THE SECOND GENERATION OF EUROCODE 7 – A MODERN BASIS

FOR THE DESIGN OF PILED FOUNDATIONS AND GROUND IMPROVEMENT

Christian Moormann, University of Stuttgart, Institute for Geotechnical Engineering, Germany,

+49 (0) 711 685-62437, christian.moormann@igs.uni-stuttgart.de

ABSTRACT

Eurocode 7 is known as the European standard for geotechnical engineering design and is widely considered
as a great success story. The second generation of the standard drafted by CEN/TC250/SC7 was recently
published and represents a significant step forward towards further harmonization and efficient guidance for
geotechnical design. The revision is performed focusing on the user´s need with the main goals of ease-of-
use and harmonization, to meet new demands in geotechnical engineering looking at the coming 20 to 25
years. The second generation covers new basic aspects like numerical methods, probability and reliability-
based verification, rock on an equal basis as soil, etc. In addition, geotechnical structures like reinforced fill
structures, soil nailing and ground improvement were included for the first time. The paper presents an
overview of some of the key revisions compared to the first generation of Eurocode, that will affect the
practicing geotechnical engineer and explains the application on example of piled foundations and ground
improvement. The paper concludes that the 2nd generation of Eurocode will be a modern standard for all
kind of geotechnical structures and a useful tool for engineers in practice.

Keywords: Eurocode 7, piled foundation, ground improvement, standards

INTRODUCTION

In 2012, the European Commission decided on the M515 mandate, giving the responsibility to CEN to further
develop the Eurocodes. In 2015 the first project teams were established to start the drafting process of the
second generation of all structural Eurocodes. The aim has been that the first parts of new generation will be
published in 2022 and the last in 2027, a timeline that still applies to this day.
In this context, also Eurocode 7, the basis for the geotechnical design was transferred from first edition to
second generation including fundamental reorganisation and extensions. In its 2nd generation the new
Eurocode 7 comprises three parts as illustrated in Figure 1. The contents of the existing Eurocode 7, Part 1
´General rules´ (EN 1997-1:2004) have been split between EN 1990 ´Basis of structural and geotechnical
design´, a revised Part 1 (EN 1997-1:2024) ´General rules´; and a new Part 3 (EN 1997-3:2025)
´Geotechnical structures´. The new Part 3 comprises text from Sections 5-9 and 11-12 of 1st generation´s
EN 1997-1 together with new clauses on reinforced fill structures, ground reinforcing elements, ground
improvement and groundwater control. The reorganization of the second generation of Eurocode 7 is
illustrated in Figure 1.

EUROCODE 7 PART 1 – GENERAL RULES

The scope of part 1 has been reduced since the basis of geotechnical design has been moved to EN 1990 and
specific considerations for different geotechnical structures has been moved to part 3. However, the table of
content has introduced some new concepts, and the strive to include all common topics in part 1, instead of
repeating them in each clause in part 3, has given a part with a similar amount of text as in 1st generation.
The concept of the geotechnical category (GC) has been revised so that it is systematically determined with
the consideration of the consequence of failure (CC) and geotechnical complexity (GCC). This revised
concept is used as the base of classification to achieve geotechnical reliability (Franzén & van Seters 2022).
Figure 1. Division and redistribution of the 1st generation of Eurocode 0 and Eurocode 7 into the standards of
the second generation (acc. to Bond et al. 2019); at the bottom: contents of these standards being relevant for
the design of piled foundations.

The term ´representative value´ is introduced and replace the old characteristic value. The representative
value is determined either as a cautious estimate or with a statistical approach.
EN 1997-1:2024 provides further guidance on the four methods for verification of limit states, on the use of
numerical methods for design and verification, on the concept of the zone of influence and on the
implementation of design during execution and service life focusing on supervision, inspection, monitoring,
and maintenance applied to ensure that the design is implemented correctly.

EUROCODE 7 PART 2 – GROUND PROPERTIES

The contents of the existing Eurocode 7, Part 2 ´Ground investigation and testing´ (EN 1997-2:2007) were
also being revised to focus in the new Part 2 ´Ground parameters´ (EN 1997-2:2024) on the derivation of
design parameters. Thus, while EN 1997-2 was in 1st generation focusing on ground investigation and
testing, for the 2nd generation, this part has been turned 90 degrees and is now focusing on the need of the
engineer to derive appropriate ground properties as input to the design instead as previous, on the output
from ground investigations.
Calculation models that currently reside in Annexes to EN 1997-2:2007, e.g. on CPT-based calculation of
axial pile resistances, have been moved to the new Part 3, as illustrated in Figure 1.

EUROCODE 7 PART 3 – GEOTECHNICAL STRUCTURES

Eurocode 7 part 3 consists of the specific rules for each type of geotechnical structure. General requirements
applicable for more than one structure has been moved to part 1. Therefore, the main content for each clause
is focused on geotechnical analyses giving the calculation models, ultimate limit state and serviceability limit
state.
The chapters known from 1st generation of EN 1997-1. i.e. the clauses on slopes, cuttings and embankments
(Clause 4), spread foundations (5), piled foundations (6), retaining structures (7) and anchors (8) were
revised. In addition, the following new clauses have been added: on reinforced fill structures (9), soil nailed
structures (10), rock bolts and rock surface support (11), ground improvement (12) and groundwater control
measures (13). Thus, the range of geotechnical structures covered by the new EN 1997-3 has been increased
significantly.

DESIGN OF PILED FOUNDATIONS ACCORDING TO EN 1997-3:2025

In the following the design of piled foundations according to 2nd generation of EN 1997 is presented and
explained in detail.

Introduction
Relevant for the design of piled foundations is predominantly Clause 6 ´of EN 1997-3:2025 which was
elaborated on basis of Section 7 ´Pile foundation´ of EN 1997-1:2004 whereby the previous regulations were
fundamentally revised, improved and supplemented including new resp. additional rules for pile design.
Fundamentally, in the second generation pile groups and piled rafts will be covered equivalently to single
piles whereby the regulations of the first generation focused solely on single piles. Detailed guidance is
provided to consider actions on piles due to ground displacements like downdrag. Revised sets of correlation,
model and partial factors were specified. The design approaches for axially and laterally loaded piled
foundations were harmonized.
As each Clause of EN 1997-3 follows a common structure, also Clause 6 comprises the following sub-
sections which have the same order as the Clauses in EN 1997-1:2024 and which provide structure-specific
rules in addition to the general rules specified in Part 1 of Eurocode 7:
6.1 Scope 6.6 Ultimate limit states
6.2 Basis of design 6.7 Serviceability limit states
6.3 Materials 6.8 Execution
6.4 Groundwater 6.9 Testing
6.5 Geotechnical analysis 6.10 Reporting
These sections of Clause 6 provide specific regulations for the analysis and design of piled foundations. In
this context the detailed information documented in Clause 6 includes for example the following aspects:
 requirements on the minimum extent of ground investigations;
 analysis of piled foundations due to structural loads and effects of ground displacements;
 design of piled foundations by testing, calculation, prescriptive measures;
 the specification of ultimate limit state (ULS) and serviceability limit state (SLS) verifications for
single piles, pile groups and piled rafts including a definition of the verification cases (VC) being
relevant for those verifications;
 the specification of the sets of model factors Rd, correlation factors  as well as partial factors R for
the evaluation of the design value of pile resistances.
Besides the structure-specific regulations documented in Clause 6 of EN 1997-3, information needed for the
design of piled foundations are provided also by EN 1990 and EN 1997-1 as illustrated in Figure 1.
EN 1990 specifies the principles of classification of structures according to consequence classes and the
consequences factors kF for actions as well as the principles of limit state design and of the verification by
the partial factor method including specification of partial factors on actions F and stresses E. EN 1990 also
specifies the ´Verification Cases´ VC1 to VC4 being relevant for different design situations like structural
resistance, static equilibrium and geotechnical design and the related sets of partial factors. The partial factors
can either be applied on material properties, i.e. the ´Material Factor Approach´ (MFA), or to resistances, i.e.
the ´Resistance Factor Approach´ (RFA).
EN 1997-1 as well provides relevant specifications and regulations needed for the design of piled
foundations. Besides specifications of the Geotechnical Category (GC) which should be determined by a
combination of the Consequence Class (CC) of the structure and the Geotechnical Complexity Class (GCC),
the evaluation of representative values Xrep as well as partial factors M on ground properties and consequence
factors both on ground properties kM and resistances kR are specified in Part 1 of Eurocode 7.
In the following some of the most relevant modifications for the design of piled foundations according to
second generation of Eurocode 7 are presented in more detail.

Ground investigations
In addition to EN 1997-2:2024 which includes fundamental requirements on ground investigation and
evaluation of ground properties section 6.2 of EN 1997-3 provides additional specific regulations, e.g.
specifications on the minimum depth dmin of field investigation on piled foundations (Table 1).

Table 1. Minimum depth of ground investigation for piled foundations.

Application Minimum depth

Single piled foundation dmin = max (5 m; 3ꞏBn,eq)
Pile groups or piled rafts in soils and in very weak and dmin = max (5 m; 3ꞏBn,eq; pgroup)
weak rock masses
Pile groups or piled rafts in strong rock masses dmin = max (3 m; 3ꞏBn,eq)
dmin is the minimum investigation depth beneath pile base level.
Bn,eq is the equivalent size of the pile base, equal to Bb (for square piles), Db (for circular piles), or pb/ (for other piles);
Bb is the base width of the pile with the largest base (for square piles);
Db is the base diameter of the pile with the largest base (for circular piles);
Pgroup is the smaller dimension of a rectangle circumscribing the group of piles forming the foundation, limited to the depth of the zone of influence.

Verification of axial resistance of single piles (ULS)

For axially loaded single piles the axial (compression) resistance shall be verified using:
𝐹 𝑅 (1)
Thereby, the verification for axial loaded piles (single piles, pile groups and piled rafts) could be harmonized
as solely the Resistance Factor Approach (RFA), where the partial factors are applied on the pile resistance,
shall be used in combination with Verification Case VC1, where the partial factors are applied on the actions.
Thus, the design value of actions is defined as follows:
𝐹 1.35𝐺 1.5𝑄 (2)
with Qrep as characteristic value, combination value, frequent value or quasi-permanent value.
The design value of the axial pile resistance is defined as follows:
, , ,
𝑅
.
𝑜𝑟
. .
(3)

where γRc, γRb, γRs are partial factors for pile resistances and γRd is a model factor.
The representative values of the pile resistance in axial compression Rc,rep resp. of the base and shaft
resistance Rb,rep and Rs,rep can be obtained by testing, by calculation or by prescriptive rules. The use of
prescriptive rules is very rare for piles. For the determination of the axial resistances of single piles by
calculation either the ´Ground Model Method´ or the ´Model Pile Method´ can be applied. In case of the
Ground Model Method the axial resistance of a single pile is calculated based on ground properties
determined from both field and laboratory tests, accounting for horizontal variability of the ground in the
piled area. The Model Pile Method is a calculation method to determine the axial resistance of a single pile
based on individual pile resistance profiles determined from correlations with field test results or ground
properties from field or laboratory tests. Methods of calculating base and shaft resistance are included in
Annex C of EN 1997-3 for ground parameters as well as for cone penetration methods and for pressuremeter
methods. Figure 2 provides an overview about these calculation methods.
Figure 2. Available calculation methods for evaluation of axial pile resistances.

The axial resistance of a single pile at ultimate and serviceability limit state may be also determined from
the results of static load tests. Dynamic impact and rapid load tests may be used to determine the ultimate
limit state of a single pile in compression.
Table 2 specifies the evaluation of representative values of axial pile resistances from calculated or measured
values.

Table 2. Evaluation of representative axial resistances of single piles based on calculation or testing.

Ground Model Method:

𝑅 𝑅
Rcalc from ground parameters (cu, ´ and c´, pLM*, qc, NSPT, etc.)
Model Pile Method: 𝑅 , 𝑅 ,
𝑅 min ;
Rcalc from N field test profiles (N CPTs, N PMTs, N SPTs, etc.) 𝜉 𝜉

Pile tests: 𝑅 , 𝑅 ,
𝑅 min ;
Rtest from static, dynamic impact or rapid load tests 𝜉 𝜉

Figure 3 visualizes the possible procedures to evaluate design values of axial pile resistances from testing
and calculation. Tables 3 and 4 document the model factors Rd for verification of axial pile resistance assisted
by testing and calculations.

Figure 3. Calculation procedures for piles (acc. to Moormann & Burlon 2024).

Correlation factors  allows to consider the spatial variability of the ground alternatively to the selection of
the representative values of the ground parameters which is always related to subjective interpretation.
Correlation factors  as documented in section 6.2.4 of EN 1997-3 continues to be dependent form number
of executed pile tests or ground profiles. The correlation factors given reflect an average uncertainty
corresponding to a coefficient of variation of about 12%; other approaches are therefore acceptable if spatial
variation is lower or higher.
The correlation factors for the Model Pile Method can be adjusted according to the density of the field test
profiles (CPTs, PMTs, etc.) considering the ratio of the average horizontal spacing davg between the N tests
profiles located in the area S to a reference distance dref = 30 m:
𝜉 𝑆 1 𝜉 1 (4)

𝜉 𝑆 1 𝜉 1 (5)

Table 3. Model factors Rd for verification of axial pile Table 4. Model factors Rd for verification of axial
resistance assisted by testing. pile resistance by calculation.
Model factor Rd Verification
Based on Model factor Rd
Verification by Fine Coarse Rock by
soils soils mass Ultimate pile tests 1.15
Static load tests 1.0 1.0 1.0 Extensive
Rapid load tests comparable
1.4 1.1 1.2 experience
(multiple load cycles) 1.3
Rapid load tests without site-
1.4 1.1 1.2 Ground specific control
(single load cycle)
Shaft Model tests
Dynamic
1.5 1.1 1.2 Method Serviceability pile
impact tests bearing 1.35
(signal End tests
1.4 1.25 1.25 No pile load tests
matching) bearing
Shaft and limited
Dynamic 1.55
1.5 1.1 1.2 comparable
impact tests bearing
experience
(multiple End
1.4 1.2 1.2 Compressive Tensile
blow) bearing
resistance resistance
Dynamic Shaft Not Not Not
impact tests bearing permitted permitted permitted Pressuremeter test 1.15 1.4
(closed form End Not Cone penetration
1.3 1.3 Model Pile 1.1 1.1
solutions) bearing permitted test
Method
Not Profiles of ground
Wave equation analysis 1.6 1.5 properties based
permitted
on field or 1.2 1.2
Not
Pile driving formulae 1.8 1.7 laboratory tests
permitted

Verification of axial resistance of pile groups and piled rafts (ULS)

As already mentioned Clause 6 of EN 1997-3:2025 covers not only single piles but equally also pile groups
and piled rafts.
Pile group design shall consider that the resistance and load-displacement behaviour of single piles in a group
might show significant variation compared to the behaviour of single piles due to pile-pile interaction.
Calculation of pile group effects should consider the potential changes in stress and density of the ground
resulting from pile installation together with the effects of group behaviour due to the structural loads taking
the stiffness of the pile cap and the structure into account. The ultimate vertical resistance of a pile group
Rgroup with n piles should be determined from:
𝑅 min ∑ 𝑅 ; 𝑅 (6)
where Ri is the ultimate axial resistance of the i-th pile in the pile group, taking full account of the effects of
pile interaction, and where Rblock is the ultimate vertical resistance of the block of ground bounded by the
perimeter of the pile group. The design resistance of a pile group Rd,group shall be verified using
 𝐹 𝑅 , (7)
with
,
𝑅 , (8)
, ,

where R,group is a resistance factor and Rd,group is a model factor for the pile group.

The design of piled rafts shall consider beside the pile-pile interaction the pile-raft interaction (Fig. 4).
Considering the compatibility of the displacements of the piles and the raft, the ultimate compressive
resistance Rpiled-raft of a piled raft should be determined as
𝑅 ∑ 𝑅 , 𝑅 (9)
where Rraft is the additional bearing resistance from the raft. The design resistance of a piled raft Rd,piled-raft
shall be verified using
𝐹 𝑅 , (10)
with
,
𝑅 , (11)
, ∙ ,

where R,piled-raft is a resistance factor and Rd,piled-raft is a model factor for the piled raft.

Figure 4. Interaction effects to be considered for the verification of piled rafts according to EN 1997-3, 6.5.6.

For the ULS-verification of axially loaded pile groups and piled rafts EN 1997-3 pretends the application of
verification case VC1 in combination with RFA and partial factors of R,group = 1.4 resp. R,piled-raft = 1.4
leading to a comparable equivalent global safety level as for spread foundations or single piles. For combined
axial and transversal loaded pile groups and piled rafts both approaches, MFA or RFA, might be used for
ULS-verifications.
Verification of limit states for pile groups and piled rafts may be carried out by analytical or empirical, but
preferentially by numerical calculation methods.

Pile settlements and SLS verifications

Verification of the serviceability limit state for piled foundations should be based on modelling that accounts
for non-linear stiffness of the ground, flexural stiffness of the structure, and interaction between the ground,
structures, and piles. The non-linearity of the load-displacement curves of axially loaded piles should be
considered for the verification of both geotechnical and structural limit states.
The settlement of a single pile may be determined from load tests or calculated using empirical or analytical
methods or numerical modelling.
Downdrag (negative skin friction)
The adverse effects of a drag force caused by moving ground shall be included in the verification of
serviceability and ultimate limit states of piled foundations when relevant. Thereby the drag force caused by
downdrag should be classified as a permanent action. The effects of the downdrag should be modelled by
carrying out a ground-pile interaction analysis, to determine the depth of the neutral point Ldd corresponding
to the point where the pile settlement sPile equals the ground settlement sground. This neutral point is different
for SLS or ULS conditions as shown in Figure 5 which also illustrates the approach recommended to be used
to calculate the neutral point and the dragforce owing to potential downdrag.

Figure 5. Force distribution for assessment of drag force on a pile subject to downdrag acc. to EN 1997-3, C.9.

The representative drag force Drep should then be determined from

𝐷 𝑝 𝜏 ∙ dz (12)
where p is the perimeter of the pile and s is the (negative) unit shaft friction causing downdrag at depth z.
EN 1997-3 provides in its Annex C a simplified approach for calculating the drag force by adopting a depth
to the neutral plane Ldd that results in an upper value of the drag force.

Transversal loading
Clause 6 of EN 1997-3 provides also guidance on the verification of single piles, pile groups and piled rafts
due to lateral loading. In Annex C.12 calculation models, mainly based on p-y curves from undrained and
drained soil properties, are provided to calculate the behaviour of transversely loaded single piles. For the
verification of the transverse resistance either the MFA or the RFA can be applied.

Buckling
The buckling resistance of a slender pile under compression should be determined by a validated model,
either analytic or numerical, according to second order theory considering the support of the soil and initial
transverse deflection due to production imperfections, installation etc. EN 1997-3 provides detailed guidance
to evaluate the buckling resistance by analytical methods even though other approaches, e.g. by numerical
methods can be applied.

Cyclic effects
Cyclic and dynamic actions can result in reduced ground strength and stiffness leading to additional pile
displacements and loss of resistance. Therefore, EN 1997-3 requests to consider the adverse effects of cyclic
and dynamic actions on the long-term axial and transverse resistance of piled foundations. In Annex C.14 of
EN 1997-3:2025 the concept of ´stability diagram´ based on Poulos (1988) is provided.
Further aspects
Clause 6 of EN 1997-3 provides guidance to many further aspects being relevant for piled foundations
including further calculation and design issues but also execution, testing and reporting. Even aspects of
sustainability are addressed as the thermal, geotechnical and structural design aspects of thermoactivated
deep foundations are mentioned.

DESIGN OF GROUND IMPROVEMENTS ACCORDING TO EN 1997-3:2025

In its current first generation Eurocode 7 does not cover ground improvement. This will change significantly
with the second generation of Eurocode 7 which includes a new clause 12 ´Ground Improvement ´for the
design of such geotechnical works. One of the main challenges of including ground improvement works in
the code was the wide variety of techniques used for this purpose and considering their specific features as
some of them involve soil densification or drainage, while others require installation of various inclusions or
treatment of the soil in place using binders. Therefore, it was necessary to establish a comprehensive design
methodology that aligns with the philosophy of partial factors in Eurocode 7 and accommodates this
versatility (Denies et al. 2024).

Classification of ground improvement

As basis for the design considerations a new classification scheme was developed and implemented in
EN 1997-3:2025 which does not consider executional aspects and the specific techniques for carrying out
the works but focus on the bearing behaviour and the calculation model usually applied. Table 5 shows the
classification of ground improvement (GI) according to Clause 12 of EN 1997-3:2025, considering the
diffused (Classes AI and AII) or discrete (Classes BI and BII) character of the GI and the possibility to
measure the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of the improved ground.

Table 5. Classification of ground improvement according to EN 1997-3:2025, Clause 12.

Class A - Diffused B - Discrete
I AI – Diffused with no measurable unconfined BI – Discrete with non-rigid inclusions
compressive strength (UCS) Inclusions, installed in the ground, with higher
The improved ground has an increased shear shear capacity and stiffness compared to the
strength or stiffness higher than that of the original surrounding ground. The unconfined compressive
ground. The improved ground can be modelled as a strength of the inclusion is not measurable.
ground with improved properties.
II AII – Ground improvement zone with BII – Discrete with rigid inclusions
measurable unconfined compressive strength Rigid inclusions, installed in the ground, with
The improved ground is modified from its original unconfined compressive strength and significantly
natural state, has a measurable unconfined higher stiffness than the surrounding ground. The
compressive strength and is significantly stiffer than inclusions can be an engineered material such as
the surrounding ground. Usually, it comprises a timber, concrete/grout or steel or a composite of a
composite of a binder and ground. binder and ground.
For rigid inclusions (Class BII) which represent structural elements with stiffness and strength both
significantly higher than the ground in which they are installed, one of the following conditions should be
satisfied in order to clearly distinguish them from conventional piles, as illustrated in Figure 6:
 structural loads are transferred from the slab and spread foundations or embankment through a load
transfer platform (LTP) into the improved ground (Fig. 6 and b);
 in absence of a LTP, there is no structural connection between the rigid inclusions and the slab or
spread foundation (Fig. 6c).
In the absence of a load transfer platform, additional verifications may be considered according to the design
situations; further in this situation a single rigid inclusion used to support the foundation shall comply with
Clause 6 (´Piled foundations´), except when it is used for settlement reduction only.
 1) rigid inclusions
2) optional caps
3) optional basal reinforcement
4) load transfer platform (LTP)
5) embankment
6) load
7) working platform
8) weak soil
9) load bearing ground
10) slab or spread foundation
11) no structural connection
between 1 and 10
(A) (B) (C)
Figure 6. Class BII concepts with rigid inclusions: (A) embankment, (B) slab or spread foundation with a load
transfer platform (LTP), (C) slab or spread foundation without a LTP.

In the following the focus will be set on GI used for transfer of predominately vertical loads into the ground,
especially on rigid inclusions.

Ground investigations
In addition to considerations on geometrical properties taking acceptable deviations from execution
tolerances into account, on actions from structures and due to ground displacements, section 12.2 of EN
1997-3 provides additional specifications on the minimum depth dmin of field investigation for ground
improvements as documented in Table 6.

Table 6. Minimum depth of ground investigation for ground improvement.

Ground Improvement Class Minimum depth, dmin

AI treatment depth + 5 m
AII treatment depth + 5 m
BI treatment depth + max (5 m; 3ꞏBi)
BII treatment depth + max (5 m; 3ꞏBri)
dmin is the minimum depth of field investigation from the ground surface
Bi is the equivalent diameter of a non-rigid inclusion (Class BI)
Bri is the equivalent diameter of a rigid inclusion (Class BII)
The equivalent diameter of an inclusion is determined from, B = 2 𝐴/π, where A is its horizontal cross sectional area.

Geotechnical Analyses and Design Verifications

Analyses of the interaction between a structure, improved ground and ground should be carried out to verify
that the ultimate and serviceability limit states (ULS, SLS) are not exceeded, and should take into account
the stiffness ratio of discrete inclusions to the surrounding ground. For ground improvement the following
ULS shall be verified in particular (Denies et al. 2024):
 failure of the ground improvement inclusion or zone in compression, tension, bending, buckling or
shear;
 failure in the ground due to transverse loading of the improved ground zone;
 uplift or insufficient tensile resistance of the ground improvement zone;
 combined failure in the ground and in the ground improvement inclusion or zone;
 bearing resistance failure below the ground improvement inclusion or zone;
 limit states caused by changes in groundwater conditions or groundwater pressure;
 failure at the edges of the improved ground zone.
(A) Key:
X1 settlement
X2 inclusion axial force
Y depth
1) embankment
2) load transmitted to the inclusion
3) load transmitted to the ground
4) negative skin friction
5) differential settlement
(B) 6) settlement of the ground
7) neutral plane
8) settlement of the inclusion
9) positive skin friction
10) inclusion
11) load transfer platform (LTP)
12) structure (e.g. slab or spread
foundation)
(C) s mobilised shaft friction along
inclusion
b mobilised tip resistance of the
inclusion

Figure 7. Interaction effects of ground improvement with rigid inclusions: (A) embankment, (B) slab or spread
foundation with a load transfer platform (LTP), (C) slab or spread foundation without a LTP.

Design of Class A ground improvement is similar to the design of structures without the use of any ground
improvement technique, and the resulting improved ground or material properties are used in the verification
of limit states for the corresponding geotechnical structure. The behaviour of the improved ground can be
conveniently modelled by conventional ground models.
Where Class B ground improvement is used to support or retain a structure, the calculation model shall
include:
 the consideration of the interaction effects between the ground, discrete inclusions, and the overlying
structure, embankment, or load transfer platform (LTP); and
 for Class BII ground improvement a verification of the structural resistance of the individual
inclusions.
Interaction effects for Class BII ground improvement are similar to those relevant for a piled raft, whereby
a LTP additionally impacts the load distribution between rigid inclusions and supporting ground, leading to
the development of negative skin friction in the upper part of the inclusions (Figure 7: A and B). An
appropriate interaction calculation model shall include the derivation of the distribution ratio to determine
the proportion of the load applied to individual discrete inclusions and for Class BII ground improvement
the derivation of the neutral plane corresponding to the point where the inclusion settlement equals the
ground settlement (see Figure 7: A and B).
The design resistance of a Class BI ground improvement Rsys,d may be determined from the representative
value of the total resistance of the ground improvement system with inclusions Rsys,rep using a partial factor
γR,sys and a model factor γRd,sys, i.e.:
,
𝑅 , (13)
, ,

Considering the compatibility of the displacements of the inclusions and the gorund, the design resistance of
Class BII ground improvement may be determined as:
 ∑ ,
𝑅 , (14)
, ,

considering the following two components:

 the sum of the representative values of the vertical resistance of the i-th rigid inclusion Rri,i with a
model factor Rd,ri and a partial resistance factor for the rigid inclusion system R,ri, whereby the values
of Rd,ri and R,ri are equal resp. comparable to the values of Rd,group and R,group for a pile group; and
 the representative value of the vertical resistance of the ground after installation of inclusions Rg with
a partial factor Rg.
The representative resistance of a rigid inclusion Rri shall be determined as for piles, depending on the
installation technique and taking into account group and further interaction effects, as shown in Figure 7.
Consequently, the ultimate geotechnical resistance of a group of rigid inclusions is not the same as the sum
of that of the individual inclusions.
The verification of geotechnical limit states for individual inclusions may be omitted provided it is verified
that the system is able to redistribute loads without itself exceeding an ultimate or serviceability limit state.
Serviceability limit states of geotechnical structures on improved ground shall be verified according to other
relevant clauses of prEN1997-3.
In addition, the structural resistance of rigid inclusions needs to be verificed, whereby this resistance shall
be verified according to the relevant standard for the material installed. If no such standard exists, for
materials of Class II ground improvement, ultimate limit states shall be verified by demonstrating that design
effects of actions do not exceed the stress envelope of the material used (Figure 8). When normal stresses
and shear stresses are verified separately, the design value of the normal stresses and of the shear stresses
shall not exceed 0.7qud and 0.2qud, respectively.

Key:
1) envelope for allowed
states of stress
2) examples for allowed
states of stress 1, 3
3) state of stress in uniaxial
compression test:
σ3 = 0, σ1 = qud

Figure 8. Allowable stresses in Class II ground improved material with unconfined compressive strength acc. to
Annex I of EN 1997-3:2025.

The buckling resistance subject to compression shall be verified. When one of the following conditions is
met, verification of buckling of Class BII inclusions may be omitted:
 inclusion diameter Bri > Bref;
 thickness of the soft layers, where cu < cu,ref, is smaller than href.
The reference values are: Bref = 0.3 m, cu,ref = 15 kPa and href = 1.0 m, unless a National Annex gives different
values.
The load transfer platform (LTP) and the possible reinforcing elements should be designed to transfer the
load from the structure or the embankment to the improved ground. For load transfer platforms over discret
inclusion acknowledged calculations methods are the Hewlett & Randolph method (documented in BS 8006-
1), the EBGEO method, the Concentric Arches method (details in CUR 226) and the ASIRI method.
ULS verification may be omitted for a LTP where it can be demonstrated that the loads can be redistributed
within the confined system, provided that the load transfer platform does not fail at its edges. A confined
system can be assumed inside a grid of inclusions in a ground improvement zone (Bohn, 2016).
For reinforced load transfer platforms, the tensile resistance of the reinforcements should be verified
according to Clause 9 of EN 1997-3.
In the absence of a LTP, additional verifications may be considered during the design, such as verifications
of the stress concentrations at the top of the inclusions and internal forces within the slab or spread
foundation.

Testing
Ground improvement should be usually accompanied by testing conducted before or at the beginning of
execution. The types of testing should be determined according to the GI technique. The minimum frequency
and type of control test should be given by the relevant execution standard or, when no relevant execution
standard is available, by the relevant authority or, where not specified, as agreed by the relevant parties for
a specific project.
Typical control tests may include for class B ground improvment according to EN 1997-3:
 for Class BI: field testing inside and/or in between inclusions, dummy foundation test on improved
ground (individual inclusion and surrounding ground), zone load test on a group of inclusions (group
of inclusions and surrounding ground);
 for Class BII: load test on isolated rigid inclusions, zone load test on a group of inclusions (group of
rigid inclusions and surrounding ground,) UCS tests of inclusion material.
Clause 12 also provides recommendations on the testing frequency.

CONCLUSION

The second generation of Eurocode 7 is a modern geotechnical standard developed as useful tool for the
coming decades. Hence the standard tries to include concepts that are foreseen to be important for the future
such as sustainability, robustness, impacts within the zone of influence and climate change. The new structure
with a clear division between general rules in part 1, ground properties in part 2 and specific rules for different
geotechnical structures in part 3, opens the possibility to add on additional specific clauses, e.g. on tunnels
or underground structures, existing geotechnical structures or similar, if ever needed.

Figure 9. Stringent foundation design and verification concept for all types of foundation acc. to EN 1997-3:2025.
The new Eurocode 7 will serve as the commonly agreed standard for the future functioning as a toolbox that
fulfil the needs of geotechnical engineers worldwide. Hereby the standard can be easily adopted to national
experience as not only all relevant factors like specification of verification cases, partial safety factors, model
factors etc. but also basic specifications of geotechnical categories, minimum extent of ground investigation
etc. are ´Nationally Determined Parameters´ (NDP) which can be adjusted according to national experiences
and standards.
For the design of piled foundations and ground improvement the second generation of Eurocode 7 provides
´state of the art´-guidance including many new design aspects being relevant engineering practice and allows
to cover even sophisticated structures. It has to be highlighted that the regulations provided by EN 1997-
3:2025 provide a stringent foundation design and verification concept for all types of foundation allowing a
smooth transition from spread foundations via ground improvement with and without rigid inclusions and
with or without load transfer platforms to piled rafts and piled foundations with comparable equivalent global
safety level (see Figure 9).

REFERENCES

ASIRI (2013). Recommendations for the design, construction and control of rigid inclusion. Presse des Ponts,
Paris, ISBN: 9782859784706.
Bohn, C. (2016). Serviceability and safety in the design of rigid inclusions and combined pile-raft
foundations. PhD thesis, Technical University Darmstadt, Germany.
Bond, A.J., Jenner, C., Moormann, Ch. (2019). Tomorrow’s geotechnical toolbox: EN 1997-3: 202x
Geotechnical structures. Proc. 17th Europ. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Geotech. Eng., ECSMGE 2019, Reykjavik.
BS 8006-1. Code of practice for strengthened/reinforced soils and other fills.
CEN (2022). Eurocode 0 - Basis of structural and geotechnical design. prEN 1990:2022, The European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
CEN (2024a). Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design – Part 1: General rules. EN 1997-1:2024, The European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
CEN (2024b). Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design – Part 2: Ground properties. EN 1997-2:2024, The European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
CEN (2025). Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design – Part 3: Geotechnical structures. EN 1997-3:2025, The
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
CUR226 (2016). Design guideline basal reinforced piled embankments (CUR226). van Eekelen, S.J.M. &
Brugman, M.H.A. (eds.), CRC press, Delft, the Netherlands (English translation).
Denies, N.; Bohn, C.; Pandrea, P.; Topolnicki, M.; Plomteux, C.; Trybocka, K. (2024). Eurocode 7 – Second
Generation – Design of ground improvement works. Proc. 18th Europ. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotech.
Eng., ECSMGE 2024, Lisbon, Portugal, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Balkema, pp. 1566-1571.
EBGEO (2011). Recommendations for design and analysis of earth structures using geosynthetic
reinforcements, (English Translation). Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geotechnik, Ernst & Sohn, Germany.
Franzén, G.; van Seters, A. (2022). Eurocode 7 – a toolbox for geotechnical engineering. Proc. 20th Int.
Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotech. Eng. (ICSMGE), Sydney, Australia, pp. 4753-4758.
Moormann, Ch., Burlon, S. (2024). Eurocode 7 – Second Generation – Piled foundation. Proc. 18th European
Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotech. Engineering, ECSMGE 2024, Lisbon, Portugal, CRC Press, Taylor
& Francis Group, Balkema, pp. 1840-1845.
Poulos, H.G. (1988). Cyclic stability diagram for axially loaded piles. Journal of Geotechn. Eng., Vol. 114
(8), pp. 877-895.