Towards a European Code
for Foundation Engineering
by N. KREBS OVESEN*
Introduction tional requirements which are generally
AS EARLY AS 1972 the Commission of applicable. The code stipulates calculation
the European Communities (EEC) decided methods and factors of safety which nor-
to make an effort to create a unified com- mally must be respected, but deviation
mon market in the construction sector. The from these is permitted if it can be shown
effort was aimed at eliminating the tech- to be warranted. The scope of the code
nical and legal differences affecting not includes foundations, retaining structures
only the products used in the construc- and earth works. There is a clear separa-
tion sector but also the regulations govern- tion of checks for ultimate and service-
ing the safety of structures. In 1975 an ability conditions. Usually design is gov-
action programme was approved by the erned by calculations for the ultimate limit
Commission, in accordance with which a state and only a rough check on move-
working party on the stability of structures ments is required. Partial coefficients are
was established. In this way the concept used for verification of safety and service-
of Eurocodes was introduced and in 1978 ability.
work started on Eurocode 1 which con- Three "project levels" are recognized.
cerns the unified rules common to various Low level comprises small structures in
types of construction and material, and very simple geotechnical conditions usually
Eurocode 2 and 3 which relate to concrete demanding no calculations. Normal level
and steel buildings respectively. comprises bigger structures or more com-
In 1980 an agreement was reached bet- standard
ween the EEC and the International Society
plicated conditions requiring
tests and calculations. High level includes
for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engin- very large or complex structures or situa-
eering (ISSMFE) under which the Society tions of high risks; no specific recommen-
would undertake to survey existing codes dations are given in the Danish code for
of practice for foundations within the mem- high level design.
ber countries and to draft a code which Greece
may be adopted as Eurocode 7 for founda- Greek codes are available for site in-
tions. vestigations (generally following ASTM),
The Society established a special sub- foundation design (following German
committee for this task; the committee DINs) and seismic design. The codes are
consists of one member from each of generally applied to both private and pub-
nine of the member countries of the EEC: lic sector works.
Belqium (E. Lousberg), Denmark (N. France
Krebs Ovesen, Chairman), France (F. An extensive series of French standards,
Baguelin), Federal Republic of Germany specifications, and guides are available
(U. Smoltczyk). Greece (A. G. Anagnos- covering such structures as footings, re-
topoulos), Ireland (T. Orr), Italy (R. taining walls, anchors, reinforced earth,
Japelli), Netherlands (W. L. Heijnen, Sec- etc. Quite a lot of French foundation
retary), and the UK (B. Simpson): Lux- design is based on pressuremeter test
emburg has no member at present. results and the design rules are conse-
The first part of this Paper presents quently rather empirical. For example,
information about the existing codes in estimated failure loads for piles are calcu-
the various member countries of the EEC; lated from pressuremeter results and the
information is also given on the framework acceptable working load for the pile is
which has until now been established for found by dividing by a factor of safety.
the Eurocode system. The various French codes are aimed at the
The second part of the Paper attempts public sector. However, they are very often
to outline some of the problems which referred to in contracts in the private sec-
will be encountered in establishing a Euro- tor.
code for foundations. Some possible solu- Federal Republic of Germany
tions are presented. Reference to the A large number of short standards
system of partial coefficients of safety is (DINs) each dealing with a single, limited
made and experience from its use in the topic exists. The DINs have a strong legal
Danish code for foundations is presented. status and it is difficult for German engin-
eers to deviate from their recommenda-
Part1: WHERE DO WE STAND? tions. The guidelines given in the various
DINs are extremely detailed. For example,
Existing European codes DIN 4017, part 2 concerns "Subsoil
Belqium analysis of bearinq capacity for shallow
No national code is available. Generally
foundations with inclined and eccentric
German and American standards are used loadinn", while DIN 4019, part 2 deals
tooether with the ISSMFE standard for with "Subsoil analysis of settlements in
cone penetration tests. A standard for piles the case of inclined and/or eccentric
is being drafted to cover both public and loadinq". DINs tend to use overall factors
r rivate sector work.
of safety in preference to partial coeffic-
Denmark
ients. A collection of DINs of relevance to
The Danish Code of Practice for Foun- foundation engineering have been compiled
dation Engineering (DS 415) is a rather in the "Grundbautaschenbuch" (1975).
condensed document which sets out func- There is only a draft DIN for design of
retaining walls.
*Pr~'" sor in So'I Mechanics, Danish Engineering Ireland
Academy. Civil Entiineering Department, Building
373, DK 2SOO Lyngby, Denmark At present there is no Irish code of
practice for foundations or site investiga-
tions. However, in practice the procedures
and standards set out in the relevant
British codes are adopted. The predominant
soil type in Ireland is glacial till and there
are also peat and soft alluvial deposits.
The glacial deposits are not very com-
pressible. Engineers generally design foun-
dations with a factor of safety of 3 against
shear failure. The serviceability condition
is not usually considered unless the soil
is very soft; then further settlement analy-
sis is carried out according to the design
engineer's own preferred method.
Italy
In the spring of 1981 a new Italian
ministerial decree came into affect which
governs such topics as site investigations,
foundations, earth retaining structures,
underground structures, artificial cuts, etc.
The document is very condensed and of
a general nature. Due to — among other
things — the wide variety of soil conditions
in Italy it advocates the observational
approach and it is rather flexible in that it
leaves a good deal of responsibility to the
design engineer. It gives specific values of
the total safety factors to be used for the
design of various structures. According to
the document site investigations are not
mandatory for small structures.
The Netherlands
No official code of practice for founda-
tion engineering is established in the
Netherlands, but the Delft Soil Mechanics
Laboratory has recently produced a draft
code written for the use of structural en-
gineers and consultants. The draft is fairly
descriptive, but it specifies partial safety
factors to be used for the design of various
structures. The present draft might later
be used as the basis for an official Dutch
code. However, many Dutch foundation
engineers would prefer to await a Eurocode
on foundations. A standard for cone pene-
tration testing is being written. Some other
Dutch standards mention geotechnics-
e.g. the standards for high voltage elec-
tricity towers and the standards for road-
works (unofficial but widely used). The
Netherlands is unique in that there exists
a "building police" who must check every
design. They write their own rules for
their own areas; they are not experts and
do not consult widely when writing rules.
United Kinqdom
The main British geotechnical codes
are CP 2004, Foundations and CP 2, Earth
Retaining Structures (beinq redrafted).
Both of these are lengthy documents, and
their main emphasis is to help the designer
avoid gross errors by making him/her
aware of all the features that should be
considered in the desinn. In calculations
both of them use a combination of permis-
sible stresses and overall factors of safety;
partial factors are not used, nor is the
language of the limit state method. In
CP 2004 the desittn of reinforced concrote
elements in accordance with the permis-
sible stress code CP 114 is recommended.
The new Code on Earth Retaining Struc-
tures will attempt to give compatibility
October, 1981 25
with the limit state concrete code CP 110
by means of "code compatibility factors".
Concluding remarks
The author finds it safe to state that a
wide variety of traditions and experiences
exists with foundation codes in the various
member countries of the EEC. Readers
interested in a more detailed comparison
between the various European codes (and
other codes) for foundations are referred
to a detailed document produced by Mal-
charek & Smoltzcyk (1981).
The Eurocode system
In view of the differences found in the
national codes within the EEC it was not
realistic to think that a unified common
market in the construction sector could
be attained without taking action in asgard
to the regulations. The best way of unifying
the technical codes might have been to
use the standards prepared by the interna-
tional standardisation bodies. However,
only one standard existed in 1975, i.e. ISO
2394 on the "General principles for veri-
fying the safety of building works", and
this was found by several member coun-
tries to be incomplete and inadequate.
The Commission therefore decided to
devise the so-called Eurocodes and to
base these on the corresponding prepara-
tory work of international technical asso-
ciations, such as the CEB (Euro-interna-
tional Committee for Concrete), the CECM
(European Convention for Structural Steel-
work), and the CIB (International Council
for Building Research Studies and Docu-
mentation).
In 1978 the Commission established a
programme which provides for the prepara-
tion of seven Eurocodes.
Eurocode 1
calculation models; model testing; proto-
type testing; general conditions for the use
of materials and components; and general
rules concerning control.
The principle of limit state design will
be introduced in Eurocode 1, which also
will establish the general principles for
verification of safety and serviceability by
the method of partial coefficients. Euro-
code 1 will give no specific numerical
values for partial coefficients, etc.; these
will be given in the other Eurocodes or
elsewhere.
A lot of problems remain with regard
to how the Eurocodes will be introduced in
the various member countries. Methods of
harmonising the Eurocodes with existing
codes are still under debate, but member
countries will be required to allow their
use within their territories. Their appli-
cation will be directed at public works
contracts for which national authorities
are responsible. but this does not exclude
voluntary application of the Eurocodes for
private contracts. In the beginning, the
Eurocodes will co-exist side-by-side with
the national codes, and will be regarded as
equivalent to them. National codes will
then be brought into line progressively
with the Eurocodes and the end goal is that
the national codes will be in accordance
with the principles laid down in the Euro-
codes.
Part 2: WHEREDO WE GO?
The code writer's problem
In the previous part of this Paper the
framework into which a European code for
foundation engineering will fit has been
presented. The following part concerns the
problems which face the code writers. The
author wants to stress that opinions and
that the movements and deformations
which will result from the loads and other
influences are not such that the capacity
of the structure to fulfil its objectives is
lost or essentially diminished either during
construction or throughout the assumed
lifetime of the structure. Normally this
requirement is satisfied by demonstrating
that the structure at all times has the
necessary safety against ultimate failure,
and that it is only subject to acceptable
movements and deformations.
These two so-called functional require-
ments mean that two separate calculations
must be performed for each individual
structure— an analysis against an ultimate
state of failure and a deformation analysis
of the state of normal use. In practice,
however, experience will often show which
one of these analyses should be used to
determine structural design, and the other
analysis may either be omitted completely
or limited to a rough control check.
Now, consider as an example the foun-
dation of a 'building as illustrated in Fig. 1.
In order to design the footings of such a
building against an ultimate state of fail-
ure, the soil engineer will establish the
following four factors in accordance with
the principles set out in the relevant code
of practice:
1. Actions (loads)
2. Soil parameters
3. Safety factors
4. Calculation methods.
The actions on the structure consist of
the weight of the structure and live loads
due to fittings and furnishings, persons,
snow, wind, etc. Let us consider the live
load on the floors in office buildings. Inves-
tigations indicate that this live load in
most office buildings will actually be in
the range of 0.2-0.5kN/m'. However, a

— —
Concerning the unified rules common to comments expressed in this part do not
the various types of construction and considerably higher value the so-called
necessarily reflect the views of the sub- characteristic value will normally be used
material. committee of the ISSMFE. as the basis for design. In statistical terms
Eurocode 2 A code of practice for foundation engin- the characteristic value of the live load in
Concerning concrete buildings. eering will normally specify that a structure question might be defined as a load
Eurocode 3 should be so designed and constructed which, with a probability of 98%, will not
Concerning steel buildings.
Eurocode 4
Concerning mixed steel and concrete
buildings.
Eurocode 5
Concerning wooden buildings.
Eurocode 6
Concerning brick buildings.
Eurocode 7 Loads
Concerning foundations.
b ='/~ p BNt + qN CN
The seven Eurocodes will be supple-
mented by unified rules concerning speci- Parameters
fic actions (e.g. wind, snow) and the safety
of buildings in seismic zones.
The stats of affairs of the Eurocodes,
as at August 1981, is as follows: Eurocode
1 exists in a third draft; Eurocodes 2 and
3 have been prepared in first draft, and LJ Calculation model

work is about to begin on Eurocodes 4 to 6

(and 7) .
Eurocode 1 will specify the definitions
valid for all Eurocodes and it will estab-
lish the unified common basis of the rules
specific to each construction mode (Euro-
codes 2-7).
Eurocode 1 thus deals with a common Safety factors
basis for preparing codes. It is, however,
not intended for direct use in the design Fig. 1. ln foundation Coos OS
of particular structures; Eurocodes 2 to 7 engineering a good ~ROC
iCE
will fulfil that function. design necessitates o y s "'d~///////////~
Ylllllli /llrYg ave
The content of Eurocode 1 will include stnking the right iee'lao
general rules concerning safety and ser- balance between
'
b.':os a.
viceability; general rules concerning actions loads, parameters, B = 1.2m
and their combinations; representative safety factors, and
properties of materials; geometrical data; calculati on model DECISION
26 Ground Engineering
be exceeded in a period of time of one
year. In accordance with this (arbitrary)
definition a given code might specify that
a characteristic value of 2.5kN/m'hould
be used in design of buildings for offices,
schools, restaurants, etc. However, in
assessing this characteristic value it is im-
portant to understand that there is not one
specific answer to the question: which
live load on floors is the correct one to use
in the design of office buildings? The
answer depends on the whole of the design
in which that live load is going to be
used.
The shear strength parameters of the
soil in question might be determined either
from field tests (for example, vane tests
in the case of the undrained shear strength
of clay), from element tests in the labora-
tory (for example, triaxial tests to deter-
mine the angle of internal friction for
sand), or from empirical relationships bet-
ween the shear strength parameters and
the standard classification parameters. Let
us consider as an example the use of
triaxial tests to determine the angle of
internal friction for sand. A number of
questions now arise. Which diameter and
which height/diameter ratio should be
used for the samples? Should rough or
smooth surfaces of the top and bottom
platens be used? Which cell pressure
should be applied? Should the angle of
internal friction be interpreted as the
inverse sine or inverse tangent of the slope
of the Mohr-Coulomb envelope? Etc., etc.
All these questions have to be answered
in order to determine an angle of internal
friction to be used in the design of the
footing in question.
The calculation method to be used for
the design of footings against an ultimate
state of failure is usually based on plasti-
city theory. The ultimate bearing capacity
for the footing can for example be deter-
mined from the Terzaghi bearing-capacity
formula. Even though this formula is gen-
erally accepted a few questions arise con-
cerning, for example, the N-, value, the
shape, depth, and inclination factors, etc.,
etc.
The safety factors to be applied to the
ultimate bearing capacity problem will nor-
mally be specified in the relevant code of
practice. Factors of safety between 2 and
3 will usually be considered adequate.
However, this also gives rise to a number
of problems. Should the safety factor be
applied on load or on material strength?
Should the same safety factor be used in
an effective stress and in a total stress
analysis? Etc., etc.
From the above discussion it will be
seen that quite a number of questions
have to be answered in order to design
a footinq against an ultimate state of
failure. Each code of practice will answer
the various questions in different ways.
One code, for example, will specify that
office floors should be designed with a live
load of 2kN/m-'hile another code will
specify a value of 3kN/m'. However, it
might well be that this apparent difference
is counteracted by differences in the safety
factors specified in the two codes. It is
thus important to understand that a code
of practice represents, at its best, a very
fine balance between the four factors men-
tioned above. For example, a given code
of practice cannot be judged on the basis
of an isolated evaluation of the calculation
methods it recommends. These calculation
methods can only be judged taking into
account the safety factors, the loads, and
the shear strength parameters which, ac-
cording to the code, are going to enter into
the design process.
A code of practice is empirical by its
nature. It is not "theoretical" and it does
not represent the "truth" about the matter
in question. It represents a tool by means
of which decisions can be made regarding
the design of structures.
The saying — "the proof of the pudding
—
is in the eating" is certainly true when it
comes to judging a code of practice. It
is a good code if it works in practice, by
which we mean if it is possible for the
foundation engineer to make the right de-
cisions by means of the code. Right deci-
sions again mean designing structures that
are sufficiently safe on the one hand and
are economical on the other hand. In a
somewhat over-simplified manner it could
be stated that a good code leads to a
situation where only very few structures
fail from time to time.
The code writer's task is to strike the
right balance between the specifications
concerning actions (loads), material para-
meters, safety factors, and calculation
methods; the code writer knows he has
obtained this balance if the cods leads to
structures which are sufficiently safe and
economical.
One possible element of a solution
A special problem which faces both the
code writer and ussr is, on the one hand,
that of the very simple structure and, on
the other, that of the very complex struc-
ture.
In the case of small structures in very
simple geotechnical conditions there is
no need for intensive geotechnical investi-
gations, calculations, and construction
control checks. In order to ensure a reason-
able economy for such structures it is
therefore reasonable to introduce some
special facilities in the code.
When it comes to structures that are
very large or complex or involve compli-
cated geotechnical conditions or situations
of high risk it is virtually impossible for
the cods writer to foresee all the possible
complications. It seems therefore reason-
able to specify only certain minimum re-
quirements for the extent and quality of
the geotechnical investigations and calcu-
lations in the code. It should then be left
to the foundation engineer to exercise his
professional judgement.
It appears that some of the existing
national codes for foundations in Europe
already contain elements of this philos-
ophy. The Danish cods has introduced a
solution which is considered helpful by
the sub-committee of the ISSMFE; this is
the concept of project levels.
In this concept a distinction is made
between three levels of projects for the
purpose of establishing minimum require-
ments for the extent and quality of the
geotechnical investigations, calculations
and construction control checks. The
following factors are taken into considera-
tion when determining the project level:
(a) Nature and size of the structure,
(b) Special conditions with regard to
neighbourinq structures (pipelines,
buildings, etc.),
(c) Soil conditions, and
(d ) Ground water problems.
The structure concerned and any neigh-
bouring one (a and b above) can often be
classified prior to the geotechnical analy-
sis; the ultimate project level determined
by the soil conditions and the ground water
conditions (c and d above), however, can
normally not be established until during
and after these analyses have been per-
formed. It will sometimes be as late as
during the construction control check, be-
fore it is found necessary to treat a
project at a higher level than hitherto. In
such cases the additional geotechnical
investigations and/or calculations corres-
ponding to this level must be performed.
The low project level includes only small
and relatively simple structures founded
on firm glacial deposits or older strata
and with no excavation below the ground
water table. For such structures the func-
tional requirements can usually be satisfied
by the use of empirical principles with no
actual geotechnical data.
The normal project level includes struc-
tures for which actual geotechnical data
are necessary to ensure that the functional
requirements are satisfied but for which
ordinary practical experience may still be
used.
High project level includes extremely
large and unusual structures, structures
involving risks and unusual or exception-
ally difficult soil conditions (for example
fat clay of tertiary origin and chalk with
cavities) necessitating specialised, ex-
tremely extensive or detailed analyses and
calculations to ensure that the functional
requirements are satisfied. The code speci-
fications for normal level projects form
the lower limits for the quality and extent
of these investigations and calculations but
apart from this, no detailed cods require-
ments have been formulated for the hiqh
project level and no attempt has been
made to establish a fixed boundary between
the normal project level and the high
project level.
It is the author's opinion that this con-
cept of three project levels could form a
suitable basis for a Eurocode for founda-
tions.
The use of partial coefficients in the
ultimate limit state design
Until around 1950 two different ways of
catering for safety needs were used in
Denmark.
In accordance with the principle of
allowable stresses, the stresses produced
by the specified loads should not exceed
the allowable stresses of the materials
which were found by dividing their ultimate
strength by safety factors. This was the
most commonly used system for structural
as well as foundation engineering. How-
ever, for materials such as reinforced or
prestressed concrete another system was
used to some extent, namely the principle
of load factors. According to this system
the specified loads were multiplied by
load factors and the ensuing stresses
should not exceed the ultimate strength of
the materials.
It will be seen that the first system has
the advantage of allowing different safety
factors to be used for different materials
whereas the second implies different safety
factors for different loads.
In 1953 J. Brinch Hansen proposed re-
taining the advantages of both systems by
introducing the principle of partial coeffic-
ients of safety for the design of founda-
tions and earth-retaining structures. Ac-
cording to this principle the specified
loads are multiplied by their respective
partial coefficients in order to obtain the
so-called design loads, and the ultimate
strength parameters of the materials are
divided by their respective partial coeffic-
ients to arrive at the so-called design
strength parameters. The design criterion
is then simply that the design stress must
October, 1981 27
not exceed the design strength; in other
words, equilibrium shall exist in the design
limit state of failure.
Brinch Hansen (1953) introduced the
principle of partial coefficients of safety
in his book on "Earth pressure calcula-
tion", and in addition he proposed numeri-
cal values for the various partial coeffic-
ients. The system was rapidly accepted in
foundation engineering practice in Den-
mark, and from around 1955 virtually all
foundation and retaining structures in
Denmark were designed in accordance with
the new principle. In engineering schools,
the system was taught in all courses in
foundation engineering from 1955.
The principle of partial safety coeffic-
ients was proposed by the Danish structural
engineer, A. J. Moe, as early as 1927. It
was published internationally by him in
1936, and was partly introduced in the
Danish Code of Practice for Concrete
Design in 1949. The system is now gener-
ally accepted for structural and foundation
engineering design in Denmark.
The numerical values of the coefficients
proposed by Brinch Hansen have under-
gone minor changes during the past 30
years. These changes reflect experience
gained through use of the system. The
following is a description of the system
as it is used today in the Danish Code of
Practice for Foundation Engineering.
Loads
Design values (indices d) of loads are
found by multiplying the corresponding
characteristic values (indices k) by the
respective partial coefficients f:
ga=gl .fg Pd=Pk fp
where g refers to dead loads, and
p to live load.
(For the Eurocodes it has been decided
to use the greek letter 7 as the symbol
for partial coefficients. For obvious reasons
this is not very convenient for foundation
engineers; the letter f has therefore been
used as the symbol for partial coefficients
in this Paper).
In most foundation engineering problems
the dead loads are known with consider-
able accuracy. Small variations may occur
in unit weights and dimensions and for
this reason it might be considered appro-
priate to use a partial coefficient of, for
instance, 1.05. However, not ail dead
loads will have unfavourabfe effects, and
for those that are favourable it would be
unsafe to multiply by 1.05; on the con-
trary, these loads should be divided by
1.05. In this way matters can become
rather complicated and it is usually not
worthwhile to accept such complications
for the sake of a margin as small as 5'/e,
taking into consideration all the uncertain-
ties involved in soil strength, etc. Conse-
quently, in the Danish Code of Practice
all dead loads of structures and of soils
are given the partial coefficient f, = 1.0,
Hydrostatic water pressures are known
with the same accuracy as dead loads
when the water level is given and for this
reason it will be logical to use fa, = 1.0
for water pressures. Moreover, any other
value would lead to similar complications
as for dead loads because the up-lift force
on a soil mass or a structural element is
part of its effective weight.
The live loads specified in the Danish
Code for Loads have until recently been
considered as estimates of the maximum
future loads. The numerical value of f
therefore depends upon the uncertainty of
28 Ground Engineering
the specified load. For ordinary live loads Future use of partial coefficients
in buildings, on bridges, quays, etc., The system of partial coefficients will
Brinch Hansen advocated that an appro- form the basis for safety requirements in
priate value was f„=
1.5. the Eurocodes. However, the increasing use
In special cases such as the loads on of statistical methods and reliability theory
railways of locomotives, and of grain in in structural and foundation design will
silos, the risk of exceeding the specified probably exercise an influence on the
load is small. Consequently, Brinch Hansen system.
advocated that a value as small as fp = For instance, it has already been men-
1.3 was justified. tioned that in accordance with Danish
The coefficient f„ is not meant to cover tradition the live loads are prescribed in a
impact effects. If such effects occur, load code as "estimates of the maximum
they must be included in the load p. future load". In future codes such loads
Strength will probably be prescribed on the basis
of statistically based definitions in, for
Design values of strength parameters
are found by dividing the corresponding example, the following way —
the load
characteristic values by the respective which, with a probability of 98'/e, will not
partial coefficients: be exceeded in a period of one year.
Concerning shear strength parameters
tan for soils, difficulties exist due to the fact
Qk
tan (hd
= Ca
that soil is not a man-made product. The
Danish code specifies that shear strength
'n f, parameters shall be determined by "a care-
ful estimate based on the relevant measure-
According to the Danish code, fg —1.2 ment resufts". Future experience will show
is used for bearing capacity, stability, or how well it is possible to make use of
earth pressure problems. It should be modern statistical principles to define more
noted that for the bearing capacity of a precisely the characteristic values of the
footing this partial coefficient corresponds shear strength parameters of soils.
to a total factor of safety equal to about 2. It is important to acknowledge that the
A value fc = 1.5 is used in the case of partial coefficients
principle of applying
stability or earth pressure problems, while and the numerical values of the coefficients
f, = 1.75 is used for the bearing capacity can only be evaluated on the basis of prac-
problem of a footing. tical experience. The system can only be
For the bearing capacity of piles f„ accepted if it can be proved to work in
2.0 is used to obtain the design value of practice; it must lead to economical struc-
the bearing capacity in the case where no tures when compared with existing prac-
load tests have been performed, i.e. where tice, and it must lead to reasonably safe
the bearing capacity has been found by a structures.
geostatic calculation or from a pile driving
formula. In the case where load tests have
been performed a value f„=1.6 is used. Concluding remarks
At this stage the reader will probably
The partial coefficients given above are
used only for a normal combination of ask how much time it will take before a
loads. Such a normal combination is de- Eurocode on foundations can become
fined as either the combination (dead load operational. It may be disappointing or
+ live load + snow) or the combination reassuring, depending on one's outlook, to
(dead load+wind). learn that in the opinion of the author a
The Danish Code of Practice specifies Eurocode 7 for foundations will probably
that lower numerical values of the partial not be available for the practising engineer
coefficients can be used in the case of an before 1986, or perhaps 1990.
extraordinary combination of loads (dead The author believes it to be extremely
loads+ live load+ snow+wind) or in an important that solutions to the problems
extreme combination of loads (dead load+ concerning Eurocode 7 are very widely
live load+loads due to falling structures). discussed within the European foundation
Problems of buoyancy engineering community. It is also vital
As described above a partial coefficient that these discussions take place at an
of 1 may normally be assumed for dead early stage of the work. The sub-commit-
load and water pressure. However, where tee of the ISSMFE will welcome every
these forces are the dominant influences opportunity to discuss matters related to
special safety considerations will be called Eurocode 7 with foundation engineers in
for. This is partly due to the fact that the various European countries. The
deformations, fissuring, and varying soil author feels confident that the on-going
conditions, with the attendant possibility discussion in this journal will be an
of erosion, may cause changes in the level important contribution.
of the water table and permeabifity which
are vitally important to safety. References
Where the problem is one of buoyancy British Standard Institution (1972): Code of Prac-
alone the Danish code proposes a total tice for Foundations, Cp 2004, 1972.
safety factor of 1.05 to be used, assuming Dansk Ingeniorforening (1978): Code of Practice
for Foundation Engineering, DS 415, translation
the most adverse possible water table, edition, 1978.
carefully assessed dead loads, and no Grundbau-Taschenbuch, Band II, Normen und
adhesive or frictional forces on vertical Richtlinien, Verlag von Wilhelm Ernst Ik Sohn,
Berlin, 1975.
structural surfaces. However, no definitive Hansen, J. Brinch (1953): Earth Pressure Calcula-
rules can be given for problems where tion, the Danish Technical Press, Copenhagen
water pressures and dead loads are dom- 1953.
inant forces as the level of safety is Institution of Structural Engineers (1951): The
Civil Engineering Code of Practice No 2 (Earth
often already determined by the basic Retaining Structures), CP 2, 1951, (now being
assumptions established. The use of redrafted) .
structural means (for example, overflow Malcharek, K 8 Smoltczyk, U. (1981): Vergleich
Nationaler Richtlinien fgr die Berechnung von
arrangements) to provide well-based as- Fundamenten (with an English summary), Bau-
sumptions with a relatively low degree of grund Institut Stuttgart, Mitteilung 16, 1981.
formal design safety must therefore often Moe, A. J. (1927): Sikkerhedsgrad, Ingenioren,
1927.
be preferred to a greater formal safety
and less well established assumptions.
Moe, A. J. (1936): Uber die Sicherheiten der
Eisenbetonbauten, IABSE, 1936.