Proceedings XIII Danube-European Conference on Geotechnical Enginnerlng, Ljubljana, 29-31 May 2006,

Slovenian Geotechnical Society, pp. 577-586.

Design of pile foundations following EurocodeT

R. Frank
CERMES (lnstitut Navier, ENPC-LCPC), Paris

* PrKAr,ÍU

ABSTRACT
After a short introduction about the programme of 'Structural Eurocodes', the two parts of Eurocode 7 on
'Geotechnical Design' are presented, namely 'Part 1: General rules' (EN 1997 -l) and 'Part 2 : Ground investi-
gation and testing' (EN 1997-2). The provisions and requirements of Eurocode 7 for the design of pile foun-
dations are reviewed and commented upon (Section 7 of EN 1997-l). Finally, two design examples of piles
under axial loads are given, one from ground test results and one from pile load test results.

Keywords: Eurocode 7, soil-structure interaction, pile, bearing capacity, compressive resistance, tensile resistance,
pile settlement, ultimate limit state, serviceability limit state, partial factors of safety

I INTRODUCTION : THE EUROCODE
PROGRAMME
The Structural Eurocodes are design codes for
buildings, bridges and other civil engineering
structures. They are based on the Limit State De-
sign (LSD) approach used in conjunction with a
partial factor method. They consist of 10 sets of
standards : 'Eurocode: Basis of structural design'
(EN 1990) and Eurocodes I to 9 (EN 1991 to EN
1999; EN is for 'European Norm')
Eurocodes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 are 'material'
Eurocodes, i.e. relevant to a given material (rein-
forced concrete, steel, etc.). EN 1990 (Basis of
design), Eurocode 1 (Actions), Eurocode 7 (Geo-
technical design) and Eurocode 8 (Earthquake re-
sistance) 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 struc-
tures. It allows the calculation of the geotechnical
actions on the structures, as well the resistances of
the ground. It also gives all the prescriptions and
rules of good practice for conducting the geotech-
nical part of a structural project or, more generally
speaking, a purely geotechnical project.
The development of Eurocode 7 has been
strongly linked to the development of EN 1990:
'Eurocode: Basis of structural design' (CEN,
20OZ) and the format for verifying ground-
structure interaction problems is, of course, com-
mon to both documents.
After giving the main contents of Eurocode 7,
this contribution summarises the requirements
relevant to pile design (without recalling the prin-
ciples of LSD and of the partial factor method),
and describes two design examples of piles under
vertical compressive loadings taken from the re-
cent workshop of ERTC 10 on the evaluation of
Eurocode 7 (Orr, 2005; Frank,2005).
2 CONTENTSOFEUROCODET
Eurocode 7 consists of two parts:
EN 1997-1 Geotechnical design - Part l: General
rules (CEN, 2004);
EN 1997-2 Geotechnical design - Part 2: Ground
investigation and testing (CEN, 2005a).
2.1 Part l: General rules
Eurocode 7 - Part 1: 'General rules' is a rather
general document giving only the principles for
geotechnical design inside the general framework
of LSD. These principles are relevant to the calcu-
lation of the geotechnical actions on the structural
elements in contact with the ground (footings,
piles, basement walls, etc.), as well as to the de-
formations and resistances of the ground submit-

577
 Proceedings XIII Danube-European Conference on Geotechnical Enginnering, Ljubljana, 29-31 May 2006,
Slovenian Geotechnical Society, pp. 577-586.
ted to the actions from the structures. Some de-
tailed design rules or calculation models, i.e. pre-
cise formulae or charts are only given in informa-
tive Annexes.
Eurocode 7 -Part 1 includes the following sec-
tions (CEN, 2004):
Section I General
Section 2 Basis of geotechnical design
Section 3 Geotechnical data
Section 4 Supervision of construction, moni-
toring and maintenance
Section 5 Fill, dewatering, ground improve-
ment 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
A number of Annexes are included. They are
all informative, except Annex A which is'norma-
tive'(i.e. mandatory). They are the following : Section 2 - Planning of ground investigations
Annex A (normative) Partial and correlation
factors for ultimate limit states and recommended
values
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 bear-
ing resistance calculation
Annex E A sample semi-empirical method for
bearing resistance estimation
Annex F Sample methods forsettlement
evaluation
Annex G A sample method for deriving pre-
sumed bearing resistance for spread foundations
on rock
Annex H Limiting values of structural defor-
mation and foundation movement
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 (see below). But the numeri-
cal values for the partial or correlation factors
given in Annex A are only recommended values.
These values can be changed in the National An-
nex to EN 1990-1, which is published by each
country. All other Annexes are informative (i.e.
not mandatory in the normative sense). Some of
578
them, though, contain valuable material which can
be accepted, in the near future, by most of the
countries.
2.2 Part 2: Ground investigation and testing
Part 2 of Eurocode 7 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. Test standards
for geotechnical design are presently being pub-
lished by the Technical Committee 341 of CEN
(TC 341) on 'Geotechnical investigation and
testing' . 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 Sec-
tions (CEN, 2004b):
Section 1 - General
Section 3 - Soil and rock sampling and ground-
water measurements
Section 4 - Field tests in soil and rock
Section 5 - Laboratory tests on soil and rock
Section 6 - Ground investigation report
The Section on field tests in soil and rock in-
cludes cone and piezocone penetration tests
CPT(U), pressuremeter tests PMT, flexible dila-
tometer test (rock and soil) FDT, standard pene-
tration test SPT, dynamic probing tests DP,
weight sounding test WST, field vane test FVT,
flat dilatometer test DMT and plate loading test
PLT.
The Section on laboratory testing of soils and
rocks deals wittr the preparation of soil and rock
specimens for testing, tests for classification,
identification and description of soil, chemical
testing of soil and groundwater, strength index
testing of soil, sfrength testing of soil, com-
pressibility and deformation testing of soil,
compaction testing of soil, permeability testing
of soil, tests for classification of rocks, swelling
testing of rock material and sfrength testing of
rock material.
PaÍt 2 also includes a number of informative
Annexes with examples of correlations and
derivations of values of geotechnical parameters
from field test results. The informative Annexes
D.6 & D.7, for CPT tests, and E.3, for PMT
 Proceedings XIII Danube-European Conference
Slovenian Geotechnical Society, pp. 57 7 -586.
tests, are such examples for determining the
compressive resistance of a single pile.
As is the case in Part 1, most of the deriva-
tions or calculation models given are informa-
tive, but there is also fairly good agreement
about using them in the future throughout
Europe.
3 SUMMARY OF SECTION 7 ON'PILE
FONDATIONS'
The core of Section 7 of EN 1997-l is devoted to
the behaviour of pile foundations under axial
(vertical) loads. The importance of static load
tests is clearly recognised as the basis of pile
design methods. An innovative concept
introduced in this section, with regard to
traditional pile design, is the use of correlation
factors ( for deriving the characteristic compres-
sive and tensile resistances of piles either from
static pile load tests or from ground test results. ln
both cases, the correlation factor ( depends
mainly on the number of tests performed, whether
pile load tests or profiles of ground tests.
The general requirements of EN I997-I for ul-
timate limit states are given in clauses
2.4.7.3.4.2(2)P for Design Approach I,
2.4.7.3.4.3(l)P for DA2 and 2.4.7.3.4.4(l)P for
DA 3. The corresponding recommended values of
the partial factors y are given in Table A.3 for the
actions or effects of actions (Yr or'lh), Table A.4
for the ground parameters (lxt), Tables ,{.6
through A.8 for the resistances for piles (t11) and
Tables A.9 through A.1l for the correlations fac-
tors ( for piles (see Tables I to 5 below).
In Section 7, clause 7.6.2.2 applies to the 'Ul-
timate compressive resistance from static load
/esls', clause 7.6.2.3 applies to the'Ultfunate com-
pressive resistance from ground test results', iÍt
particular, clause 7.6.2.3(5)P and Equation 7.8
for the 'model pile' method, and clause 7.6.2.3(8)
for the 'alternative' method, clause 7.6.4 deals
with the vertical displacements of pile foundation
(Serviceability of supported structures) and clause
7.7 deals with 'Transversely loaded piles' . These
clauses are summarized below. More detailed
comments are given in the Designers' Guide by
Frank etal. (2N4).
3.1 Limit states and specific actions
A number of limit states need to be considered.
Ultimate limit states (ULS)
- overall stability
on Geotechnical Engínnering, Ljtbljana, 29-31 May 2006,
- bearing resistance failure, uplift or tensile
resistance failure, and transverse failure in the
ground
- structural failure of the pile in compression,
tension, bending, buckling or shear
- excessive settlement, heave and lateral
movement
Serviceability limit states (SLS)
- excessive settlement, heave and lateral
movement
- vibrations
The actions caused by ground movements are
very specific to pile foundations. The following
typical actions to be considered are:
- downdrag (negative friction)
- heave
- transverse loading.
Eurocode 7 requires to apply calculation meth-
ods for which the ground displacement is treated
as an action and an interaction analysis is carried
out, or for which an upper bound of the force
transmitted to the pile is introduced as the design
action.
For most of the calculation methods, "the de-
sign values of the strength and stffiess of the
moving ground should usually be upper values" .
3.2 The role of pile load tests
The methods accepted by Eurocode 7 for the
design of piles must nearly all be based, directly
or indirectly, on the results of static pile load
tests. The document clearly states that :
"The design shall be based on [...) :
- the results of static load tests, [...1
- empirical or analytical calculation methods
whose validity has been demonstrated by static
load tests 1...1
- the results of dynamic load tests whose valid-
ity has been demonstrated by static load testsl...)
- the observed performance of a comparable
pile foundation, provided that this approach is
supported by the results of site investigation and
ground testing."
Pile load tests
Pile load tests shall be carried out :
- when using a new type of pile or installation
method;
- when there is no comparable soil and loading
conditions;
- theory and experience do not provide suffi-
cient confidence in the design;
579
 Proceedings XIII Danube-European Conference on Geotechnical Enginnering, Ljubljana, 29-31 IÀIay 2006,
Slovenian Geotechnical Society, pp. 577 -586.

- installation indicate pile behaviour that devi-
ates from the anticipated behaviour and additional
ground investigations do not clarify the reasons.
The static pile load test procedure "shall be
such that conclusions can be drawn about
- the deformation behaviour
- creep
- and rebound [...]"
- ultimate failure load, for trial piles.
For tension piles, the tests should be carried out
to failure.
About loading procedures, EN 1997-1 men-
tions, in a note, the method suggested by ISS-
MGE (1985). A European standard for the static
load tests in compression has recently been
drafted by CEN ITC 250 and is presently at the
enquiry stage (CEN 2005b).
"Dynamic load tests may be used to estimnte
the compressive re sistance provided:
- an adequate site investigation has been carried
out
- and the method has been calibrated against
static load tests on the same type of pile, of sirni-
lar length and cross-section, and in comparable
soil conditions."
3.3 Check of axially loaded piles-general
The characteristic value of the compressive or
tensile resistance Rl is obtained from the values R
(measured value(s)R. or calculated value(s) R"4):
Rt=R/É (l)
where ( is the correlation factor. The recom-
mended values for ( are given in:
- Table 1 for the design from static pile load
test results
- Table 2 for the design from ground test results
- Table 3 for the design from dynamic load
tests (compressive resistance only).
The design values R6 are then obtained from
Rd = Rk/yt or Rd = Rbk/lb + Rr/yr (2)
where Tt , or 16 and ys, are the partial resis-
tance factors (1$ for the total resistance R1, or for
the base and shaft resistances R61 and Rr1 , re-
spectively. Their recommended values are given
in Table 4 (for piles in tension Rbk = 0 and
Yst > Ts is recommended).
On the other hand the design value of the ap-
plied compression/tension load F6 is:

The following limit states are to be considered: F6 = 1pF1 (3)

- " ULS of compressive or tensile resistance
failure of a single pile; where F1 is the characteristic value of the ap-
- ULS of compressive or tensile resistance fail-
plied load(s) and 1p is the partial factor on actions
ure of the pile foundation as a whole;
- ULS of collapse or severe damage to a sup- (or effects of actions), given in Table 5 for per-
ported structure by excessive displacement or dif- manent and transient design situations (1pF1 in
ferential displacements of the pile foundation; (3) represents several actions, if appropriate). For
- SLS in the supported structure by displace- accidental design situations, all lp = 1.9.
ments of the piles." The basic condition for ULS being :
For piles in groups, two failure mechanisms
should be taken into account : Fa<Ra @)
- compressive or pull-out resistance failure of
the piles individually
equations (1) to (a) lead to :
- compressive or pull-out resistance failure of
the piles and the soil contained between them act-
ing as a block.
Ft<R lW.yt.E=R/FS (5)

where FS = yp.Tt.É is analogous to the tradi-

3.4 ULS compressive or tensile resistance failure
tional overall factor of safety (it is understood that
The basic equations and conditions of Euro- .yF
can represent several values and yg can be re-
code 7 - Part 1 for checking ultimate compressive
placed by y6 and y, where relevant).
or tensile resistance are presented below in a syn-
thetic manner.

580
 Proceedings XIII Danube-European Conference on Geotechnical Enginnering, Ljubljana, 29-31 May 2006,
Slovenian Geotechnical Society, pp. 577-586.

3.5 Values of correlations factors ( and partial quires the resistance to be calculated for each soil
faaors y profile, whatever the pile locations in the final
project.
All values given in Annex A (normative) of EN When designing from ground test results an al-
1997-l are recommended values. They can be ternative procedure is allowed. It corresponds to
changed in the National Annex. the traditional practice in many countries of
When designing piles from static load tests, the Europe. In consist in determining directly the
following equation should be used: characteristic values of base resistance and shaft
friction q6p and grp from the values of ground pa-
Rr=Min { Rr,..unl(1 ; Rr1r6n /(2 } (6) rameters, using the equations or charts of the rele-
vant calculation method. Then
where R, is (are) the measured resistance(s)
and (= (1 on the mean value and §= §2 on the Rur = qut A6and Rsr = I Qsik Asi (8)
minimum value, function of the number of pile
test(s) n, are given in Table 1. where A6 and Asl ato the pile base area and
shaft surface in layer i respectively.
Table l.Recommended values for the correlation factors The code does not specify if characteristic val-
( for R1 from n - static pile load tests (Table A.9 of An- ues of the ground parameters, or more 'tradi-
nexAtnEN 1997-l)
tional' values should be used in this alternative
( Íor
2 3 4 >5
procedure. On the other hand, it mentions, in a
note, that if it is used "the values of the partial
1
D=
Ét 1,40 1,30 1,20 1,10 1,00 factors y and % recommended in Annex A may
need to be corrected by a model factor larger
€z 1,40 1,20 1,05 1,00 1,00
than 1,0. The value of the model factor may be set
For piles in compression, if ransfer from "weak" to "strong" piles is
by the National Annex". This is because in this
oossible. these values mav be divided bv 1.1. orovided E, > 1.0
procedure, no correlation factor ( is explicitly ap-
plied.
When using calculation rules and sround test
The compressive resistance can also be deter-
results, the following equations applies:
mined from dvnamic load tests:
- either by dynamic impact tests, or
Rk= Rbt+Rst - by applying pile driving formulae, or
= (Rb,cal + Rr,..f/ € = &url6 - from wave equation analysis.
=Min { &4,..*/Er;&ar,*in/fu } (7) Note also that the code requires that re-riving
results must be taken into account
where §= (j on the mean value and §= §a on the The equation for Rs becomes :
minimum value, function of the number of soil
test profile(s) n, are given in Table 2 and R"4 Rt=Min { Rr,..-/ft;R.,o'inlfr } (9)
is(are) the calculated value(s) of the resistance
from ground test results. where R,n are the measured resistances and § -
§5 on the mean value and §= ft on the minimum
Table 2. Recommended values for the correlation factors value, function of the number of pile test(s) n, are
( for Rp from n - soil test profiles (Table A.10 of Annex given in Table 3.
A in EN 1997-l)
Partial factors y for resistances and for actions
§ lot 4 5 7 10
For checking ULS in persistent and transient
1 2 3
fl= design situations, three Design Approaches are
1,40 1,35 1,33 1,31 1,29 1,27 1,25 -
proposed by Eurocode 7 Part 1 (CEN, 2004):
Ës DA 1, for which 2 different combinations of ac-
tu 1,40 1,27 1,23 1,20 1,15 1,12 1,08 tions must be checked, DA 2 and DA 3.
For piles in compression, if transfer from "weak" to "stong" piles is The corresponding partial factors 1, or y6 and
l.l.
oossible. these values mav be divided bv orovided & 2 1.0
1', for the resistances and 1p for the actions are
given in Tables 4 and 5, respectively.
This procedure is often referred to as the 'model
pile' procedure (Frank et al,2N4), because it re-

581
 Proceedings XIII Danube-European Conference on Geotechnical Enginnering, Ljubljana, 29-31 May 2006,
Slovenian Geotechnical Society, pp. 577 -586.

Table 3. Recommended values for ( factors for R1 from For ULS in accidental design situations, all
l'2'3'4'5
dynamic impact tests from n - number of pile load values of TF are taken equal to 1.0 and the values
tests(TableA.II of AnnexA inEN 1997-1)
of the partial factors on resistances ï, or |u and y,,
f for n= >2 >5 >10 >15 >20 depend on the particular circumstances of the ac-
cidental situation and can be set by the National
55 1,60 1,50 1,45 t,42 1,40 Annex.

s 1.50 [,35 1,30 1,25 1,25

t The 3.6 Vertical displacements of pile foundations:
§-values in the table are valid for dynamic serviceability of the supported structure
2
impact tests. The f-values may be multiplied with a
model factor of 0,85 when using dynamic impact tests
Displacements under serviceability limit state
with signal matching. 3 the §- values should be
conditions should be assessed and checked
multiplied with a model factor of 1,10 when using a
pile driving formula with measurement of the quasi- against limiting values.
elastic pile head displacement during the impact. For piles in compression, account should be
a the -values shatl be multiplied with a model taken of downdrag where probable and of group
E
factor of 1,20 when using a pile driving formula settlement. For piles in tension, the upward dis-
without measurement of the quasi-elastic pile head placements are also checked accordingly.
5
displacement during the impact. If different piles
exist in the foundation, groups of similar piles should
be considered separately when selecting the n of test 3.7 Design of transversely loaded piles
oiles.
The clauses of EN 1997-I for the design of trans-
Table 4. ULS, permanent and ffansient design situations - versely loaded piles correspond to the commonly
Recommended values for 16 , or y, and yt (from Tables accepted practice. They can be summarised as fol-
A.6, A.7 and A.8 of Annex A in EN 1997- l) lows.
For all ULS, the design value of the transverse
Design Approach 1 )A2 )A3x resistance R11,6 must be such that:
Combination I I Combination2
Type of [u=Yt "tt=í[.
pile
Yb T' Yt }b Y' \t
*v, tl Fg,61í R6,61 (10)

Driven 1.0 1.0 1.0 t.3 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.0 where Fj.,6 is the design value of the applied
Bored 1.25 1.0 1.15 t.6 1.3 1.5 Ll 1.0 transverse loads.
CFA 1.1 1.0 1.1 t.45 1.3 1.4 l.l 1.0
Eurocode 7 -Part I then states that
Tension
Y"* 1,25 1,6 1,15 1,1
"One of the following failure mechanisms
for D.A 3 : partial coefficients are applied to soil parameters. DA should be considered:
is not applicable when the resistance is derived from pile load - for short piles, rotation or translation as a
:sts. rigid body;
- for long slender piles, bending failure of the
Table 5. ULS, permanent and transient design situations - pile, accompanied by local yielding and dis-
Recommended values for 1tr on actions or effects of ac- placement of the soil near the top of the pile."
tions (from Table A.3 of Annex A in EN 1997-1) The transverse load resistance R6 can be deter-
DAl-1 D41.2 DA2 DA3 mined:
Action rR) íc) {, ** - from pile load tests;
Perma- unfavour- - from ground test results and pile strength
1,35 1,0 1,35 1,35
nent able y"
parameters. The beam theory with the subgrade
favourable t.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Variable
reaction modulus may be used.
Unfavour-
1,5 1,3 1,5 1,5
able y. The assessment of the transverse displacement
favourable 0 0 0 0 should take account should of:
* the paÍial factors are applied to the ground sfrength - the non-linear ground stiffness;
parameters. - the flexural stiffuess of the piles;
x* values for structural actions only; for geotechnical - the fixity conditions with the structure;
actions, the partial factors are applied to the ground - the group effect;
sfrensth Darameters. - the effect of load reversals or of cyclic loading.

582
 Proceedings XIII Danube-European Conference on Geotechnical Enginnering, Ljubljana, 29-31 I|day 2006,
Slovenian Geotechnical Society, pp. 577-586.

4 DESIGN EXAMPLES On the basis of the SPT value N = 25, the fol-
lowing base, shaft and total resistances are calcu-
The two following examples of piles under verti- lated from correlations with PMT results and cor-
cal compressive loadings are taken from the re- responding semi-empirical design rules used in
cent workshop of ERTC 10 on the evaluation of France (Frank, 2005) :
Eurocode 7. a) The unit base resistance is
Qu = 1.37 MPa
4.r Pile designfrom ground test results The total base resistance is :
Rb,car = n@214)qr=3J4x(03614)x1.37= 387 kN
The design example is defined in Figure 1 and b) The unit shaft friction at all depths z is :
Table 6 (Orr, 2005). 9s = 70 kPa
The total shaft friction is (D = 0.6 m is the pile
diameter):
Rs,car = rDlq,dz =1.885x70 I-132L(in kN and m)
Gr = 1200kN
c) The total compressive resistance is :
Qr = 200 kN Rcar = Rb,car * Rs,"ul = 387 + l32L (in kN and m)
Eurocode 7 -Part 1 (EN 1997-1,2004) requires
2.0m
checking ultimate and serviceability limit states.
In this example, as no limitation is set on the set-
tlement of the pile, nor any accidental action is to
be taken into account, the following is restricted
to ULS for persistent and transient design situa-
tions.
In the case of ultimate limit states (ULS) for
persistent and transient design situations, Design
Approaches 1 or 2 may be used. Design Approach
Sand 3 is not relevant to semi-empirical models like the
Q'1 = 35o one used here, as DA 3 means using 'material'
T= 2lkN/m3 factors yu > 1.9 (i.e. factoring 'at the source' the
parameters of shearing resistance and not the base
Figure 1. Data for example of pile design from ground and shaft resistances themselves, hence }t = 1.0
test results (Example 3 of ERTCIO-WP2 Workshop) and 1. = 1.0); these models use, on the contrary,
]y = 1.0, together with n6 >1.0 and %: 1.0).
Table 6. Data for example of pile design from ground test I
For Design Approaches and 2, the 'alterna-
results tive' procedure, described in 3.4 and equation (8),
Pile Foundation designed has to be used because only the soil parameter
from soil parameter values values are given, with no indication of the number
oDesign situation of soil profiles (the 'model pile' procedure cannot
be applied).
- Bored pile for a building, 600mm diameter
- Groundwater level at depth of 2m below the ground In the following two different assumptions will
surface be made:
A. q. and qu calculated above can be consid-
'Soil conditions ered to be characteristic values in the sense of
- Sand: c'r = 0, 0'r = 35o, Y = 2lkN/m3
equation (7), because they are derived from a cau-
SPTN=25
tious estimate of N and some conservatism has
oActions
been input in the calculation rules. Therefore, it is
- Characteristic permanent load Gr = 1200kN believed that the recommended values of Annex A
- Characteristic variable load Q1 = 200k1.{
of EN 1997-l are applicable, without recourse to
- Weight density of concrete = 24kN/m3
a resistance model factor larger than 1.0;
oRequire
B. q, and q6 calculated above cannot be con-
- Pile length, L sidered to be characteristic values in the sense of
equation (7), because they are derived from N
values which are not meant to be cautious and no

583
 Proceedings XIII Danube-European Conference on Geotechnical Enginnering, Ljubljana, 29-31 May 2006,
Slovenian Geotechnical Society, pp. 577-586.

real conservatism has been input in the calculation Ra = Ru,r/ y6 + R*,1/ |g

rules. Therefore, it is believed that the recom- =309.611.25 + 105.6 U1.0 = 247.7 + 105.6 L
mended values of Annex A of EN 1997-l are ap- The condition F6 < Ra leads to L > 15.8 m.
plicable, but with recourse to a resistance model Combination2:
factor larger than 1.0: for the purpose of this ex- The design load is :

ample the value Tna = 1.25 is selected. F6=|c.Gt+ïq.Qr

Thus, the two following sets of calculations are = 1.0 x 1200 + 1.3 x 200 = 1460 kN
performed (lcl,{ andn are used): The design resistance of the pile is :
Assumption A. Ra=Ru,r/6+R,,1iy.
Rr = &a = Rur* Rs,r. = 387 + l32L =309.611.6 + 105.6 Ul.3 = 193.5 + 81.2L
Assumption B. The condition Fa < R6 leads to L > 15.6 m.
Rr = R"url'th6 = R61 * Rs,1 In conqlq§1q4, for Design Approach 1, the re-
= (387 +132L)11.25 = 309.6 + 105.6 L sult is E 5.8 E (the larger of th" two lengths,
In the following, Tables 4 and 5 are used. given by Combination 1).
AssumptionArRr=Rc4 Design Approach 2
Design Approach 1 Only one combination is relevant.
Combination l: The design load is :
The design load is : F6=]6.Gr+Yq.Qr
F6=|6,.Gt+ïo.Qr = 1.35 x 1200 + 1.5 x 200 = 1920 kN
= L.35 x 1200 + = 1920 kN
1.5 x 200 The design resistance of the pile is :
The design resistance of the pile is : Rr = Ru,r/ |6 + R.1/ ]'
Ra = Ru,r/ y6 + R',1/ y.
=309.611.1+ 105.6 Ul.l= 281.5 + 96.0L
= 387 11.25 + I32Ul.0 = 309.6 + 132 L The condition Fa < Ra leads to EEtZ.Il m.
The condition Fa < R6 leads to L 2 I2.2 m . Design Approach 3 : not relevant to semi-
Combination 2: empirical models.
The design load is : Conclusion for Assumptions A and B: when
F6=|6.Gt+ïq.Qr using Eurocode 7-1 (EN 1997-1) for ULS in per-
= 1.0 x 12A0 + 1.3 x 200 = 1460 LN sistent or transient design situations, Design Ap-
The design resistance of the pile is : proach 2 is the most conservative, for this exam-
Ra = Ru*/ |5 + Rr,1/ |, ple (with dominant shaft friction), as it leads
=38711.6+132U1.3= 241.9 + 101.5L respectively to L > 13.1 m (assumption A) and to
The condition Fa < Ra leads to L > 12.0 m. L> l7.I m (assumption B). With regard to De-
In conclusion, for Design Approach 1, the re- sign Approach 1, combination 1 is more conser-
sult is Ëzlr7À(the larger of the two lengths is vative than combination 2.
given by Combination 1).
Design Approach 2
Only one combination is relevant.
4.2 Pile designfrom pile load test results
The design load is : The design example is defined in Figure 2 and
F6=fc.Gt+ïq.Qr Table 7 (On,2005).
= 1.35 x 1200 + 1.5 x 200 = 1920 kN Characteristic comoressive resistance
The design resistance of the pile is : The measured ultimate compressive resistances
R6 = R6s/ |5 + Rs1/ ^{s=38711.1+ l32ul.l are (from readings at settlement s = 0.1D =
= 351.8 + l20L 40 mm):
The condition Fa < R6 leads to ETít
,1. Rmr = 5.0 MN and R62 = 5.6 MN
Design Approach 3 : not relevant to SPT or Equation (6) is applied with
other semi-empirical model. R.,.*n = 5.3 MN and Rr,.1r, = 5.0 MN.
Assumotion B : R1 = R.u/11a From Table l, for n = 2 pile load tests :
Design Approach L 6 = l.3O and §2= 1.20 ; thus,
Combination l: Rr = Min{5 .311.30;5.011.20lr
The design load is :
= Min{4.08:4.17} = 4.08
F6 = |5.G1+ ïo.Qr which shows that the mean value 'governs'.
= 1.35 x lZ00 + 1.5 x 2OO = 1920 kN
The design resistance of the pile is :

584
 Proceedings XIII Danube-European Conference on Geotechnical Enginnering, Ljubljana, 29-31 May 2006,
Slovenian Geotechnical Society, pp. 577 -586.

According to DAl-Comb t,34.514.08 =

Pile Load (MN) 9 piles are also needed (neglecting group effects).
01234567 Design Approach 2
0 .E l. -
Only one combination is relevant.
: F__
^20 The design load is :
E
F6=|6.Gt+ïq.Qk
5+o
= 1.35 x2O + 1.5 x 5 = 34.5 MN
Ë*
E \ The design resistance for one pile is :
Ës0 Ra = Rr lyr= 4.081 1..1. = 3.71 MN
q,
ta 100 The number of piles is 34.513.71= 10 piles
(neglecting group effects).
120
SLS - Serviceability check
Figure 2. Data for example of pile design from static The characteristic load Gr * Qr = 25 MN is
load test results (Example 4 of ERTCI0 Workshop) relevant for the characteristic combination, which
is the most severe one (used for irreversible limit
Table 7. Data for example of pile design from static load states, see EN 1990).
test results (Example 4 of ERTCl0 Workshop) When examining the two measured load-
o Design Situation settlement curves, the settlement is 10 mm for
- Pile foundation, driven piles, pile diameter D = measured loads F, equal to 3.0 MN and 3.5 MN
0.4m and length = l5m. The building supported (approximately), respectively. The characteristic
by the piles does not have the capacity to fiansfer value for 10 mm can be assessed in the same
the load from weak to sfrong piles. The allowable
manner as the characteristic bearing resistance,
pile settlement is l0mm
o i.e. F.3 = 2.5 MN approximately. Hence, 10 piles
Pile Resistance
- 2 static pile load test results provided on driven must be used in order to keep the pile settlement
piles of same diameter and length as desigr piles. lower or equal to 10 mm.
Piles were loaded beyond a settlement of O.lD = Conclusion : according to ULS + SLS checks,
40mm to give the limit load. 10 piles are needed, whatever the Design Ap-
o Characteristic values of actions proach used for ULS requirements.
- Permanent vertical load Gr = 20,000kN
- Variable vertical load Q = 5,000kN
o Require number of piles needed to satisfy both 5 CONCLUSION
ULS and SLS
Eurocode 7 is devoted to the geotechnical prob-
lems linked to the interaction of structures with
ULS in persistent and transient situations the grounds.
Tables 4 and 5 are used. Its provisions and requirements for pile founda-
Design Approach L tions follow, in general, traditional practice, but
Combination 2 is usually leading the geotech- also add a number of innovative features:
nical design. - introduction of correlation factors for deter-
The design load is : mining the resistance of piles, to take into account
F6 = ]6.G1+ ïo.Q the number of load tests or of ground test profiles;
=1.0x20+1.3x5=26.5MN - prediction of the movements of foundations,
The design resistance for one pile is : in particular for checking the serviceability of
Ra = Rr I yr= 4.08 I 1.3 = 3.14 MN. structures.
Thus, according to DAl-Comb 2, 26.513.14 = Eurocode 7 is meant to be a tool not only to
9 piles are needed (neglecting group effects). help European geotechnical engineers speak the
Combination 1: same technical language, but also a necessary tool
The design load is : for the dialogue between geotechnical engineers
F6=|c.Gr+ïq.Q= and structural engineers.
1.35x20+1.5x5=34.5MN It is felt that Eurocode 7 will promote research,
The design resistance for one pile is :
in particular in the field of soil-structure interac-
Ra = Rt l^[r= q.OBl 1.0 = 4.08 tions.
One of the great challenges of contemporary
geotechnical engineering is precisely the devel-

585
 Proceedings XIII Danube-European Conference on Geotechnical Enginnering, Ljubljana, 29-31 May 2006,
Slovenian Geotechnical Society, pp. 577-586.

opment of rational methods for predicting the

movements of foundations, in order to design safe
and more economical structures.

REFERENCES

CEN (2002). Eurocode: Basis of structural de-

srgn. European standard, EN 1990 : 2002. Euro-
pean Committee for Standardization: Brussels.
CEN (2004) Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design -
Part l: General rzles, EN 1997-l:2004 (E), (F)
and (G), November 20M, European Committee
for Standardization : Brussels.
CEN (2005a) Eurocode 7: Geotechnical de-
sign - Part 2: Ground investigation and testing.
Final draft, 3'd editing stage 49, doc. Nr
CEN/TC 250/SC 7/I{ 400, European Committee
for Standardization: Brussels.
CEN (2005b). Geotechnical investigation and
testing -Testing of geotechnical structures- Partl:
Pile load test by static axially loaded compres-
sion, DrafÍ prEN ISO 22477-1, European Com-
mittee for Standardization: Brussels.
Frank R., Bauduin C., Driscoll R., Kavvadas
M., Krebs Ovesen N., Orr T. , Schuppener B.
(2004). Designers' guide to EN 1997-l Eurocode
7: Geotechnical design - General rales, Thomas
Telford, London, 216 pages.
Frank R. (2005) Evaluation of Eurocode 7 -
Two pile foundation design examples. Proc. In-
ternational Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode
7, ISSMGE/ERTC 10 & TC 23 and GeoTech-
Net/WP 2, Ed. T. Orr, Dept Civil, Structural and
Environmental Engng, Trinity College Dublin,
1t7-125.
ISSMFE (1985) Axial Pile Loading Test, Sug-
gested Method. Subcommittee on Field and Labo-
ratory Testing, ASTM Journal, June.
On T. (2005) Design Examples for the Euro-
code 7 Workshop. Proc. Intentational Workshop
on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, ISS-
MGE/ERTC 10& TC 23 and GeoTechNetly,lP2,
Ed. T. Orr, Dept Civil, Structural and Environ-
mental Engng, Trinity College Dublin, 67-74.

586
Evaluation of Eurocode 7 - Two pile foundation
design examples

R. Frank
CERMES (ENPC-LCPC), Paris, France

ABSTRACT
Two example of design of piles under compressive loadings are examined : one from ground
test results and one from pile static load test results. The solutions which are compared follow
Eurocode 7 -Part 1 (EN 1997-1,2004), as well as anumber of National codes. The reasons
for discrepancy or for consistency are analysed.

1 EXAMPLES

At the occasion of the workshop for the evaluation of Eurocode 7, held in Dublin on
31" March and 1" April 2005, held jointly by ERTC l0 of ISSMGE and by lVorkPackage 2
of the GeoTechNet network (funded by EC), 10 design examples have been prepared by Orr
(2004). Examples 3 and 4 deal with the design of pile foundations under compressive
loadings from ground test results (Example 3) and from pile static load tests results (Example
4). They are the subject of the present report.

l.l Pile designfrom ground test results (Exnmple 3)

The problem to be solved, as sent to the participants, is given in Figure l.
Pile Foundation designed from soil parameter values
Gt = 1200kN
Q=200kN o Design situation
- Bored pile for a building, 600mm diameter
- Groundwater level at depth of 2m below the ground
surface

' Soil conditions

- Sand: c'k = 0, 0'r = 35o, T= 2lkN/m3
SPTN=25

' actions
- Characteristic permanent load G1 = 1200kN
L=? - Characteristic variable load Q = 200kN
- rWeight density of concrete = 24kN/m3
Sand Require
'
0't = 35o - Pile length, L
Y= 21kN/m3

example of pile desigrr from ground test results (Example 3 of ERTCI0-WP2

Workshop)

R. Frank. Evaluation of Eurocode 7 - Two pile foundation design examples

ERTCI| and WP2-GeoTechnet Workshop, Dublin, 3l't March & I't April 2005
1.2 Pile designfrom static load test results (Example 4)
The problem to be solved, as sent to the participants, is given in Figure 2.

Pile Foundation designed from pile load

Pile Load (MN) tests
Pile Load Test Results
2345
Load Settlement Settlement
-- _- -_:, Load Test 1
(MI.t) Pile l(mm)
'-\ Pile 2 (mm)

E
000
E40 0.5 2.1 t.2
.oad T st2 1.0 3.6 2.1
tr 1.5 5.0 2.9
o60 \ 2.0 6.2 4.1
E 3.0 10.0 7.0
o \
=80 4.0 18.0 t4.0
o
a 5.0 40.0 26.0
100 5.6 63.0 40.0
6.0 100.0 56.0
120
6.4 80.0

o Design Situation
- Pile foundation, driven piles, pile diameter D = 0.4m and length = l5m. The building supported
by the piles does not have the capacity to fransfer the load from weak to strong piles. The
allowable pile settlement is 1Omm
r Pile Resistance
- 2 static pile load test results provided on driven piles of same diameter and length as design
piles. Piles were loaded beyond a settlement of 0,lD = 40mm to give the limit load.
o Characteristic values ofactions
- Permanent vertical load Gr = 20,000kN
- Variable vertical load Q = 5,000kN
. Require number of piles needed to satisfy both ULS and SLS

Figure 2. Data for example of pile design from static load test results (Example 4 of ERTCIO-WP2
Workshop)

2 EUROCODEREQUIREMENTS

The general requirements for ultimate limit states applicable to pile foundations (compressive
or tensile resistance) are given in clauses 2.4.7.3.4.2(2)P for Design Approach l,
2.4.7.3.4.3(l)P for DA 2 and2.4.7.3.4.4(l)P for DA 3.
The corresponding recommended values of the partial factors y are given in Table A.3 for
the actions, Table A.4 for the ground parameters and Tables A.6 through A.8 for the
resistances for piles.
Clause 7.6.2.2 applies to the'Ultimnte compressive resistance from static load tests'.
Clause 7 .6.2.3 applies to the'Ultimnte compressive resistance from ground test results', in
particular, clause 7.6.2.3(5)P and Equation 7.8 for the 'model pile' method, and clause
7.6.2.3(8) for the 'altemative' method (see Frank et a1.,2004).
Clause 7.6.4 deals with the vertical displacements of pile foundation (Serviceability of
supported structures).

2
R. Frank. Evaluation of Eurocode 7 - Two pile foundation design examples
ERTC|} and WP2-GeoTechnet Workshop, Dublin, 31't March & l't April 2005
3 ANALYSIS OFTI{E SOLUTIONS

3.1 Example of pile designfrom ground test results

For the design example of Figure 1, ten contributions were received from Europe (Denmark,
France, Germany (x2), Ireland, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Switzerland). Four
contributions were received from Japan, among which one uses Eurocode 7.
The solutions were derived using the following design approaches :
- Eurocode 7-Part 1 together with its recommended values (Annex A) or national
application of Eurocode 7 ;
- other National standards usually based on limit state design (LSD);
- traditional.
For three cases using Eurocode 7, two solutions were given by the same author, either
because two calculation models were used (design from N values and from Q'r values), or
because the 'alternative' method of Eurocode 7 was used with and without recourse to a
model factor (the latter are the reporter's solutions given in the Appendix to this report).
Thus, 14 different (sets o0 solutions are available for comparison.

3.1.1 Ultimate limit states (in permanent and transient situations)

Eleven solutions were received using Eurocode 7 - Part 1 (EN 1997-1,2004) with its
recommended values or values used at national level. The range of the results is from
L = 10.0 m to L = 42.8m (with 8 solutions between 10 m and 20 m). The Design Approach
used (DAl, DA2 or DA3) does not play any significant role (see below).
It is to be stressed that the calculation models used are mainly responsible for this very
large range of values obtained. This can be illustrated by comparing the calculated values of
base resistance Qu..ut and of shaft friction gs,cat, oÍl the one hand, and the correlation factors (
and/or partial factors y subsequently applied to the calculated values, on the other hand.
The following calculation models have been used
- Tomlinson (1995) and Berezantzev et al. (1961) rules from Q'1 values
- Fleming et al. (1992) for shaft friction from base resistance e5.sar and of shaft friction
gs,cd, Ítod Japanese experience for base resistance from N (SPT)
- Romanian code STAS 256113-90 from Q'l values
- Danish standards DS409/DS415
- Meyerhof (1976) rules with N (SPT) (2x)
- correlation between N (SPT) and q" (CPT) and then DIN 1054 rules (x2)
- correlation between N (SPT) and p1 @MT) and then French Fascicule 62-V'rules (see
Frank, 1999) (x3)
(Other solutions using a National standard including also the Tomlinson-BerezaÍttzev
model, the Russian SNIP 2.02.03-85 model and the Polish standard model).
The ranges of calculated values, when stated, are the following :
- base resistance Qu,."r : from 1,32 MPa to 5 MPa
- shaft friction qs,car : from 25 kPa to 100 kPa when using a correlation with N (SPT),
q. (SPT) or p1 (PMT); F, = K,tanö vary from 0.20 to 0.49 when using Q'1 values (together with
e, = 9o',). These ranges are indeed very large.
To derive the design values of base and shaft resistances, the solutions usually apply one
or several of the following factors :
- correlation factor § = 1.4 (when assuming one soil profile, i.e. n = l, and using equation
(7.8)ofEN 1997-1)
- partial factors'b and T, (see equation (7.7) in EN 1997-l)
- model factor yp6
It is interesting to check for each solution, when feasible, the ratio of R/&a which is a
'summary' (composition) of the various factors applied on the calculated resistance. The
comparison is interesting, because the factors on the actions are similar for all the solutions
and design approaches (i.e.ïc = 1.35 and ya- 1.5, which leads to a mean load factor
.th 1.37) except for DAl-Combination 2 (for which the partial factors on the actions are, in
= ,
principle, near 1.0). The ratio R/&"r varies from to 1.1 to 1.54, which is a relatively naÍïow
range. No link between large values of the y and ( factors and low (conservative) values of
3
R. Frank. Evaluation of Eurocode 7 - Two pile foundation design examples
ERTC|| andWP2-GeoTechnet tilorkshop, Dublin, 3l't March & I't April 2005
calculated resistance, or vice versa, seems to exist... The minimum value of Ro/R""r (l.l) is
obtained, for instance,forDAZ (with yp6 = 1.0 and 6= 1.0); the maximum value (1.54) is
obtained for DA2 and using E = l.q (as if the soil test results were obtained from one soil
profile).
In some cases, for Eurocode 7 -Part 1, two or three of the design approaches have been
compared (i.e. DA L,DAZ, and DA3). The following results are obtained :
-DAZ appears to be slightly more conservative than DA1 (but never more than 8 7o),
except in one case ;
- for DAl, combination 1 is more conservative than combination 2 and rules the design
(this comes directly from the fact that the overall partial factor on the actions for combination
I is greater than the partial factor on the resistance for combination 2) ;
- the most conservative approach is DA3 (note that there are only 2 answers).
When other national LSD standards have been used, the range is from L = 10.2 m to
17.6 m (5 solutions from Europe and 3 from Japan). Only in 3 cases, it has been compared to
a Eurocode 7 design and no real trend appearc.
Finally, only one solution with the traditional design (i.e. using a global factor of safety)
has been proposed. The value obtained is L = 14.8 m, which is near the LSD solutions given
in the same contribution.

3.1.2 Serviceability limit states

The check of serviceability limit states (SLS) was not explicitly asked for and no allowable
settlement had been indicated in the example.
Nevertheless, the reporter indicated the solution according to the French code 'Fascicule
62-V', which requires to check SLS by means of a bearing capacity calculation, even if no
settlement criteria are specified (see Appendix).

3.2 Pile designfrom static lood test results

For the design example of Figure 2, eleven contributions were received from Europe
(Denmark, France, Germany (x2), Ireland (x2), Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and
Switzerland). Five contributions were received from Japan, among which one uses
Eurocode 7.
The solutions were derived using the following design approaches :
- Eurocode 7-Part I together with its recommended values (Annex A for ULS) or
national application of Eurocode 7 (10 solutions);
- other National standards, usually based on LSD (10 solutions).
3.2.1 Ultimate limit states (in permnnent and transient situations)
The application of Eurocode 7 -PaÍt 1 (EN 1997-1,2004) with its recommended values
(Annex A) or values used at national level, leads to :
- 9 piles for DAl for all solutions ;
- 9 or l0 piles for DA2 (always 10 piles when the recommended values are used).
Note that DA3 is not applicable (the partial factors being applied to the ground strength
parameters, and not to the total, base or shaft resistance provided for by pile load tests).
The very satisfactory consistency of these results comes from the fact that Eurocode 7 -
Part I gives quite precise rules for deriving the characteristic resistance &,r from measured
resistances &,. in pile static load tests (equation 7.2 together with recommended values of
Table 4.9). For 2 pile static load tests (n =2),the correlation factors for deriving R",r from
measured R",. are 6r = 1.3 (on &,*oouJ and §2 = 1.2 (on &,",.riJ. These values seem to have
been used in most contributions. The following assumptions are also mentioned in the
contributions :
- R",* values are read on the load-settlement curves for settlement s = 40 mm ;
- no group effect is taken into account.
The reporter's solution given in the Appendix to this report is an example of application of
Eurocode 7 -PaÍt I following these lines.
4
R. Frank. Evaluation of Eurocode 7 - Two pile foundation design examples
ERTCL| and WP2-GeoTechnet Workshop, Dublin, 3l't March & l't April 2005
 On the other hand, the following national codes have been used :
- Danish standard DS415
- French code'Fascicule 62-V'
- Russian SNIP 2.02.03-85
- Polish standard
- Romanian code STAS 256113-90
- Swisscode SC7
- RLSDB, SHB4, RSDS and TSPH Japanese codes
The number required is also 9 or l0 piles for four of the six solutions from Europe. For the
Japanese codes, the number is between 11 and 15 piles.

3.2.2 Serviceability limit states

Most of the solutions deal explicitly with the SLS checks. For the l0 mm allowable pile
settlement criterion, the number of piles needed is also found equal to 9 or 10.
When Eurocode 7 - Pafi. I is used here again the solutions are quite consistent one with
each other :
- the serviceability load is Gr+ Qt = 25 MN;
- the two load-settlement curves are analysed to check that the settlement for the load carried
per pile is lower than l0 mm ;
- the group effect is ignored, except in one solution (which leads to a larger number of piles) ;
- usually, the two load-settlement curves are 'combined' in the same manner as for the limit
loads for ULS, in order to obtain a characteristic load for the SLS criterion (s < 10 mm).
Only four solutions from Europe mention the use of a National code for checking SLS.
The results are also 9 or l0 piles. The four Japanese codes have specific provisions for SLS
checks, which lead to the same number or a slightly greater number of piles than for ULS
checks.

4 CONCLUSION

The solutions given for two pile design examples have been examined. The solutions come
from 9 European countries and from Japan. Eurocode 7 -Part I (EN 1997-1,2004) is used, as
well as a number of National codes.
For the ULS design example from ground test results the range of the results is very large.
The discrepancy is attributed to the models used for calculating the base and shaft resistances
from the test results, rather than to the ULS verification format and values of partial factors
used.
In the case of the design from pile static load test results, the solutions are remarkably
consistent both for ULS and SLS verifications. This is attributed to the precise guidelines
given by Eurocode 7 - Part 1 for ULS and to the straightforward analysis of the load-
settlement curves for SLS.

5 REFERENCES

Berezantzev V.G., Khristoforov, V.S. & Golubkov V.N. (1961). "Load-bearing capacity and
deformation of piled foundation", Proc. 5'h Int Conf Soil Mechanics and Found Engng, Paris, vol. 2,
I l-15.
EN 1997- lQCf,q. EurocodeT: Geotechnicaldesign- Part I : General rules, EN 1997-l:2004(B),
European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, November, 168 p.
Fleming, W.G.K, Weltman, A..J., Randolph, M.F. & Elson, W.K. (1992). Piling Engineering. Surrey
University Press, [.ondon.
Frank, Roger (1999). Calcul des fondations superficielles et profondes, Presses de l'Écote Nationale
des Ponts et Chaussées, 141 p.
Franlq R., Bauduin, C., Driscoll, R., Kavvadas, M., Krebs Ovesen, N., Orr, T., Schuppener, B. (2004).
Designer's guide to EN 1997-1 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design - General rules,Thomas Telford,
London,216p.
5
R. Frank. Evaluation of Eurocode 7 - Two pile foundation design examples
ERTC|} and WP2-GeoTechnet Workshop, Dublin, 31't March & I't April 2005
Meyerhof G.G.(1976). "Bearing capacity and settlement of pile foundations", J Geot Engng Div, Am.
Soc. Civil Engrs, 102, No. GT3, March.
Orr, T. (2004). Design Examples for Eurocode 7 Workshop at Trinity College on 3I March and I April
2005, ISSMGE/ERTCI0 and GeoTechNet/WP2 document 2311212004,7 p.
Tomlinson M.J. (1995). Foundation design and construction, 6m ed., l.ongman, Harlow.

6 APPENDIX : SOLUTIONS OF THE REPORTER

Pile Foundation designed from soil parameter values

I. Introductian : calculation of compressive resistunce trom soil parameter values

The compressive resistance is determined below from the pressuremeter (Plvff) rules used in France,
after using a correlation between the PMT limit pressure p1 and SPT blow count N, i.e. :
for sands Pr = N/20 (in MPa), thus for N = 25, pr = 1.25 MPa
a) The unit base resistance is
Qu = h pt(atz= L), where lg is taken equal to 1.1 (bored pile in medium dense sand B), thus:
9u = 1.lxl.25 = 1.37 MPa
The total base resistance is :
Rb,",r = n@'z/a)qp = 3'l4x(0.3614)x1.37 = 387 kN
b) The unit shaftfriction at all depths z is :
<1, = 70 kPa

(line Q2 for bored piles under bentonite mud or temporary casing, in medium dense sand B)
The total shaft friction is (B = 0.6 m is the pile diameter) :
&.ca = ne iq"dz = 1.885x70 L = l32L (in kN and m)
c) The total compressive resistance is : R","a = Ru,"a * R,,"ul = 387 + l32L (in kN and m)

II. Eurocode 7
Eurocode 7 -Part I (EN 1997-1, 20M) requires checking ultimate and serviceability limit states. In this
example, as no limitation is set on the settlement of the pile, nor any accidental action is to be taken
into account, the following is resfficted to ULS for persistent and transient design situations.

Design Approaches I and 2 for ULS in persistent and transient design siÍua:tions
In the case of ultimate limit states (ULS) for persistent and transient design situations, Design
Approaches I or 2 may be used. Design Approach 3 is not relevant to semi-empirical models like the
PMT rules, as it means factoring 'at the source' the parameters of shearing resistance by T, > 1.0 (and
not the base and shaft resistances themselves, i.e. }t = 1.0 and % = 1.0); these models use, on the
conEary, Tr,a = 1.0, together withn6 à1.0 and % Z 1.0).
The relevant recommended values are given in Tables A.3, A.4 and,A.7 of Annex A in EN 1997-1.
For Design Approaches I and 2, the 'alternative' procedure of clause 7.6.2.3(8) in EN 1997- t has
to be used, because we only have the soil parameter values, with no indication of the number of soil
profiles (the 'model pile' procedure of clause 7.6.2.3(5) is not applicable).
In the following two different assumptions will be made:
A. g. and Qu calculated above can be considered to be characteristic values, because they are
derived from a cautious estimate of N (and p) and some conservatism has been input in the
calculation rules. Therefore, it is believed that the recommended values of AnnexA of EN
1997-l ue applicable, without recourse to a resistance model factor larger than 1.0, see Note
below clause 7.6.2.3(8) in EN 1997-1;
B. g. and gu calculated above cannot be considered to be characteristic values, because they are
derived from N (and pJ values which are not meant to be cautious and no real conservatism
has been input in the calculation rules . Therefore, it is believed that the recommended values
of. Annex A of EN 1997-1 are applicable, but with recourse to a resistance model factor larger
than 1.0 (see Note below clause 7.6.2.3(8) in EN 1997-1): for the purpose of this example the
value )ft6 = 1.25 is selected.
Thus, for the purpose of using EN 1997- I, the two following sets of calculations will be
performed (kN and m are used):
Assumption A.&,r = &,ca = R61 + R,1 = 387 + 132L, ard
Assumption B. &3 = &,"a/.)ha = Ru,r * R'1 = (387 +132 L)l 1.25 = 309.6 + 105.6 L

6
R. Frank. Evaluation of Eurocode 7 - Two pile foundation design examples
ERTCI| andWP2-GeoTechnet Workshop, Dublin, 3l't March & I't April 2005
 AiR-r=
Design Approach 1
Combination l:
According to clause 2.4.7.3.4.2 (2) P, sets A1, Ml and Rl of Tables A.3, A.4 andA.7 are used.
The design load is :
F",a = Tc.Gt + ïo. Q = 1.35 x 1200 + 1.5 x 200 = 1920 kN
The desigrr resistance ofthe pile is :
&,a = Ru,r./"tb + Rg/y, =3871L.25 + l32uLo = 309.6 + l32L
The condition F",a S R",a leads to L> 12.2 m.
Combination 2:
Sets A2, Ml and R4 are used.
The design load is :
F",a = Yc.Gr + fq.1,5 Q = 1.0 x 1200 + 1.3 x 200 = 1460 kN
The design resistance of the pile is :
&,0 = Ru} / Yr + R.,1 / 1, = 387 ll.6 + 132 U1.3 = 241.9 + 101.5 L
The condition F..0 S &.a leads to L > 12.0 m.
In conclusion, for Design Approach l, the result irE=lzzE (the larger of the two lengths, given
by Combination 1).
Design Approach 2
Only one combination is relevant, with sets Al, Ml andR2 (seeclause 2.4.7.3.4.3 (1) P andTables
A.3, A.4 and A.D.
The design load is :
F",a = ïc.Gr + yq. 1,5 Qr = 1.35 x 1200 + 1..5 x 200 = 1920 kN
The design resistance of the pile is :
&l = Ru,r./Tb + Rg/y. =38711.1+ l32ul.l = 351.8 + l20L
TheconàitionF*a sR",6 leads tom.
Design Approach 3 : not relevant to PMT model

ionB:R.u=
Design Approach I
Combination l:
According to clause 2.4.7.3.4.2 (2) P, sets A1, M1 and Rl of Tables A.3, A.4 and, A.7 are nsed,.
The design load is :
Fqa = Yc.Gr + Yo. Q = 1.35 x 1200 + 1.5 x 200 = 1920 kN
The design resistance of the pile is :
&,a = Ru,r/'Ír + R,,1/7. =309.611.25 + 105.6 U1.0 = 247.7 + 105.6 L
The condition 4,a 5 &,a leads to L > 15.8 m.
Combination 2:
Sets 42, Ml and R4 are used.
The design load is :
F.,a = ïc.Gr + |q. 1,5 Qr = 1.0 x 1200 + 1.3 x 200 = 1460 kN
The design resistance of the pile is :
&,0 = Ru,r. / Yr + R.s / y, = 309.611.6 + 105.6 Ul.3 = 193.5 + 8L.2 L
The condition F",a S &,a leads to L > 15.6 m.
In conclusion, for Design Approach l, the result ir ETíIE (the larger of the two lengths, given
by Combination 1).
Design Approach 2
Only one combination is relevant, with sets Al, Ml and R2 (see clause 2.4.7.j.4.3 (l) P and,Tables
A.3, 4.4 and 4.7).
The design load is :
F.,a = ïc.Gr + yq.1,5 Q = 1.35 x 1200 + 1.5 x 200 = 1920 ldtl
The desigr resistance of the pile is :
&.0 = Ru* / ïï + &* / ï. = 309.611.1 + 105.6 U1.1 = 28 1.5 + 96.0 L
The conàition F*a s &,a leads to Erl rn.
Design Approach 3 : not relevant to PMT model

Conclusion for Assumptions A and B : when using Eurocode 7- I (EN 1997 -l) for ULS in
persistent or transient design situations, Design Approach 2 is the most conservative, for this example
(with dominant shaft friction), as it leads respectively to L > 13.l m (assumption A) and to L > 17.1 m
7
R. Frank. Evaluation of Eurocode 7 - Two pile foundation design examples
ERTC|| and WP2-GeoTechnet Workshop, Dublin, 3l't March & I't April 2005
(assumption B). Wittr regard to Desigr Approach l, combination 1 is more conservative than
combination 2.

III. Present French practice

In present French practice both ULS and SLS are derived from a condition on the bearing capacity of
the pile, if no limit on the settlements of the sfiucture is specified.

ULS in persistent and transient design situations

Present French practice is very near DA-2 of EN 1997 -1, with the 'altemative' method of clause
7.6.2.3(8) in EN 1997-1, and uses a direct determination of q,1 and q51 from soil test result (like
Assumption A above).
&* = &,.a = Ru,t r R,,t = 387 + l32L
The load factors are the same as Set L of Table A.3 (in Annex A of EN 1997- 1). The resistance
factor for ULS in persistent or hansient design situations is applied on the total resistance (R6s + R,j)
and its value is 1, = 1.49.
The desigr load is :
F",a =Yc.Gr +7q.[,5 Qr= 1.35x 1200 + 1.5 x 200 = 1920 kN
The desiga resistance of the pile is :
&,a = R",r. I \= (387 + 132 L)l 1.4 = 276.4 + 94.3 L
The conàition F",a < R",a leads to EEtz4il.
The result is very near the results for DA-2 and assumption B with EN 1997-1. This is not
surprising since the value of the factor applied to the calculated resistance is 1 .4 in French practice and
is 1 .25 x l.l = 1.37 5 for DA-2-Assumption B (including the value of the model factor chosen equal to
L25). The high value of the resistance factor (L4) in French practice assumes that reasonably 'true'
values of q6,"r1and q,"u1 are used as characteristic values.

SLS- Serviceability Limit StaÍes

The SLS load is determined tfuough the creep load Q" which is linked to the bearing resistance through
the following correlation for bored piles:
Q. = 0.5 x R6,"4 * 0.7 R,,"01 = 193 + 92.4L
The condition is F.6 (SLS) S Qd (SLS) = Q"/Ysm with y56 = I .l for characteristic (rare)
combinations and 1.4 for quasi-permanent combinations.
Characteristic combinations
F".a(rare) = Gr + Qr = 1200 + 200 = 1400 kN
Qd(SLS) = l93ll.l +92.4U1.1= 175.4 + 84 L
The condition F",a < Qa yields L > 14.6 m.
Quasi-permanent combinations
F.,6(rare) = Gr = 1200 kN
Qd(SLS) = l93ll.4 + 92.4 Ul.4 = 137.9 + 66.0 L
The condition F",a S Qa yields L > 16.1 m.

Conclusion
Both ULS and SLS checks are fulfilled witfr E z rZ+ il.

Pile Foundation designed from pile load tests

I. Using EN 1997-1 and recotnmended values in Annex A

Determination of characteristic compressive resistance :
The measured ultimate compressive resistances are (from readings at settlement s = O.lD = 40 mm) :

&,mr = 5'0 MN, and

&,.2 = 5.6 MN
Clause 7.6.2.2(8)P is applied. Equation (7.2) reads :
(a,,),,^
flc;k
R-,. _r,n{(4,.)..."
:,rrtttl .
, I
6, €, J
with (R",J*- = 5.3 MN and (R.,J.,n = 5.0 MN.
FromTable A.9, for n =2 pile load tests i 6 = 1.30 and $= 1.20 ; thus,

8
R. Frank. Evaluation of Eurocode 7 - Two pile foundation design examples
ERTCI| and WP2-GeoTechnet Workshop, Dublin, 3l't March & I't April 2005
R";x =*,.{# #}= Min {+.08; 4.17}=4.08 MN
ULS in persistent and fransient situations - Design Approach I
Combination 2 is usually leading the geotechnical design. Sets A2, Ml and R4 are used (clause
2.4.7.3.4.2 (2) P and,Tables A,3, A.4 urd A.6).
The design load is :
Fqa = ïc.Gr + Ïq.1,5 Qr = 1.0 x 20 + 1.3 x 5 = 26.5 MN
The design resistance for one pile is :
R"3 = &,r/Tt=4.08 /1.3 = 3.14 MN.
Thus, according to DAI-Comb2, 26.513.14 = 9 piles are needed.
Combination 1: Sets A1, M1 and Rl are used. The desigt load is :
F.,a = |5.G1 + ïo. Q = 1.35 x 2O + 1.5 x 5 = 34.5 MN
The design resistance for one pile is :
&,a = &,r / I = 4.081 1.0 = 4.08
According to DAl-Comb 1,34.514.08 = 9 piles are also needed.
ULS in persistent and hansient situations - Design Approach 2
Only one combination is relevant, with sets Al, Ml and R2 (see clause 2.4.7.3.4.3 (l) P andTables
A.3,A.4 mdA.6).
The design load is :

F",a = ïc.Gr + 7q.1,5 Qr = 1.35 x 20 + 1.5 x 5 = 34.5 MN

The design resistance for one pile is :
&,a = &,r / ït = 4.081 1.1 = 3.71 MN
The number of piles is 34.513.7 1 = 10 piles.
SLS - Serviceability check
The characteristic load Gr + Qr = 25 MN is relevant for the characteristic combination, which is the
most severe one (used for irreversible limit states, see EN 1990).
When examining the two measured load-settlement curves, the settlement is 10 mm for measured
loads F. equal to 3.0 MN and 3.5 MN (approximately), respectively. The characteristic value for
l0 mm can be assessed in the same manner as the characteristic bearing resistance, i.e. F^p = 2.5 MN
approximately. Hence, l0 piles must be used in order to keep the pile settlement lower or equal to
l0mm.

Conclusion
According to ULS + SLS : 10 piles are needed, whatever the Design Approach used for ULS
requirements.

II. Present French practice

ULS in persistent and transient situations
For ULS under persistent and hansient combinations, the calculations are identical to DA2, except for
the values of ('and y1 .
E'
The characteristic value is R*1 = &,",r,, (&,,,r,1&,*) ', with ('= 0.55 for two pile load tests.
Hence, &,r. = 5.0 (5.0/5.6)015 = 4.70 MN
The design value is :
&,a = &* /Yt with 1, = 1.4 for persistent and ffansient combinations. Thus,
\l= 4.7011.4 = 3'36 MN
On the other hand, F",a = |5.G1 + |q.1,5 Q = 1.35 x 20 + 1.5 x 5 = 34.5 MN
Thus l0 piles are needed.
SLS - Serviceability check
In present French practice, SLS are checked by comparing the creep load Q" to the applied load, if there
is no limiting value for the vertical displacement of the structure (i.e. no displacement calculation is
explicitly required).
For driven piles Q. = Ro/l.5, i.e. Q" = &l/1.5. Thus, Q. = 4.7011.5 = 3.13 MN. The applied load
per pile is Gp + Qr = 25 MN/10 = 2.5 MN . It can be concluded that SLS requirements are satisfied.

Conclusion : According to ULS + SLS : l0 piles are needed. This result is the same as for EN 1997-1.

9
R. Frank. Evaluation of Eurocode 7 - Two pile foundation design examples
ERTC|| and WP2-GeoTechnet Workshop, Dublin, 3l't March & l$ April 2005