
traditionally used (and is still used) in most of projects. Indeed, for the majority of projects,
the geotechnical investigation is such that no serious statistical treatment of the data can be
performed. Statistical methods are, of course, useful for very large projects where the amount
of data justifies them.

4.3. Derived values

Many geotechnical tests, particularly field tests, do not allow basic geotechnical parameters or
coefficients, for example for strength and deformation, to be determined directly. Instead,
values of these parameters and coefficients must be derived using theoretical or empirical
correlations.
The concept of 'derived values' had been introduced in ENV 1997-3 (CEN 1999b), in order to
give status to correlations and models commonly used to obtain, from both results of field
tests and results of laboratory tests, geotechnical parameters and coefficients which enter
directly into the design. Their use is intended, primarily, for the design of pile and shallow
foundations as is elaborated in the Annexes D, E, F, and G of Eurocode 7 - Part 1.
The definition of derived values is given in Eurocode 7 – Part 2 as:
‘Derived values of geotechnical parameters and/or coefficients, are obtained from test results
by theory, correlation or empiricism.’
From field test results, the geotechnical parameter obtained is either an input for an analytical
or indirect model, or a coefficient for use in a semi-empirical or direct model of foundation
design.
Derived values of a geotechnical parameter then serve as input for assessing the characteristic
value of this parameter in the sense of Eurocode 7 - Part 1 (clause 2.4.5.2 of EN 1997-1) and,
further, its design value, by applying the partial factor γM ('material factor', clause 2.4.6.2).
The role played by the derived values of geotechnical parameters can be understood with the
help of figure 1, taken from Eurocode 7 - Part 2. The borderline between Part 1 (EN 1997-1)
and Part 2 (EN 1997-2) of Eurocode 7 is also shown on the figure. It can be seen that the
requirements concerning the measurements of geotechnical properties, as well as their derived
10 Frank

Type of test
F= field L= laboratory F1 F2 L1 L2

Correlations C1 C2
Information
from other
Test results and sources on
1 2 3 4
derived values the site, the
soils and
EN 1997 -2 rocks and
the project
EN 1997 -1

Cautious selection

Geotechnical model and characteristic

value s of geotechnical properties
s
Application of
partial factors

Design values of geotechnical

properties

Fig. 1: General framework for the selection of derived values, characteristic values and design values
of geotechnical properties (CEN, 2004b)

values are covered by Part 2 : 'Ground investigation and testing', while those concerning the
determination of characteristic values and design values are given, as mentioned above, by
Part 1 : 'General rules'.

4.4. ULS verifications

The ultimate limit states (ULS) to be checked are defined, in the following manner, by
Eurocode 7 – Part 1, consistently with ‘Eurocode: Basis of structural design’ (CEN 2002)
(clause 2.4.7.1 in EN 1997-1) :
‘(1)P Where relevant, it shall be verified that the following limit states are not exceeded:
– loss of equilibrium of the structure or the ground, considered as a rigid body, in which
the strengths of structural materials and the ground are insignificant in providing
resistance (EQU);
– internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or structural elements,
including footings, piles, basement walls, etc., in which the strength of structural
materials is significant in providing resistance (STR);
– 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);
 Frank 11

– hydraulic heave, internal erosion and piping in the ground caused by hydraulic
gradients (HYD).
NOTE: Limit state GEO is often critical to the sizing of structural elements involved in foundations or retaining
structures and sometimes to the strength of structural elements.’
The ultimate limit states should be verified for the combinations of actions corresponding to
the following design situations (see EN 1990, CEN, 2002) :
- permanent and transient (the corresponding combinations are called 'fundamental') ;
- accidental ;
- seismic (see also Eurocode 8 - Part 5, i.e. EN 1998-5).
The design values of the actions and the combinations of actions are defined in EN 1990
(partial factors γ for the actions and factors ψ for the accompanying variable actions).
The debate about the format for checking the GEO and STR ultimate limit states (ULS) was
relevant to the persistent and transient design situations. This debate follows from the ENV
1997-1 (CEN 1994) formulation which inferred that ULS in persistent and transient design
situations had to be checked for two formats of combinations of actions, i.e. for Cases B and
C, as they were called at that time. B was aimed at checking the uncertainty on the loads
coming from the structure, and C the uncertainty on the resistance of the ground. Some
geotechnical engineers were in favour of this double check, as others preferred having to use
only one single format of combinations of actions (more details can be found, for instance, in
Frank and Magnan, 1999).
The consensus reached between structural and geotechnical engineers opened the way to three
different Design Approaches (DA 1, DA 2 and DA 3). The choice is left to national
determination, i.e. each country will have to state in its National Annex, the Design
Approach(es) to be used for each type of geotechnical structure (spread foundations, pile
foundations, retaining structures, slope stability).
Generally speaking, for checking ULS in persistent and transient design situations, three sets
of partial factors to be applied to characteristic values of actions are introduced in EN 1990 :
Set A, Set B, and Set C :
− set A is used for checking the static equilibrium of the structure (EQU);
− set B is relevant to the design of structural members (STR) not involving geotechnical
actions;
− sets B and C are relevant to the design of structural members involving geotechnical
actions and the resistance of the ground (STR/GEO).
Tables 1, 2 and 3 give, in a simplified manner, the recommended values for buildings for Sets
A, B and C, taken from Tables A1.2 (A), A1.2(B) and A1.2(C) of EN1990 (CEN 2002). The
recommended values given may be modified by National decision.
For STR/GEO, the three Design Approaches are the following (clause A1.3.1 in EN 1990,
CEN 2002) :
‘(5) Design of structural members (footings, piles, basement walls, etc.) (STR) involving
geotechnical actions and the resistance of the ground (GEO) should be verified using one of
the following three approaches supplemented, for geotechnical actions and resistances, by
EN 1997 :
Approach 1: Applying in separate calculations design values from Table A1.2(C) and Table
A1.2(B) to the geotechnical actions as well as the other actions on/from the structure. In
common cases, the sizing of foundations is governed by Table A1.2(C) and the structural
resistance is governed by Table A1.2(B) ;
Note : In some cases, application of these tables is more complex, see EN 1997.
12 Frank

Approach 2 : Applying design values from Table A1.2(B) to the geotechnical actions as well
as the other actions on/from the structure ;
Approach 3 : Applying design values from Table A1.2(C) to the geotechnical actions and,
simultaneously, applying partial factors from Table A1.2(B) to the other actions on/from the
structure.
Note : The use of approaches 1, 2 or 3 is chosen in the National annex.’
In other words, Design Approach 1 (DA1) is the double check procedure coming from the
ENV 1997-1 (B+C verification) and Design Approaches 2 (DA 2) and 3 (DA 3) are new
procedures using a single format of combinations of actions. DA 2 is elaborated with
‘resistance factors’ for the ground (RFA), as DA 3 makes uses of ‘material factors’ for the
ground (MFA).

Table 1: Recommended values for partial factors for actions (Set A) after EN 1990 (CEN, 2002)

Action Symbol Value

Permanent actions
- unfavourable γG,sup 1.10(1)
- favourable γG,inf 0.90(1)
Variable actions
- unfavourable γQ 1.50
(1)As an alternative, the favourable part may be multiplied by γG,inf =
1.15 and the unfavourable part by γG,sup = 1.35

Table 2: Recommended values for partial factors for actions (Set B) after EN 1990 (CEN, 2002)

Action Symbol Value

Eq. (6.10) Eq.(6.10a) Eq.(6.10b)
Permanent actions
- unfavourable(1) γGsup 1.35 1.35 1.15(2)
- favourable(1) γGinf 1.00 1.00 1.00
Variable actions
- unfavourable γQ 1.50 1.5ψ0 1.50
(1) all permanent actions from one source are multiplied by γGsup or by γGinf.
(2) value of ξ is 0.85, so that 0.85γGsup = 0.85 × 1.35 ≅ 1.15.
Note 1 : choice between expression 6.10 or expressions 6.10a and 6.10b
used together, is by National decision
.Note 2: γG and γQ may be subdivided into γg and γq and the model
uncertainty factor γSd. γSd = 1.15 is recommended.

Table 3: Recommended values for partial factors for actions (Set C) after EN 1990 (CEN, 2002)

Action Symbol Value

Permanent actions
- unfavourable γG,sup 1.00
- favourable γG,inf 1.00
Variable actions
- unfavourable γQ 1.30
 Frank 13

Two important remarks should be made at this point :

- with regard to the choice between expression 6.10 or expressions 6.10a and 6.10b of EN
1990 (see table 2 for set B), Eurocode 7 only mentions the recommended values of the
factors corresponding to expression 6.10 (table A.3 in the note to paragraph A.3(1)P of
Annex A in EN 1997-1). This derives from the fact that the recommended geotechnical values
come from a few calibration studies performed using the values of expression 6.10, while, on
the other hand, there is no experience on the use of expressions 6.10a et 6.10b in geotechnical
engineering…
- for DA 2 and DA 3, Eurocode 7 allows to apply the partial factors either on the actions or on
the effects of the actions (they are noted γF and γE , respectively). This is relevant to the factors
of set B and of set C (unfavourable variable actions).
Table 4 gives the link between Sets B and C and the corresponding sets of factors for
geotechnical actions and resistances : Sets M1 and M2 for material properties (e.g. c', φ', cu,
etc.) and Sets R1, R2, R3 and R4 for total resistances (e.g. bearing capacity, etc.). These sets
are defined in Annex A of Eurocode 7 – Part 1. As mentioned above, Annex A also gives
recommended values for the partial factors; these values may be set differently by the National
Annex. Note that the recommended values for the partial factors γM on material properties in
Set M1 are always equal to 1.0.

Table 4: STR/GEO limit states. Partial factors to be used according to EN 1990 and EN 1997-1

Design Actions Geotechnical

Approach on/from the structure Actions Resistances
B B and M1 M1 and R1
1
M2 and R1
C C and M2 or
M1 and R4*
2 B B and M1 M1 and R2
3 B C and M2 M2 and R3
*for piles and anchorages

In DA 1, the first format (combination 1, former case B) applies safety mainly on actions,
while the factors on resistances have recommended values equal to 1.0 (Sets M1 and R1) or
near 1.0 (Set R1 in the case of axially loaded piles and anchorages) ; in the second format
imposed by DA 1 (combination 2, former case C), the elementary properties of the ground
(shear strength parameters) are always factored for the calculation of geotechnical actions
and sometimes factored for the calculation of resistances (Set M2); in the case of axially
loaded piles and anchorages, the total resistance is directly factored by applying Set R4.
In DA 2, safety is applied both on the actions (Set B) and on the total ground resistance
(Set R2).
In DA 3, safety is applied both on the actions (Set B for the actions coming from the structure
and Set M2 for the elementary properties of the ground acting on the structure, i.e. for the
geotechnical actions) and on the geotechnical resistances (Set M2 for the elementary
properties; the recommended values for Set R3 for the total geotechnical resistance is always
equal to 1.0, except for piles in tension and anchorages for which they are equal to 1.1).
Figures 2, 3 and 4, as well as their captions, illustrate the situation for each of the three
Design Approaches (Frank, et al., 2004). On these figures, index 'd' indicates a design value
different from the characteristic value (application of a partial factor γ different from 1.0) and
14 Frank

index 'k' indicates a design value equal to the characteristic value (application of a partial
factor γ equal to 1.0).
More details on the use of the three Design Approaches are given, for instance, in Frank et al.
(2004).

Qd = γQ ⋅ Qk = 1.50 ⋅ Qk Qd = γQ ⋅ Qk = 1.30 ⋅ Qk

Gd = γG ⋅ Gk = 1.35 ⋅ Gk Gd = γG ⋅ Gk = 1.00 ⋅ Gk
qd = γQ ⋅ qk = 1.30 ⋅ qk
qd = γQ ⋅ qk = 1.50 ⋅ qk
γϕ´ = γc = 1.0 tanϕ´d = tanϕ´k/γϕ´ = tanϕ´k/1.25
ϕ´d = ϕ´k, c´d = c´k c´d = c´k/γc = c´k /1.25
EQ,d = EQ(ϕ´d, c´d, qd) EQ,d = EQ(ϕ´d, c´d, qd)
EG,d = γG ⋅ EG(ϕ´d, c´d)=1.35 ⋅ EG(ϕ´k, c´k)
EG,d = γG ⋅ EG(ϕ´d, c´d) = 1.00 ⋅ EG(ϕ´d, c´d)
Vd = ΣVG,d+ΣVQ,d Vd = ΣVG,d+ΣVQ,d

Rv,d = Rv (Vd, Hd, ϕ´d, c´d)/γRv

Rv,d = Rv (Vd, Hd, ϕ´d, c´d)/γRv
= Rv (Vd, Hd, ϕ´k, c´k)/1.0
= Rv (Vd, Hd, ϕ´d, c´d)/1.0

Fig. 2: Design Approach 1 - introduction of partial factors (recommended values) in the checking of
ground bearing capacity using Combination 1 (left), Combination 2 (right). For simplicity, only
vertical equilibrium is considered and only unfavourable actions have been shown in this figure.

⋅ Qd = γQ ⋅ Qk = 1.50 ⋅ Qk
Qk
Gd = γG ⋅ Gk = 1.35 ⋅ Gk Gk

qd = γQ ⋅ qk = 1.50 ⋅ qk qk
γϕ = γc = 1.0
γϕ´ = γc = 1.00
ϕ´d = ϕ´k, c´d = c´k
ϕ´d = ϕ´k, c´d = c´k
EQ,d = EQ(ϕ´d, c´d, qd) EQ,k = EQ(ϕ´k, c´k, qk)
EG,k = EG(ϕ´k, c´k)
EG,d = γG⋅EG(ϕ´d, c´d) = 1.35⋅ EG(ϕ´k, c´k)
Vd = γG ⋅ ΣVG,k + γQ ⋅ ΣVQ,k
Vd = ΣVG,d +ΣVQ,d
= 1.35 ⋅ ΣVG,k + 1.50 ⋅ ΣVQ,k

Rv,d = Rv (Vd, Hd, ϕ´d, c´d)/ γRv Rv,d = Rv(Vk, Hk, ϕ´k, c´k)/ γRv
= Rv (Vd, Hd, ϕ´k, c´k) /1.40 = Rv(Vk, Hk, ϕ´k, c´k)/ 1.40

Fig. 3: Introduction of partial factors (recommended values) in the verification of ground bearing
capacity using Design Approach 2, left: factoring actions at the source, Design Approach DA2, right:
factoring effects of actions, Design Approach DA2*. For simplicity, only vertical equilibrium is
considered and only unfavourable actions have been shown in this figure.
 Frank 15

Qd = γQ ⋅ Qk = 1.50 ⋅ Qk

Gd = γG ⋅ Gk = 1.35 ⋅ Gk
qd = γQ⋅qk = 1.30 ⋅ qk
tan ϕ´d = tanϕ´k/γϕ´ = tanϕ´k/1.25
c´d= c´k/γc = c´k / 1.25
EQ,d = EQ(ϕ´d, c´d, qd)
EG,d = γG ⋅ EG(ϕ´d, c´d) = 1.00 ⋅ EG(ϕ´d, c´d)

Vd = ΣVG,d +ΣVQ,d

Rv,d = Rv (Vd, Hd, ϕ´d, c´d)/ γRv

= Rv (Vd, Hd, ϕ´d, c´d)/1.0

Fig. 4: Introduction of partial factors (recommended values) in the verification of ground bearing
capacity using Design Approach 3. For simplicity, only vertical equilibrium is considered and only
unfavourable actions have been shown in this figure.

With regard to the design values for accidental situations, Eurocode 7 only states that
(clause 2.4.7.1 in EN 1997-1) :
'(3) All values of partial factors for actions or the effects of actions in accidental situations
should normally be taken equal to 1,0. All values of partial factors for resistances should then
be selected according to the particular circumstances of the accidental situation.
NOTE The values of the partial factors may be set by the National annex.'

4.5. Verification of serviceability limit states (SLS)

The main discussions during the development of Eurocode 7 were about the format for
verifying ULS in permanent and transient situations. However, the verification of
serviceability limit states (SLS) is an issue equally important in contemporary geotechnical
design. This issue is fully recognised by Eurocode 7 which indeed often refers to
displacement calculations of foundations and retaining structures, while common geotechnical
practice mainly sought so far to master serviceability by limiting the bearing capacity or by
limiting the shear strength mobilisation of the ground to relatively low values.
The verification of SLS in the real sense proposed by Eurocode 7 (prediction of displacements
of foundations) is certainly going to gain importance in the near future. For the time being, it
is an aspect which is too often neglected in common geotechnical practice.
Eurocode 7 - Part 1 repeats the formulation of EN 1990 (clause 2.4.8, EN 1997-1) :
'(1)P Verification for serviceability limit states in the ground or in a structural section,
element or connection, shall either require that:

Ed ≤ Cd, (2.10)

or be done through the method given in 2.4.8(4).

16 Frank

(2) Values of partial factors for serviceability limit states should normally be taken equal
to 1,0.
NOTE The values of the partial factors may be set by the National annex.'
with Ed the design value of the effect of actions and Cd the limiting value (serviceability
criterion) of the design value of effect of actions. At the same time, Eurocode 7 introduces
immediately the possibility to keep the traditional approach mentioned above (clause 2.4.8 in
EN 1997-1) :
'(4) It may be verified that a sufficiently low fraction of the ground strength is mobilised to
keep deformations within the required serviceability limits, provided this simplified approach
is restricted to design situations where:
— a value of the deformation is not required to check the serviceability limit state;
— established comparable experience exists with similar ground, structures and application
method.'
This clause is to be linked to the one dealing with the design methods of spread foundations
(paragraph 6.4(5)P in EN 1997-1) :
'(5)P One of the following design methods shall be used for spread foundations:
— a direct method, in which separate analyses are carried out for each limit state. When
checking against an ultimate limit state, the calculation shall model as closely as possible
the failure mechanism, which is envisaged. When checking against a serviceability limit
state, a settlement calculation shall be used;
— an indirect method using comparable experience and the results of field or laboratory
measurements or observations, and chosen in relation to serviceability limit state loads so
as to satisfy the requirements of all relevant limit states;
— a prescriptive method in which a presumed bearing resistance is used (see 2.5).'
Indeed, the indirect method 'chosen in relation to serviceability limit state loads' comes to
applying the traditional method of designing the bearing capacity of spread foundations, i.e. a
simple calculation comparing the applied loads for serviceability limit states to a limit load
divided by a global factor of safety high enough (usually around 3). Of course, as indicated in
Eurocode 7, this can only be valid if there is no need to assess the settlement of the foundation
and if conventional structures with well known ground conditions are dealt with.
Paragraph 2.4.8(2) of Eurocode 7 – Part 1, reproduced above, indicating that partial actors for
SLS are normally taken equal to 1.0 (in other words that the design values of the various
quantities are taken equal to their characteristic values), applies to the actions in the
characteristic, frequent or quasi-permanent combinations (see EN 1990), as well as to the
geotechnical properties, such as the modulus of deformation. It should be noted that, for
determining the differential settlement for instance, sets of lower characteristic values and
upper characteristic values can be chosen in order to take account of the ground variability.
With regard to the use of the combinations of actions for SLS, EN 1990 provides (in editorial
notes) some guidelines which are summarised in table 5 (clause 6.5.3 in EN 1990).

Table 5: Recommended combinations of actions for checking serviceability limit states SLS

Combination of actions Use according to EN 1990

Characteristic Irreversible limit states
Frequent Reversible limit states
Quasi permanent Long term effect and appearance
 Frank 17

When applying equation 2.10 of Eurocode 7- Part 1 (see paragraph 2.4.8(1)P reproduced
above), it appears that the frequent and quasi-permanent should be recommended ; on the
contrary, in the case of the alternative method allowed by 2.4.8(4), it seems that the
characteristic (or 'rare') combination should be used, because the experience gained in the past
was rather for loads near this type of combination.
The last general paragraph in Eurocode 7 – Part 1 about SLS, deals again with the
'displacement approach'. It states that (clause 2.4.8 in EN 1997-1) :
' (5)P A limiting value for a particular deformation is the value at which a serviceability limit
state, such as unacceptable cracking or jamming of doors, is deemed to occur in the
supported structure. This limiting value shall be agreed during the design of the supported
structure.'
The application of these general clauses is detailed further down in Eurocode 7 – Part 1 for
each geotechnical structure (in the Sections for spread foundations, pile foundations, retaining
structures, overall stability and embankments). It is interesting to note that the document
insists several times on the difficulty to predict displacements with accuracy (in the present
state of geotechnical engineering knowledge, of course!).

4.6. Limiting values of displacements of foundations

The knowledge of limiting allowable displacements of foundations is a subject of prime

importance, even though it is not often explicitly addressed. These limiting values depend
primarily, of course, on the nature of the supported structure, but it has also been a point of
interest for geotechnical engineering for a long time, as well (a summary of data collected for
buildings and bridges is given e.g. by Frank, 1991).
The limiting values of movements of foundations is the subject, in particular, of clause 2.4.9,
as well as of Annex H (informative) of Eurocode 7 – Part 1. It is noted that clause 2.4.9
contains 4 rather strong principles, i.e. paragraphs (1)P to (4)P. The first one says :
'(1)P In foundation design, limiting values shall be established for the foundation movements.
NOTE Permitted foundation movements may be set by the National annex.'
Furthermore, it seems that not only SLS are concerned (see above) but also ULS…(because
movements of foundations can trigger an ULS in the supported structure).
Eurocode 7 gives a list of a certain number of factors which should be considered when
establishing the limiting values of movements. It is important that these limiting values are
established in a realistic manner, by close collaboration between the geotechnical engineer
and the structural engineer. If the values are too much severe, they will usually lead to
uneconomical designs.
Figure 5 defines the parameters used to quantify movements and deformations of structures.
This figure, originally due to Burland and Wroth (1975) is reproduced in Annex H of
Eurocode 7 – Part 1.
Annex H (informative) quotes the following limits after Burland et al. (1977) :
- for open framed structures, infilled frames and load bearing or continuous brick walls :
maximum relative rotations between about 1/2000 an about 1/300 to prevent the occurrence
of a SLS in the structure ;
- for many structures, a maximum relative rotation β = 1/500 is acceptable for SLS and
β = 1/150 for ULS ; - for normal structures with isolated foundations, total settlements up to
50 mm are often acceptable.
These values can serve as a guide, in the absence of other indications on the limiting values
for the deformations of the structures.
18 Frank

smax

δ s max

a) definitions of settlement s, differential settlement δs, rotation θ and angular strain α

b) definitions of relative deflection ∆ and deflection ratio ∆/L
c) definitions of tilt ω and relative rotation (angular distortion) β

Fig. 4: Definitions of foundation movements and deformations of structures (CEN, 2004a,

after Burland and Wroth, 1975)

5. LIAISONS WITH OTHER CEN AND ISO COMMITTEES

Inside the Eurocode system itself, there are, of course, many links between the different
standards or parts of them. Eurocode 7 on Geotechnical design is more precisely linked to the
following ones :
- EN 1990 : ‘Eurocode: Basis of structural design’ which defines the various limit states and
design situations to be checked, and gives the general rules for taking into account the actions
on/from the structures and the geotechnical actions;
- EN 1998-5 : Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Foundations, retaining structures
and geotechnical aspects.
 Frank 19

The other Technical Committees of CEN working on standards of interest for Eurocode 7,
and for which coordination must be ensured are :
CEN/TC 341 on ‘Geotechnical investigation and testing’, as mentioned earlier;
CEN/TC 288 on ‘Execution of geotechnical works’;
CEN/TC 189 on ‘Geotextiles and geotextile-related products’;
CEN/TC 227 on ‘Road materials’.
The standards on execution (TC 288) and on geotechnical tests (TC 341) are particularly
important as they complement Eurocode 7, which is devoted only to design. The recent status
of TC 341 et TC 288 is summarised in tables 6 et 7.

Table 6: Work programme of CEN Committee TC 288 – Execution of Special Geotechnical Works
(after Canépa, 2005)

Document Title Status at August 2005 Future Progress

EN1536:1999 Bored Piles
EN1537:1999 Ground Anchors
EN1538:2000 Diaphragm Walls
EN12063:1999 Sheet Piling
EN Published: see year in Title.
EN12699:2000 Displacement Piles
N/A
EN12715:2000 Grouting
EN12716:2001 Jet Grouting
EN14199:2005 Micro Piling
EN14679:2005 Deep mixing
prEN14475:2005 Reinforcement of Fills Formal vote 9 Oct 2005 Formal vote
prEN14490 Soil Nailing prEN dated March 2002 CEN Enquiry stage
prEN14731:2005 Deep vibration Ratification 15 Sept 2005 Publication
prEN15237 Deep drainage Enquiry closed Oct.2005 CEN Enquiry stage

Table 7: Work programme of CEN Committee TC 341 – ‘Geotechnical investigation and testing’
(after Driscoll, 2005)

TC341 Testing Standards Title Status at August 2005

Drilling and sampling methods, and
groundwater measurements: All 3 parts completed and
Part 1: sampling - principles awaiting CEN approval.
EN-ISO 22475-1
Part 2: sampling - qualification criteria Work to commence late 2005
EN-ISO/TS 22475-2
on permeability and pumping
EN-ISO/TS 22475-3 Part 3: sampling - conformity assessment tests
EN-ISO 22476-14 Pumping tests
Cone and piezocone penetration tests: Part 1: has been out for
comment and will be updated
EN-ISO 22476-1 Part 1: Electrical cone and piezocone,
late in 2005; Part 2; to enquiry
22476-15 Part 2: Mechanical cone 2005
Drafting underway; target date
EN-ISO 22476-9 Vane testing
for enquiry: late 2005
Dynamic probing Public enquiry completed,
EN-ISO 22476-2 - ISSUED
publication in 2004 of the two
EN-ISO 22476-3 - ISSUED Standard penetration test standards
20 Frank

Table 7: continued
Borehole expansion tests:
EN-ISO 22476-4 Menard Pressuremeter Drafts on Ménard, Flexible
EN-ISO 22476-5 Flexible dilatometer dilatometer, and borehole jack
tests to go to enquiry mid
EN-ISO 22476-6 Self-boring pressuremeter 2005;
EN-ISO 22476-7 Borehole jack SBP and FDPM to become
EN-ISO 22476-8 Full displacement pressuremeter TSs
EN-ISO 22476? Borehole shear test
EN-ISO 22476-16 Plate load test Drafting yet to commence

TC341 Technical
Title Status
Specifications
CEN ISO/TS 17892-1 Water content
CEN ISO/TS 17892-2 Density of fine grained soils
CEN ISO/TS 17892-3 Density of solid particles
CEN ISO/TS 17892-4 Particle size distribution
CEN ISO/TS 17892-5 Oedometer test
CEN ISO/TS 17892-6 Fall cone test All have been out for editorial
comment. Note that these are
CEN ISO/TS 17892-7 Compression test only Technical specifications
CEN ISO/TS 17892-8 Unconsolidated triaxial test
CEN ISO/TS 17892-9 Consolidated triaxial test
CEN ISO/TS 17892-10 Direct shear test
CEN ISO/TS 17892-11 Permeability test
CEN ISO/TS 17892-12 Laboratory tests on rock

6. CONCLUDING REMARKS

The work for the elaboration of a common framework for geotechnical design throughout
Europe, i.e. Eurocode 7, started nearly 25 years ago. Given the progress recently achieved, it
is now sure that the corresponding standards/codes will be available soon.
Whatever the precise legal status of Eurocode 7 in the various countries, it will prove to be
very important for the whole construction industry. It is meant to be a tool to help European
geotechnical engineers speak the same technical language and also a necessary tool for
dialogue between geotechnical engineers and structural engineers.
Eurocode 7 helps promote research. Obviously, it stimulates questions on present
geotechnical practice from ground investigation to design models.
It is our belief that it will also be very useful to many geotechnical and structural engineers all
over the world, not only in Europe.

REFERENCES
Burland, J.B., Broms, B.B. and De Mello, V.F.B. (1977). Behaviour of foundations and
structures. Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Soil Mechs & Fdn Engng, Tokyo 2: 495-546.
 Frank 21

Burland J.B. and Wroth C.P. (1975) Settlement of buildings and associated damage, Review
Paper, Session V. Proc. Conf. Settlement of Structures, Cambridge: 611-654. Pentech
Press, London.
Canépa Y. (2005). Private communication on CEN/TC 288 work programme, September.
CE (2003a). Guidance Paper L. Application and use of the Eurocodes, ref.: CONSTRUCT
03/629 Rev.1 (27 November 2003), European Commission, Brussels, 38 p.
CE (2003b). Commission recommendation of 11 December 2003 on the implementation and
use of Eurocodes for construction works and structural construction products
(2003/887/EC), Official Journal of the European Union, 19.12.2003, EN, L 332/62 &63.
CEN (1994). Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design - Part 1: General Rules. Pre-standard ENV
1997-1. European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels.
CEN (1999a). Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design - Part 2: Geotechnical design assisted by
Laboratory Testing. Pre-standard ENV 1997-2. European Committee for Standardization:
Brussels.
CEN (1999b). Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design - Part 3: Geotechnical design assisted by
Field Testing. Pre-standard ENV 1997-3. European Committee for Standardization:
Brussels.
CEN (2002). Eurocode: Basis of structural design. European standard, EN 1990 : 2002.
European Committee for Standardization: Brussels.
CEN (2004a). Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design - Part 1: General rules. Final Draft, EN 1997-
1:2004 (E), (F) and (G), November 2004, European Committee for Standardization:
Brussels, 168 pages (E).
CEN (2004b). Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design - Part 2: Ground investigation and testing.
Final draft, September 2004, doc. Nr CEN/TC 250/SC 7/N 381, European Committee for
Standardization: Brussels.
Driscoll R. (2005). Private communication on BS standardisation work, August.
EC 7 1990. Eurocode 7: Geotechnics. Preliminary draft for the European Communities,
Geotechnik, 1990/1.
Frank R. (1991) "Quelques développements récents sur le comportement des fondations
superficielles". Rapport général, Session 3, Comptes rendus 10ème Cong. Européen
Méca. Sols et Tr. Fond., Florence, 26-30 mai, vol. 3, pp. 1003-1030. (English version:
"Some recent developments on the behaviour of shallow foundations". General report,
Proc. 10th European Conf. Soil Mechs & Fdn Engng, Florence, 26-30 May, vol. 4, pp.
1115-1141, 1994).
Frank R., Bauduin C., Driscoll R., Kavvadas M., Krebs Ovesen N., Orr T. , Schuppener B.
2004. Designer's guide to EN 1997 Eurocode 7 – Geotechnical design, Thomas Telford,
London, 216 pages.
Frank, R. & Magnan J.P. 1999. Quelques réflexions sur la vérification des états limites
ultimes suivant l’Eurocode 7 (in French - A few thoughts about ultimate limit states
verifications following Eurocode 7). Workshop on the Eurocodes, Proc. 12th European
conf. soil mechs. & geot. engng, 7-10 June, Amsterdam, vol. 3: 2179-2183.
Huybrechts N., Patel D., De Vos M. (2005). The use of the observational method. Final
Report WP3 on Innovative design methods in geotechnical engineering
European network 'GeoTechNet', to be published.