Implementation and evolution of Eurocode

7
Andrew BOND
Director, Geocentrix Ltd, Banstead, UK and Chairman of TC250/SC7

Abstract. The paper describes the ways in which Eurocode 7 has been
implemented by National Standards Bodies in Europe. It identifies key differences
between the 33 countries involved in their choice of Design Approach for different
foundation types and the introduction of different factors based on the design
situation being considered and the consequences of failure. Finally, the paper gives
details about the plans that are in place to develop the Eurocodes as a whole and
Eurocode 7 in particular.

Keywords. Partial factors, material strength design, load and resistance factor
design, consequences of failure

Introduction

In 1975, the Commission of the European Community (known, at the time, as the
European Economic Community, EEC), decided to create an action programme in the
field of construction, with the objective of promoting free trade between the member
states by the elimination of technical obstacles and harmonization of technical
specifications. The fruits of that programme are the suite of European Standards for
structural (and geotechnical) design known as the ‘Eurocodes’.
The story of the development of Eurocode 7 has been reported in detail by Orr
(2008) and will not be repeated here, other than to note the immense contribution of the
late Prof. Niels Krebs-Ovesen – whose ‘clear and deep understanding of geotechnical
design principles, … excellent social and diplomatic skills, and … enthusiasm and
ability to motivate people’ (Orr, loc cit.) were key to the successful development of
Eurocode 7.

1. Implementation of Eurocode 7

The European Standard for geotechnical design, EN 1997 (better known as ‘Eurocode
7’), was published by CEN, the European Standards Organization, as a full Euronorm
(EN) between 2004 and 2007, following more than 30 years of development. The
standard is divided into two parts: Part 1 (designated EN 1997-1: 2004) giving General
Rules for geotechnical design, and Part 2 (EN 1997-2: 2007) covering Ground
Investigation and Testing.
CEN’s rules regarding publication of European Standards normally require such
standards to be implemented in Member States within six months of them being made
available. Because of the complexity and interconnection of the 58 standards in the
Eurocode family, these rules were relaxed, thereby allowing a phased introduction of
the codes throughout Europe. A deadline of April 2010 was set for full introduction of
the Eurocodes and withdrawal of any national standards that conflicted with them. This
deadline has not been universally met and so the take up of Eurocode 7 into
geotechnical design practice in Europe has been slower than anticipated.

1.1. Choice of Design Approach for GEO/STR ultimate limit state verifications

Eurocode 7 requires ultimate limit states that involve the strength of structural
materials or the ground (so-called limit states STR and GEO) to be verified using the
inequality:

Ed ≤ Rd (1)

where Ed is the design effect of actions (e.g. bending moment, shear force, bearing
pressure, etc.) and Rd is the corresponding resistance to that effect (bending capacity,
shear capacity, bearing capacity, etc.). Reliability is introduced in a deterministic
manner, by the introduction of partial factors into this expression:

R { Fd , X d , ad }
γ E E { Fd , X d , ad } ≤ (2)
γR

where Fd, Xd, and ad represent design values of actions, material properties, and
geometry, respectively; γE and γR are partial factors on the effects of actions and
resistance; and E{…} and R{…} denote appropriate functions of the enclosed variables.
The enclosed variables are themselves modified by partial factors:

Xk
Fd = γ F Frep , X d = , ad = anom ± Δa (3)
γM

where Frep, Xk, and anom represent representative values of actions, characteristic
material properties, and nominal dimensions, respectively; γF and γM are partial factors
on the actions and material properties; and Δa is a tolerance or safety margin on the
geometry.
The particular partial factors (and their values) that must be used in a country are
specified in National Annexes to Eurocode 7 published by the various National
Standards Bodies. Eurocode 7 provides a choice between three Design Approaches as
follows:

• Design Approach 1 (DA1) requires two separate verifications to be performed

using different combinations of partial factors: in Combination 1, factors > 1.0
are applied to actions only; in Combination 2, factors > 1.0 are applied
primarily to ground strengths (except in the case of piles and anchors, for
which factors > 1.0 are applied to resistances instead)
• Design Approach 2 (DA2) requires a single verification using partial factors >
1.0 being applied to actions and resistances simultaneously
 • Design Approach 3 (DA3) requires a single verification using partial factors >
1.0 applied to structural actions and ground strengths simultaneously

Design Approaches 1 and 3 adopt what is known as the ‘material strength design’
(MSD) method, which was introduced into European practice by Brinch Hansen (1956).
In this method, partial factors are applied (either separately or simultaneously) to loads
– called actions in the Eurocode system – and material strengths.
By contrast, Design Approach 2 is similar to the ‘load and resistance factor design’
(LRFD) method that will be familiar to users of modern American codes, such as the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. In this method, partial factors are
applied simultaneously to loads and resistance.

Figure 1. Design Approaches adopted by different European countries for design of shallow foundations

Figure 1 shows the choice of Design Approach that has been made for the design
of shallow foundations by the 33 countries who are members of CEN:

• 6 countries have chosen DA1 (Belgium, Iceland, Lithuania, Portugal,

Romania, and the UK)
• 11 countries have chosen DA2 (Austria, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain)
• 4 countries have chosen DA3 (Denmark, Netherland, Norway, and Sweden)
• 1 country allows a choice of DAs 1 and 2 (Italy)
 • 1 country allows a choice of DAs 2 and 3 (France)
• 2 countries allow a choice of all three DAs (Czech Republic and Ireland)
• 8 countries have yet to decide – or their decision is unknown to the author
(Bulgaria, Croatia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Switzerland, and Turkey
– plus Malta, which is not shown the map)

The division of Design Approaches indicates an almost equal number of countries

favouring the MSD method as there are favouring the LRFD method. This balance
changes, however, when considering the design of slopes and embankments, as Figure
2 illustrates. For these foundations, there is almost universal adoption of the MSD
method (i.e. Design Approaches 1 and 3).

Figure 2. Design Approaches adopted by different European countries for design of slopes and embankments

Finally, Figure 3 shows the choice of Design Approach that has been made for the
design of pile foundations by the members of CEN. A strong majority has specified the
use of Design Approach 2 and – since in Design Approach 1 partial factors are applied
to pile resistances and not ground properties – this means there is almost universal
adoption of the LRFD method for pile foundations.
 Figure 3. Design Approaches adopted by European different countries for design of pile foundations

1.2. Reliability discrimination based on design situation

The head Eurocode, EN 1990, uses the term design situation to describe ‘physical
conditions … occurring during a certain time interval for which the design will
demonstrate that relevant limit states are not exceeded’. Four design situations are
specified in EN 1990, as listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Design situations defined in EN 1990

Design Description Examples Partial factors for
situation ultimate limit state STR
γG γQ
Persistent Normal use 1.35 1.5
Transient Temporary conditions Execution or repair 1.35 1.5
Accidental Exceptional conditions Fire, explosion, impact, or 1.0 1.0
the consequences of
localized failure
Seismic When subject to seismic events 1.0 1.0

Values of the partial factors γG and γQ – which are applied to permanent and
variable actions, respectively – are summarized in Table 1 for limit state STR. EN
1990 recommends one set of values for persistent and transient design situations; and a
different set (all equal to 1.0) for accidental and seismic situations; i.e.:
 (γ F , persistent = γ F ,transient ) > ( γ F , accidental = γ F , seismic )

Two countries – Austria and Germany – have decided to specify alternative

values for γG and γQ depending on the design situation being considered, with these
values obeying the general relationship:

γ F , persistent > γ F ,transient > ( γ F , accidental = γ F , seismic )

For example, in Germany, the partial factor applied to variable actions is

specified as γQ = 1.5 for persistent, 1.2 for transient, and 1.0 for accidental design
situations. Likewise, these same countries specify alternative values for the resistance
factors γR to those given in Eurocode 7 (EN 1997-1) with:

γ R , persistent > γ R ,transient > ( γ R , accidental = γ R , seismic )

For example, in Germany, the partial factor applied to vertical bearing resistance
is specified as γRv = 1.4 for persistent, 1.3 for transient, and 1.2 for accidental design
situations.

1.3. Reliability discrimination based on consequences

The head Eurocode also allows the level of reliability used for the verification of
ultimate limit states to be varied according to ‘classes of consequence’, as summarized
in Table 2.

Table 2. Consequence classes and their associated reliability indices, as defined in EN 1990
Consequence Description Examples Associated minimum KFI
Class reliability index, β,
for given reference
period
1 year 50 years
CC3 High consequence for Grandstands, public 5.2 4.3 1.1
loss of human life, or buildings where
economic, social or consequences of failure
environmental are high (e.g. a
consequences very great concert hall)
CC2 Medium consequence for Residential and office 4.7 3.8 1.0
loss of human buildings, public
life, economic, social or buildings where
environmental consequences of failure
consequences are medium (e.g. an
considerable office building)
CC1 Low consequence for Agricultural buildings 4.2 3.3 0.9
loss of human life, where people do
and economic, social or not normally enter (e.g.
environmental storage
consequences small or buildings), greenhouses
negligible
 One way of introducing reliability discrimination is to introduce an extra partial
factor KFI into the calculation of design actions, such that:

Fd = K FI × γ F × Frep (4)

with the values of KFI given in Table 2. Five countries – Austria, Denmark, Finland,
the Netherlands, and Sweden – have decided to adopt this approach. So, for example,
in these countries the partial factor applied to variable actions is γQ = 1.35 for CC1, 1.5
for CC2, and 1.65 for CC3.
This method of reliability discrimination does not work for the design of slopes
and embankments, where the governing parameter is the strength of the ground, rather
than imposed loads. Three of the five countries listed above – Austria, Denmark, and
the Netherlands – have therefore extended this concept to the calculation of design
strengths, by increasing or decreasing the value of γM by a factor akin to KFI:

Xk
Xd ≈ (5)
K FI × γ M

For example, in the Netherlands, the partial factor applied to the coefficient of
shearing resistance (i.e. tan ϕ) is specified as γϕ = 1.2 for CC1, 1.25 for CC2, and 1.3
for CC3.

1.4. Summarizing reliability discrimination

Figure 4 indicates which countries have chosen different values for partial factors on
actions, material properties, and resistance to account for an increase or decrease in risk
brought about by the either a) the design situation and/or b) the consequence of failure
(KFI). In total, 7 of the 33 countries within CEN have chosen to do this (just over 20%).

1.5. Other changes to partial factors for ground properties

Several countries have chosen to adopt slightly different values for the partial factors to
be applied to ground properties in their jurisdiction. The motivation and justification
for this is beyond the scope of this paper, but, to give an idea of the changes that have
been made, Table 3 summarizes the values specified for slope design in selected
countries’ National Annexes. There is a slight tendency for γϕ to be reduced from the
recommended value given in Eurocode 7 and for γcu to be increased.

1.6. Some lessons learnt from implementation of Eurocode 7

The preceding review of the implementation of Eurocode 7 in various countries

throughout Europe reveals considerable variation from the ‘template’ provided by the
code for the level of reliability required in geotechnical design. It is clear that countries
have chosen to preserve their existing national practice as far as they can and have
adapted the Eurocode rules in order to do so. The challenge going forward will be to
explain the reasons for the apparent differences in national practice and to reduce these
differences where they are based on outdated experience.
Figure 4. Countries where partial factors vary according to the consequence of failure and/or design situation

Table 3. Values of partial factors that differ from Eurocode 7’s recommended values
Standard/Country Design Approach adopted for Partial material factors for design of slopes
slope design in persistent design situation, CC2
γϕ γc γcu
Eurocode 7 Values given for DA3 1.25 1.25 1.4
Austria DA3 1.15 1.1 1.25
Denmark DA3 1.2 1.2 1.8
Finland DA3 1.25 1.25 1.5
Germany DA3 1.25 1.25 1.25
Netherlands DA3 1.25 1.45 1.75
Portugal DA3 1.1 1.1 1.15
Sweden DA3 1.3 1.3 1.5
Underlined values differ from the recommended values given in Eurocode 7

2. Evolution of Eurocode 7

In May 2010, the European Commission issued a ‘Programming Mandate’ M/466 to

initiate further development of the Structural Eurocodes. This Mandate invited CEN,
the European Standards Organization, to submit proposals for creating new Eurocodes
and evolving existing Eurocodes. Responsibility for preparing CEN’s response to the
Mandate was delegated to CEN Technical Committee TC250.
2.1. Response to the Mandate

CEN’s initial response to the Commission’s Programming Mandate proposed new

Eurocodes for:
1. design of structural glass
2. structural use of fibre-reinforced polymers
3. design of membrane structures1

CEN’s response also proposed various improvements to existing Eurocodes, including:

1. reducing the number of Nationally Determined Parameters (NDPs)
2. incorporating recent research on innovation (e.g. performance-based and
sustainability concepts)
3. incorporating recent research on sustainability
4. simplifying rules for limited and well identified fields of application

Nationally Determined Parameters allow the Member Countries of CEN to decide

on their own safety levels and give national geographic and climatic data via National
Annexes to the appropriate Eurocodes. The use of NDPs and the publication of
supporting documents and standards (so-called ‘non-contradictory complementary
information’ or ‘NCCI’) have been far more extensive than was originally envisaged. A
priority for the evolution of the Eurocodes is to reduce national alternatives and thus
aid simplification.

2.2. How the evolution of Eurocode 7 is being organized

At its meeting in Cambridge, UK, in March 2011, TC250/SC7 – the subcommittee that
is responsible for the maintenance and development of Eurocode 7 – decided to
establish a number of ‘Evolution Groups’ to prepare for the ‘second generation’ of
Eurocode 7. The brief for each Evolution Group (EG) was to prepare the best possible
advice to allow SC7 to make the necessary changes, additions, and/or deletions to
Eurocode 7 to meet the aims set out in CEN’s response to the Mandate. The Evolution
Groups that were established – with one or two amendments – are shown in Figure 4.2
As Figure 5 shows, the Evolution Groups can be divided into four broad groups.
EGs 2 and 8 are concerned mainly with editorial matters, such as simplification and
harmonization of rules throughout both parts of the code; EGs 4, 6, 9, 10, and 11 are
concerned with generic technical subjects that are independent of foundation type;
while EGs 1, 5, 7, 13, and 14 deal with specific technical subjects which generally have
their own sub-section with EN 1997-1 (reinforced soil and rock mechanics are the
exceptions to this – but plans are in place to change this during evolution of the code).
EG3 is unusual amongst this company, since its purpose is to develop worked
examples based on the current Eurocode text, to establish current best practice. This
group is continuing the work of ETC10, the European Technical Committee
established by the International Society of Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering to research the implementation of Eurocode 7. Finally, EG0 is an over-

1
At the time of writing, it seems likely that European Commission will only fund the creation of a new
Eurocode for the first of these subjects and not for the other two
2
Creation of EG12 Tunnelling is pending; EG14 was created after the March 2011 meeting of SC7
arching group whose task is to coordinate the work of all the other groups and to act as
a single link to the main technical committee TC250/SC7.

Figure 5. SC7’s Evolution Groups

A micro-site has been setup to support the work of these Evolution Groups at
www.eurocode7.com/sc7/evolutionsgroups.html, where you will find the names of the
delegates who are working in each group.

2.3. Maintenance and simplification

The Structural Eurocodes have generally been regarding as complicated documents that
are not easy for designers to use. In its response to Mandate M/466, TC250 stated:

The Eurocodes are the result of a consensus between many European experts after
enormous exposure to examination. The Eurocodes are technically advanced standards
which are intended to allow the design of most structures that are likely to be needed
now and in the future. Accordingly they are very comprehensive, which can lead to
their appearing to be more complicated than is necessary when a limited range of types
of structure is to be designed.
 In view of the above, TC250 agreed to ensure simplification in the future
development of the Eurocodes by:

1. improving clarity
2. simplifying routes through the Eurocodes
3. limiting, where possible, the inclusion of alternative application rules
4. avoiding or removing rules of little practical use in design

To date, EG2 has concentrated its efforts on improving the contents of Eurocode 7
Part 2, which covers ground investigation and testing and has been accused of
including too much ‘text book’ material that would be better left out of the code. The
EG is also attempting to remove as much duplication as possible between Parts 1 and 2,
in order to simplify both documents.

2.4. Harmonization

In many ways, EG8 has the most important and most difficult tasks of all the Evolution
Groups – the reduction in national variation introduced via the National Annexes to
Eurocode 7. This task, however, is the European Commission’s number one priority in
commissioning evolution of the Eurocodes, since national variation is perceived as a
barrier to trade.
EG8 is investigating ways in which the need for different Design Approaches
introduced in EN 1997-1 might be avoided. The almost universal adoption of material
strength (MSD) design for slopes and embankments and load and resistance factor
design (LRFD) for piles suggests that progress towards this goal could be achieved on
a case-by-case basis, considering each foundation type in turn.
There appears to be a strong case for introducing reliability discrimination into
Eurocode 7, taking the best ideas from (mainly Scandinavian) practice. One proposal
under consideration is to ‘build up’ the value of the partial factors applied to ground
properties γM from various elements, like this:

γ M = γ M ,basic × kCC × k DS

where γM,basic would be the base value for γM for consequence class CC2 in persistent
design situations. The factor kCC would then modify γM for different consequence
classes; and kDS would do likewise for different design situations. Table 4 gives some
proposed values for these factors, based on the review of national practice described in
the first part of this paper. (The values given in Table 4 reproduce to a large extent the
specific values of γM already adopted in those countries which have already introduced
reliability discrimination, as indicated on Figure 4.)

Table 4. Some proposed values for the modifiers to be applied to basic partial material factors
Modifier for… Symbol Specific values
Case Symbol Value
Low consequence (CC1) kCC1 0.95 = 1/ 1.05
Consequence Class kCC Medium consequence (CC2) kCC2 1.0
High consequence (CC3) kCC3 1.1
Persistent kpers 1.0
Design Situation kDS
Transient ktran 0.95 = 1/ 1.05
 Accidental kacc 0.91 = 1/ 1.1
Seismic kseis 0.91 = 1/ 1.1
Underlined = ‘default’ consequence class and design situation

3. Conclusion

If the European Commission’s goal of free trade between member states in the field of
construction is to be achieved, then technical obstacles – such as a choice of Design
Approaches, a multitude of Nationally Determined Parameters, and further national
rules presented as non-contradictory complementary information (NCCI) – must be
reduced or eliminated. The best way to achieve this is to understand the purpose of
these national variations – and to provide alternative means of satisfying that purpose.

References

Bond, A.J. and Harris, A.J. (2008). Decoding Eurocode 7, Taylor and Francis, London.
Brinch Hansen, J. (1956). Limit design and safety factors in soil mechanics, Bulletin No. 1, Danish
Geotechnical Institute.
Orr, T.L.L. (2008). The story of Eurocode 7, 14th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering.