Foundation Design – Does Eurocode 7 Justify Higher Bearing Capacity Values?

In 2010, a new set of codes for the design of civil engineering infrastructures was issued
by the British Standard Institute (BSI), known as ‘The Eurocodes.’ The Eurocodes are a
set of 10 European standards with harmonized technical rules detailing how the design
of civil engineering infrastructures are to be carried out within the European Union.
Conceived and developed over an extended period of three decades, they have been
adjudged as the most technically advanced design codes in the world.

In several developing countries, the lack of this equivalent codes has led to the adoption
of codes from the developed countries. In Nigeria, the UK British Standard have been
adopted over the years with the exception of nationally determined parameters.
However, since the withdrawal of the British Standards there continue to be this
inexplicable reluctance to fully implement the Eurocode which have being found to be
less prescriptive and flexible enough for use not only within the European Union but
also internationally. Perhaps the unpopular opinion that “Engineers in the developing
worlds have a reputation for laziness” holds true. In fact, it can be postulated that the
reason why we’ve not being able to develop codes of our own is not unconnected from
the “unpopular” opinion. And there’s no easy way out disputing this, apart from the
naturally inherent resistance of human beings to changes in behaviour and practices,
this writer has found himself in countless exchanges where an engineer is critical about
the intricacies of the Eurocode. Others simply come up with the excuse or defense of the
safety levels in the withdrawn BS standard being more appropriate for our industry.

Nonetheless, the Eurocodes is steady gaining some traction in Nigeria. Many designers
now adopt them for structural designs however, one area that appears completely
vague is in geotechnical design. For instance, this writer cannot comprehend why
foundations are still being sized as though we were still somewhere, stuck in the mid-
20th century when the Austrian born engineer, Karl Terzaghi would’ve just published
the famous bearing capacity equation. While this isn’t an attempt to downplay the
subject, giving the very complex and imprecise nature of ground materials. Rightly so,
certain aspect of geotechnical engineering continues to be practiced as an art till today.
And until Terzaghi, the subject of geotechnical engineering relied almost exclusively on
“practice and guesswork.” However, in science, 79 years is a very long time and it’s not
just this writer’s opinion but a statement of fact that tremendous progress have being
made on the subject.

Till the introduction of “Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design of Structures,” geotechnical

design has been carried out using the permissible stress design philosophy. What does
this mean? For instance, to determine the design bearing capacity of a pad footing, the
ultimate bearing capacity would be determined first, and then a global factor of safety is
applied to obtain a safe bearing capacity value.

It is fascinating to search through CP 2004 and even BS 8004, the predecessors of

Eurocode 7 and find that these codes aren't only silent on recommended values for the
global factor of safety, but also precludes an actual calculation model for estimating
bearing capacity. Instead, it recommends the concept of presumed bearing capacity,
where a designer chooses a value from a given range based on soil types (See Figure 1).
Thus, the concept of presumed bearing capacity is prescriptive, in other words does not
require geotechnical testing or an actual calculation be carried out, as it's entirely based
on experience and the discretion of the designer. Prescriptive measures can be adopted
for conventional structures. They can be used to produce fast and conservative designs
especially in cases where the cost of conducting an extensive site investigation cannot
be justified. But, since ‘presumed’ values are generally conservative, they may produce
relatively uneconomical designs, hence, many designers prefer conducting a site
investigation towards estimating the ‘actual’ bearing capacity.’

BS 8004 states that where bearing capacity is being estimated using the Terzaghi
equation in standard soil mechanics texts, a suitable factor of safety, left exclusively to
the discretion of the designer, be applied to determine the safe bearing capacity. But
since BS 8004 which is supposedly the code of practice for geotechnical design in
Nigeria doesn’t contain a specified value, it begs the question of where the typical
values of 2.5 - 3.0 found in our geotechnical investigation reports stems from. Even
more important is the question of whether these values can be considered to be
reasonable for all cases.

Indeed, the principal factor influencing the global factor of safety value is settlement. A
foundation will not only fail from shear alone but also from excessive ground
deformation, hence a judicious value of 3.0 can be said to ensure that bearing pressures
are kept at very acceptable levels, without a further requirement to separately assess
ground deformations. However, it is this writer's opinion, that this approach is not just
crude but just a few steps away from the "guesswork" alluded to earlier. We now have a
code that does better and we also have commercial software that can deal with the
complexities in estimating settlement to a reasonable degree.

A Review of Eurocode 3

In sharp contrast to BS 8004, Eurocode 7 adopts a completely divergent design

philosophy – the Limit State Design. Here partial factors are applied to both actions or
their effects and material parameters. Eurocode 7 provides a design philosophy that
allows designers to make reliable allowance for uncertainties by applying separate
partial factors to actions, ground properties and material strength based on their
individual degree of uncertainty, as opposed to the application of a global factor of
safety. The ultimate result is that geotechnical designs carried out to Eurocode 7 not
only have an acceptable and consistent reliability of performance but also the fact that
foundations sized to Eurocode 7 can be sensibly economical when compared to those of
the past.

Eurocode 7 is composed of two parts; Eurocode (part 1) also referred to as EN 1997-1

which sets out the principles and application rules for conducting geotechnical design
and Eurocode (part 2) which provides the requirement for ground investigation and the
derivation of various soil parameters from soil tests.
Within Eurocode 7, there are four main methods of conducting geotechnical designs,
these include, design by calculation, design by observation, design by testing and
design by prescriptive measures. All four methods are equally valid and based on the
assumption that no limit state is exceeded; however, some methods might produce
more efficient and economical solution than others depending on the accuracy of the
data available and the risk and complexity of the design. Talking about risk and
complexity of design, Eurocode 7 recommends three Geotechnical categories that could
be used in assessing risk and expected design method when undertaking a geotechnical
design (See figure 2).

Geotechnical Design by Testing

Geotechnical Design by testing involves a design conducted through small- or large-

scale model tests on site to justify the geotechnical design. The typical pile load tests,
where the load carrying capacity of each pile is determined in real time is an example of
design by testing. Design by testing provides unique results, which when compared
with those from site investigations are found to be more accurate. This approach to
foundation design, when carried out properly usually yield very economical design.
However, apart from requiring time and scale effects to be considered, and an
appreciation of the differences that might exist between testing and real time
construction, EC7 provides only little guidance on geotechnical design by testing.

Geotechnical Design by Observation

Parallel to design by testing, Eurocode 7 appreciates conducting geotechnical designs

by observational methods. For example, where it is impossible to predict how a
proposed structure will interact with an existing structure, design by observation can be
adopted. This requires altering the design as new data become available during the
course of construction. Design by observation requires careful monitoring throughout
implementation and a quick response to changes. Design by observation is seldom
used for building structures due to its impracticality.
Geotechnical Design by Prescription

Design by prescription is technically the same procedure adopted for foundation design
in the now superseded codes of practices. Design by prescription is a set of conservative
design rules used to carry out geotechnical design. This rule can be found in document
and manual set by local or national authorities via building regulations. For Eurocode 7,
these rules are presented in the National Annexes to the code.

Where there is comparable experience and where there is clearly established

information of similar ground conditions, involving similar structures, suggesting that
there would be very similar geotechnical behaviour, design by prescription can be more
appropriate. However, due to the generalized nature of this method, they sometimes
produce uneconomical solutions.

Geotechnical Design by Calculation

Geotechnical design by calculation is reliant on the quality of data retrieved from

geotechnical investigations carried out on prospective sites. In Eurocode 7, it is the most
used method in verifying that no limit state is exceeded. This requires separate
calculations to be carried out to ensure that the occurrence of an ultimate limit state
(ULS) as well as a serviceability limit state (SLS) is much unlikely. A consequence of this
in contrast to geotechnical designs to previous code of practices, such as the BS 8004, is
that Eurocode 7 now requires more attention be paid to ground deformations. Thus,
there is the need to determine soil compressibility and the need for seamless
communication between structural engineers and geotechnical engineers in the
foundation design process. However, geotechnical engineers are warned that the
methods of calculating settlements of spread foundation should not be regarded as
precise but rather a mere approximate indication.

Design Study
Figure 3 shown below is a part of a column application plan of a residential building,
containing the characteristics value of the structural loads at foundation level. A
geotechnical investigation report was conducted to determine the apparent cohesion,
bulk density and angle of internal friction towards estimating the bearing capacity of
the soil using the Terzaghi equation. The geotechnical engineer, having being presented
with the results, which is replicated here as Table 1 made the following
recommendations.

Pit Depth C  (°) γb Nc Nq Nγ qf F.O.S qa

(m) (kN/m ) 2
(kN/m )2
(kN/m ) 2
(kN/m2)

TP1 1.5 4.56 29.3 17.1 28.5 17.0 20.2 402.8 3 134.3

TP2 1.5 2.80 30.4 15.1 31.2 19.3 23.8 309.2 3 103.1

TP3 1.5 4.66 29.4 17.3 28.8 17.2 20.5 417.9 3 139.3

TP4 1.5 8.74 28.3 16.8 26.4 15.2 17.4 497.5 3 165.8

TP5 1.5 6.36 29.2 17.0 28.3 16.8 19.9 461.6 3 153.9

TP6 1.5 16.45 28.0 17.6 25.8 14.7 16.7 763.8 3 254.6

 Pad foundation is recommended for the development, based on an assumed

maximum column load of 800kN. Albeit, the structural engineers have been
granted the discretion of determining the foundation type.
 A bearing capacity of 100kN/m2 is recommended at a depth of 1.5m
 Based on proposed loading, a settlement of 92mm is anticipated.
 Due to the silty nature of the soil, adequate provisions should be provided to
take care of drainage conditions
Given that we already have the safe bearing capacity as 100kN/m 2, the process of sizing
this foundation is pretty straight forward. Divide the structural loads by the safe
bearing capacity and you have the required sizes of the pad footings. When we do this,
we get the pad footing for column C1 as (3.4m x 3.4m) and for column C2 as (3.1m x
3.1m). This would appear to have solved the problem as far as geotechnical aspect of
designing these spread footings is involved. Well, not until we consider the
irregularities in the geotechnical investigation report.

Observations

First, the geotechnical engineer seemed to have drawn his conclusion on the safe
bearing capacity for the entire site based solely on the result from the worst test pit
(TP2) while there were significantly higher bearing capacity values from other test pits.

Secondly, is the assumption that the maximum column load is 800kN while the actual
maximum column loads from structural analysis shows a significantly higher value -
1020kN. The implication, therefore, is an issue in the bearing capacity and
corresponding settlement computation. For instance, the third component of the
Terzaghi equation requires the width of the footing for the computation of bearing
capacity. But, since assumptions are based on the assumed maximum loading, the
bearing capacity values turns out incorrect.

Thirdly, is about the global factor of safety. For this project the designer has decided to
apply a global factor of safety of 3 to obtain the safe bearing capacity value.
Pressure Verification to Eurocode

We are going to attempt to size the foundation using Eurocode 7, to see if we can justify
an increase in the bearing capacity values.

The procedure follows a “cut and try,” a contrast from the usual approach of estimating
the base area required using the safe bearing capacity. Here, the pad footings are sized
based on reasonable assumptions, after which a bearing pressure verification is carried
out to ensure that the bearing resistance is higher than the applied pressures. The
procedure of carrying out this verification has already been outlined in an earlier article,
hence would not be repeated here. (See: Geotechnical Design of Spread Foundations to
EC7)

The Tab above shows the result obtained from sizing the foundation using the data
from the worst test pit (TP2). For a (2.0m x 2.0m) base, the applied pressure is
300.6kN/m2 while the allowable bearing resistance is 515.7kN/m2 with a cautious
utilization ratio of 0.583. Perhaps, no explanation is required to understand why the
footing size has drastically reduced. But there is more; the requirement to check ground
deformation.

Settlement Verification to Eurocode

The serviceability limit state of settlement is adequate if the following inequality is

satisfied.

Ed ≤ C d

Where:

 Ed is the total settlement, which typically contain three components – immediate

settlement, consolidation settlement and creep settlement.
 Cd is the limiting value of settlement taken as (50-75mm) for foundations in sand
and (75-135mm) for clays3.
There are several methods of estimating the total settlement, the most commonly
recognized method is the stress strain method, whereby the strain is computed from the
stress induced and soil moduli and then subsequently integrated to obtain the
settlement. This procedure is quite tedious when done by hand, hence there are many
commercial software available integrating the process.

For this problem, the maximum settlement when a footing size of (2.0m x 2.0m) is
adopted was analyzed using Geo5-Spread Footing. Figure 4 presents the results obtained
from the settlement analysis. A maximum value of 20.3mm was obtained.

Conclusion

Does Eurocode 7 justify higher bearing capacity values? The design study answers in
the affirmative. The design study shows that geotechnical design carried out, exercising
the working stress method can yield uneconomical solutions because, global factors of
safeties are assumed and thus, sometimes, overly conservative.

Furthermore, it is a well-accepted view that foundation sizing falls entirely within the
remit of geotechnical engineers, with the structural engineer only carrying out
structural design checks such as specifying concrete grade and reinforcement
requirement. The workflow requires the structural engineer to furnish the geotechnical
engineer with the structural loads in advance in order to determine the required footing
sizes. However, the practice in Nigeria has mostly been the opposite. The geotechnical
engineer goes ahead to conduct a site investigation, make assumptions on expected
loading and on the same basis, conclude on the safe bearing capacity value and
foundation type.

It is this writer’s view, that the idea of writing safe bearing capacity values in
geotechnical reports based on “presumed data” is a lazy approach to foundation
design. It does not justify the cost of conducting site investigations since there are
presumed bearing capacity values in reports which can easily be used to produce
conservative designs. The essence of a geotechnical investigation is to establish as
precise as practicable, the actual soil condition of a site. This purpose stands defeated
when inaccurate assumptions are made. Eurocode 7 deals positively with this, by
harmonizing geotechnical design with structural design through the introduction of a
consistent safety requirement, coherent partial factors and a common design
methodology – the limit state design philosophy.

Foundation design using the Eurocodes is a lesson on what can be achieved when there
is a collaborative effort between the structural engineer and the geotechnical engineer.
Instead of writing safe bearing capacity values in geotechnical reports, can we start to
have the footing sizes?

Citations

 Bond A and Harris A (2008) Decoding Eurocode 7. Taylor & Francis, London,
UK.
 Institution of Structural Engineers (2013) Manual for the Geotechnical Engineers
of Structures to EC7.
 Trevor L.L (2012) How Eurocode 7 has affected geotechnical design: a review,
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Geotechnical Engineering.
 BSI (1986) BS 8004:1986: Code of practice for foundations. BSI, Milton Keynes,
UK.
 BSI (2004b) BS EN 1997-1:2004: Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design – Part 1: General
rules. BSI, Milton Keynes, UK.
 BSI (2007a) BS EN 1997-2:2007: Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design – Part 2: Ground
investigation and testing. BSI, Milton Keynes, UK