2.

Basis of design
large traffic and wind loading where there is a need to differentiate between
load combinations where the ground remains in the elastic range and for
more extreme load combinations where limited plasticity may be acceptable).
In practice, observation based on experience often allows identification of the
governing limit state which enables other limit states to be verified by a
control check (e.g. a simple hand calculation or comparison to previous
work). Furthermore, verification of either ULS or SLS may be omitted if there
is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that one limit state is satisfied by the
other (usually limited to prescriptive design of relative simple structures, see
Clause 2.5 of EC7 Part 11).

2.4

Limit state verification methods

Structures should be designed (see Section 2 of EC03) and built in such a

way that they will, with appropriate reliability and cost, resist without damage
the actions imposed during both the construction phase and the design life;
they should also satisfy serviceability criteria and have adequate durability.
Furthermore, structures should be designed and built in such a way that they
will not be damaged, to an extent disproportionate to the cause of damage,
by events such as explosion, impact or human error (i.e. structures must be
appropriately robust).
Verification that limit states are not being exceeded can be performed in one
or more of the following ways:
Design by calculation (see Section 2.11)
Design by calculation uses an arithmetical approach to the comparison of
actions and resistances, mainly using a partial factor method (see Section 6
of EC03 and Section 2.4 of EC7 Part 11).
Design by prescriptive measures (see Section 2.12)
Design by prescriptive measures relies on past experience of similar
structures in similar ground conditions. Partial factors are not used as the
design is typically based on design details taken from standard charts or
guides (e.g. standard sections for a modular retaining wall) or by
comparison of working loads and allowable resistances.
Design by the observational method (see Section 2.13)
Design by the observational method is a hybrid approach requiring a
combination of calculation and comparable experience and monitoring to
optimise construction whilst ensuring robust in-service performance. The
benefit of using this approach is the combined effects of adopting less
cautious ground parameters and possibly by using lower partial factors
against failure during the period of monitoring. The method relies on being
able to predict and react against a limit state being exceeded.
20

The Institution of Structural Engineers Manual for the geotechnical design of structures to Eurocode 7

Basis of design
EQU 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.
STR internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or structural
elements in which the strength of structural materials is significant in
providing resistance.
GEO failure or excessive deformation of the ground, in which the strength
of soil or rock is significant in providing resistance.
UPL loss of equilibrium of the structure or the ground due to uplift by
water pressure or other vertical actions.
HYD hydraulic heave, internal erosion and piping in the ground caused by
hydraulic gradients (groundwater flow).
These limit states are illustrated in Figure 2.1.

EQU
Uplift

STR
Water table

GEO

Water table

UPL
HYD
Note
EQU: rotation of the tower about the toe of the foundation (ground is strong)
STR: structural failure of the tower leg (or of the pad foundation)
GEO: bearing capacity of the foundation soil (or sliding on the pad to soil interface)
UPL: flotation of the box held down by weight and vertical tension piles
HYD: failure of the soil in heave due to seepage pressure
Fig 2.1

Illustrative distinctions between EQU, STR, GEO, UPL and HYD limit states
The Institution of Structural Engineers Manual for the geotechnical design of structures to Eurocode 7

33

2.11

3.4

Geotechnical investigation and reporting

Table 3.2 Ground investigation geometry

Structure

Minimum deptha
(m)

Definitions
B

Shallow footing

d
max (6, 3B )

d
Elevation

Plan

Raft

d
1.5B

Elevation

Plan

If H , 0, d
(0.4h, t 2)
If H
0, d
max (H 2, t 5)b

Excavation
h

Elevation

Pile

d
max (B, 5, 3D )
where:
B is the width of the pile group
D is the pile base diameter

D
Elevation

Plan

d
2

Road
d
Elevation

Notes
a For large buildings deeper investigations will be required. For competent rock strata at formation level a
reduction in depth of some investigation points may be possible. For soft strata at formation level
deeper investigation will likely be required. These are guide values only.
b Simplified, based on Annex B of EC7 Part 22.

54

The Institution of Structural Engineers Manual for the geotechnical design of structures to Eurocode 7

Pile foundations

Bearing capacity factor Nq

7.19

200
175
D/B = 5
150
125
100
75
D /B = 20
50
D/B = 70
25
0
25
()

30

35

40

Note
D = pile depth, B = pile diameter
Fig 7.3

Variation of Nq with w0 (Fleming)

7.19

Illustration of design process

Refer to Appendix D.

7.20

Summary

Prior to adoption of a particular pile type for support of building loads it is

necessary to confirm the following:
Use of piles are appropriate when compared to spread foundations with
or without ground improvement
The process of pile installation is compatible with the ground conditions
(installation method, impact on stability of pile bores for bored piles,
contamination of aquifers below contaminated ground etc.) at the site and
to the locality of the site (noise and vibration, site access for piling plant
etc.)
154

The Institution of Structural Engineers Manual for the geotechnical design of structures to Eurocode 7

Pile foundations

7.20

Pile design (ULS) is typically carried out using geotechnical parameters

obtained from ground investigations and equations for shaft and base
resistance. Pile design using continuous profiles of ground data (e.g. a CPT
profile) to calculate a location specific pile capacity is also possible but not
common in UK practice. Pile design methods are based on the results of
pile load tests (project specific or archive).
The use of preliminary and construction pile load tests is relatively common
place, allows validation of the design assumptions, provides confidence in
the construction method, and allows for reduction in design partial and
model factors.
Design of piles using the results of pile load tests directly (justified by
experience or calculation) is permitted but again not usually carried out in
the UK.
Design of piles differs from most other geotechnical designs in that partial
factors are applied to calculated resistances (shaft or base these
resistance factors are applied after the geotechnical calculation) rather than
to the geotechnical parameter (e.g. to cu or w0 these partial factors are
applied prior to the geotechnical calculation).
ULS design of piles using geotechnical parameters (the typical approach in
the UK) has the sets of factors listed in Table 7.27.
Table 7.27 Partial factors used in ULS pile design
Partial factors used

Comments

Model factors:
Table 7.15

Used to account for the presence, or not, of relevant pile load test data to
calculated failure load. The model factor reduces the calculated resistance to
the characteristic resistance

Resistance factors (R):

Table 7.7 for EQU
Table 7.9 for STR/GEO
(DA1 C1)
Table 7.11 for STR/GEO
(DA1 C2)
Table 7.13 for UPL

Used to reduce the characteristic resistance to the appropriate design

resistance. Different resistance factors are provided for different pile types
(bored, driven, CFA), for shaft and base components, for compression or
tension loading, to account for the use of contract pile load tests, to verify
performance in the working load range and finally as a function of the
importance of reliable settlement at working load

Factor on actions (A):

Table 7.6 for EQU
Table 7.8 for STR/GEO
(DA1 C1)
Table 7.10 for STR/GEO
(DA1 C2)
Table 7.12 for UPL

Load factors are applied appropriate to the calculation being carried out
(EQU, STR or GEO and UPL)

Factor on materials:
Table 7.14

Factors are applied as appropriate to EQU, STR, GEO and UPL

Negative skin friction:

Table 7.18

Factors used in assessing the design value of negative skin friction for
STR/GEO load cases

The Institution of Structural Engineers Manual for the geotechnical design of structures to Eurocode 7

155

9.3

Special geotechnical works

Table 9.1 Continued

Dewatering issue

Example/mitigation

Provision of a system which can maintain

design water levels without excessive
variation and with redundancy in case of
breakdown.

Dewatering systems are usually required to maintain a

design water level for a fixed period; failure to do so may
have safety implications. The dewatering system must be
able to accommodate foreseeable water level fluctuations
as may exist in tidal areas or areas adjacent to rivers
which flood, and be adequately robust to allow periods of
maintenance and breakdown.
The effectiveness of a system needs to be checked by
monitoring of groundwater levels or pore-water
pressures. For long term dewatering, corrosion and
clogging (mineral or biological) may be relevant to
system design.

Heave or collapse movements of loose

soils can occur when dewatering is turned
off.

Correct assessment of recharge is needed prior to

dewatering commencement.

Interference with drinking water supply

(or with other licensees rights).

Extraction licenses are needed, with testing carried out to

third party extraction systems being a possible constraint
to demonstrate no impact. Compensation payments may
be necessary.

Dewatering resulting in contaminant

movement.

Dewatering systems should not cause the movement of

contamination.

Deterioration or loss of durability of

adjacent structures.

Dewatering and drawdown should not cause any change

to the ground that would cause deterioration of adjacent
structures. An example of this is historic timber
foundations situated below the water table being exposed
to air (oxygen) resulting in deterioration in the timber and
building settlement.

An initial assessment of the feasibility of dewatering as a means of

groundwater control can be carried out by means of a useful design chart
(CIRIA Report C515102) as in Figure 9.1.
In using this chart it is necessary to bear in mind the losses that will occur at
well points may limit the extent to which a stratum type can be dewatered.
For example, a well in gravel overlying clay would not be able to dewater the
gravel to the top of the clay.
When using Figure 9.1102, the representative permeability values in Table 9.2
can be assumed for initial assessment. However, pumping tests should be
undertaken at the ground investigation stage to obtain site specific data prior
to well design being carried out. Wells should always be tested to
190

The Institution of Structural Engineers Manual for the geotechnical design of structures to Eurocode 7

Appendix D
Table D.3

Calculation of Rs;cal and Rb;cal

Stratum

Rs;cal
(kN)

Rb;cal
(kN)

Made Ground/Brickearth

Terrace Gravel

297

Surface of London
Clay to
4mOD

1159 (Check: average qs;cal 62kN/m , 110kN/m , okay)

At
4mOD:
363

Surface of London
Clay to
5mOD

1296 (Check: average qs;cal 63kN/m2 , 110kN/m2, okay)

At
5mOD:
374

Surface of London
Clay to
6mOD

1436 (Check: average qs;cal 64kN/m2 , 110kN/m2, okay)

At
6mOD:
384

London Clay to
7mOD

1580 (Check: average qs;cal 65kN/m2 , 110kN/m2, okay)

At
7mOD:
394

Using the geotechnical data and the pile design basis above, the calculated
resistance of the pile can be obtained as in Table D.3.
For pile design using characteristic soil parameters it is necessary to introduce
a model factor into the design to calculate the characteristic resistance of the
pile (the calculation of shaft and base resistance from characteristic ground
parameters does not provide the characteristic shaft and base resistances
but the calculated shaft and base resistances). The characteristic shaft and
base resistance being obtained as follows:
Rs;k Rs;cal /gR;d
Rb;k Rb;cal /gR;d
where:
gR;d is the model factor
It should be noted that if pile design is carried out using profiles of
geotechnical data, as in pile design from CPT data, then an alternative
approach is taken to arrive at the characteristic pile resistance.
As per Table 7.15, the value of gR;d is 1.4 when there is no maintained pile
load test taken up to the calculated ultimate (geotechnical) resistance. When
maintained pile load test data taken up to the calculated ultimate
(geotechnical) resistance exist, the value of gR;d may be reduced to 1.2.
The calculation of shaft and base characteristic resistances is shown in
Table D.4.
For Design Approach 1 Combination 2 there are two values for the R4
resistance factors (for both gs and gb) which depend on the scope of pile load
testing being proposed; Table 7.11 presents these. For a site with at least 1%
of contract piles subjected to maintained load testing to 1.5 times the
240

The Institution of Structural Engineers Manual for the geotechnical design of structures to Eurocode 7

Appendix E

pd

dd

Fig E.2

Wall model

pressures about the point of application of the prop to the wall (see Figures
E.2 and E.3).
The forces due to the ground (A, B) and water (C, D) are solved iteratively by
varying the embedment depth dd such that the sum of moments about the
prop is zero. This would typically be done using computer software. The
results for Combination 1 and 2 are presented in Tables E.5 and E.6.
It can be seen that the EC7 requirement that design effects of actions Ed be
less than or equal to the design resistance Rd is achieved by comparing the
moments resulting from areas A and C with areas B and D.

A
C
D

Fig E.3

Pressure diagram
The Institution of Structural Engineers Manual for the geotechnical design of structures to Eurocode 7

247