See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/332835164

Consideration of numerical methods in next generation Eurocode 7 (EN 1997)

- current state of the amendment

Conference Paper · June 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 18

2 authors, including:

Andrew Lees
Tensar International
26 PUBLICATIONS   34 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

COGAN (Competency in Geotechnical Analysis) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrew Lees on 03 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Consideration of Numerical Methods in Next Generation Eurocode 7
(EN 1997) current state of the amendment
A.S. Lees
Senior Application Technology Manager, Tensar International and Director, Geofem Limited, Nicosia,
Cyprus.
H. Walter
HTLuVA Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

ABSTRACT:
C
7 should be extended, among other issues, to cover numerical

methods in day-to-day practice for inclusion in EN 1997-1. Such rules have been regularly sought during
stakeholder feedback. This work would make use of the background research being undertaken by SC7/EG4.

Currently the first part of EN 1997, EN 1997-1, is being redrafted. It will contain general aspects of ge-
otechnical design, including s
to be, final draft will be available in May 2018.
This paper gives an overview over the goals of the updated version of EN 1997 and the steps and organisa-
tion of its development.
will be pre-
sented in more detail. For the verification of ultimate limit states a dual factoring approach will be recom-
mended, requiring two analyses with different combinations of partial safety factors. Among other recom-
mendations, the need for validation of the models will be highlighted with the recommended level of
validation depending on the geotechnical category. The updated EN 1997-1 will be open to reliability-based
analyses.

1 INTRODUCTION The work programme should be finished in 2020

The complete Eurocode suite of European Standards
is about to be redrafted. The basis for this is Man-
date M/515 of the European Commission (EC)
Mandate for amending existing Eurocodes and ex-
tending the scope of structural Eurocodes
European Committee for Stand-
ardization focus-
es on ensuring the standards remain fully up to date
through embracing new methods, new materials, and
new regulatory and market requirements. Further-
more, it focuses on further harmonization and a ma-
jor effort to improve the ease of use of the suite of
standards for practical users.
The full TC (Technical Committee) 250 work
programme is comprised of 79 distinct tasks in four
overlapping phases. Six tasks refer to EN 1997 (all
parts) and are to be accomplished by so-called pro-
ject teams (PTs) supported and controlled by TC 250
/ Subcommittee SC 7, organised into Work Groups
(WGs) and Task Groups (TGs).
if funding by EC and EFTA is provided in time.
Among the tasks listed by CEN TC250 were the
establishment of ear rules for using advanced
numerical methods in day-to-day practice
flected the fact that the implementation of many as-
pects of the current EN 1997 using numerical meth-
ods is unclear, in spite of the increasing use of such
tools in everyday design.
There are some advantages to performing ge-
otechnical design using numerical methods which
include simultaneous checking for limit states in
multiple forms, verifying serviceability and ultimate
limits states (SLS and ULS) with one analysis model
(using incremental methods) and more accurate sim-
ulation of ground behaviour and soil-structure inter-
action
In preparation for the work programme, TC250/
SC7 formed a number of Evolution Groups com-
prised of experts from across Europe to recommend
to the sub-committee improvements to EN 1997 in
key technical areas. These areas included character-
istic values, water pressures and pile foundations, for
example. Evolution Group 4 (EG4) provided rec-
ommendations in the area of numerical methods. final document in May 2020.
The new draft of EN 1997 is comprised of three
3.2 EN 1997-1 Tasks
The new part 1, EN 1997-1, covers the basis of Project Team PT1 have been in charge mainly of re-
design of geotechnical constructions, including rules organising the content in three parts and harmonisa-
for analysis, both for serviceability limit states (SLS) tion of the design. Their findings concern mainly
and ultimate limit states (ULS). One of the subsec- factoring combinations for ULS design
tions sets rules for numerical analyses which is the groundwater effects
focus of this contribution. review of National Annexes
All the information given here about the contents review of design provisions in execution
of the draft of EN 1997-1 and other parts of the re- standards.
vised Eurocode is preliminary and subject to change. Project Team PT 2 has been responsible for
It is based on the contents of the draft versions draft of EN 1997-1
available in November 2017 (CEN 2017a, b). reduction in number of National Choices
enhanced ease of use
reliability discrimination
2 GENERAL ASPECTS (geotechnical complexity, validation
methods, etc.)
Several categories of Eurocode-users have been groundwater pressures
Practitioners compe- numerical models
tent engineers alignment with EN 1990.
dience of the Eurocode suite. These project teams worked concurrently to pro-
Main requirements for the amendment according duce a first draft in April 2017 and a second draft in
to the Mandate are: October 2017.
Rules for assessment and strengthening of
existing structures
Rules for robustness 3.3 EN 1997-3 tasks
Reduction of the number of Nationally De- The drafting of EN 1997-3 will be accomplished
termined Parameters by two project teams: Project Team PT 4 is respon-
Improvement of ease of use sible for spread and pile foundations, slopes and
Incorporation of recent developments. ground improvement, whereas Project Team 5 deals
with retaining structures, anchors and reinforced
The whole revised Eurocode suite is based on EN soil. Among their tasks is adding widely accepted
calculation models to Eurocode 7 so that users do
EN 1990 gives the principles and requirements for not have to resort to non-normative (typically na-
safety, serviceability and durability of structures that tional, not international) documents (CEN 2015).
are common to all Eurocode parts and are to be ap-
plied when using them. Since the content of EN
3.4 Organisation of EN 1997-1
1990 shall not be repeated in other Eurocode parts,
EN 1990 will have to be used much more frequently The amended EN 1997-1 contains the following
by engineers than now. main clauses:
Basis of design
Materials
Groundwater
3 DRAFT OF EN 1997 Geotechnical analysis
ULS
SLS
3.1 Time line
Execution
A final draft of the revised EN 1997- Testing
Reporting
stages before publication of the standard are a public
identical to the main headings of EN 1990 and speci-
fy the application of the rules in EN 1990 to ge-
2016).
A first draft of the revised EN 1997- the
- corresponding headings in EN 1990 and are more in
common with the other Eurocodes. Consequently,
EN 1997 should be easier to use by those accus-
-clause about numerical
methods.
version of EN 1997 are summarised in the following
sections of this paper.
4 BASIS OF DESIGN
Consequences classes introduced in Annex B of
the current EN 1990 have been moved to the main
text of the latest draft of EN 1990 and govern the re-
quired level of reliability for structural and geotech-
nical design. Five classes have been defined (CC0 to
CC4) but classes CC0 and CC4 are beyond the scope
of the Eurocodes.
The concept of geotechnical categories has been
revised. they are now explicitly based on conse-
quence classes on the one hand, while on the other
hand, geotechnical complexity classes with three
levels have been introduced which are independent
of the consequences of failure. They are established
based on criteria like soil properties, construction
technique and soil-structure interaction. The classifi-
cation is based on the most adverse design situation
and may be modified during the design process if
justified, e.g. by new information from ground in-
vestigation. The assignment to a geotechnical cate-
gory is based on a table combining consequence
classes and geotechnical complexity.
The required amount of ground investigation, val-
idation of analysis models, design checking and exe-
cution supervision, and monitoring, etc. is based on
the geotechnical category. (Geotechnical category 3
is not necessarily beyond the scope of EN 1997 an-
ymore.)
Depending on the consequence class, partial safe-
ty factors may be amplified or reduced by a factor,
either on actions or on ground strength properties.
For the verification of limit states four methods
are foreseen:
Verification by the partial factor method
Verification by prescriptive measures
Verification assisted by testing
Verification by the Observational Method
5 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS
This clause is new in the amended EN 1997-1 and
-1 as well as the materi-
al about numerical methods. Among the general
requirements for calculation models are:
documentation of assumptions, including
idealisations and limitations
demonstration of existence of sufficient
ductility for calculation models that as-
sume ductile mechanisms
review and validation according to the ge-
otechnical category.
Suitable measures for validation are listed in Ta-
ble 1.
Table 1. Suitable measures for validation
(CEN 2017a).
______________________________________________
Geotechnical Measures for validation depending on GC
category (GC)
_____________________________________________
GC 1 - Literature reference that the calculation model
has been used for similar conditions
- Local experience shows that the calculation
model is suitable for the local conditions
- When using calculation models contained in
EN 1997-3, confirmation that the design falls
within the limits of application stated in EN
1997-3.
GC 2 - Documentation showing that the assumptions
for the calculation model used are relevant for
the specific site and structure
GC 3 - Calibration of the calculation model for the
specific site
- Sensitivity analyses for all relevant parame-
ters.
_____________________________________________
Four types of calculation models are distin-
guished: empirical models, limit equilibrium meth-
ods, limit analysis methods and numerical methods.
6 NUMERICAL METHODS
Most of the material in this sub-clause of EN 1997-1
implements the recommendations of EG4. In consul-
tations with users of EN 1997 during the re-drafting
process, it has often been suggested that more guid-
ance on the use of numerical methods should be
provided and more prescription on the selection of
constitutive models, for instance. This is not possible
because EN 1997 is not a guidance document but ra-
ther a set of rules for safer design. Given the almost
limitless scope of numerical methods and unforesee-
able scientific developments in this field during the
lifetime of the next generation of Eurocodes, it has
been possible to provide only a rather generic set of
rules. Heavy reliance is still placed on the compe-
tency of designers using such analysis tools.
6.1 General
The importance of user competency is reaffirmed
in the general section on numerical methods, along
with validation of analysis outputs and the use of
parametric studies to help determine the reliability of
outputs.
 With conventional analysis methods, e.g. limit
equilibrium or limit analysis, once the calculation
method has been selected, taking due cognisance of
its assumptions, limit state verifications are affected
by a small number of parameters. Simple application
of partial factors is usually sufficiently reliable for
routine design by deterministic methods. However,
due to the complexity of numerical methods, there
are many influences on the prediction of limit states
and simple reliance on partial factors could be dan-
gerous. It is therefore a requirement to consider the
sensitivity of limit state verifications to a number of
aspects, including:
discretisation of geometry, including dis-
continuities;
initial stress states;
preceding construction stages;
boundary conditions;
drainage conditions (including permeabil-
ity);
ground constitutive behaviour (including
stiffness, dilatancy, anisotropy, yield crite-
ria and flow rules);
strength and stiffness of structural ele-
ments.
6.2 SLS
A short section on SLS hints at the improved pre-
dictions of deformations that can be obtained with
advanced constitutive models with non-linear stiff-
ness, for example. It also highlights the difference
between SLS verification and best-estimate predic-
tions of deformations (using estimates of mean val-
ues of material properties). A common error by
some users of numerical methods is to compare the
output from SLS verification analyses with site mon-
itoring data, for example, expecting reasonable
agreement even though cautious values of ground
and structure parameters, geometry, sequencing, etc
and full permanent and variable loading may have
been adopted in the model. Such comparisons
should be made with best-estimate predictions.
6.3 ULS
Partial factors are applied to actions, material pa-
rameters and resistances in the Eurocodes. Depend-
ing on the approach to verifying ULS, values greater
than one are applied to one or more of these. There
are pros and cons to each approach as summarised in
the following three sub-sections. More detail and il-
lustrative examples are provided by Lees (2013,
2017).
6.3.1 Material factoring approach (MFA)
Factors are applied to input parameters (material
strength and some actions) such that design values
of output are obtained directly. MFA is suited to ver-
ifying ULSs involving ground failure but its effect
on structural forces is rather unpredictable, so it is
less suited to verifying ULS of structural elements
alone.
6.3.2 Action effect factoring approach (EFA)
Action effects are the output from calculations,
such as pile axial load or wall bending moment. Ex-
cept for a small factor on variable actions, input pa-
rameters remain at their characteristic values so EFA
has the advantage of allowing the numerical analysis
to be performed with more representative input pa-
rameters. Outputs are factored and then compared
with resistances to verify ULS. It is suited to the ver-
ification of structural ULS but may provide insuffi-
cient reliability in cases where lower than expected
ground strength has a significant effect on structural
forces, e.g. forces in stabilisation measures to a mar-
ginally stable slope. In such cases, MFA provides
more reliable design values of structural forces.
6.3.3 Resistance factoring approach (RFA)
Verification of ULS by numerical methods can
involve RFA in two forms. Firstly, resistances can
be determined independently by, for example, full-
scale testing or independent calculation, and outputs
of structural force compared with resistance to verify
ULS (e.g. design value of soil nail force from nu-
merical analysis obtained by EFA compared with
design value of resistance measured by pull-out
test). Secondly, resistance can be calculated by nu-
merical methods by simulating a particular failure
form, e.g. increasing the vertical displacement of a
spread foundation until failure occurs to obtain bear-
ing resistance as output. Its design value can then be
compared with the design value of applied load to
the foundation to verify the ULS of bearing failure.
The former is suited to ULS verification in struc-
tures such as axially-loaded piles, ground anchors,
soil nails and rock bolts where resistance is often
measured by testing and the use of MFA would be
less reliable due to the uncertainty in soil-structure
interface parameters. The latter is suited to cases
where verification of the ULS of particular, relative-
ly simple failure forms is desired but not suited to
more general verification of multiple failure forms.
6.3.4 Dual factoring approach
Since no single factoring approach is sufficiently
robust to verify ULS by numerical methods across a
range of geotechnical structure types, a dual factor-
ing approach to the determination of design values
of structural forces is recommended in the new draft
of EN 1997-1, with ground failure verified by MFA,
as described in Figure 1. In many cases, design val-
ues of structural forces obtained by EFA will be the
most onerous and these will be used to verify struc-
tural ULS.
 MFA (recommended) MFA (alternative)
EFA
construction Material factoring approach with strength reduc- Material factoring approach with
Action-effects factor-
stage tion, starting with characteristic values of ground design values of ground strength
ing approach
strength parameters parameters from the start

Char. ground strength,

initial -factor on unfav. Design ground strength, actions
Q G Char. ground strength, actions and water levels
stage and water levels
variable actions, char.
water levels

construction
D to
stage 1 Multiply action effects Char. ground
Q
variable loads and reduce ground Design ground strength, actions
to obtain design strength, ac-
if ULS clear- G strength parameters to design val- and water levels. Obtain design
values of structural tions and
ly non- ues. Check output for any geotech- values of effects of actions E d,MFA
forces Ed,EFA water levels
critical, no nical failure, obtain design values of
ULS stage effects of actions Ed,MFA
necessary

construction
D to
stage 2 Multiply action effects Char. ground
Q
variable loads and reduce ground Design ground strength, actions
to obtain design strength, ac-
if ULS clear- G strength parameters to design val- and water levels. Obtain design
values of structural tions and
ly non- ues. Check output for any geotech- values of effects of actions E d,MFA
forces Ed,EFA water levels
critical, no nical failure, obtain design values of
ULS stage effects of actions Ed,MFA
necessary

construction
D to
stage 3 Multiply action effects Char. ground
Q
variable loads and reduce ground Design ground strength, actions
to obtain design strength, ac-
if ULS clear- G strength parameters to design val- and water levels. Obtain design
values of structural tions and
ly non- ues. Check output for any geotech- values of effects of actions E d,MFA
forces Ed,EFA water levels
critical, no nical failure, obtain design values of
ULS stage effects of actions Ed,MFA
necessary

Continues through any subsequent stages in the same way. ULS in structures and geotechnical elements like piles and anchors verified
for the least favourable of Ed,EFA and Ed,MFA in all construction stages.

Figure 1 Procedures for ULS analyses with numerical methods

However, in some cases, design values obtained
by MFA will be more onerous (e.g. in marginally
stable slopes) and these should be sued to verify
structural ULS, hence the dual (EFA and MFA) ap-
proach. The same applies for design values of axial
force in piles, soil nails, ground anchors and rock
bolts, the most onerous of which would be compared
with design values of axial resistance for these struc-
tures.
6.3.5 Applying partial factors to input parameters
The first stage of many simulations using numerical
methods in geotechnical engineering involves estab-
lishing in situ stresses. Were these established with
factored ground strength could lead to unrealistic
stresses that influence outputs. Similarly, analyses
with multiple construction stages using factored
ground strength and actions may have hard-to-
predict consequences on subsequent constructions
stages with higher or lower degrees of conservatism
than intended.
Consequently, rather than apply factors at the start
of an analysis, it is recommended in the new draft of
EN 1997-1 to run analyses with characteristic values
throughout the construction sequence and to reduce
ground strength, apply factors to actions and adopt
design water regimes in separate adjunct stages at
critical phases in the construction sequence.
The strength reduction may be performed simply
by substituting the material model parameters for
those with a lower, factored strength or by means of
a stepwise strength reduction procedure, if available
( , 2012; Tschuchnigg et al,
2015).
Once the design value of ground strength is
reached, ULS in the ground is verified by obtaining
equilibrium in the calculation and interpreting from
deformation output that a failure mechanism was not
obtained. Design values of structural forces from
MFA are also obtained. Strength reduction may be
continued beyond this point to determine the most
critical geotechnical failure.
It is permitted to combine ground strength reduc-
tion with structural strength or resistance reduction
to help identify potentially critical collapse mecha-
nisms of combined ground and structure failures.
6.4 Numerical methods in EN 1990
The current draft of EN 1990 contains a sub-
clause about non-
addresses mainly numerical methods. The recom-
mendations there deal with the necessity of valida-
tion of the models against benchmarks, of basic tests
on materials, of physical reference tests and mesh
sensitivity tests. Further it is stated that key parame-
ters should be entered into the limit state function
characteristic values and other parameters should be
entered as mean values. A sensitivity study should
be carried out in case of non-linearity between the
resistance and the variables influencing the re-
sistance to determine the most sensitive input pa-
rameter and how to apply the partial factors given in
the Eurocodes.
Although some of these recommendations are ra-
ther vague, they are in line with the requirements
and recommendations in EN 1997.
6.5 Partial factors for ULS
In the draft of EN 1990 (CEN 2017b) the partial fac-
tors on actions are grouped into four so-
sign C . new section on numerical methods. For ultimate lim-
In Design Case 1 the partial factors on actions are
larger than 1.0, e.g. 1.5 on variable actions. Design
Case 2 is a combined verification of strength and
static equilibrium and requires two calculations. In
geotechnics, it is used for verification of safety
against uplift. Design Case 3 has a partial factor of
1.0 on permanent loads and is used in connection
with the material factoring approach. Design Case 4
has partial factors on action effects instead of on the
actions directly.
In Design Cases 1, 2 and 4 the partial factors
should be modified by a consequence factor for con-
sequences classes 1 and 3.
In the draft of EN 1997-1 (CEN 2017a), which
covers geotechnical resistances, three sets of partial
material factors are foreseen: factors of 1.0, factors
larger than 1.0 or factors larger than 1.0 multiplied
by a consequence factor. For conventional analyses,
the combination of Design Case and set of partial
material factor will be specified in EN 1997-3 for
each of the types of geotechnical construction.
The partial factors depend also on the type of de-
sign situation: for transient situations, the partial ma-
terial factors may be reduced by an additional factor
under certain circumstances; however, the recom-
mended value of this factor is 1.0. For accidental and
seismic design situations, there is a separate table of
partial material factors.
If additional factors to the partial material factors
are applied, care must be taken that the resulting
combined factor is not less than 1.0.
The dual factoring approach for numerical meth-
ods involves Design Case 3, i.e. factors on variable
actions combined with factors on material parame-
ters (partial factor larger than 1.0 and multiplied by a
consequence factor) and Design Case 4 (EFA). The
least favourable of the resulting effects of actions are
design actions for the structural elements, including
anchors, piles, soil nails etc.
6.6 Reliability based methods
Whereas the draft of EN 1990 has a strong focus on
the semi-probabilistic concept in the partial safety
format and has strong restrictions on the use of reli-
ability-based methods for verification of limit states,
EN 1997-1 will be more open in this respect. A more
general treatment of geometrical entities in geotech-
nics (e.g. joint spacings and directions) than origi-
nally foreseen has been permitted in the main text of
EN 1990. (The informative Annex C of EN 1990
contains a section about reliability-based methods.)
7 SUMMARY
The latest draft of part 1 of Eurocode 7, EN 1997-1
-
it state design two combinations of partial safety fac-
tors should be analysed to help ensure sufficient re-
liability against ultimate limit states occurring in the
ground and structural elements for different types of
geotechnical constructions.
Other requirements and recommendations in EN
1997-
analyses were also covered in this paper.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This contribution is based on work by the members
of Evolution Group 4 and Project Teams 1 and 2 and
the corresponding Task Groups as well as numerous
 View publication stats

comments and suggestions by the engineering com-

munity. All this input is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

CEN 2015 Tender documents

https://www.nen.nl/Normontwikkeling/Eurocodes-
2020.htm
CEN 2016:
https://boss.cen.eu/developingdeliverables/EN/Pages
/default.aspx
CEN 2017a: prEN 1997-1, Eurocode 7: Geotech-
nical design Part 1: General rules, draft October
2017.
CEN 2017b: prEN 1990, Eurocode: Basis of
structural and geotechnical design Main element
Complementary element, draft October 2017.
Lees, A. (2013) Using numerical analysis with
geotechnical design codes, in Modern Geotechnical
Design Codes of Practice (eds. Arnold, Fenton,
Hicks, Schweckendiek and Simpson). IOS Press,
Amsterdam.
Lees, A. (2017). The use of geotechnical numeri-
cal methods with Eurocode 7, Proceedings of the
ICE Engineering Analysis and Computational Me-
chanics. In press.
Potts, D.M. and Zdravkovic, L. (2012) Account-
ing for partial material factors in numerical analysis,
62(12): 1053-1065.
Tschuchnigg, F., Schweiger, H.F., Sloan, S.W.,
Lyamin, A.V. and Raissakis, I. (2015) Comparison
of finite-element limit analysis and strength reduc-
tion techniques, 65(4): 249-257.