Guide on Determination of Characteristic Value and

CP4 vs EC7 in Bored Pile Design

Dr T G Ng
Golder Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd

GeoSS

GEOTECHNICAL SOCIETY
OF SINGAPORE (GeoSS)

SCOPE OF PRESENTATION
1. Introduction
2. Geotechnical parameters and characteristic
values in EC7
3. CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile
Site Investigation
Structural Design
Geotechnical Design
Load Test
4. Conclusion

INTRODUCTION

Introduction: Distinction between

Principles and Application Rules
C1.4(1) Distinction is made between Principles and
Application Rules, depending on the character of
the individual clauses
C1.4(2) The Principles comprises:
General statements and definitions for which there is
no alternative
Requirements and analytical models for which no
alternative is permitted unless specifically stated

C1.4(3) The Principles are preceded by the Letter P

Introduction: Distinction between

Principles and Application Rules
C1.4(4) The Application Rules are examples of
generally recognised rules, which follow the
Principles and satisfy their requirements.
C1.4(5) It is permissible to use alternatives to the
Application Rules given in this standard, provided
it is shown that the alternative rules accord with
relevant Principles and are at least equivalent
with regard to the structural safety, serviceability
and durability, which would be expected when
using the Eurocodes.

Distinction between Principles and

Application Rules (SS EN 1997-1: 2010)

Eurocode 7 : Geotechnical design

Designers are responsible to ensure structural safety,
serviceability and durability of the designs.
Designers are responsible for the planning of the
geotechnical investigation
Designers are accountable for their decisions, i.e.
specification of field and laboratory tests,
determination geotechnical design parameters and
characteristic values etc.
2 briefing/dialogue sessions were held in Nov 2014 to
raise awareness to the designers on key aspects on
geotechnical investigations and recommendations on
how to determinate characteristic values

GeoSS EC7 Work Group

GeoSS Site Investigation Task Force

Chairman:
Members:

Seh Chong Peng

Poh Chee Kuan, Kiefer Chiam, Kyaw Kyaw Zin, Dr M. Karthieyan, Dr Cai
Jun Gang, Akira Wada, Arturo Taclob, Suresh Kumar, Gao JianSheng,
Kevin Quan, Khin Latt, Kyi Yu, Cheong Kok Leong, James Tsu, Aung
Moe, Tan Yong Beng, Ariff

DETERMINATION OF
GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS AND
CHARACTERISTIC VALUES

GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS

Design
values

Characteristic
values

Derived values

From ground
investigations
and lab tests

GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS

Design
values

Characteristic
values

Derived values

SPT N values

cu=5N

From ground
investigations
and lab tests

GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS

Design
values

Characteristic
values

Derived values

SPT N values

From ground
investigations
and lab tests

cu=5N

How to obtain
characteristic
values?

CHARACTERISTIC VALUE
EN 1997-1 C2.4.5.2(2)P defines the characteristic value as being
selected as cautious estimate of the value affecting the occurrence
of the limit state
Each word and phrase in this clause is important:
Selected emphasizes the importance of engineering
judgement
Cautious estimate some conservatism is required
Limit state the selected value must relate to the limit state
(failure mechanism)
Applicable geotechnical parameters from GeoSS EC7 Guide:
Applicable Geotechnical Parameters
tan j
Effective angle of shearing resistance
c
Effective cohesion value
cu
Undrained shear strength
N
SPT N values
qc
CPT qc values

CHARACTERISTIC VALUE
SS EN1997-1 Clause 2.4.5.2(4)P states, the selection of
characteristic values for geotechnical parameters shall take
account of the following:
geological and other background information, such as data
from previous projects;
the variability of the measured property values and other
relevant information, e.g. from existing knowledge;
the extent of the field and laboratory investigation;
the type and number of samples;
the extent of the zone of ground governing the behaviour of
the geotechnical structure at the limit state being considered;
the ability of the geotechnical structure to transfer loads
from weak to strong zones in the ground.

CHARACTERISTIC VALUE
SS EN1997-1 Clause 2.4.5.2(10) suggested statistical methods to
determine characteristic ground values. When applying
statistical methods, the designer should consider the following:
adequacy and quality of geotechnical investigations
distribution of sampling/testing
highly variable non-conforming nature of geomaterials
allowing the use of a priori knowledge of comparable ground
properties,
applying engineering judgement.

CHARACTERISTIC VALUE
For most limit state cases where the soil volume involved is large,
the characteristic value should be derived such that a cautious
estimate of the mean value is a selection of the mean value of the
limited set of geotechnical parameter values, with a confidence
level of 95% (moderately conservative parameters); where local
failure is concerned, a cautious estimate of the low value is a 5%
fractile (inferior parameters).
Examples of aplication using statistical methods are available in
Annex E and Annex F of the GeoSS EC7 Guide

Characteristic Values by Statistical Method

Schneider(1999) Method
Xk = mx - 0.5sX
(upper bound equivalent to 95% mean reliable)
Xk = mx 1.65sX
(lower bound equivalent to low value 5% fractile)
where

Ck = characteristic value
mC = mean value
sX = standard deviation
n = number of samples

CP4 (Current Practice) vs EC7

in Design of Bored Pile

CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile

Site Investigation
Design
Structural
Geotechnical
Load Test

CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Site Investigation

Current Practice

EC7

BCA /IES /ACES ADVISORY NOTE 1/03

GeoSS EC7 Guide Table 2.2

(a) The number of boreholes should be

the greater of
(i) one borehole per 300 sq m or
(ii) one borehole at every interval
between 10m to 30m, but no less
than 3 boreholes in a project site.

SS EN 1997-2 Annex B

(b) Boreholes should go more than 5

metres into hard stratum with SPT
blow counts of 100 or more than 3
times the pile diameters beyond the
intended founding level.

CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Structural)

Structural Working Load
CP4
Allowable concrete
compressive stress,
sc = 0.25 fcu < 7.5MPa

Pile working load,

Qst = sc . Ac

EC7
SS EN 1992-1:
NRd,p = Acfcd,p > NEd = 1.35Gk + 1.5Qk
fcd,p = cc,p fck/ gc,f
acc,p= 0.85 (reinforced); acc,p= 0.60 (un-reinforced)
gc,f = gc x kf = 1.5 x 1.1 = 1.65
fck = 0.8 fcu
Reinforced
NRd,p = Ac x 0.412 x fcu
Un-Reinforced
NRd,p = Ac x 0.291 x fcu
cast in place piles without permanent casing.
Ac should be taken as:
- if dnom < 400 mm d = dnom - 20 mm
- if 400 dnom 1000 mm d = 0.95.dnom
- if dnom > 1000 mm d = dnom - 50 mm

CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Structural)

Structural Working Load
Case 1: fcu = 35MPa

EC7
(Factored capacity, NRd,p)

EC7 (Service load)

Avg. Load Factor = 1.4

WL by CP4

dnom

Anom

Ac

Reinfored

Un-Reinf

Reinfored

Un-Reinf

sc = 7.5MPa

(mm)

(m2)

(mm)

(m2)

(kN)

(kN)

(kN)

(kN)

(kN)

800

0.503

760

0.454

6543

4619

4674

3299

3770

900

0.636

855

0.574

8282

5846

5915

4176

4771

1000

0.785

950

0.709

10224

7217

7303

5155

5890

1100

0.950

1050

0.866

12490

8816

8921

6297

7127

1200

1.131

1150

1.039

14982

10576

10702

7554

8482

1300

1.327

1250

1.227

17701

12495

12644

8925

9955

Case 2: fcu = 40MPa

EC7
(Factored capacity, NRd,p)

EC7 (Service load)

Avg. Load Factor = 1.4

WL by CP4

dnom

Anom

Ac

Reinfored

Un-Reinf

Reinfored

Un-Reinf

sc = 7.5MPa

(mm)

(m2)

(mm)

(m2)

(kN)

(kN)

(kN)

(kN)

(kN)

800

0.503

760

0.454

7478

5279

5342

3771

3770

900

0.636

855

0.574

9465

6681

6761

4772

4771

1000

0.785

950

0.709

11685

8248

8346

5892

5890

1100

0.950

1050

0.866

14274

10076

10196

7197

7127

1200

1.131

1150

1.039

17123

12087

12230

8633

8482

1300

1.327

1250

1.227

20230

14280

14450

10200

9955

CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Structural)

Example for 1000mm dia. pile
Case 1: fcu = 35MPa

EC7
(Factored capacity, NRd,p)

EC7 (Service load)

Avg. Load Factor = 1.4

WL by CP4

dnom

Anom

Ac

Reinfored

Un-Reinf

Reinfored

Un-Reinf

sc = 7.5MPa

(mm)

(m2)

(mm)

(m2)

(kN)

(kN)

(kN)

(kN)

(kN)

800

0.503

760

0.454

6543

4619

4674

3299

3770

900

0.636

855

0.574

8282

5846

5915

4176

4771

1000

0.785

950

0.709

10224

7217

7303

5155

5890

1100

0.950

1050

0.866

12490

8816

8921

6297

7127

1200

1.131

1150

1.039

14982

10576

10702

7554

8482

1300

1.327

1250

1.227

17701

12495

12644

8925

9955

Case 2: fcu = 40MPa

EC7
(Factored capacity, NRd,p)

EC7 (Service load)

Avg. Load Factor = 1.4

WL by CP4

dnom

Anom

Ac

Reinfored

Un-Reinf

Reinfored

Un-Reinf

sc = 7.5MPa

(mm)

(m2)

(mm)

(m2)

(kN)

(kN)

(kN)

(kN)

(kN)

800

0.503

760

0.454

7478

5279

5342

3771

3770

900

0.636

855

0.574

9465

6681

6761

4772

4771

1000

0.785

950

0.709

11685

8248

8346

5892

5890

1100

0.950

1050

0.866

14274

10076

10196

7197

7127

1200

1.131

1150

1.039

17123

12087

12230

8633

8482

1300

1.327

1250

1.227

20230

14280

14450

10200

9955

CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Structural)

Min. area of longitudinal reinforcement
CP4
As 0.5% Ac

EC7
SS EN 1992-1: 9.8.5(3)

Arrangement of reinforcements to allow free flow of

concrete.
Min. diameter for longitudinal bars not be less than 16
mm.
At least 6 longitudinal bars.
Clear distance between bars should not exceed 200
mm measured along the periphery of the pile.

CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Structural)

Clear distance
between bars
should not exceed
200 mm
measured along
the periphery of
the pile.

CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Structural)

Min. area of longitudinal reinforcement
dnom

Anom

Ac

Dia

no of

As

As/Ac

As/Anom

Clear spacing at

(mm)

(m2)

(mm)

(m2)

(mm)

rebar

(cm2)

(%)

(%)

periphery of pile (mm)

1000

0.785

950

0.709

16

13

26.1

0.37%

0.33%

222

1000

0.785

950

0.709

16

14

28.1

0.40%

0.36%

205

1000

0.785

950

0.709

16

15

30.2

0.43%

0.38%

190

CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Structural)

Min. area of longitudinal reinforcement
dnom

Anom

Ac

Dia

no of

As

As/Ac

As/Anom

Clear spacing at

(mm)

(m2)

(mm)

(m2)

(mm)

rebar

(cm2)

(%)

(%)

periphery of pile (mm)

1000

0.785

950

0.709

16

13

26.1

0.37%

0.33%

222

1000

0.785

950

0.709

16

14

28.1

0.40%

0.36%

205

1000

0.785

950

0.709

16

15

30.2

0.43%

0.38%

190

dnom

Anom

Ac

Dia

no of

As

As/Ac

As/Anom

Clear spacing at

(mm)

(m2)

(mm)

(m2)

(mm)

rebar

(cm2)

(%)

(%)

periphery of pile (mm)

800

0.503

760

0.454

16

13

26.1

0.58%

0.52%

172

900

0.636

855

0.574

16

13

26.1

0.46%

0.41%

197

1000

0.785

950

0.709

16

15

30.2

0.43%

0.38%

190

1100

0.950

1050

0.866

16

16

32.2

0.37%

0.34%

197

1200

1.131

1150

1.039

16

18

36.2

0.35%

0.32%

191

1300

1.327

1250

1.227

16

19

38.2

0.31%

0.29%

196

CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Geotechnical)

Current Practice

Qa1
Qa2
Qa3
Qa
Qa

Where,
Qs
Qb
Qa
WL
DL
LL

=
=
=
=
>

Qs/2.5
+
Qb/2.5
Qs/2
+
Qb/3
Qs/1.5
Min (Qa1, Qa2, Qa3)
WL
=
= (DL + LL)

Ultimate Total Skin Friction Resistance

Ultimate End Bearing Capacity
Allowable geotechnical capacity
Working load
Dead load
Live load

CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Geotechnical)

Current Practice

Qt
Qs
Qb

Qt
Qs
Qb

=
=
=

=
=
=

Qs + Qb
0.6 Qt
0.4 Qt

Qs + Qb
0.4 Qt
0.6 Qt

Qa1
Qa2
Qa3
Qa
Qa

=
=
=
=
>

Qs/2.5
+
Qb/2.5
Qs/2
+
Qb/3
Qs/1.5
Min (Qa1, Qa2, Qa3)
WL
=
= (DL + LL)

Qa (1)
Qa (1)
Qt

=
=
=

0.24 Qt
0.4 Qt
2.5 Qa

0.16 Qt

Qa (2)
Qa (2)
Qt

=
=
=

0.3 Qt
0.43 Qt
2.31 Qa

0.133 Qt

Qa (1)
Qa (1)
Qt

=
=
=

0.16 Qt
0.4 Qt
2.5 Qa

0.24 Qt

Qa (2)
Qa (2)
Qt

=
=
=

0.2 Qt
0.40 Qt
2.50 Qa

0.200 Qt

CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Geotechnical)

Qa1
Qa2
Qa3
Qa
Qa

=
=
=
=
>

Qs/2.5
+
Qb/2.5
Qs/2
+
Qb/3
Qs/1.5
Min (Qa1, Qa2, Qa3)
WL
=
= (DL + LL)

Qt
Qs
Qb
Qt(1)
Qt(2)

=
=
=
=
=

Qs + Qb
0.4 Qt
0.6 Qt
2.5 Qa
2.5 Qa

Qs
Qb
Qt(1)
Qt(2)

=
=
=
=

0.6
0.4
2.5
2.31

Qt
Qt
Qa
Qa

CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Geotechnical)

EC7 Alternative Method Model Factor
With ULT

; =

;
;
+
1.2 1.2

Without ULT

; =

;
;
+
1.4 1.4

EC7 Alternative Method Partial Resistance Factor

;
;
=
+
1.2 1.2

With Pile Load Test

Without Pile Load Test

; =

;
;
+
1.4 1.4

gb and gs depends on which approach.

Generally,
DA1-1, no factor on resistance (factor =1)
DA1-2, some factors on resistance (refer Table A.NA.7)

CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Geotechnical)

gb and gs depends on which approach.

Generally,
DA1-1, no factor on resistance (factor =1)
DA1-2, some factors on resistance (refer Table A.NA.7)

CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Geotechnical)

Design values of actions, Fd
Fd = g G G k + g Q Q k
where gG and gQ are partial factor
Generally,
DA1-1 higher factor
DA1-2, lower factor

CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Geotechnical)

EC7 Alternative Method
Fcd (ACTION)
Assume:
Dead Load (DL) = a x Column Load (CL)
Live Load (LL) = (1-a) x CL
So:
Fcd = gG;dst x DL + gQ;dst x LL
Fcd = gG;dst x a x CL + gQ;dst x (1-a) x CL
Fcd = ( gQ;dst + (gG;dst - gQ;dst) x a ) x CL

Hence,
Fcd Rcd
; + ; ; =
=

(1)

; + ; ; 2
+

; + ; ;
+

CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Geotechnical)

EC7 Alternative Method vs CP4

CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Design (Geotechnical)

EC7 Alternative Method vs CP4

without ULT, MF = 1.4; With ULT, MF=1.2

without WLT, higher R4 factor; with WLT, lower R4 factor

CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Load Test

Current Practice
BCA /IES /ACES ADVISORY NOTE 1/03
(a) ULT - 1 number or 0.5% of the total
piles, whichever is greater.
(b) WLT - 2 numbers or 1% of working
piles installed or 1 for every 50
metres length of proposed building,
whichever is greater.
(c) Non-destructive integrity test - 2
numbers or 2% of working piles
installed, whichever is greater.
CP4 proof loads, usually 2x Pile design
load, in certain conditions proof load of
1.5x may be used. The number of piles to
be tested usually 1% to 2% of the working
piles

EC7 (Alternative Method)

NA to SS EN 1997-12010 A.3.3.2
- The value of the model factor should be
1.4, except that it may be reduced to 1.2
if the resistance is verified by a
maintained load test taken to the
calculated, unfactored ultimate
resistance.
- The lower partial resistance factor, g in
R4 may be adopted (a) if serviceability is
verified by load tests (preliminary and/or
working) carried out on more than 1% of
the constructed piles to loads not less
than 1.5 times the representative load
for which they are designed,

CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Load Test

Current Practice

EC7 (Alternative Method)

Allowable settlement

Representative load

CP4 7.5.4.4 For working pile load test

for which the pile is usually tested to 1.5
to 2.0 times working load, the allowable
maximum settlement measured at the
pile top under full test load is generally
taken as 15mm or 25mm respectively.

Suggestion 1
SLS load = 1.0 Gk + 1.0 Qk
Allowable settlement follows CP4

> The load test does not affect the FOS

on geotechnical capacity or Design
Zoning

Suggestion 2
Follow DA1-2,
Fd = 1.0 Gk + 1.3 Qk
Allowable settlement adjust accordingly
Maximum test load and allowable
settlement shall be specified clearly
on the drawing.
Load test affect geotechnical design

CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Load Test

Design Zoning by Ref BH

How ULT & WLT affect the MF & R4 for each design zone?

CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Load Test

Option 1

CP4 vs EC7 in Design of Bored Pile Load Test

Option 2
ZONE A

ZONE B

NO WLT

1.5xWLT

Less Favourable Resistance

Factors (R4)

More Favourable Resistance

Factors(R4)

MF = 1.2

MF = 1.2

ULT

1.5xWLT

NO WLT

More Favourable Resistance

Factors(R4)

Less Favourable Resistance Factors

(R4)

MF = 1.2

MF = 1.2

ZONE C (worst profile of same geological formation)

ZONE D

CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION
The 1st Principle - Designers are responsible to ensure
structural safety, serviceability and durability of the designs for
the structures.
To fulfil the 1st Principle, Designers are responsible for the
planning of the geotechnical investigation which include
Preliminary, Design and Control Investigations
Guidelines and recommendations in Informative Annexes are
available in EC7-1 and EC7-2 for reference by Designers to
decide on specifications of field and laboratory tests, no of BH,
field and lab tests etc
Characteristic values shall be determined from derived values
for design purposes.
Guidelines on GI and Methods to determine Characteristic
values are provided in GeoSS EC7 Guide

CONCLUSION
Structural Design
o Allowable concrete compressive stress of 7.5MPa and
As>0.5%Ac in CP4 has been removed.
o More comprehensive design considerations in terms of partial
load factors on geometry, material, reinforcement spacing,
permanent casing etc shall be taken.
o Structural capacity varies for reinforced and un-reinforced
concrete section.
Geotechnical Design
o Alternative method is closer to current design practice
o The geotechnical design is governed by DA1-2
o The quantity and allowable settlement for ULT and WLT remain
the same as current practice
o With comprehensive ULT and WLT, proper GI and determination
of characteristic values, EC7 generally resulting in more
economical design as compared with CP4

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

http://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

THANK YOU
NG Tiong Guan
Executive Director/Principal
Golder Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd
18 Ah Hood Road, #10-51,
Hiap Hoe Building @ Zhongshan Park,
Singapore 329983
T: +65 6546 6318 | D: +65 6885 9388 | M: +65 9797 6846 | E:
ngtg@golder.com.sg | www.golder.com