11/27/24, 1:56 PM ChatGPT

Eurocode 7 provides three Design Approaches (DA) for geotechnical design, with distinct partial
factors for actions, materials, and resistances. These are tabulated below, with subscripts adjusted for
clarity:

Design Resistance Partial

Approach Action Partial Factors Material Partial Factors Factors

DA 1 - Combination 1: γG ​ = - Combination 1: γM ​ = 1.0 γR = 1.0

​

1.35, γQ = 1.5​ - Combination 2: γM ​ = 1.25 − 1.4

- Combination 2: γG ​ = 1.0 (depending on material)
, γQ ​ = 1.3
DA 2 γG = 1.35, γQ = 1.5
​ ​
γM = 1.25 − 1.4
​ γR = 1.4
​

DA 3 γG = 1.0, γQ = 1.3
​ ​
γM = 1.25 − 1.4
​ γR = 1.0
​

Notes:
1. Action Partial Factors (γG and γQ ): ​ ​

γG : Partial factor for permanent actions.

​

γQ : Partial factor for variable actions.

​

2. Material Partial Factors (γM ): ​

Applied to soil and material properties, depending on the type of material (e.g., effective
strength, undrained strength, etc.).

3. Resistance Partial Factors (γR ): ​

Applied to the resistance side of the limit state equation.

These values may vary based on national annexes and specific project requirements.

Please, tabulate in detail all factors of safety values in Eurocode 7 for

the three design approaches

Here is a detailed tabulation of the partial factors for actions, material properties, and resistances
specified in Eurocode 7 (EN 1997-1) for the three Design Approaches (DA). This includes the
recommended values from the code and their specific applications:

Design Resistance Partial

Approach Action Partial Factors Material Partial Factors (γM ) ​ Factors (γR )
​

DA 1 Combination 1: γG ​ = 1.35, Combination 1: γM = 1.0​

γR = 1.0
​

γQ = 1.5
​
Combination 2: γM = 1.25 ​

Combination 2: γG ​ = 1.0, to 1.4*

γQ = 1.3
​

DA 2 γG = 1.35, γQ = 1.5
​ ​
γM = 1.25 to 1.4*
​
γR = 1.4
​

DA 3 γG = 1.0, γQ = 1.3
​ ​
γM = 1.25 to 1.4*
​
γR = 1.0
​

Details and Explanations:

https://chatgpt.com/c/6746f859-e71c-8001-a6de-44710b39f5c8 1/13
11/27/24, 1:56 PM ChatGPT
1. Action Partial Factors (γG and γQ ): ​ ​

Permanent actions (γG ): ​

Partial factor applied to actions such as self-weight of soil, structures, or other permanent loads.

Variable actions (γQ ):

Partial factor applied to temporary or variable loads, such as live loads or wind.

2. Material Partial Factors (γM ): ​

These factors account for uncertainties in soil and material properties. Typical values depend on the
property being factored:

Effective cohesion (c′ ): γc′ ​ = 1.25

Effective friction angle (ϕ′ ): γϕ′ ​ = 1.25
Undrained shear strength (cu ): γcu ​ ​ = 1.4
Uniaxial compressive strength of rock (qu ): γqu ​ ​ = 1.4

3. Resistance Partial Factors (γR ): ​

Applied directly to calculated resistances, such as bearing capacity, sliding resistance, or passive
earth pressure.

Typical values:

DA 1: γR ​ = 1.0
DA 2: γR ​ = 1.4
DA 3: γR ​ = 1.0

4. Combination Rules for DA 1:

Combination 1:

Focuses on factoring actions (γG , γQ ) while keeping material factors low (γM
​ ​ ​ = 1.0).
Combination 2:

Focuses on factoring material properties (γM ) while keeping action factors low (γG
​ ​ = 1.0,
γQ = 1.3).
​

Application Notes:

The partial factors are subject to National Annexes in different countries, which may adjust the
recommended values.

The design approach to be used (DA 1, DA 2, or DA 3) depends on local practices and project-
specific requirements.

https://chatgpt.com/c/6746f859-e71c-8001-a6de-44710b39f5c8 2/13
11/27/24, 1:56 PM ChatGPT

Would you like further clarification or specific examples of applying these factors?

Yes

Let’s go through the application of factors in Eurocode 7 with examples for the three Design
Approaches (DAs). We’ll consider a common geotechnical problem like the bearing capacity of a
shallow foundation.

Example Problem: Bearing Capacity of a Shallow Foundation

Given:

Foundation width (B ): 2.0 m

Soil properties:

Effective cohesion (c′ = 10 kPa)

Effective friction angle (ϕ′ = 30∘ )
3
Unit weight (γ = 18 kN/m )
Actions on the foundation:

Permanent load (G = 500 kN)

Variable load (Q = 200 kN)
Objective:
Determine the design bearing capacity and check stability using the three Design Approaches
(DA 1, DA 2, and DA 3).

Step 1: Apply Partial Factors to Actions

For each Design Approach, we factor the permanent and variable loads (G and Q) differently:

Design Approach Factored Permanent Load (Gd )

​ Factored Variable Load (Qd )
​

DA 1, Comb. 1 Gd = 1.35 × 500 = 675 kN

​ Qd = 1.5 × 200 = 300 kN
​

DA 1, Comb. 2 Gd = 1.0 × 500 = 500 kN

​ Qd = 1.3 × 200 = 260 kN
​

DA 2 Gd = 1.35 × 500 = 675 kN

​ Qd = 1.5 × 200 = 300 kN
​

DA 3 Gd = 1.0 × 500 = 500 kN

​ Qd = 1.3 × 200 = 260 kN
​

Step 2: Apply Partial Factors to Material Properties

The material partial factors (γM ) modify the soil parameters. For bearing capacity:
​

https://chatgpt.com/c/6746f859-e71c-8001-a6de-44710b39f5c8 3/13
11/27/24, 1:56 PM ChatGPT
′
Effective cohesion (c ): γc′ ​ = 1.25
Effective friction angle (ϕ′ ): γϕ′ ​ = 1.25

The design values for the material properties become:

Property Characteristic Value Design Value (DA 1, Comb. 2; DA 2; DA 3)

c′ 10 kPa c′d = 10/1.25 = 8 kPa
​

ϕ′ 30∘ ϕ′d = arctan(tan(30∘ )/1.25) ≈ 24∘

​

Step 3: Apply Resistance Partial Factors

The resistance partial factors (γR ) modify the calculated bearing capacity. For each Design Approach:
​

Design Approach Resistance Factor (γR ) ​

DA 1 γR = 1.0
​

DA 2 γR = 1.4
​

DA 3 γR = 1.0
​

Step 4: Calculate Design Bearing Capacity

The ultimate bearing capacity formula is:

1
qu = c′ Nc + γBNγ + qNq
2
​ ​ ​ ​ ​

For design values:

(c′d Nc + 12 γBNγ + qd Nq )
qd =
​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

γR
​ ​

Where Nc , Nq , and Nγ are the bearing capacity factors (based on ϕ′ ).

​ ​ ​

1. Calculate Nc , Nq , Nγ for ϕ′d​ ​ ​ = 24∘ :

Nc ≈ 17.7, Nq ≈ 7.4, Nγ ≈ 5.0.
​ ​ ​

2. Substitute values for qd : ​

qd will differ based on the Design Approach due to different γM , γR , and factored loads.
​ ​ ​

Results Overview for the Design Approaches

After performing the calculations, you would compare the factored applied loads (Gd ​ + Qd ) to
​

the factored bearing capacity (qd ) to verify stability. ​

Would you like detailed step-by-step calculations for one specific Design Approach? Or an
illustration of the results in tabular form?

https://chatgpt.com/c/6746f859-e71c-8001-a6de-44710b39f5c8 4/13
11/27/24, 1:56 PM ChatGPT

Yes, please

Let’s go through step-by-step calculations for Design Approach 1, Combination 1 (DA 1, Comb.
1) to determine the design bearing capacity and verify stability.

Step 1: Input Data

Foundation width (B ): 2.0 m
Soil properties:

Effective cohesion (c′ = 10 kPa)

Effective friction angle (ϕ′ = 30∘ )
3
Unit weight (γ = 18 kN/m )
Loads:

Permanent load (G = 500 kN)

Variable load (Q = 200 kN)

Step 2: Factored Loads

Using DA 1, Combination 1:

γG = 1.35, γQ = 1.5
​ ​

Gd = 1.35 × 500 = 675 kN

​

Qd = 1.5 × 200 = 300 kN

​

Total Design Load (Pd ): ​

Pd = Gd + Qd = 675 + 300 = 975 kN

​ ​ ​

Vertical stress from the load (qd ): ​

Pd 975
qd = = = 487.5 kPa
​

Foundation area 2×1

​ ​

Step 3: Design Material Properties

Partial factors for material properties (γM ): ​

γc′ = 1.25
​

γϕ′ = 1.25 ​

Design cohesion (c′d ): ​

′
https://chatgpt.com/c/6746f859-e71c-8001-a6de-44710b39f5c8 5/13
11/27/24, 1:56 PM ChatGPT
′
c 10
c′d = = = 8 kPa
γ c′ 1.25
​ ​ ​

Design friction angle (ϕ′d ): ​

tan(30∘ )
ϕ′d = arctan ( ) ≈ 24∘
γ ϕ′
​ ​

Step 4: Calculate Bearing Capacity Factors

Using ϕ′d ​
= 24∘ , the bearing capacity factors are:
Nc ≈ 17.7 ​

Nq ≈ 7.4 ​

Nγ ≈ 5.0 ​

Step 5: Calculate Ultimate Bearing Capacity

The general formula for ultimate bearing capacity is:

1
qu = c′d Nc + γBNγ + qNq
2
​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

c′d Nc = 8 × 17.7 = 141.6 kPa

​ ​

1 1
2
​γBNγ ​ = 2
​ × 18 × 2 × 5.0 = 90 kPa
Assume surcharge q = 0 kPa (no overburden above foundation base).

qu = 141.6 + 90 = 231.6 kPa

​

Step 6: Apply Resistance Factor

For DA 1, Combination 1, γR ​
= 1.0:
qu 231.6
qd = = = 231.6 kPa
​

γR 1.0
​ ​ ​

Step 7: Verify Stability

Compare the applied load stress (qd ) with the design bearing capacity (qd ):​ ​

Applied stress: 487.5 kPa

Design bearing capacity: 231.6 kPa

Result: qd < Pd (Foundation is **NOT SAFE** under DA 1, Comb. 1).

​ ​

https://chatgpt.com/c/6746f859-e71c-8001-a6de-44710b39f5c8 6/13
11/27/24, 1:56 PM ChatGPT

Would you like to analyze another Design Approach or see how design optimizations could improve
safety?

Yes, proceed with all details

Let’s proceed by calculating for Design Approach 1, Combination 2 (DA 1, Comb. 2), Design
Approach 2 (DA 2), and Design Approach 3 (DA 3) with all detailed steps to verify the stability.

Step 1: Problem Recap

Given Parameters:

Foundation width (B ) = 2.0 m

Soil properties:

Cohesion (c′ = 10 kPa)

Friction angle (ϕ′ = 30∘ )
Unit weight (γ = 18 kN/m3 )
Actions:

Permanent load (G = 500 kN)

Variable load (Q = 200 kN)

Key Equations:

1. Ultimate bearing capacity:

1
qu = c′d Nc + γBNγ + qNq
2
​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

2. Design bearing capacity:

qu
qd =
​

γR
​ ​

3. Factored loads:

Gd = γG ⋅ G,
​ ​ Qd = γQ ⋅ Q,
​ ​ Pd = G d + Q d
​ ​ ​

Factors for Material Properties:

Partial factors (γM ): ​

Effective cohesion: γc′ ​ = 1.25

Effective friction angle: γϕ′ ​ = 1.25

Bearing Capacity Factors (ϕ′d ​ = 24∘ ):

Nc ≈ 17.7
​

https://chatgpt.com/c/6746f859-e71c-8001-a6de-44710b39f5c8 7/13
11/27/24, 1:56 PM ChatGPT

Nq ≈ 7.4 ​

Nγ ≈ 5.0 ​

Step 2: Calculations for DA 1, Combination 2

Factored Loads (DA 1, Comb. 2):

Action factors: γG ​ = 1.0, γQ = 1.3

​

Gd = 1.0 × 500 = 500 kN

​

Qd = 1.3 × 200 = 260 kN

​

Pd = Gd + Qd = 500 + 260 = 760 kN

​ ​ ​

Applied stress:

Pd 760
qd = = = 380 kPa
​

A 2×1
​ ​ ​

Design Bearing Capacity:

Using the same material design values:

c′d = 8 kPa
​

ϕ′d ​ = 24∘

Ultimate bearing capacity:

1
qu = c′d Nc + γBNγ
2
​ ​ ​ ​ ​

1
qu = (8 ⋅ 17.7) + ⋅ 18 ⋅ 2 ⋅ 5.0 = 141.6 + 90 = 231.6 kPa
2
​ ​

Since γR ​
= 1.0:
qu 231.6
qd = = = 231.6 kPa
​

γR 1.0
​ ​ ​

Stability Check (DA 1, Comb. 2):

Applied stress: 380 kPa, Design capacity: 231.6 kPa

Result: **Not Safe** under DA 1, Comb. 2.

Step 3: Calculations for DA 2

Factored Loads (DA 2):

Action factors: γG ​
= 1.35, γQ = 1.5​

Gd = 1.35 × 500 = 675 kN

​

Qd = 1.5 × 200 = 300 kN

​

https://chatgpt.com/c/6746f859-e71c-8001-a6de-44710b39f5c8 8/13
11/27/24, 1:56 PM ChatGPT
Pd = Gd + Qd = 675 + 300 = 975 kN
​ ​ ​

Applied stress:

Pd 975
qd = = = 487.5 kPa
​

A 2×1
​ ​ ​

Design Bearing Capacity:

For DA 2, resistance factor γR ​ = 1.4:

qu 231.6
qd = = = 165.4 kPa
​

γR 1.4
​ ​ ​

Stability Check (DA 2):

Applied stress: 487.5 kPa, Design capacity: 165.4 kPa

Result: **Not Safe** under DA 2.

Step 4: Calculations for DA 3

Factored Loads (DA 3):

Action factors: γG ​
= 1.0, γQ = 1.3
​

Gd = 1.0 × 500 = 500 kN

​

Qd = 1.3 × 200 = 260 kN

​

Pd = Gd + Qd = 500 + 260 = 760 kN

​ ​ ​

Applied stress:

Pd 760
qd = = = 380 kPa
​

A 2×1
​ ​ ​

Design Bearing Capacity:

For DA 3, resistance factor γR ​ = 1.0:

qu 231.6
qd = = = 231.6 kPa
​

γR 1.0
​ ​ ​

Stability Check (DA 3):

Applied stress: 380 kPa, Design capacity: 231.6 kPa

Result: **Not Safe** under DA 3.

Summary of Results
Design Approach Factored Load (qd ) ​ Design Capacity (qd )
​ Safety Check

DA 1, Comb. 1 487.5 kPa 231.6 kPa Not Safe

DA 1, Comb. 2 380.0 kPa 231.6 kPa Not Safe

DA 2 487.5 kPa 165.4 kPa Not Safe

https://chatgpt.com/c/6746f859-e71c-8001-a6de-44710b39f5c8 9/13
11/27/24, 1:56 PM ChatGPT

Design Approach Factored Load (qd ) ​ Design Capacity (qd ) ​ Safety Check

DA 3 380.0 kPa 231.6 kPa Not Safe

Conclusions:
The foundation does not meet the safety criteria under any Design Approach.

Recommendations:

Increase the foundation size (B ) to reduce stress.

Improve soil properties (e.g., by compaction or grouting).

Use deeper foundations (e.g., piles) for increased bearing capacity.

Would you like to explore any specific optimization or additional checks?

Please, proceed with what is necessary

To ensure the foundation meets safety requirements, let's optimize the design by increasing the
foundation size (B ). This will reduce the applied stress and increase the bearing capacity. Here's how
we proceed:

Step 1: Define Target Safety

We want the design bearing capacity (qd ) to exceed the applied stress (qapplied ). Let's
​ ​

choose Design Approach 1, Combination 1 (DA 1, Comb. 1) as the basis for optimization, as it
represents a common approach.

Applied Stress:

Pd
qapplied =
​

B ⋅1
​ ​

where Pd ​
= 975 kN (factored load from DA 1, Comb. 1).
Target:

qapplied ≤ qd
​ ​

qu
qd =​

γR
​

​
, with
​ qu = c′d Nc + 12 γBNγ .
​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Step 2: Solve for Foundation Width (B )

Rearranging the bearing capacity equation for B :

′
https://chatgpt.com/c/6746f859-e71c-8001-a6de-44710b39f5c8 10/13
11/27/24, 1:56 PM ChatGPT
c′d Nc γ
qd = + Nγ B
​ ​

B 2
​ ​ ​ ​

Let qapplied ​ = Pd /B , and solve iteratively to find B .

​

Parameters:

c′d = 8 kPa
​

Nc = 17.7, Nγ = 5.0 ​ ​

3
γ = 18 kN/m
γR = 1.0 ​

Pd = 975 kN ​

Step 3: Perform Iterative Calculation

We calculate B iteratively, starting from the current B = 2.0 m, until qd ≥ qapplied .
​ ​

The optimized foundation width required to ensure stability is approximately 3.4 meters. Here are
the details of the results:

Foundation Width (B ): 3.4 m

Applied Stress (qapplied ): 286.8 ​ kPa
Design Bearing Capacity (qd ): 294.6 ​ kPa

Verification
With a foundation width of 3.4 m:
The applied stress (qapplied ​ = 286.8 kPa) is less than the design bearing capacity (qd = ​

294.6 kPa).

The foundation is now safe under DA 1, Combination 1.

Recommendation
Adopt a foundation width of 3.4 m to ensure safety.

Repeat the verification for other Design Approaches if required.

Would you like to explore further optimization or check results under other design approaches? ​ ​

yes, to all

https://chatgpt.com/c/6746f859-e71c-8001-a6de-44710b39f5c8 11/13
11/27/24, 1:56 PM ChatGPT

Let's proceed with the following steps to complete the optimization for all Design Approaches and
verify the required foundation width for each. We will recalculate the foundation width for DA 1,
Combination 2 (DA 1, Comb. 2), Design Approach 2 (DA 2), and Design Approach 3 (DA 3) using
the same iterative process as before.

Step 1: Recap of Necessary Inputs

We will use the same formula and iterative method for each Design Approach:

Ultimate bearing capacity formula:

1
qu = c′d Nc + γBNγ
2
​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Applied stress:

Pd
qapplied =
​

B
​ ​

Factored Loads and Design Bearing Capacity:

DA 1, Comb. 2: γG ​ = 1.0, γQ = 1.3

​

DA 2: γG ​ = 1.35, γQ = 1.5 ​

DA 3: γG ​ = 1.0, γQ = 1.3 ​

We will calculate the required foundation width for each Design Approach by iterating through the
values until the design bearing capacity exceeds the applied stress.

Step 2: Recalculate for Each Design Approach

Let’s begin the calculations for DA 1, Combination 2 (DA 1, Comb. 2).

For Design Approach 1, Combination 2 (DA 1, Comb. 2), the optimized foundation width is
approximately 2.9 meters.

Applied Stress (qapplied ): 262.1

​ kPa
Design Bearing Capacity (qd ): 272.1 ​ kPa

Step 3: Recalculate for Design Approach 2 (DA 2)

Now, let's proceed with the calculation for Design Approach 2 (DA 2). ​ ​

For Design Approach 2 (DA 2), the optimized foundation width is approximately 3.4 meters.

Applied Stress (qapplied ): 286.8

​ kPa
Design Bearing Capacity (qd ): 294.6 ​ kPa

https://chatgpt.com/c/6746f859-e71c-8001-a6de-44710b39f5c8 12/13
11/27/24, 1:56 PM ChatGPT

Step 4: Recalculate for Design Approach 3 (DA 3)

Finally, let's calculate the foundation width for Design Approach 3 (DA 3).

https://chatgpt.com/c/6746f859-e71c-8001-a6de-44710b39f5c8 13/13