You are on page 1of 16

1.

1 I nt e r nat i onal a g r e e me nt s
Ulrich Smol t czyk and Christophe Baudui n
1 Classification of geotechnical literature
The Int ernat i onal Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundat i on Engi neer i ng (ISSMFE) have
since 1981 used a classification scheme of geotechnical literature (IGC) as in Table 1.
There has also been a j oi nt agreement with the Swedish Geot echni cal Inst i t ut e (SGI)
since 1998 which enabl es access to their Informat i on Ret ri eval System for Geot echni cal
Li t erat ure (IRS-Geo) available worldwide via the Int ernet . Thei r cont i nuousl y updat ed
dat abase provides about 54,000 l i t erat ure references from 1976 onwards. Each reference
is described by I GC key words and classification codes (for combi ni ng key words, use
and, or and not). Subscription is available via the SGI website at http://www.swedgeo.se/
index-e.html. The references are 69 % English, 16 % Swedish, 6 % Ger man, 4 % French
and 5 % with ot her tongues.
T a b l e 1. International geotechnical classification system, published in March 1981
A G e n e r a l B 8
A 1 Geotechnical Engineering-Scope
A 2 Historical Aspects B 9
A 3 Information Services, and Literature
Classification B 10
A 4 Textbooks, Handbooks, and Periodicals B 11
A 5 Terminology
A 6 Companies, Institutes, and Laboratories B 12
A 7 Societies, Meetings, and International
Cooporation
A 8 Professional Ethics, Legal Require-
ments, Codes of Practice, and Standard-
ization
A 9 Education
A 10 Research Activities
B G e o l o g i c a l a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l A s p e c t s
(Basic Geology, see Principal Group T)
B 0 General
B 1 Formation of Soil and Rocks
B 2 Hydrogeological Aspects
B 3 Mass Movements and Land Subsidence
B 4 Seismic Activity and Crustal Move-
ments
B 5 Climatic Conditions
B 6 Submarine Geological Aspects
B 7 -
Extraterrestrial Soil and Rock Condi-
tions
Geomorphologic Aspects and Terrain
Classification
Mineralogical Aspects
Description of Regional Soil and Rock
Conditions
Other Environmental Aspects
C S i t e I n v e s t i g a t i o n s
Equipment and Techniques of Exploration,
Prospection, Sampling, and Field Testing of Soils
and Rocks (excl. determination of engineering
properties), Presentation of Result
C 0 General
C 1 Airphoto Surveys and Remote Sensing
C 2 Geophysical Surveys
C 3 Probings (Soundings)
C 4 Visual Exploration Techniques
C 5 Boring Techniques and Equipment
(cf. C 10)
C 6 Sampling
C 7 Measurement of Field Conditions
(incl. Post-Construction Monitoring)
C 8 Field Testing (excl. tests for engineering
properties, see Groups D and F)
C 9 Presentation of Results, Data Base
C 10 Underwater Site Investigations
Ul r i ch Smol t czyk and Chr i s t ophe Baudui n
D Soil Properties: Laboratory and ln-Situ
Determinations
(incl. Rockfill, Art i fi ci al Soils, Wast e Mat er i al s)
Concept s, Theori es, Me t hods of Det er mi nat i on,
Equi pment , and Resul t s
D 0 Ge ne r a l
D 1 Cl assi fi cat i on and Descr i pt i on of Soils
D 2 Physi co- Chemi cal Pr oper t i es
D 3 Composi t i on, St ruct ure, Densi t y, and
Wat er Cont ent s
D 4 Hydr aul i c Pr oper t i es
D 5 Compr essi bi l i t y and Swelling
D 6 Shear - Def or mat i on and St r engt h
Pr oper t i es
D 7 Dynami c Pr oper t i es
D 8 Ther mal Pr oper t i es
D 9 Compact i bi l i t y
D 10 Pr oper t i es of Soi l - Addi t i ve Mi xt ur es
E Analysis of Soil-Engineering Problems
Theor et i cal , Empi r i cal , and Pract i cal Met hods of
Anal ysi s
E 0 Ge ne r a l
E 1 St ress Anal ysi s
E 2 De f or ma t i on and Set t l ement Pr obl ems
E 3 Bear i ng Capaci t y of Shal l ow Foun-
dat i ons
E 4 Bear i ng Capaci t y of Piles and ot he r
De e p Foundat i ons, Anchor s
E 5 Ea r t h Pr essur e Pr obl ems
E 6 St abi l i t y of Sl opes and Excavat i ons
E 7 Seepage and ot he r Hydr aul i c Pr obl ems
E 8 Dynami c Pr obl ems
E 9 Frost Act i on and Heat - Tr ans f er
Pr obl ems
E 10 Anal ysi s of Layer ed Syst ems and Pave-
ment s Behavi our
E 11 Soi l -Vehi cl e and Soil-Tool I nt er act i on
E 12 Soi l -St ruct ures I nt er act i on
E 13 Mat hemat i cal Met hods, Comput e r
Anal ysi s
E 14 Model Test Anal ysi s
F Rock Properties: Laboratory and In-Situ
Determinations
Concept s, Theori es, Met hods of Det er mi nat i on,
Equi pment , and Resul t s
F 0 Gener al
F 1 Cl assi fi cat i on and Descr i pt i on of Rocks
and Rock Masses
F 2 Physi co- Chemi cal Pr oper t i es
F 3 Composi t i on, Density, and St r uct ur al
Feat ur es
F 4 Hydr aul i c Pr oper t i es
F 5 Compressi bi l i t y and Swelling
F 6 Shear - Def or mat i on and St r engt h
Pr oper t i es
F 7 Dynami c Pr oper t i es
F 8 Ther mal Pr oper t i es
G Analysis of Rock-Engineering Problems
Theor et i cal , Empi ri cal , and Pract i cal Met hods of
Anal ysi s
G 0 Gener al
G 1 Stress Anal ysi s
G 2 Def or mat i on and Di s pl acement
Pr obl ems
G 3 Bear i ng Capaci t y of Rock Masses
G 4 -
G 5 Rock Pr essur e on Tunnel s and Under -
gr ound Openi ngs
G 6 St abi l i t y of Rock Sl opes and Ope n
Excavat i ons
G 7 Seepage and ot her Hydr aul i c Pr obl ems
G 8 Dynami c Pr obl ems
G 9 Frost Act i on and Heat - Tr ansf er
Pr obl ems
G 10 -
G 11 -
G 12 Rock- St r uct ur e- I nt er act i on
G 13 Mat hemat i cal Met hods, Comput e r
Anal ysi s
G 14 Model Test Anal ysi s
H Design, Construction, and Behaviour
of Engineering Works
Descr i pt i on and Case Recor ds of Engi neer i ng
Wor ks
H 0
H 1
H 2
H 3
H 4
H 5
H 6
H 7
H 8
H 9
H 10
H 11
Gener al
Foundat i ons of St r uct ur es ( ot her t han
dams)
Ret ai ni ng St r uct ur es and Cut - of f Walls
Of f shor e St r uct ur es
Darns and Reservoi rs, Emb a n k me n t s
Tunnel s and Unde r gr ound Openi ngs
Roads, Rai l r oads and Ai rfi el ds
Har bour s, Canals, and Coast al
Engi neer i ng Wor ks
Condui t s and Cul vert s
Sl opes and Uns uppor t e d Excavat i ons
Land Use
Wast e Deposi t or i es
K Construction Methods and Equipment
K 0 Gener al
K 1 Dr ai nage Met hods
K 2 Seal i ng and Gr out i ng Processes
K 3 Pr el oadi ng and Soil Re pl a c e me nt
1.1 Int ernat i onal agreement s
K 4 Eart hworks and Rock Excavat i on,
Processing and Transportation
K 5 Compact i on Processes
K 6 Soil Stabilization and Erosi on Cont rol
K 7 Piles and Pile Driving, incl. Sheet Piles
K 8 Const ruct i on of Caissons and Deep
Piers
K 9 Const ruct i on Met hods for Shallow
Foundat i ons
K 10 Slurry-Assisted Const ruct i on of Foun-
dations and Cut -off Walls
K l l Support of Soil and Rock, Anchor i ng
K 12 Offshore Const ruct i on
K 13 Prot ect i on Measures against Frost
K 14 Measures for Improvi ng Def or mat i on
and Stability Conditions. Reconst ruc-
tion of Foundat i ons
M Ma l e r i a i s o f Cons t r uc t i on*
M 0 General
M 1 Steel
M 2 Wood
M 3 Bi t umi nous Materials
M 4 Plastics and Similar Materials
M 5 Cement and Chemicals
M 6 Concret e
M 7 Paints and Coatings
M 8 Const ruct i on El ement s
S S n o w a n d I c e Me c h a n i c s a nd En g i n e e r i n g
S 0 Gener al
S 1 Snow and Ice Cover
S 2 Propert i es of Snow and Ice
S 3 Snow and Ice Engi neeri ng
T Re l a t e d Di s c i p l i n e s *
T 0 Gener al
T 1 Pure Sciences
T 2 Geosci ences
T 3 Agri cul t ure and Pedol ogy
T 4 Met eor ol ogy and Cl i mat ol ogy
T 5 Biosciences
T 6 Civil Engi neeri ng
T 7 Mining Engi neeri ng and Or e
Prospect i ng
T 8 Mechani cal Engi neeri ng
T 9 El ect ri cal Engi neeri ng
T 10 Ocean Engi neeri ng
T 11 Military and Naval Engi neeri ng
T 12 Inst rument at i on and Measuri ng
Techni ques
T 13 Li brary Science
T 14 Envi r onment Probl ems and Nat ure
Conservat i on
T 15 Oi l Pr espect i ng
* The principal groups M and T are not to be used
with "Geot echni cal Abst ract s"
2 Symbols
Ex i s t i n g i n t e r n a t i o n a l a g r e e me n t s o n s y mb o l s a r e n o t a l wa ys c ons i s t e nt . Fo r ci vi l e ngi -
n e e r i n g p u r p o s e s a n i n t e r n a t i o n a l s t a n d a r d , I S O 3898 Ba s i s f o r d e s i g n o f s t r u c t u r e s -
No t a t i o n s - Ge n e r a l s y mb o l s , was p u b l i s h e d i n 1997 a n d wa s a c c e p t e d by t h e E u r o p e a n
Co mmi s s i o n o f St a n d a r d s ( CEN) . Th e s t a n d a r d f or SI uni t s, I S O 1000: 1992( E) , wa s al s o
a c c e p t e d by CEN.
Fo r g e o t e c h n i c a l l i t e r a t ur e , t he I n t e r n a t i o n a l So c i e t y a g r e e d i n 1977 t o a p p l y t h e f o l l o wi n g
s ymbol s :
A area I c consistency index
B breadt h of foundat i on IL liquidity index
Ca rate of secondary consolidation ID density index
Cc compression index Ip plasticity index
Cs swelling i ndex K modul us of compressibility
Cu uni formi t y coefficient K0 coefficient of eart h pressure at rest
D dept h of foundat i on beneat h ground Ka active eart h pressure coefficient
E modul us of linear deformat i on Kp passive earth pressure coefficient
Eoe d oedomet r i c modul us N blow count
F factor of safety Nc beari ng capacity factor as a
G modulus of shear deformat i on funct i on of c
4
Nq bear i ng capaci t y f act or as a f unct i on Uw
of e mb e d me n t dept h Ua
N v bear i ng capaci t y f act or as a f unct i on v
of wei ght densi t y 7 w
Qp poi nt r esi st ance WL
Qs t ot al shaf t r esi st ance we
R r esi dual f act or ws
Sr degr ee of s at ur at i on [3
St sensi t i vi t y 6
Tv t i me f act or 6
U degr ee of consol i dat i on a
V vol ume al,2,3
a wal l adhes i on e
a accel er at i on q~1 or ~t
c t effect i ve cohesi on i nt er cept q~u or ~u
c a~ r esi dual cohes i on i nt er cept q)R~ or q~
Cu a ppa r e nt cohes i on i nt er cept 7
Cr r emoul ded undr ai ned shear s t r engt h 7
Cv coeffi ci ent of consol i dat i on 7
d dr ai nage pat h y1
d grai n di amet er 7d
e eccent ri ci t y 7s
e voi d r at i o 7w
g accel er at i on due t o gravi t y ~1
emax voi d r at i o i n l oosest st at e p~
erain voi d r at i o in densest st at e v
fs l ocal side fri ct i on p
h hydr aul i c he a d or pot ent i al p I
i hydr aul i c gr adi ent lad
ic, iq, i v i ncl i nat i on fact ors Ps
j seepage force Pw
k coeffi ci ent of per meabi l i t y o
ks modul us of subgr ade r eact i on o ~
m mass O1,2,3
n por osi t y Ooct
q r at e of di scharge O~o
!
qc st at i c poi nt r esi st ance ( CPT) Op
qd dynami c poi nt r esi st ance
qp poi nt r esi st ance pr essur e ~oct
qs uni t shaf t r esi st ance ~f
ql l i mi t pr essur e ~R
s s et t l ement
u por e pr essur e
Ul r i ch Smol t czyk and Chr i s t ophe Baudui n
por e wat er pr essur e
por e ai r pr essur e
di scharge vel oci t y
wat er cont ent
l i qui d l i mi t
pl ast i c limit
shr i nkage limit
angl e of sl ope t o hor i zont al
i ncl i nat i on of l oad
angl e of wall fri ct i on
l i near st rai n
pri nci pal st r ai ns
l i near st r ai n r at e
effect i ve angl e of i nt er nal fri ct i on
appar ent angl e of i nt er nal fri ct i on
resi dual angl e of i nt er nal fri ct i on
shear st rai n
shear st r ai n r at e
wei ght densi t y
wei ght densi t y of s ubmer ged soil
wei ght densi t y of dry soil
wei ght densi t y of sol i d part i cl es
wei ght densi t y of wat er
coefficient of viscosity
coefficient of fri ct i on
Poi sson' s r at i o
mass densi t y of soil
mass densi t y of s ubmer ged soil
mass densi t y of dry soil
mass densi t y of solid part i cl es
mass densi t y of wat er
t ot al nor mal st ress
effect i ve nor mal st ress
pri nci pal st ress
oct ahedr al nor mal st ress
effect i ve over bur den pr essur e
pr econsol i dat i on pr essur e
shear st ress
oct ahedr al shear st ress
shear st r engt h
resi dual shear s t r engt h
aver age shear s t r engt h mobi l i zed
al ong sliding surface
3 Int ernat i onal rules for f oundat i on engi neeri ng
T h e o n l y i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d c o d i f i c a t i o n o f r u l e s f or f o u n d a t i o n e n g i n e e r i n g p u r -
p o s e s t h a t e x i s t e d u n t i l n o w wa s p r o d u c e d b y t h e E u r o p e a n C o mmi s s i o n o f S t a n d a r d s
( C E N) , t h e a i m b e i n g t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a c o n s i s t e n t s y s t e m of c o mmo n t e c h n i c a l r u l e s
f o r t h e d e s i g n a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n of s t r u c t u r e s i n t h e f i e l d of ci vi l e n g i n e e r i n g . Ev e n t u a l l y ,
t h i s wi l l r e p l a c e t h e d i f f e r i n g n a t i o n a l s t a n d a r d s t h a t e xi s t i n t h e v a r i o u s me mb e r s t a t e s of
t h e E u r o p e a n Co mmu n i t y . By r e mo v i n g t h e p r o b l e ms c a u s e d b y t h e n a t i o n a l s t a n d a r d i z a -
1.1 International agreements 5
tion of technical rules, a common market of products and services will be established. This
will improve the competitional capability of European contractors and their consultants
when working in countries off the European Community.
Structural Eurocodes generally include codified assessments for the design of structures.
Construction and supervision are only covered as required for quality assurance checks
of the designer's assumptions. At present, the following documents are published or in
preparation:
Te c hni c a l C o mmi t t e e 250:
EN 1990 Basis of design for structural Eurocodes
EN 1991 Actions
EN t992 Concrete structures. Part 1: General rules, . . . Part 3: Concrete foundations
EN 1993 Steel structures. Part 1: General rules, . . . Part 5: Steel piles
EN 1994 Mixed steel and concrete structures
EN 1995 Timber structures
EN 1996 Masonry structures
EN 1997 Geotechnical design. Part 1: General rules, Part 2: Laboratory and field testing
EN 1998 Seismic actions. Part 1: General rules, . . . Part 5: Foundations, retaining
structures and geotechnical aspects (in addition to EN 1997-1)
EN 1999 Design of aluminium alloy structures
Te c hni c a l c o mmi t t e e 288:
EN 1536 Execution of special geotechnical work: Bored piles
EN 1537 Execution of special geotechnical work: Anchors
of special geotechnical work: Diaphragm walls
of special geotechnical work: Sheet piles
EN 1538 Execution
EN 12063 Execution
EN 12699 Execution of special geotechnical work: Displacement piles
EN 12715 Execution of special geotechnical work: Grouting
EN 12716 Execution of special geotechnical work: Jet-grouting
EN ... Execution of special geotechnical work: Micro-piles
EN ... Execution of special geotechnical work: Reinforced soil
Te c hni c a l c o mmi t t e e 182:
By introducing existing ISO documents into the CEN system:
ISO 14688 Identification and classification of soils
ISO 14689 Identification and classification of rock
Te c hni c a l c o mmi t t e e 189:
Several standards for testing geotextiles have been published, see Chapter 2.15.
6 Ulrich Smoltczyk and Christophe Bauduin
Note: De v e l o p i n g Eu r o p e a n Code s f r om a fi rst dr af t i nt o an of f i ci al l y a c c e pt e d docu-
me n t ge ne r a l l y t a ke s s e ve r a l ye a r s t i me. I t is r e c o mme n d e d t he r e f or e t hat t he na t i ona l
s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n bodi e s or t he a p p r o p r i a t e CEN s e c r e t a r i a t ar e a s ke d t o conf i r m t he l at -
est s i t uat i on f or each c ode (as t o TC 250, c ont a c t NNI , POB 5059, NL- 2600 GB Del f t ,
Fax +31152690190. As t o TC 288, c ont a c t AF NOR , F 92049 Par i s La D6f ens e Cedex) .
4 Bas i c t e r ms by E N 1990 and EN 1997
4. 1 Cl as s i f i cat i on o f as s e s s me nt s i n Eu r o c o d e s ( E N 1990, 1.4; E N 1997-1, 1.3)
De p e n d i n g on t he c ha r a c t e r of t he i ndi vi dua l assessment s, di s t i nct i on is ma d e i n EN 1990,
1.4, b e t we e n Principles a nd Application Rules. The codes i ncl ude a ma i n t ext a nd annexes:
Principles a r e r ul es t o whi ch no e x e mp t i o n or a l t e r na t i ve is pe r mi t t e d.
Application Rules" a r e i nt e r na t i ona l l y a c k n o wl e d g e d r ul es t hat a r e r e c o mme n d e d f or appl i -
cat i on. I n t hi s cas e a l t e r na t i ve s a r e possi bl e, i f t hey p r o v i d e t he s ame l evel of r el i abi l i t y
a nd a r e cons i s t ent t o t he r e l e va nt pr i nci pl es. The y can i ncl ude t he use of na t i ona l speci fi -
cat i ons.
Annexes c ont a i n a ddi t i ona l i nf or ma t i on, i ncl udi ng nume r i c a l val ues of pa r t i a l s af et y fac-
t ors. The val ues s ugge s t e d i n an a nne x ma y ei t her be a c c e pt e d or modi f i e d by na t i ona l
d e t e r mi n a t i o n as t he l evel of r e s pons i bi l i t y f or t he r el i abi l i t y of t he wor ks r e ma i ns wi t h
t he na t i ona l a ut hor i t i e s i n char ge of ci vi l e ngi ne e r i ng cont r ol .
4. 2 Li mi t st at es ( E N 1990)
Ac c o r d i n g t o EN 1990, 6.4.1, i n EN 1997-1, 2.4, t he f ol l owi ng l i mi t st at es ar e def i ned:
Ul t i mat e limit states (2.4.7.1):
Loss o f equilibrium of the structure or the ground, considered as a rigid body, in which
the strengths of the structural materials and the ground provi de insignificant resistance
(EQU).
Internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or structural elements, includ-
ing footings, piles, basement walls etc,. in which the strength of structural materials is'
significant in provi di ng resistance (STR).
Failure or excessive deformation o f the ground, in which the strength of soil or rock is
significant in provi di ng resistance ( GEO) .
Loss of equl i bri um of the structure or the ground due to uplift by waterpressure (UPL).
Hydraulic heave, internal erosion andpi pi ng in the ground caused by hydraulic gradients
( HYD) .
Serviceability limit states (2.4.8):
St at es when de f or ma t i ons , di s pl a c e me nt s or any non- s t r uc t ur a l d a ma g e af f ect t he
i n t e n d e d f unct i on of a s t r uct ur e in t e r ms of c omf or t a nd a ppe a r a nc e , whe r e " a ppe a r -
a nc e " is c o n c e r n e d wi t h, f or e xa mpl e , ext ens i ve cr acki ng r a t h e r t han wi t h aest het i cs.
1.1 International agreements 7
Anticipated deformations and settlements are the main consideration here. For these,
Annex H of EN 1997-1 gives some guidance (see also Chapter 3.1 of Volume 3 of the
Handbook).
EN 1990, 2.3, also requires that the function of the structure shall be warranted during
its design working life. For example, in normal buildings Table 2.1 of EN 1990 indicates a
design life time of 50 years.
4.3 Design situations (EN 1990, 3.5)
In relation to a specified time interval the following design situations are identified:
per s i s t ent desi gn si t uat i ons which comply with the normal use of a structure;
t r a n s i e n t s i t u a t i o n s wh i c h r e f e r t o t e mp o r a r y c o n d i t i o n s a s f o r e x a mp l e d u r i n g e x e c u t i o n
or repair;
acci dent al desi gn si t uat i ons by fire, explosion, impact or localised failure etc;
s ei s mi c desi gn si t uat i ons.
Note: A 'design situation' constitutes a complete scenario, comprising a number of various
load cases and load combinations.
4.4 Geotechnical categories (EN 1997-1, 2.1)
To describe the minimum requirements for the extent and content of ground investiga-
tions, design analyses and site supervision and the risks to property and life, three different
geotechnical categories may be applied as follows:
GC 1: Small and relatively simple structures for which basic stability and performance
requirements can be fulfilled by experience and qualitative ground investigation and for
which risks are negligible. Examples are simple one- or two-storey buildings, storage sheds,
garages.
This classification assumes that ground conditions are known by experience. The design
of the building should therefore be routine and straightforward.
Rules which help to classify a structure into GC1 are determined nationally.
GC 2: Conventional structures and foundations that can be designed by routine geotech-
nical procedures. These should normally include quantitative analyses to verify that the
fundamental design requirements are satisfied.
Some guidance on the extent of ground investigations is given in EN 1997, 3.2. The
decision, however, should be supported by local or regional experience.
GC 3: All circumstances other than those covered by GC 1 and 2.
Note: All parts of a project need not to be classified in the same category.
4.5 Observational method (EN 1997, 2.7)
It is often difficult to make a reliable prediction about the performance of a structure and
in such cases an observational method may be appropriate, in which the design data and
8 Ulrich Smoltczyk and Christophe Bauduin
assumpt i ons can be cont r ol l ed dur i ng t he execut i on and adapt ed if necessary.
Thi s me t hod makes t he f ol l owi ng assumpt i ons:
t he al l owabl e val ues of t he pe r f or ma nc e par amet er s shall be assessed pr i or t o design;
t he pot ent i al var i ance of pe r f or ma nc e shall be det er mi ned such t hat t he real per f or -
mance r emai ns wi t hi n t he pr edi ct ed limits by a sufficient level of reliability;
t he t ype and ext ent of moni t or i ng shall be pr e- det er mi ned;
r emedi al measur es shall be i ncl uded in desi gn and cont r act t o al l ow f or si t uat i ons when
al l owabl e limit val ues be c ome surpassed.
Srnoltczyk [2] c o mme n t e d on t he pr obl ems of this pr ocedur e and emphasi zed t hat a
r eact i on in due t i me r equi r es t he consi der at i on of t he following:
Act i vat i ng r emedi es needs s ome t i me whi ch shoul d be consi der ed dur i ng design. The
me t hod is not sui t abl e f or si t uat i ons wher e r eact i on will mos t pr obabl y not be possi bl e
in t i me even t hough al ar m signals have been r ecor ded. I t s houl d not be used t her ef or e
wher e bri t t l e fai l ure p h e n o me n a ma y occur.
The me t hod shoul d onl y be appl i ed in si t uat i ons wher e assur ance can be gi ven t hat a
pr ope r r eact i on can be i mpl ement ed pr i or t o an ul t i mat e limit st at e occuri ng. The me t hod
s houl d not be abus ed as a cheap pr ot ect i on agai nst cat ast rophes. I t shoul d be under s t ood
as a means t o pr ovi de e c onomi c al t er nat i ves wi t hi n servi ceabi l i t y scenari a.
The moni t or i ng s cheme shoul d be r edundant . Redundance, however , shoul d be pr ovi ded
by appl yi ng i ndependant met hods r at her t han by mul t i pl e records. I t is not onl y e c onomy
but al so t he pract i cal i t y usi ng l ar ge number s of r ecor ded dat a whi ch shoul d make t he
desi gner t hi nk careful l y about t he necessar y a mount of gauges and readings.
I t is t he s udden change of a r e c or de d pa r a me t e r or its r at e r at her t han t he absol ut e
magni t ude whi ch gives t he war ni ng of a devi at i ng per f or mance. Par amet er s t aken f or
moni t or i ng ar e mai nl y di spl acement s, strains, por e pr essur es and wat er levels (Peck [1]).
4.6 Partial safety factor method
Accor di ng t o EN 1990, sect i on 6, t he veri fi cat i on of limit st at es shall be achi eved by
appl yi ng part i al f act or s of saf et y as follows:
t he r epr esent at i ve val ues of actions, Frep (see 4.6.1), mul t i pl i ed by a part i al saf et y
f act or yf;
t he char act er i st i c val ues of mat er i al st r engt h par amet er s, Xk, di vi ded by a part i al safet y
f act or Ym;
t he char act er i st i c val ue of a resi st i ng force, Rk, whi ch is det er mi ned directly, di vi ded
by a part i al saf et y f act or ~'R.
Thus t he desi gn val ues (i ndex " d" ) ar e der i ved by F d = F r e p yf and X d = Xk/Ym or
Rd = Rk/~' R.
The desi gn val ues f or t he effect s of act i ons in st r uct ur al el ement s ( moment s, shear forces,
nor mal forces), Ed, ar e t hen obt ai ned by ei t her a statical cal cul at i on
based on Fd and Xd or Rd, or
bas ed o n F r e p and Rk, mul t i pl i ed by t he part i al saf et y f act or ,/f.
1.1 International agreements 9
Un c e r t a i n t y a bout t he cal cul at i on mo d e l of act i ons ma y be a l l owe d f or by an a ddi t i ona l
mode l f act or , YSd, whi ch in t he first case ( see EN 1990, 6.3.2, eq. 6.2) ef f ect s of act i ons a r e
mul t i pl i e d by. I n t he s e c ond case ( see EN 1990, 6.3.2, eq. 6. 2a) t hi s unc e r t a i nt y is c ove r e d
by t he pa r t i a l saf et y f act or Yv = YSd Yr.
A si mi l ar r ul e wi t h a mo d e l f act or YRd is i nc l ude d f or r es i s t i ng f or ces (e. g. e a r t h r es i s t ance)
such t hat YM = Yad'Ym. Thi s mo d e l f act or however , is r a r e l y a p p l i e d i n geot echni cs be c a us e
nor ma l l y Ym wi l l be as s es s ed t o c ove r t hi s uncer t ai nt y, t oo. Fo r t he s a me r e a s on, i n EN
1997-1 no s peci al c onve r s i on f act or rl ( see EN 1990, 6.3.3) is r e q u i r e d t o c ons i de r ef f ect s
such as l oa d dur a t i on, mo d e l scal e, t e mp e r a t u r e etc.
Unl es s r e q u i r e d by na t i ona l de t e r mi na t i on, pa r t i a l f act or s f or a c c i de nt a l s i t uat i ons a nd
f or l i mi t s t at es of s er vi ceabi l i t y shal l equal 1.0.
The des i gn val ues of ge ome t r i c a l da t a (a) a r e ge ne r a l l y r e p r e s e n t e d by a nomi na l val ue
ad = anom
I n s i t uat i ons whe r e pos s i bl e or act ual de vi a t i ons of ge ome t r i c a l da t a woul d caus e a si g-
ni f i cant l y a dve r s e ef f ect on t he r e l i a bl i t y of t he p r e d i c t e d l i mi t st at es, t hi s shal l be t a ke n
i nt o a c c ount by a ddi ng a s af et y mar gi n:
ad = anom 4- Aa
4. 6. 1 Represent at i ve val ue of an act i on
Ac c o r d i n g t o EN 1990, 6.3.1, t he r e p r e s e n t a t i v e val ue of an act i on is ge ne r a l l y gi ven by
Frep = ~P Fk
whe r e W = 1 f or
- t he char act er i s t i c val ue of p e r ma n e n t unf a vour a bl e act i ons: Gk;
- t he char act er i s t i c val ue of a va r i a bl e unf a vour a bl e act i on, Q1, whi ch shal l be a na l ys e d
as be i ng t he gover ni ng va r i a bl e act i on t o be t a k e n at i t s f ul l ma gni t ude .
For pe r s i s t e nt and t r a ns i e nt s i t uat i ons t he ot he r va r i a bl e unf a vour a bl e act i ons, Qi (i > 1)
shal l be r e d u c e d by a c ombi na t i on f act or W = W0 < 1, t o al l ow f or t he f act t hat al l va r i a bl e
act i ons wi l l not occur s i mul t a ne ous l y by t he i r ma x i mu m val ue.
The r e pr e s e nt a t i ve val ue of an act i on f or an a c c i de nt a l s i t ua t i on is al so c ombi ne d, but by
a ppl yi ng s peci al r e duc t i on f act or s ~11 (frequent value) f or Q1 a nd ~J2i (quasi-permanent
value) f or Qi > 1, a s s oc i a t e d wi t h a t i me i nt er val ( EN 1990, 6.4.3). I n a ddi t i on, t he nomi na l
val ue of an acci dent al act i on, Ak, is t o be t a k e n i nt o account (e. g.: col l i s i on f or ce) .
For e a r t h q u a k e si t uat i ons, t he r e p r e s e n t a t i v e val ue consi st s of Gk, t he va r i a bl e unf a vour -
abl e act i ons Qki, r e d u c e d by ap2 i and an e a r t h q u a k e act i on AE.
The nume r i c a l val ues of t hes e r e duc t i on ~- f a c t or s a r e s e p a r a t e l y t a b l e d i n t he An n e x e s
of EN 1990, f or bui l di ngs a nd t raffi c st r uct ur es. For e xa mpl e , ap0 = 0. 6 appl i es t o wi nd as
an a c c ompa nyi ng act i on wi t h t r af f i c st r uct ur es.
I f i t is not obvi ous whi ch va r i a bl e act i on is t he gove r ni ng one, t he n each r e l e va nt va r i a bl e
act i on shal l be a na l ys e d i n t ur n as Q1.
10 Ulrich Smoltczyk and Christophe Bauduin
4. 6. 2 Lo a d c a s e s ( c o mb i n a t i o n s o f a c t i o ns )
The c ombi na t i ons of act i ons c onc e r ni ng t he var i ous ver i f i cat i ons of ul t i ma t e l i mi t s t at es
ar e col l ect ed i n EN 1990, 6.4.3, a nd i n 6.5.3 t hos e f or s er vi ceabi l i t y l i mi t st at es.
Thes e c ombi na t i ons a r e ba s e d on t he r e pr e s e nt a t i ve val ues of act i ons, bot h f r om t he
s t r uct ur e and t he gr ound. I n f ounda t i on engi neer i ng, whe r e act i ons f r om t he st r uc-
t ur e n o r ma l l y act in c onj unc t i on wi t h act i ons f r om t he gr ound, t he f ol l owi ng e qua t i ons
appl y:
1. Ul t i ma t e l i mi t s t a t e s f or p e r ma n e n t and t r a ns i e nt d e s i g n s i t ua t i o ns
Z YG; j Gk:j " + " VQ;I" Qk;1 " + " Z VQ; i aP0;i " Qk;i
j>_l i>_l
whe r e
" + " me a ns in combination with;
Gk - char act er i s t i c val ue of a p e r ma n e n t act i on f r om t he s t r uct ur e a nd/ or f r om t he
gr ound such as e a r t h pr e s s ur e or wa t e r pr es s ur e. Ac c o r d i n g t o EN 1997-1, f or t he
wei ght de ns i t y of t he soi l YG;j = 1 appl i es ( s ee Tabl e A. 2. 2 of t he Code) ;
Qk - char act er i s t i c val ue of a va r i a bl e act i on f r om t he s t r uct ur e a nd/ or f r om t he gr ound
al l owi ng f or t he r e p r e s e n t a t i v e val ues me n t i o n e d i n 4.6.1. Ap p l y i n g t hes e c ombi -
na t i on f act or s, t he di f f er ent l oa d c ombi na t i ons ar e obt a i ne d by s ubs t i t ut i ng Qk f or
Q1 t o d e t e r mi n e t he gove r ni ng one;
YG - pa r t i a l s af et y f act or of G wi t h di st i nct n u mb e r s f or unf a vour a bl e (TG;sup) and
f a vour a bl e (YG;inf) act i ons. I t s houl d be not e d t hat t he f act or YG = 1.35 ( EN 1990,
An n e x A1. 3. 1 a nd EN 1997-1, Tabl e A. 2. 1) wi t h a mi nor f act or of a bout 1.1 cover s
pos s i bl e unc e r t a i nt i e s of wei ght . The l ar ger f act or t a ke s a c c ount of uncer t ai nt i es
r es ul t i ng f r om l oa d r e - di s t r i but i ons dur i ng c ons t r uc t i on a nd t he r e a f t e r ;
7Q - pa r t i a l s af et y f act or f or unf a vour a bl e va r i a bl e act i ons Q wi t h a val ue 1.50 f or
any ul t i ma t e l i mi t s t at e ( EN 1990, An n e x A1. 3. 1, and EN 1997-1, Tabl e A. 2. 1) .
Fa v o u r a b l e va r i a bl e act i ons shal l not be cons i der ed.
No speci al r e d u c e d val ues f or t r a ns i e nt des i gn s i t uat i ons dur i ng c ons t r uc t i on ar e gi ven i n
EN 1997-1. The i nt r oduc t i on of such val ues is p e r mi t t e d by na t i ona l s t a nda r ds be c a us e
r e duc t i ons of t hi s ki nd wi l l d e p e n d si gni f i cant l y on di st i nct r e gi ona l c ons t r uc t i on met hods .
2. U l t i ma t e l i mi t s t a t e f or an a c c i d e n t a l d e s i g n s i t ua t i o n
Z Gk;j " + " Ad " + " (~Pl;1 or aP2;1 ) Ok;1 " + " Z ~P2;i Qk;i
j >l i >l
whe r e
Ad - t he des i gn val ue f or t he a c c i de nt a l act i on t ha t shal l be as s es s ed as a nomi na l val ue
by cont r act .
~Pl;1 or aP2;1 shal l be d e t e r mi n e d accor di ng t o t he t ype of a c c i de nt or i t s c ons e que nc e s
( EN 1990, 6.4.3.3).
Thi s c o mb i n a t i o n al so appl i es t o t he s i t uat i on af t er an acci dent whe n A = 0.
1.1 Int ernat i onal agreements 11
3. Ul t i ma t e l i mi t st at e f or an e ar t hquake des i gn s i t uat i on
Z Gk;j ' ' q - ' ' AE; d ' ' + ' ' ~ ] ~P2;i ' Qk;j
j>_l i_>l
wh e r e
A E ; d - t h e d e s i g n v a l u e o f t h e a c t i o n c a u s e d b y a n e a r t h q u a k e t h a t s hal l b e d e t e r mi n e d
b y E N 1998 ( s e e al s o c h a p t e r 1.8).
4. Irreversi bl e l i mi t st at e o f s ervi ceabi l i t y ( charact eri s t i c c o mbi na t i o n)
Gk; j + " Q "
,, k;1 ,,-'[- ~--~. ~0;i " Qk; i
l
j >l i >l
5. Fr e que nt l i mi t st at e o f s ervi ceabi l i t y ( s e e 4. 6. 1)
Gk;j ,,-{-" ~1;1 " Qk;1 ,,q-" ~- ~P2; i " Qk; i
j >l i >l
6. Qua s i - pe r ma ne nt l i mi t s t at e o f s ervi ceabi l i t y ( s e e 4. 6. 1)
Gk; j ,,-]-" ~ ~P2;i ' Qk;i
j_>l i>_1
4.6.3 Ge o t e c hni c a l veri f i cat i on o f ul t i mat e l i mi t st at es
Ve r i f i c a t i on me t h o d s d e f i n e d i n E N 1997-1 f o r ultimate limit states STR and GEO d i f f e r
d e p e n d i n g o n wh e r e t h e p a r t i a l s a f e t y f a c t o r s a r e a p p l i e d i n t h e c o u r s e o f anal ys i s .
T h e r e a r e p r i n c i p a l l y t wo pos s i bi l i t i e s t o i n t r o d u c e p a r t i a l f a c t or s : e i t h e r o n t h e i n p u t
d a t a of t h e c a l c u l a t i o n mo d e l s o r o n t h e i r o u t p u t d a t a . I n t h e f i r st c a s e t hi s a p p l i e s t o
t he ma t e r i a l p a r a me t e r s ( s h e a r s t r e n g t h , c o n c r e t e s t r e n g t h , yi e l d s t r e n g t h o f s t e e l et c. -
material f act or approach, MF A) . I n t h e s e c o n d c a s e t hi s a p p l i e s t o t h e o u t p u t f r o m t h e
mo d e l u s e d t o c a l c u l a t e a g r o u n d r e s i s t a n c e ( pi l e l o a d c a pa c i t y, b e a r i n g c a pa c i t y, e a r t h
r e s i s t a n c e et c. - resistance factor approach, RF A) .
As c a l c u l a t i o n mo d e l s i n g e o t e c h n i c s d e p e n d e i t h e r l i ne a r i l y o n t h e s h e a r s t r e n g t h ( sl i di ng,
s ki n f r i c t i on, s l o p e s t a bi l i t y o f u n d r a i n e d c o h e s i v e g r o u n d ) o r n o n - l i n e a r i l y ( e a r t h p r e s s u r e ,
b e a r i n g c a pa c i t y, s l o p e s t a bi l i t y o f d r a i n e d g r o u n d ) , d i f f e r e n t d e s i g n r e s ul t s a r e o b t a i n e d
wh e n a f o u n d a t i o n e l e me n t is s i zed b y e a c h p r o c e d u r e . F o r t hi s r e a s o n , t h e c h o i c e o f
o n e o f t h e v e r i f i c a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s i n d i c a t e d i n E N 1990, A. 1. 3. 1, wi t h a p p r o p r i a t e p a r t i a l
f a c t o r s g i v e n i n E N 1997-1, An n e x A, r e ma i n s wi t h t h e n a t i o n a l s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n bodi e s .
T h r e e a l t e r n a t i v e s a r e o f f e r e d f o r t h e S T R a n d G E O u l t i ma t e l i mi t s t a t e s :
De s i g n appr oac h 1: Two v e r i f i c a t i o n t y p e s a r e r e q u i r e d ; ( 1) b a s e d o n f a c t o r e d a c t i o n s
a n d n o n - f a c t o r e d s h e a r s t r e n g t h p a r a me t e r s a n d ( 2) f a c t o r e d s h e a r s t r e n g t h p a r a me t e r s
a n d n o n - f a c t o r e d p e r ma n e n t a c t i o n s wi t h v a r i a b l e a c t i o n s f a c t o r e d b y 7Q = 1.3. T h e
si zi ng a n d p o s i t i o n i n g o f t h e f o u n d a t i o n e l e me n t s d e p e n d s o n b o t h t ype s , wi t h t h e m o r e
a d v e r s e t o b e a d o p t e d . T h e f a c t o r s a r e g i v e n i n A n n e x A o f E N 1997-1, Ta b l e s A. 2. 1
a n d A. 2. 2.
( 1) p r o v i d e s s a f e t y a g a i n s t a d v e r s e d e v i a t i o n s o f t h e a c t i o n s f r o m t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c
v a l u e s a n d (2) p r o v i d e s s a f e t y a g a i n s t a d v e r s e d e v i a t i o n s o f t h e s h e a r p a r a me t e r s .
12 Ulrich Smoltczyk and Christophe Bauduin
Desi gn approach 2: Uses onl y one t ype of analysis, based on characteristic values.
Act i ons are t hen fact ored as in appr oach 1(1) and resistances are divided by partial
factors given in Annex A, TaMes 2.3, of EN 1997-1.
Desi gn appr oach 3: Agai n uses one t ype of analysis, based on design values of structural
actions, appl yi ng t he same partial factors given by approach 1(1). On ground actions
and resistances partial factors are applied as in appr oach 1(2).
For ultimate limit states EQU, UPL, HYD st rai ghforward procedures ( EN 1997-1, 2.4.7.2,
2.4.7.4 and 2.4.7.5) are requi red similar to the traditional global safet y concept. Equal
partial safet y fact ors for the t hree appr oaches are r ecommended in EN 1997-1, Annex A
(Tables A.1, A.3 and A.4) but depend, of course, on nat i onal requi rement s and standards.
4.6.4 Verification of the limit state of serviceability (SLS)
The limit state of serviceability can be checked by provi ng t hat a limit value, Cd;S, of a
chosen quality of t he st ruct ure does not occur t her eby confirming the nor mal use of the
st ruct ure ( EN 1997-1, 2.4.8). The analysis may be based on checking limit values of action
effects, settlements, displacements, tilting angles, accelerations etc.
For t he definition of movement modes see EN 1997-1, 2.4.9, and Annex H which give
some limit values (for furt her details, see chapt er 3.1 of vol ume 3 of the Handbook) .
Desi gn values
Normally, design values for the SLS are equal to t he characteristic values (see 4.6.2).
However, partial factors > 1.0 may be appr opr i at e if a det eri orat i on of soil qualities or a
change of boundar y conditions cannot be excluded during the lifetime of the structure,
see EN 1997-1, 2.4.8(3).
I f the check on t he limiting values of def or mat i on or movement is not requi red, it may be
sufficient in simple cases and based on compar abl e experience, to pr ove t hat the level of
mobi l i zed shear st rengt h in the ground is sufficiently low ( EN 1997-1, 2.4.8(4)).
5 Geot echni cal report
A geotechnical design r epor t and a ground investigation r epor t are detailed in EN 1997-1
for t he document at i on of soil investigation results and the appr opr i at e conclusions.The
i nformat i on requi red for these report s is summar i zed in clauses 2.8 and 3.4.
The following notes should be read as comment s with accompanyi ng r emar ks by the
second aut hor (see [3]).
The ai m of a geotechnical r epor t generally, is the expert desciption of geotechnical con-
ditions, premi ses and assumpt i ons for t he design and construction of a st ruct ure classified
in cat egory 2 or 3. Expert i se on a cat egory 1 st ruct ure will normal l y only be made when
this classification looks dubious or if it is requi red by court proceedi ngs for example.
The st at ement s in the geotechnical r epor t may
a) be pr epar ed for a proj ect during design,
b) accompany a proj ect with site consulting,
1.1 International agreements 13
c) provi de guidance during const ruct i on in t erms of supervision, for exampl e by suggest ed
moni t ori ng etc, especially when the observat i onal met hod is applied.
At the stage of cont ract negot i at i ons (a) normal l y is consi dered, whilst (b) oft en becomes
necessary during construction. It is r ecommended t hat the l ayout of the r epor t is ret ai ned
in a way t hat allow l at er suppl ement s to be added easily in a clear and logic order.
With very extensive proj ect s such as traffic lots, the official request of public consensus
onl y needs a r at her general description of the ground conditions. In these cases, distinction
can reasonabl y be made bet ween prel i mi nary investigations (see EN 1997-1, 3.2.2) and
design investigations for individual structures and pr obl ems (see EN 1997-1, 3.2.3). This
may even be done by di fferent consultants.
5.1 Ground investigation report ( EN 1997-1, 3.4)
The ground investigation r epor t should st art by explaining the reasons for t he investi-
gation. This is especially i mpor t ant in cases where facts have become obvi ous during
investigation which were not realized at the t i me when it was pl anned and cont ract ed. To
manage these situations, a list of unit prices for tests and services should be in the contract.
Following EN 1997-1, 3.4(2) this r epor t should contain
a summari zi ng document at i on of t he investigation results and the met hods appl i ed with
reference to EN 1997-2,
a critical comment ar y on the results and the par amet er s deri ved f r om t hem.
It is r ecommended t hat the expert who does the test supervision is also i nvol ved in writing
the r epor t to ensure a consistent description is produced.
When the general situation is explained, it should be said whet her t he investigations had
to be done in an area compl et y unknown until now or if r ef er ence was possible to previ ous
geological findings and earlier investigations. Fur t her mor e, val uabl e general i nformat i on
may have been obt ai ned f r om peopl e who are fami l i ar with the envi r onment (for exampl e:
"a hunderd years ago, t here was a l ake here", "this area was used for dumpi ng for a long
t i me", or "t he ground wat er level was pumped down" etc).
Next, the r epor t should contain the soil succession, the spatial geomet r y of the soil layers
and t he surface, the ground and free wat er levels and the flow rat es and directions and t he
existing structures and their recognizable sensitivity to excavat i ons or any ot her change of
t opography. Special risks such as creepi ng slopes, geological faults, changing wat er levels,
erosion phenomena should be included wherever possible.
All of these mor e general r emar ks should be checked to det er mi ne whet her or not t hey
are rel evant for inclusion in the design report . Ar gument s should be given for risks t hat
can be neglected, al t hough the public is fri ght ened about a ri sk-beari ng phenomenon.
The description of the soil situation to a large degree is al ready an expert i nt erpret at i on
because it provi des a suggested spatial coordi nat i on bet ween successions investigated at
singular locations. I t is t her ef or e always possible (especially f r om a scientific poi nt of view)
to question this i nt erpret at i on. This does not mean however t hat it should not be tried,
since an expert descri pt i on should provi de overall i nformat i on of the ground charact er
for cont ract ual purposes - it is reasonabl e to clarify in the r epor t what is fact and what is
supposition. This may be indicated by introducing classes of reliability:
14 Ulrich Smoltczyk and Christophe Bauduin
Class 1: Ar e a s wher e i nt er pol at i on bet ween i nvest i gat i on poi nt s is easy and, t her ef or e,
possi bl e t o a ver y hi gh degr ee of probabi l i t y.
Class 2: Ar e a s wi t h r emai ni ng uncer t ai nt y al t hough t he avai l abl e facts appear t o allow
i nt er pol at i on.
Class 3: Ar e a s wher e t he resul t s al l ow di st i nct i nt er pr et at i on whi ch necessi t at es assump-
t i ons bas ed on facts der i ved f r om addi t i onal sources of i nf or mat i on (for exampl e:
eval uat i on of geol ogi cal st at ement s) .
Class 4: Ar e a s wher e addi t i onal i nvest i gat i ons are necessary, as avai l abl e i nf or mat i on
allows onl y l i mi t ed assumpt i ons t o be made.
Recor ds whi ch cont ai n t he resul t s of t he visual i nspect i on of bor e d cor es by an exper t soil
engi neer or geol ogi st and t he det ai l s of s oundi ng or t est pit i nspect i ons shoul d be i ncl uded
in an annex t o t he r epor t . Thi s makes t he mai n t ext cl ear er wher e not all det ai l s need t o
be consi der ed. The r epor t shoul d r at her cl ari fy whi ch det ai l s listed in t he annex ar e of
maj or i mpor t ance in under s t andi ng t he t ot al si t uat i on. As an exampl e, a t hi n cohesi ve
i nt erl ayer, det ect ed in but a few bori ngs, woul d be insignificant when mai nl y nor mal
st resses are mobi l i zed f or t he bear i ng capaci t y of a f oundat i on e mbe dde d in pl ane t errai n,
but woul d have t o be t aken i nt o account in sl opi ng gr ound wher e shear st r engt h pl ays
t he domi na nt role. Cons i der at i on shoul d al so be gi ven t o t he fact t hat t he resul t s of
geot echni cal cal cul at i ons of t en have an i nt egr al charact er.
For exampl e, it woul d not ma ke much sense t o pr oduce an ear t h pr essur e cal cul at i on
when t he soil successi on is det ai l ed i nt o l ayers of 30 cm each. On t he ot her hand, t hi n
less pe r me a bl e i nt er l ayer s will have gr eat significance f or t he flow of gr oundwat er or f or
consol i dat i on t i me predi ct i ons.
Whe r e or gani c mat t er is f ound in t he bor ehol es, t he bor ehol e r eadi ngs shoul d be suppl e-
ment ed by i ndi cat i ng t he di st r i but i on of this mat t er in a sufficiently l ong sect i on (e. g. I m)
and its degr ee of det er i or at i on. For i nst ance, it woul d be mi sl eadi ng if a l ayer is descr i bed
as "hi ghl y or gani c cl ayey silt l ayer " when wi t hi n a cl ayey silt l ayer a peat i nt er l ayer has
been f ound.
I n EN 1997-1, 3.4.2, it is ma nda t or y t o expl ai n t he r easons f or defect i ve or i ncompl et e
i nvest i gat i on resul t s. The r e por t shall al so speci fy wher e addi t onal or special i nvest i gat i ons
are still missing.
5.2 Ground design report ( EN 1997-1, 2.8)
The gr ound desi gn r epor t cont ai ns t he concl usi ons dr awn by t he geot echni cal exper t f r om
t he i nvest i gat i on r epor t as well as cal cul at i ons whi ch he has ma de t o veri fy limit states.
The ext ent of wor k connect ed wi t h this shoul d onl y be gi ven in a pr el i mi nar y way: like
t he servi ce of a doct or or a l awyer, t he real a mount of consul t i ng of t en becomes obvi ous
onl y as t he pr oj ect pr oceeds. The consul t ant shoul d be char ged by est abl i shed exper i ence
and mut ual conf i dence in his capaci t y, r at her t han on a compar i s on of prices. The client
shoul d under s t and t hat t he cheaper such wor k is of f er ed, t he mor e gener al and undet ai l ed
t he r epor t will be wi t h a t endency t o shift hi dden risks t o t he client - of t en wi t hout hi m
r ecogni zi ng it.
I n EN 1997-1, 2.8, it is r e c omme nde d t hat t he r epor t shoul d al so cont ai n st at ement s on t he
sui t abl i t y o f a si t e wi t h respect to t he pr opos e d const ruct i on and t he l evel o f accept abl e ri sks.
1.1 International agreements 15
There will, however, be little freedom for alternatives when a site is located in an area
which is already densely populated. In such situations, the guidance should focus on finding
a suitable type of foundation in terms of its feasibility, economy, ground water conditions,
compatibilty with the above ground parts of the structure etc. Suitable alternatives may
therefore be apt for discussion where traffic routes are to be built.
The ground design report, if not contracted otherwise, will be limited to findings in terms of
geotechnical verifications and duration against adverse environmental effects. This marks
the boundary between geotechnical and structural engineering works. The "external"
sizing of foundation elements like footings or retaining walls depends on geotechnical
points of view, the sizing of concrete or steel sections and the reinforcements is truly a
structural task.
Even with such delimitation, the work of a geotechnical engineer contains a significant
amount of quantifying engineering by analyses. General phenomenological considera-
tions will not yield the kind of information that is of real value to a client. Although the
details of a structure may not be known at the time when the report is delivered, the
ground design report should provide examples of typical calculations - especially when
the design shall be based on the partial safety factor method.
For legal reasons it should be clearly indicated to the client for each number in a design
report whether it is the result of an investigated fact which can be proved, if queried by
anyone, or an expert assumption. The expert is obliged to state his assumptions where
sufficient facts or established rules are missing. When established application rules are
not used, arguments shall be provided in such a way that they can be understood and
realized by a user or supervisor who may not have scientific geotechnical training but a
good general knowledge of civil engineering problems. Regional terminology should not
be used to avoid misunderstanding by users from outside the region.
Recommendations for foundation procedures should contain all the possible alternatives
to avoid a restricted competition. Methods that are acknowledged by the profession but
can be implemented by only a few contractors must not be recommended exclusively but
they may be considered by allowing for a special additional tender.
In EN 1997-1, 2.8(4) it is recommended that the geotechnical design report should also
deal with items which require checking during construction or which require maintenance
after construction from geotechnical point of view. It would be reasonable to provide
concise "directions of use" guidance note to the as-built documents, delivered to the user
when the work is finished, giving for example the recommended settlement checks to be
carried out at later time intervals.
As the design report follows the completed site investigation, it may become apparent
during negotiations with cont ract ors- especially when special tenders are eval uat ed- that
the choice of a particular method of construction would need additional soil investigations.
In such situations the consultant that compiled the design report should be asked for
his advice and possibly to provide to necessary supplements to his report. However, it
often happens (maybe even by intention, maybe just forgotten) that these additional
soil investigations do not become an item in the tender contract. If at a later stage an
unacceptable construction yields a legal case, it will be important that the geotechnical
consultant can prove that he had pointed to the need for additional investigations and
when. On the other hand, excessive additonal investigations should not be asked for
as an alibi to avoid straightforward decisions. They should always remain in reasonable
relation to the value of the project. In this way design reports will always have a degree
16 Ulrich Smoltczyk and Christophe Bauduin
of c ompr omi s e : d o c u me n t i n g t he ar t of r eal i zi ng t he wor ks i n r e l a t i on t o gr ound r i sk
avoi dance.
La r ge ge ot e c hni c a l des i gn r e por t s s houl d have a s u mma r y cont ai ni ng t he mos t i mp o r t a n t
t echni cal s t a t e me nt s in a conci s e ma n n e r wi t h e xa mpl e s r ef er r i ng t o t he a nne xe s encl os ed
i n t he d o c u me n t s publ i s he d f or t ender s.
6 Ref erences
[1] Peck, R.B.: Advantages and limitations of the observational method in applied soil mechanics.
9th Rankine Lecture: Gdotechnique 9 (1969), 171-187.
[2] Smoltczyk, U.: Beobacht en- aber methodisch richtig. Vortrfige Christian Veder-Symposium, Graz
1999, 1-11.
[3] Smoltczyk, U: Internationale Vereinbarungen. In: Grundbau-Taschenbuch Teil 1, 5th edition.
Ernst & Sohn, Berlin 1996, 1-23.