CEN/TC 250/SC 7 N 1661

CEN/TC 250/SC 7 "Eurocode 7 - Geotechnical design"

Secretariat: NEN
Secretary: Kraijema Geert Mr

Part 1 Change Requests agreed on prEN1997-1

Document type Related content Document date Expected action

General / Other 2022-08-22 INFO
 SC7_N1661 page 1

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Agreed Change Requests

List of Change Requests agreed by SC7 TG A2 - prEN 1997-1

CR Clause and action Added date Confirmed
(review team)
CR_0001 Annex B 2022-06-08 2022-08-26
Action: Delete
CR_0002 Annex C 2022-06-08 2022-08-26
Action: Change status to informative. Add some text.
CR_0003 Annex D 2021-11-01 2022-08-26
Action: Deleted in version sent to TC250.
CR_0004 Annex F 2021-11-01 2022-08-26
Action: Deleted in version sent to TC250.
Action: Clause 4.3.1.2 (2) reference
CR_0012 8.1.4.2 Hydraulic heave 2022-06-08 2022-08-26
Action: Add permission
CR_0024 10.2 Supervision 2022-06-08 2022-08-26
Action: Add note
CR_0030 4.7 Observational Method 2022-06-08 2022-08-26
Action: Revise 4.7 (7) and note
CR_0091 3.1.1.6 Weathered zone 2022-06-08 2022-08-26
Action: Revise definition
CR_0092 3.1.1.8 Foliation 2022-06-08 2022-08-26
Action: Revise definition
CR_0093 4.1.2.3 Different GC 2022-06-08 2022-08-26
Action: Add permission
CR_0094 8.1.2 Excessive deformation 2022-06-08 2022-08-26
Action: Add as relevant
CR_0095 4.3.3 Geometrical properties – discontinuities 2022-06-08 2022-08-26
Action: Revise (2) and (6)
CR_0096 8.1.3.1 Loss of rotational equilibrium 2022-06-08 2022-08-26
Action: Add – and part of structure
CR_0097 4.4.1.3 Table 4.8 2022-06-08 2022-08-26
Action: Revised partial factors rock
CR_0098 4.4.1.3 Partial factors 2022-06-08 2022-08-26
Action: Wording rock and rock mass
CR_0099 3.2.4 Symbols 2022-06-09 2022-08-26
Action: Add missing symbol
CR_0111 4.4.1.1ULS 2022-06-08 2022-08-26
Action: Delete note 2, and add or approaches
CR_0112 7.1.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.3.2, 4.2.4 2022-06-09 2022-08-26
Action: Clarification of level of reliability prEN1990
CR_0113 7.1.4 (2) Numerical Model 2022-06-08 2022-08-26
Action: Replace word reliability [Part of this CR for EN
1997-2]
CR_0131 4.4.1.3 Partial factor in transient situation 2022-07-26 2022-08-26
Action: Added permission reduction resistance factor
CR_0136 4.4.1.3 Partial factor in accidental situation 2022-07-26 2022-08-26
Action: Added note on accidental situation
CR_0145 3.1.9.7 Execution specification 2022-06-08 2022-08-26
Action: Revised definition
CR_0153 6.4 Representative values of groundwater pressures 2022-06-08 2022-08-26
Action: Rewording
CR_0155 4.3.2.1 Representative value of ground properties 2022-07-26 2022-08-26
Action: add a bullet point in the list
CR_0157 5.5 Plain and reinforced concrete 2022-07-26 2022-08-26
Action: Add additional guidance and reference

2022-08-29 Page 1 of 2
 SC7_N1661 page 2

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Agreed Change Requests

CR_0164 6.1 Groundwater control system 2022-07-26 2022-08-26
Action: Design if no groundwater control
CR_0174 4.7 Observational Method 2022-06-09 2022-08-26
Action: Add new subclause on "brittle behavior"
CR_0175 4.7 Observational Method 2022-06-09 2022-08-26
Action: Deleted Serviceability criterion
CR_0177 10.1 Implementation of design 2022-06-09 2022-08-26
Action: Delete note
CR_0181 8.2 Numerical Method 2022-06-09 2022-08-26
Action: Revised notes
CR_0184 6.1 Pore water suction 2022-07-26 2022-08-26
Action: Change ground suction to pore water suction
CR_0185 4.4.1.1 2022-06-09 2022-08-26
Action: Implicit demonstration of Ed≤Rd
CR_0186 8.2 Numerical Methods – Table 8.1 2022-06-09 2022-08-26
Action: Added table notes
CR_0188 8.2 Numerical Methods 2022-06-09 2022-08-26
Action: Added note on NA decision on EFA/MFA
CR_0189 8.2 Numerical Methods 2022-06-09 2022-08-26
Action: PER to omit explicit verification of each failure
mechanism
CR_0206 4.3.2.1 Conversion factor 2022-06-09 2022-08-26
Action: added missing words on
CR_0207 Annex A.4 – Scale of fluctuation 2022-06-09 2022-08-26
Action: Added note
CR_0208 Annex A.4 – Editorial 2022-06-09 2022-08-26
Action: Moved tables and updated wording
CR_0210 6.6 and 4.3.1.4 Freezing conditions 2022-08-25 2022-08-26
Action: Delete clause 6.6 and add in 4.3.1.4
CR_0212 8.2 Numerical models 2022-08-25 2022-08-26
Action: Revised with input and output
R1 Review groups comment Nov-draft 2022-06-09 2022-08-26
Action: revise 4.3.2.1, 4.3.2.2, 6.3, 6.5.1 and Table 8.1

2022-08-29 Page 2 of 2
 SC7_N1661 page 3

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Titel / subject:
Annex B - Limiting values of structural deformation and ground movement

1997 document: EN 1997-1

Clause : Annex B
A2 General CR0001
Request number
Request by TG + PT6-01
TG internal number
Date request Rev 0 2021-05-30
Rev 1 2021-07-01
After TG A2-meeting in June – Based on German comments, Annex A.1.7. of EN1990 was
re-examined by TGA1. There is great overlap and possible contradiction between EN1990
Annex A.1.7 and EN1997-1 Annex B. Also: the definition of limiting values of movements
should be provided by structural engineers. This should (and is now) addressed in
EN1990. When drafting Annex B in 2017, the Annex in EN1990 was not set up yet

Decision A2 Rev 1:
Date : 1-7-2021 Delete Annex B from prEN1997-1
Action: Add in EN1990 reference to EN1997-1 3.1.7 and Figure 3.1 in FE

Reason for change Comments received on the PT6 OCT-2020 with contradicting views.

Original content Annex B has been included in the draft since the first PT2 draft.
For the final PT6 draft, the wording has been slightly updated.
See prEN 1997-1 (April-21)

Change
Rev 1: Delete Annex B in prEN 1997-1 (April-21)as an informative annex.
(NEW TEXT)
Revised wording to
comply with N1250 -----
and technical
English. (TGA1)
Background The reason for PT6 to raise the question of the status of Annex B, are
information comments on the PT6 OCT-2020 draft, that may be summarized as:
− Relevance of the content is questionable. It does not specify the
structures and their execution in details as needed to define their
permissible deformations. [1216]
− The annex is in contradiction with the normative requirements in EN
1990 A1.7.2.1 and shall be deleted. [1217]
− The annex is useful. Restructure and extend the list of suggested
limits. Add the sources of the information. [1213]

PT6 concluded:
− There are proposals to delete the annex, revise it or keep it as it is.

CR0001 final 6-7-2022 Page 1 of 1

 SC7_N1661 page 4

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Title / subject:
Status of Annex C Additional requirements and recommendation for reporting

1997 document: EN 1997-1

Clause : Annex C
A2 General CR0002
Request number
Request by TG + PT6-02
TG internal number
Date request Rev 0 2021-05-30
Rev1 2021-07-01
Rev ??? Estaire /Scarpelli (TGs C) investigated old clauses 1st Generation
Eurocode and added one subclause.
Decision A2 Rev 1 Decision of 7-6-2021 is confirmed
Date : 1-7-2021 make Annex C part 1 informative and let TG C1/C2 check for missed
requirements from old Eurocode.
Rev 2 Adding one subclause in Annex C
Reason for change Comments received on the PT6 OCT-2020 with contradicting views.

Original content For the final PT6 draft, the wording has been slightly updated.
See prEN 1997-1 (April-21)

Change To revise annex C in prEN 1997-1 (April-21) into an informative annex.

(NEW TEXT) Changes to the text:
- To include in C.4.1 (1) 3 a new bullet d saying “Suitability of the site with
respect to the proposed geotechnical structures” that comes from 2.8
(3) /Part 1 in EN1997:2004
- To delete C.4.2 (1) as it is covered in 4.2.3 (1) /Part 1 in EN1997:202x
Revised wording to
comply with N1250 -----
and technical
English. (TGA1)
Background Annex C has been included in the draft since the PT2 draft.
information It was added based on comments on PT2 draft, as NSBs found that Clause 12
- Reporting, was too extensive to be included in the main text. However, the
content was judged to be useful and therefore moved to a Normative
Annex. The reason for keeping it as Normative, was that NSBs argued the
importance of accurate documentation.

The reason for PT6 to raise the question of the status of Annex C is
comments on the PT6 OCT-2020 draft, that may be summarized as:
− Make this Annex informative and either replace the requirements to
Clause 12 or change the requirements into recommendations [1235]
− The relevant content of any report depends on a specific project.
The content cannot be REQ. [1236]

PT6 have in the April draft of Annex C replaced REQ with RCM, to avoid the
issues where REQ is too strong. In April draft the annex is still normative.

CR0002 final 6-7-2022 Page 1 of 2

 SC7_N1661 page 5

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

However, there are contradicting views in the discussions, whether it is
enough that the paragraphs now are RCM, or whether the annex should be
informative. This since Annex C is the only Normative annex in part 1.

PT6 suggest a coherent approach for all reporting. Hence, the status of
Annex C in EN 1997-1 should be the same as the status of Annex A in EN
1997-2. There are two main alternatives:
1) Keep Annex C as normative since the paragraphs have been
downgraded to RCM.
2) Change the Annex C to an informative annex.

There is a majority in favor of keeping the information, however not all NSB
agree that the content should be mandatory. Hence the proposal is to revise
the status of Annex C, to an informative annex.

CR0002 final 6-7-2022 Page 2 of 2

 SC7_N1661 page 6

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Title / subject:
Status of Annex D Qualification and professional experience

1997 document: EN 1997-1

Clause : Annex D
A2 General CR0003
Request number
Request by TG + TC250
TG internal number
Date request Rev 0 2021-05-30
Rev 1 1-7-2021
Decision A2 Wait until decision TC250
Date: 1-7-2021 9-11-2021: Decision TC250 – Annex D is not allowed
9-11-2021: Consequently: Annex D to be deleted.
Reason for change Discussion raised in TC250 – French letter to TC250
Comments received on the PT6 OCT-2020 with contradicting views.

Original content See prEN 1997-1 (April-21) – Annex D

Change The needed change will be proposed based on the outcome of the
(NEW TEXT) discussion with TC 250.

Revised wording to
comply with N1250 -----
and technical
English. (TGA1)
Background Annex D has been included in the draft since the PT2 draft. The base for the
information annex has been prepared by a group within ISSMGE. There has been a
previous discussion within SC7, resulting in that the informative annex was
kept. The conclusion was that since it is an informative annex, the NSBs
may choose for non-application of the Annex in their country.

Information below is from drafting notes to Annex D [Nov-20]

This Annex was originally prepared by a group within ISSMGE, chaired by F.
Buggy. A Draft version was discussed at the Oslo meeting. It was decided
that a revised version should be included in the October draft of EN 1997-1.
Based on comments from SC7 WG1/TG2, SC7 WG1/TG3 and the ISSMGE
group this annex has been revised by SC7.PT2.
In addition to this Annex D, it has been proposed that the material that has
been prepared by the ISSMGE group, that is not included in the Annex D,
should be published as a Joint Research Paper. Referred to as JRP X in the
draft.
The ISSMGE group have assist PT2 to prepare this final draft of this Annex.
To ensure a broad acceptance of this informative annex, there will be further
discussion during phase 4.

CR0003 final 6-7-2022 Page 1 of 1

 SC7_N1661 page 7

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Title / subject:
Inclusion of Annex F - Traffic load on geotechnical structures

1997 document: EN 1997-1

Clause : Annex F
A2 General CR0004
Request number
Request by TG + TC250 and TC250/SC1
TG internal number
Date request Rev0 2021-05-30
Rev 1 2021-07-01
Rev 2 2021-10-11
Rev 3 2021-10-14
Decision A2 1-7-2021 : Wait until response from TC250
Date: 14-10-2021: TC250 has demanded to delete Annex F, therefore CR0004 is
accepted.
Reason for change Discussion raised in TC250 and the link to prEN 1991-2.

Original content For the final PT6 draft, the Annex F is included.
See prEN 1997-1 (April-21)

Change The needed change will be proposed based on the outcome of the
(NEW TEXT) discussion with TC 250 and TC250.SC1.
Rev 2:
Decision of TC250 to delete Annex F and put 2D Traffic Loads for
Geotechnical Structures in EN1991-2 Thus for EN1997-1 :
- Delete annex F
- Refer in clause 4.3.1.2(4) to EN1991-2 Clause 6.9 and 8.10

Revised wording to
comply with N1250 -----
and technical
English. (TGA1)
Background Annex F has been added to prEN 1997-1 to ensure that Traffic load for
information geotechnical structures is available in the code.

Annex F was set up by a AdHoc group from 8 countries to present Load

models in 2D for Traffic Loading of Embankments and Retaining Structures.
A Background document was made as N1496.

At the moment, the Annex and the background document are reviewed by
TC250 and TC250/SC1. Based on the outcome of this discussion, this Change
Request will be updated.

Drafting note to Annex F included in draft (nov-20).

In member states, there is remarkable variation of road and railway traffic
load specifications for geotechnics. The selected intensities are “historical”
values without strong background documentation and they are typically not
consistent with EN1991-2. Specifications for railway traffic load

CR0004 final 6-7-2022 Page 1 of 2

 SC7_N1661 page 8

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

varies from conservative interpretation of EN1991-2 to simplifications for
specific analyses.

This draft presents traffic loads, which are in consistent with default values
of load models LM1 and LM71 in prEN1991-2 as characteristic loads. The
draft considers new Clause 6.9 and Clause 8.10 of prEN1991-2.
The load models and intensities are also applicable in plane strain
calculations. The draft has prepared to consider different practices and it
presents alternatives to consider different type analyses. All load
intensities are NDPs.

CR0004 final 6-7-2022 Page 2 of 2

 SC7_N1661 page 9

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Title / subject:
EN1997-1 – Clause 8: Hydraulic Heave
1997 document: EN 1997-1
Clause : 8.1.4.2(4), eq. (8.3)
A2 General CR0012
Request number
Request by TG + GER
TG internal number GER_02
Date request 24-9-2021
Decision A2 13-10-2021: Sent to TG D1
Date: 30-11-2021: Received from TG D1, sent to TG A2
14-12-2021 TG A2 decided not to follow the proposal by TG D1, to prevent
alternatives in the Code. TG A2 agreed to add the permission given in the
original GER-proposal:

Below 8.1.4.2 (4) – below figure 8.2 add:

(5) <PER> Formula 8.3 may be applied using an averaged value of Δud acting
on the base of a soil block with a width of half of the depth of the block.

NOTE This method is described in Terzaghi and Peck (ref in Bibliography).

Reason for change It has been shown by numerous research (e. g. Terzaghi, K., 1922; Terzaghi,
K., 1925; Terzaghi, K., 1943; Terzaghi, K. & Peck, R.B., 1948; Bažant, Z., 1940;
Knaupe, W., 1968; Davidenkoff, R., 1970; Odenwald & Herten, 2008; Ziegler,
M. & Aulbach, B., 2010) that for retaining structures the verification of
hydraulic heave according to equation (8.3) can result in uneconomically
long retaining walls. The simplified verification method using an equilibrium
of forces for a soil prism at the downstream side of a retaining structure
introduced by Terzaghi was part of the recent EC 7-1, has been applied for
many times in Germany and has stood the test of time. This method for the
verification of hydraulic heave should be again included as an alternative
procedure.
Original content
Change Add permission to use the method of Terzaghi analyzing a soil prism under
(NEW TEXT) hydraulic heave.
GER original
Proposal to add in 8.1.4.2(4):
<PER> For an ultimate limit state of hydraulic heave in a soil body at the
downstream side of a retaining structure with underneath groundwater
flow, it may be alternatively verified, for the relevant soil prism, that the
design value of the destabilizing, vertically upward seepage force (Sp,v;d) in
the soil prism is less than or equal to the stabilizing design value of
<submerged weight (G´p;d) of the same soil prism (see e. g. Terzaghi, K. &
Peck, R.B., 1948):
Sp,v;d ≤ G´p;rep γHYD (8.x)
where:
Sp,v;d is the vertically upward seepage force in the relevant soil prism;
G´p;rep is the representative value of submerged weight of the relevant soil
prism including a vertical overburden effective pressure.

CR0012 final 6-7-2022 Page 1 of 2

 SC7_N1661 page 10

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Alternatively it could be written:
<PER> Formula 8.3 may be applied using an averaged value of Δud acting on
the base of a soil block with a width of half of the depth of the block
(Terzaghi approach).
Change Add permission to use the method of Terzaghi analyzing a soil prism under
(NEW TEXT) hydraulic heave. TG D1 supports the CR, but is in favor of the first of the
TG D1 proposal proposed approaches. As ‘relevant soil block’ is not defined, leaving some
uncertainty for the designer to deal with, adding a note is suggested.
Proposal to add in 8.1.4.2(4):
<PER> For an ultimate limit state of hydraulic heave in a soil body at the
downstream side of a retaining structure with underneath groundwater
flow, it may be alternatively verified, for the relevant soil prism, that the
design value of the destabilizing, vertically upward seepage force (Sp,v;d) in
the soil prism is less than or equal to the stabilizing design value of
<submerged weight (G´p;d) of the same soil prism (see e. g. Terzaghi, K. &
Peck, R.B., 1948):
Sp,v;d ≤ G´p;rep γHYD (8.x)
where:
Sp,v;d is the vertically upward seepage force in the relevant soil prism;
G´p;rep is the representative value of submerged weight of the relevant soil
prism including a vertical overburden effective pressure.
NOTE: The relevant soil prism in most cases is a soil block with a width of
half of the depth of the block.
Alternatively it could be written:
<PER> Formula 8.3 may be applied using an averaged value of Δud acting on
the base of a soil block with a width of half of the depth of the block
(Terzaghi approach).
Revised wording to
comply with N1250
and technical
English. (TGA1)
Background The allowed use of Terzaghi’s method is an essential point for Germany. The
information following comment was submitted to EN 1997-3, 7.6.5 in combination with
EN 1997-1, eq. (8.3), version of OCT 2020: “NOTE 102 in EN 1997-1, 8.1.4.2
refers to EN 1997-3, Clause 7. This method is missing there and should be
given. There was a German proposal according to Terzaghi to analyze
hydraulic heave”.
The observation of the secretariat was “Not accepted” without any
explanation. Furthermore, in the version of April 2021 in EN 1997-1, 8.1.4.2
“Hydraulic Heave”, that note referring to Terzaghi’s method was deleted.

CR0012 final 6-7-2022 Page 2 of 2

 SC7_N1661 page 11

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Title / subject: Terms relating to design

1997 document: 1997-1

Clause : 3.1.9.x
A2 General CR0024
Request number
Request by TG + TG C4 – CR1
TG internal number
Date request 4-10-2021
Decision A2 16-11-2021, CR0024 was not accepted, However a Note was added to 10.2:
Date: ” This Clause does not provide detailed provisions for supervision. Refer to
the execution standards for further information.”
Reason for change Revised definitions to give better clarity to users of document
Original content cl 3.1.91.4, cl 3.1.9.5, cl 3.1.9.6, cl 3.1.9.7
Change
(NEW TEXT)
Supervision EC7-1
3.1.9.4 supervision
Supervision is an act or instance of directing, managing, or oversight and
comprises all measures or activities during execution to ensure that the
construction work is carried out by personnel having appropriate skill and
experience and follows the process, including execution methods and
construction stages, set by the execution specification.
Note: As a minimum, supervision is conducted by the party executing the
respective process (e.g. the Designer supervises the design process, the
Contractor supervises the construction process). The responsibilities for any
additional supervision activities should be specified by the relevant
authorities or, where not specified, agreed for a specific project, by the
relevant parties.

Inspection EC7-1
3.1.9.5 inspection
An inspection is an organized examination or formal evaluation exercise and
comprises measures or activities during execution to check the compliance of
the execution with the execution specification and the validity of the design
assumptions in relation to encountered ground conditions at the site.
Inspection is understood to mean checking the material and product
properties, ground conditions, dimensions and quality.
Note: As a minimum, inspection is conducted by the party providing the
material or product (e.g. the Designer inspects the design report, the
Contractor inspects the construction product). The responsibilities for any
additional inspection activities should be specified by the relevant authorities
or, where not specified, agreed for a specific project, by the relevant parties.

Monitoring EC7-1
3.1.9.6 monitoring

CR0024 final 6-7-2022 Page 1 of 3

 SC7_N1661 page 12

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

measuring/observation of the behaviour of the ground and/or structure,
during execution and / or design service life, to check compliance with the
anticipated behaviour defined by a set of threshold values and determined by
calculation or engineering judgement.
Note: The responsibilities for monitoring activities should be specified by the
relevant authorities or, where not specified, agreed for a specific project, by
the relevant parties.

Execution specification EC7-1

3.1.9.7 execution specification
Is a package of documents defining the requirements, as applicable, on
- relevant standards
- material and product specification,
- dimensions and tolerances,
- execution methods, control and construction stages,
- definition of consequence class, execution class, tolerance class,
partly taken from the Geotechnical Design Report, and partly from other
sources (e.g. QA control sheets as well as execution reports from execution
codes).
NOTE to entry: An execution specification can include method statements,
supervision plan, inspection plan, monitoring plan, maintenance plan,
contingency plan, material specification, technical description etc. The
information can e.g. be presented in text, drawings, models, databases. It is
recommended to focus on drawings for all design-related information for the
execution specification. It is recommended to set up, continuously update
and communicate a content list on all elements forming a project’s execution
specification, including revision control.
Note: The responsibilities for the contribution to the execution specification,
as well as the continuous update and distribution of the content list and
revision control, should be specified by the relevant authorities or, where not
specified, agreed for a specific project, by the relevant parties.

Maintenance EC0
3.1.2.26 Maintenance
set of activities performed during the service life of the structure so that it
fulfils the requirements.
Note: The responsibility for maintenance is typically with the owner of the
structure, unless specified otherwise by the relevant authorities or agreed for
a specific project, by the relevant parties.

Revised wording to
comply with N1250 The rules in IR3 16.5.6 states the following about Definitions:
and technical The definition shall be written in such a form that it can replace the term in
English. (TGA1) its context. It shall not start with an article ("the", "a") nor end with a full
stop.
A definition shall not take the form of, or contain, a requirement.

CR0024 final 6-7-2022 Page 2 of 3

 SC7_N1661 page 13

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Only one definition per terminological entry is allowed. If a term is used to
define more than one concept, a separate terminological entry shall be
created for each concept and the domain shall be included in angle brackets
before the definition.

Furthermore, the code is not allowed to specify certain tasks or

responsibilities for clients or contractors or consultants. The code specifies
what to do, but not by whom.

Therefore, the CR should be rejected.

Only the following note to entry to 10.2 should be added with respect to
supervision:

Note to entry to 10.2

This document does not provide detailed provisions for supervision. Refer to
the execution standards for further information.

Background The process of reviewing how best to communicate the design into the
information implementation stage resulted in discussion over whether the definitions as
supplied in the draft Eurocode gave sufficient clarity. The attached revised
definitions were arrived at through discussion and have been reviewed and
accepted by the whole TG C4.
Given the importance it was felt that these were better in the main code
than being clarified in the guidelines.

CR0024 final 6-7-2022 Page 3 of 3

 SC7_N1661 page 14

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Title / subject: Verification by the Observational Method

1997 document: EN 1997-1

Clause : 4.7 Verification by the Observational Method
A2 General CR0030
Request number
Request by TG + Germany_ 07
TG internal number
Date request 5-10-2021
Decision A2 16-11-2021: TG A2 agreed with change, but NOTE should be adjusted.
Date: 29-11-2021: TG A1 adjusted the clause 4.7 (7) and added the NOTE (See
TGA1 below)
Reason for change In clause 4.7 there is one essential prerequisite missing: For a successful
application of OM observations of deformations, stress-changes etc. must
be possible.
Original content
Change So it must be added: < REQ> If an incipient failure cannot be detected by
(NEW TEXT) observations (monitoring) beforehand (e.g. due to brittle behavior of the
ground), the observational method shall not be used.
Revised wording to Change :
comply with N1250
and technical Clause 4.7(7) It shall be possible to apply contingency measures rapidly
English. (TGA1) enough to avoid exceeding the limit state.

Change 4.7(7) note to:

NOTE
Non-ductile behavior of the ground can prevent contingency methods from
being sufficiently rapid to avoid exceeding the limit state and to make the
observational method unsuitable.
Background
information

CR0030 final 6-7-2022 Page 1 of

1
 SC7_N1661 page 15

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Title / subject: EN 1997-1, Clause 3 – term “weathering zone”

1997 document: 1
Clause : 3.1 Table 3.1 and 3.1.1.6
A2 General CR0091
Request
number
Request by REP
TG +
TG internal
number
Date 18-01-2022
request
Decision A2 24-1-2022 Send to TG A1, 2-2-2022 Sent to TG A2
Date 24-2-2022 TG_A2 accepted the request
Reason for “Weathered zone” should be used, not “weathering zone”. Note that in EC7-2
change “weathered zone” is used throughout the text.
Besides, they do not have to appear in layers, they can be located, for instance
close to water bearing features in the ground.

Original
content

Change 3.1.1.6
(NEW TEXT) Weathered zone
distinctive zone of weathered ground material, differing physically, chemically,
and/or mineralogically from the surrounding ground
Revised Agreed
wording to
comply with
N1250 and
technical
English.
(TGA1)
Background
information

CR0091 final 3-8-2022 Page 1 of 1

 SC7_N1661 page 16

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Title / subject: EN 1997-1, Clause 3 – Definition of “foliation”

1997 document: Part 1

Clause : 3.1.1.8
A2 General CR0092
Request
number
Request by REP
TG +
TG internal
number
Date 18-01-2022
request
Decision A2 24-1-2022 send to TG A1, 2-2-2022 Sent to TG A2
Date 24-2-2022 TG_A2 accepts the CR, including the A1 editorial changes.
Reason for Wrong copy from EN ISO 14689. The words in yellow are not in the standard and
change don’t make sense.
Original
content

Change
(NEW
TEXT)

Revised Agreed
wording to
comply [SOURCE: Modified from EN ISO 14689]
with N1250
and
technical
English.
(TGA1)
Backgroun
d
informatio
n

CR0092 final 3-8-2022 Page 1 of 1

 SC7_N1661 page 17

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Title / subject: EN 1997-1, Clause 4 – “Geotechnical Categories”

1997 document: Part 1

Clause : 4.1.2.3
A2 General CR0093
Request
number
Request by REP
TG +
TG internal
number
Decision TG 24-1-2022 Send to TG A1, 2-2-2022 Sent to TG A2
A2 24-2-2022 A2 accepts the CR including A1 re-formulation as a permission.
Date
Date request 18-01-2022
Reason for Very large geotechnical structures can be situated in more than one
change geological/geotechnical setting and be associated with different failure
consequences, depending on the part of the structure that fails.

To ensure a cost-effective design, it is therefore necessary to assign different GCC

and CC (and GC) to different parts of the structure, rather than selecting the worst
case for the whole structure.

Examples of structures for which this is relevant include very wide man-made
slopes in soil or rock along roads or railways, long embankments, or long
underground openings.

Original
content

Change Add a Note:

(NEW TEXT) NOTE 1 Different parts of a structure can be classified in different Geotechnical
Categories if the geotechnical complexity or the consequences of failure differ
between the parts.
Revised TG A1: The NOTE must be a permission, thus add:
wording to
comply with (2) <PER> Different parts of a structure may be classified in different Geotechnical
N1250 and Categories if the geotechnical complexity or the consequences of failure differ
technical between the parts.
English.
(TGA1)
Background
information

CR0093 final 3-8-2022 Page 1 of 1

 SC7_N1661 page 18

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Title / subject: EN 1997-1, Clause 8 – “Excessive deformation”

1997 document: Part 1

Clause : 8.1.2
A2 General CR0094
Request
number
Request by REP
TG +
TG internal
number
Date request 18-01-2022
Decision A2 24-1-2022 Send to TG A1
Date 24-2-2022 TG_A2 accepts a revised proposal based on discussion at meeting,
including to:
- Keep the original text
- Ad "as relevant" after verified. (To be consistent with 1990)
Reason for The current text of 8.1.2(1), including the Note, adds nothing to what is stated in
change EN 1990-1, 5.3(3).

Original
content

Change 8.1.2 Failure due to excessive deformation of the ground

(NEW TEXT) (1) <REQ> The potential ultimate limit states listed in EN 1990-1, 5.3(3) shall be
verified, as relevant.

Revised Discussed in A2 last time as CR0031. This CR was discussed on 11-1-2022 and
wording to rejected
comply with
N1250 and
technical
English.
(TGA1)
Background
information

CR0094 final 3-8-2022 Page 1 of 1

 SC7_N1661 page 19

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Title / subject: EN 1997-1, Clause 4 – “Geometrical properties of discontinuities”

1997 document: Part 1

Clause : 4.3.3
A2 General CR0095
Request
number
Request by REP
TG +
TG internal
number
Date request 18-01-2022
Decision A2 24-1-2022 Send to TG A1 2-2-2022: Sent to TG A2
Date 24-2-2022 TG_A2 accepts the CR
Reason for In paragraph (2):
change The geometrical properties of discontinuities that are listed should be corrected
with the appropriate terms:
- replace “length” with “extent” because it can be also area
- include “spacing” because it is an important property of discontinuity sets
- replace “voids or openings” with “aperture”
- include “surface roughness” because it is an important property of
discontinuities
The NOTE is unnecessary, because it is well known, adds nothing and there are
other ways to describe orientation

In paragraph (6):
- The last part of the sentence is obvious and unnecessary because geometrical
properties of discontinuities are listed in (2)
Original
content

Change (2) <REQ> Geometrical properties of discontinuities in the ground shall include
(NEW TEXT) information on location, orientation, spacing, extent, aperture, and surface
roughness.

(6) <PER> The nominal value of geometrical properties for ground discontinuities
may be determined by sensitivity analysis using a probabilistic approach.
Revised Agreed
wording to
comply with
N1250 and
technical
English.
(TGA1)
Background
information

CR0095 final 3-8-2022 Page 1 of 1

 SC7_N1661 page 20

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Title / subject: EN 1997-1, Clause 8 – “Loss of rotational equilibrium”

1997 document: 1
Clause : 8.1.3.1 (1)
A2 General CR0096
Request
number
Request by REP
TG +
TG internal
number
Date 18-01-2022
request
Decision TG 24-1-2022 Send to TG A1, 2-2-2022 sent to TG A2
A2 24-2-2022 TG_A2 accepts the CR and note to change “design case” to “verification
Date case”.
Reason for This paragraph also applies to parts of the structure. A rock block can be considered
change part of a structure and its rotation falls in this clause.
Replace “structure” with “structure or part of it”

This change was accepted by PT6 but not considered in the text.
Original
content

Change (1) <REQ> Loss of static equilibrium due to the rotation of the structure or part of it
(NEW shall be prevented by verifying that destabilizing design moments are less than or
TEXT) equal to the stabilizing design moments about the assumed point of rotation, with
partial factors applied to actions using Design Case 2 of EN 1990-1.
Revised Agreed
wording to
comply
with N1250
and
technical
English.
(TGA1)
Backgroun
d
informatio
n

CR0096 final 3-8-2022 Page 1 of 1

 SC7_N1661 page 21

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Title / subject: EN 1997-1, Clause 4 – “Partial factors on rock”

1997 document: 1
Clause : 4.4.1.3 – Table 4.8
A2 General CR0097
Request
number
Request by REP
TG +
TG internal
number
Date request 18-01-2022
Decision A2 24-1-2022 Send to TG A1
Date 17-5-2022, agreed on 2nd proposal by REP and 2nd comments by TG A1 19-5-2022:
extra comment to replace in Title “rock”by “rock material”, see also CR0098.
Reason for 1. The partial factors are mainly applied on rock mass properties, but can also be
change on intact rock. The title should be changed to “rock and rock mass properties”.

2. Partial factors are applied on the shear strength of the rock mass (γrτ) or on the
shear strength of the discontinuities (γτdis). There is no need to indicate partial
factors for the parameters of the envelopes used (linear or non-linear), except if
different values for c and tan(φ) were specified, which is not the case.
Consequently, the row for γtanφdis should be deleted.

3. A footnote 6 to the table is included, replacing footnote 2 in the case of shear

strength of rock, rock mass and rock discontinuities, because it applies to linear
and non-linear strength envelopes.

4. The April draft increases the partial factor values of set M2 for rocks from 1.25
to 1.4 and from 1.1 to 1.2, for persistent/transient and accidental situations,
respectively. There is no justified reason to adopt different partial factors values
for soils and rock masses. The boundary between hard soils and weak rocks is not
always easy to establish and there should not be a sudden jump in the partial
factor value. Besides, the structures designed with the higher values now proposed
could become unnecessarily uneconomic. Since these values are NDP, they can be
changed by the NSBs. The values of 1.25 and 1.1 should be kept.

5. A new line is proposed for “coefficient of residual friction (tanφdis,r)” for rock
discontinuities, which is needed when the roughness component is neglected. The
values of the partial factor should be equal to those used for soils.

Original
content

CR0097 final 17-7-2022 Page 1 of 3

 SC7_N1661 page 22

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Change Rock and rock mass parameters

(NEW TEXT) Shear strength6 (τr) γτr 1.0 1.25 KM 1.1
Unconfined compressive strength3 (qu) γqu 1.0 1.4 KM 1.2

Rock discontinuities
Shear strength6 (τdis) γτdis 1.0 1.25 KM 1.1
Coefficient of residual friction 5 (tanφdis,r) γtanφd 1.0 1.1 KM 1.0
is,r
3 Used for foundation purposes only.
5 To be used when the roughness component is neglected
6 Intended to be used for linear and non-linear strength envelopes

Revised The proposed changes below are made to keep in line with the (non)-frictional
wording to behaviour of soils. Kommenterad [LL1]: REP
comply with understands the advantage
N1250 and Rock and rock mass parameters of keeping coherence with
what is written for soils.
technical Shear strength6 (τr) used in frictional γτr 1.0 1.25 KM 1.1 Our 2nd proposal tries to
English. strength models cover this aspect, but in an
(TGA1) Shear strength6 (τr) used in non-frictional γτr 1.0 1.4 KM 1.2 alternative way.
strength models Kommenterad [LL2]: The
Unconfined compressive strength3 (qu) γqu 1.0 1.4 KM 1.2 expressions “frictional” and
“non-frictional” strength
models are not used in rock
Rock discontinuities engineering. REP prefers
Shear strength6 (τdis) γτdis 1.0 1.25 KM 1.1 not to include this line and
Coefficient of residual friction (tanφdis,r)
5
γtanφdis,r 1.0 1.1 KM 1.0 add a note to the title for
soil-like rock materials.
(or) Use values for the filling material
3 Used for foundation purposes only. Kommenterad [LL3]: Thi
5 To be used when the roughness component is neglected s is not needed, because
6 Intended to be used for linear and non-linear strength envelopes the value of τdis , as
explained in Part 2, 8.1.5
(see CR submitted by REP),
REP’s 2nd Rock material and rock mass parameters7 considers the filling
proposal Shear strength6 (τr) γτr 1.0 1.25 KM 1.1 material. This note,
Unconfined compressive strength3 (qu) γqu 1.0 1.4 KM 1.2 included here, may cause
confusion.

Rock discontinuities
Shear strength (τdis)
6
γτdis 1.0 1.25 KM 1.1
Coefficient of residual friction 5 (tanφdis,r) γtanφdis,r 1.0 1.1 KM 1.0
3 Used for foundation purposes only.
5 To be used when the roughness component is neglected
6 Intended to be used for linear and non-linear strength envelopes
7 Values of partial factors shown for soil and fill parameters to be used for weak, highly
fractured rock masses, in cases when soil mechanics concepts are found to apply
TG A1 Agree, Change in the NOTES 5, 6 and 7:
comment on • “used” instead of “to be used” (statement of fact) 3 x
REP 2nd
proposal

CR0097 final 17-7-2022 Page 2 of 3

 SC7_N1661 page 23

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Background
information

CR0097 final 17-7-2022 Page 3 of 3

 SC7_N1661 page 24

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Title / subject: EN 1997-1 – Use of “rock” vs “rock mass”

1997 document: 1
Clause : all
A2 General CR0098
Request number
Request by TG + REP
TG internal number
Date request 18-01-2022
Decision A2 17-5-2022: TG A2 agreed (after a reduction of changes by REP in relation to
Date the original document) 19-5-2022: additional CR with less changes was
received from REP. These are incorporated in this document and in CR0097

Reason for change In several places there is a misuse of the word “rock”, when “rock mass”
should be used.

Original content 4.4.1.3

(4) <PER> When design values of geotechnical resistance are calculated
using Formula (8.19) of EN 1990, partial factors γτf may be applied
directly to the effective shear strength of soil ( τf) and on shear strength
of rock ( τf ), respectively.

5.4
(9) <RCM> For rock, in order to avoid the occurrence of failure
mechanisms into the grout, unless another value is specified in the
Geotechnical Design Report, the value of the compressive strength
should be equivalent to concrete class C35/45 according to EN 206.

Change 4.4.1.3 (5)

(NEW TEXT) (5) <PER> When design values of geotechnical resistance are calculated
using Formula (8.19) of EN 1990, partial factors γτf may be applied
directly on effective shear strength of soil (τf) γτr may be applied directly
to the shear strength of rock material and rock mass (τr), and γτdis may be
applied directly to the shear strength of discontinuities (τdis).

5.4
(9) <RCM> For rock mass, in order to avoid the occurrence of failure
mechanisms into the grout, unless another value is specified in the
Geotechnical Design Report, the value of the compressive strength
should be equivalent to concrete class C35/45 according to EN 206.

Revised wording to Recommend to reject: See also CR0123

comply with N1250 It is mainly a distinction with soil. For soil we do not use “soil mass”.
and technical Here “rock” is used as general term. To specify it as rock-mass is not
English. (TGA1) necessary.
Background
information

CR0098 final 3-8-2022 Page 1 of 1

 SC7_N1661 page 25

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Title / subject: EN 1997-1, Clause 3 – “Symbols for partial factors on rock”

1997 document: Part 1

Clause : 3.2.4
A2 General CR0099
Request number
Request by TG + REP
TG internal number
Date request 18-01-2022
Decision A2 24-1-2022: editorial, send to TG A1, 2-2-2022 TG A1 agrees and implements,
Date will not be sent to TG A2 (editorial changes)
Reason for change The symbol γτr: for partial factor on the shear strength of rock or rock mass is
missing in the list
The symbol γτdis: for partial factor on shear strength of rock discontinuities is
missing in the list. Note that this symbol was introduced in a Change
Request of Table 4.7 by the REP.

Original content -
Change γτr partial factor on the shear strength of rock or rock mass
(NEW TEXT) γτdis partial factor on shear strength of rock discontinuities

Revised wording to
comply with N1250
and technical
English. (TGA1)
Background
information

CR0099 final 3-8-2022 Page 1 of 1

 SC7_N1661 page 26

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Title / subject: Part 1 Table 4.8(NDP) Delete misleading NOTE 2

1997 document: 1997-1
Clause : 4.4.4.1(1) NOTE 2
A2 General CR0111
Request number
Request by TG + WG1/A1 Editorial Group
TG internal number
Date request 21/12/2021
Decision A2 2-2-2022, sent to TG A2
Date: 24-2-2022 TG A2 accepts the CR to delete note 2, and to add ”or
approaches” in note 1
Reason for change Clause 4.4.4.1(1) NOTE 2
NOTE 2 is confusing, since it is not clear which National Annex it refers to. It
is EN 1997-3 that decides between MFA and RFA and it is the NA to EN 1997-
3 that can give a specific (national) choice. NOTE 2 should be deleted here
since it is for EN 1997-3 to introduce the possibility of national choice.
Original content 4.4.1.1 General
(1) <RCM> In addition to EN 1990-1, 8.3, ultimate limit states that
involve the ground should be verified using either the:
− material factor approach (MFA); or
− resistance factor approach (RFA)
NOTE 1. EN 1997-3 specifies which approach can be used for specific
geotechnical structures.
NOTE 2. Where EN 1997-3 allows either MFA or RFA to be used, the National
Annex can give a specific choice.
Change 4.4.1.1 General
(NEW TEXT) (1) <RCM> In addition to EN 1990-1, 8.3, ultimate limit states that
involve the ground should be verified using either the:
− material factor approach (MFA); or
− resistance factor approach (RFA)
NOTE 1. EN 1997-3 specifies which approach can be used for specific
geotechnical structures.
NOTE 2. Where EN 1997-3 allows either MFA or RFA to be used, the National
Annex can give a specific choice.
Revised wording to
comply with N1250
and technical
English. (TGA1)
Background
information

CR0111 final 17-7-2022 Page 1 of 1

 SC7_N1661 page 27

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Titel / subject:
Level of reliability required by EN 1990-1

1997 document: prEN 1997-1

Clause : 4.2.1 (3), 4.2.1 (4), 4.2.3.2(3), 4.2.4(5), 7.1.1(2)

A2 General CR0112
Request
number
Request by TG-C3
TG + TG-C3-1
TG internal
number
Date 23 February 2022
request
Decision A2 15-3-2022: Agreed by TG A2
Date :
Reason for In several requirements the ‘level of reliability required by EN 1990-1’ is
change referenced. In most occasions the subsequent requirements and recommendations
describe how this intended level of reliability is achieved, yet in the current
wording users may interpret the reference to ensuring that the ‘level of reliability
required by EN 1990-1’ is met as an additional requirement. In order to avoid such
misinterpretation, we propose to choose the formulations such that it is made
clear that the ‘level of reliability required by EN 1990-1’ is the underlying
requirement which is specifically addressed in the following (ideally with reference
to the specific clauses).

Original 4.2.1 (3)

content

4.2.1 (4)

4.2.3.2(3)

4.2.4(5)

7.1.1(2)

Change Overall proposal: Reformulate such that it is clear to the user that the ‘level of
(NEW TEXT) reliability required by EN 1990-1’ is the underlying requirement and not an
additional one.

CR0112 final 17-7-2022 Page 1 of 3

 SC7_N1661 page 28

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

The two most important clauses in terms of potentially suggesting the code user an
additional requirement are 4.2.1 (4) and 7.1.1(2):

Proposal for clause 7.1.1(2):

a) Move subclause (2) upfront: “Calculation model shall provide a level of reliability
no less than that specified in EN 1990-1.”
b) add Note: “The verification of the calculation models providing the level of
reliability required by EN 1990-1 is achieved by meeting the requirements and
following the recommendations in subclauses (2) – (7).”

Similarly for clause 4.2.1 (4).

For clause 4.2.1 (3) we suggest to add a note with direct reference to the
clauses and tables specifying the requirements for the validating the GDM,
which entails in fact the operational requirements for ensuring that the level
of reliability in EN 1990-1 is met.

Clauses 4.2.3.2(3) and 4.2.4(5) may be less problematic, since they already make
reference to the specific requirements and it seems rather clear that the level of
reliability required by EN 1990-1 is only referenced for giving context.

For 4.2.4(5) we may consider to add a similar (new) paragraph with the generic
underlying requirement in the beginning of this subclause with the following
regulations showing how to fulfil it. Then the ‘if … then’ clause should make sense.

For 4.2.3.2(3) the generic underlying principle is already included in 4.2.3.2(1) and
maybe just an adequate note should be added.

Notice that we have not proposed a specific wording, because the changes may be
affected by other considerations beyond what we can oversee. We trust that the
essence of our comment is clear from the change request, and from the
conversation with Gunilla and Adriaan, such that the writers can identify
appropriate amendments.

Revised
wording to
comply with
N1250 and
technical
English.
(TGA1)
Background
information

CR0112 final 17-7-2022 Page 2 of 3

 SC7_N1661 page 29

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

CR0112 final 17-7-2022 Page 3 of 3

 SC7_N1661 page 30

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Titel / subject: Level of reliability required by EN 1990-1

1997 document: prEN 1997-1

Clauses: Part 1: 7.1.4(2) note; Part 2: 5.1(3)

A2 General CR0113
Request
number
Request by TG-C3
TG + TG-C3-2
TG internal
number
Date 23 February 2022
request
Decision A2 15-3-2022: TG A2-meeting: agreed. TG A1 to provide an alternative for “accurate”
Date : in the NOTE or otherwise: delete the NOTE

15-3-2022: TG A2 agreed with the CR and requested TG A1 to update the CR, see
box “Revised wording to comply with N1250 and technical English. (TGA1)”
Reason for The word ‘reliability’ used with different meanings. We propose to avoid using the
change word reliability in other ways than defined in EN 1990.

Original Part 1: 7.1.4(2) note

content

Part 2: 5.1(3)

Change Part 1: 7.1.4(2) NOTE: [change reliability to accuracy]

(NEW TEXT) “The accuracy of a numerical model depends not only on the complexity but also on
the quality of the input data.”
(If accuracy is not the appropriate term, we trust that the native speakers involved
will come up with an alternative.)

Part 2: 5.1(3): [drop word reliability]

“The ground investigation should be carried out in phases to progressively increase
knowledge and reduce uncertainty of the information about the ground.”

Revised Part 1: 7.1.4(2) NOTE:

wording to NOTE 1 The accuracy of a numerical model depends on the quality of the input
comply with data.
N1250 and NOTE 2 Simple models can provide more accurate results than complex models.
technical
English. Part 2: 5.1(3):
(TGA1) The ground investigation should be carried out in phases to progressively increase
knowledge and reduce uncertainty of the information about the ground.

CR0113 final 17-7-2022 Page 1 of 2

 SC7_N1661 page 31

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Background
information

CR0113 final 17-7-2022 Page 2 of 2

 SC7_N1661 page 32

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Title / subject:
EN1997-3 – Table 7.1 (NDP) − Partial factors for the verification of ground resistance
against retaining structures for fundamental (persistent and transient) design situations
and accidental design situations
1997 document: EN 1997-3
Clause : Table 7.1, in connection with Clauses 5 and 6
A2 General CR0131
Request number
Request by TG + SG VII
TG internal number
Date request
Decision A2 15-6-2022: TG A2 agreed with CR with following:
Date - Delete footnote e in 1st column of Table 7.1 only, rest is OK
- Delete foot note f
- Delete γE 3 times in last row of Table 7.1

Add in Part 1, 4.4.1.5 (2):

(2) <PER>Provided 4.4.1.3(7) is satisfied, the value of γR for transient design
situations may be multiplied by the reduction factor Ktr given in 4.4.1.3 (6)
Reason for change Despite various attempts to improve ease of use and compatibility of Clause
7 with Clauses 5 and 6 the present version of Table 7.1 referring to gravity
walls and embedded walls leads to serious problems in the design of these
structures. The fundamental issues are not solved yet. This applies in
particular to the option of using VC4 for all verifications in connection with
retaining structures. Since some countries adopt VC1 as the preferable
option the Subgroup VII decided to modify Table 7.1 in order to enhance
ease of use and compatibility.
Original content See Table 7.1, in M515.SC7 prEN 1997-3:202x (E) November 2021
Change See attachment with new proposal for Table 7.1.
(NEW TEXT)

Revised wording to A1 recommends clearly splitting the presentation of partial factors for
comply with N1250 gravity walls and embedded walls.
and technical
Partial factors for accidental design situations are everywhere else in the
English. (TGA1)
Eurocodes calculated as the square root of the values for
persistent/transient. Hence 1.4 (fundamental) becomes 1.2 (accidental) and
1.1 becomes 1.05.
The partial factor on passive resistance for embedded walls is γRe NOT γRe x
γE. As presented by SG VII, the partial factor γE could be applied twice. This
has been simplified in the revised table and a note added to explain what γE
and γRe are applied to. The user is free to combine γE and γRe without the
code saying this is necessary.
Furthermore, the restrictions for VC4 given in 5.66 (2) are valid for gravity
base structures. And the combination of VC1 with M2 should be considered
for gravity bases, analogous to spread foundations.

CR0131 final 17-7-2022 Page 1 of 5

 SC7_N1661 page 33

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

See modified table below
Background For the verification of bearing resistance of embedded walls, Table 7.1 refers
information to Clause 6 that applies to piles. This reference is incomplete and misleading
because a suitable verification is not given in the piles section of the draft.
The same issue applies for the verification against basal heave which is
supposed to be carried out according to Clause 5 and Annex D. However,
Clause 5 does not include any reference for this particular verification.
For countries adopting RFA in combination with VC4, such as Germany, the
provisions are incomplete and misleading, in particular for gravity retaining
walls. While for rotational resistance VC4 is allowed, similar opening for the
other verifications is completely missing.
Discussions within the SG VII revealed, that in some countries RFA is used in
combination with VC1. This option is missing in the present version of Table
7.1.
Examples for the application of VC4 for all verifications concerning gravity
and embedded walls have been communicated to TGA2 and discussed
within the Subgroup VII.

CR0131 final 17-7-2022 Page 2 of 5

 SC7_N1661 page 34

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Change Request proposed by Subgroup VII - Retaining Structures, 2022-02-23

Table 7.1 (NDP) − Partial factors for the verification of ground resistance against
retaining structures for fundamental (persistent and transient) design situations
and accidental design situations

Verification of Partial factor Symbol Material factor Resistance factor

on approach (MFA) – both approach (RFA) –
combinations either combination
(a) and (b) (c) or (d) or both
combinations?

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Overall stability See Clause 4

γF or VC4a VC3a VC1a VC4a

Actions, effects- γE
of- actions

γM M1b M2b Not factored

Ground
properties
Bearing and
sliding resistance Bearing γRN Not factored 1.4 (1.2) 1.4 (1.2)
of gravity walls resistance of
gravity walls and
Bearing resistance basal heave
of embedded walls
Sliding γRT Not factored 1.1 (1.05) 1.1 (1.05)
resistance of
Rotational
gravity walls
resistance of
embedded walls Vertical γR Not factored 1.4 (1.1)c 1.4 (1.1)c
resistance of
Basal heaved embedded walls
Passive earth γRe γE Not factored 1.4 γE 1.4 γE
resistance for (1.1 γE)c (1.1 γE)c
rotational
resistance of
embedded walls
a Values of the partial factors for Verification Cases (VCs) 1, 3 and 4 are given in EN 1990
b Values of the partial factors for Sets M1 and M2 are given in EN 1997-1, Table 4.8
c Values in brackets are for accidental situations.
d For basal heave refer to Annex D.

CR0131 final 17-7-2022 Page 3 of 5

 SC7_N1661 page 35

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Table with modifications recommended by TG A1 – agreed by Subgroup VII

Verification of Partial factor Symbol Material factor Resistance factor

on approach (MFA), either approach (RFA) –
both combinations (a) either combination
and (b) or the single (d) or (e)
combination (c)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Overall stability See Clause 4

Actions, effects- γF , γE VC4a VC3a VC1a VC1a,d VC4a,d,e

of-actions
Bearing/sliding Ground γM M1b M2b M2b Not factored
resistance of properties
gravity walls Bearing γRN Not factored 1.4 (1.2) c
resistance
Sliding γRT 1.1 (1.05) c
resistance
Actions, effects- γF , γE VC4a VC3a n.a. VC1a VC4a
of-actions
Bearing/rotational Ground
γM M1b M2b n.a. Not factored
resistance of properties
embedded walls Vertical γR Not factored 1.4 (1.11.2)c
resistance, basal
Basal heaved heave
Passive earth γRe γE 1.4 γE
resistance (1.1 γE1.2)c
aValues of the partial factors for Verification Cases (VCs) 1, 3, and 4 are given in EN 1990
bValues of the partial factors for Sets M1 and M2 are given in EN 1997-1, Table 4.8
cValues in brackets are for accidental design situations
dFor basal heave refer to Annex D

e Use combination (e) except where specified otherwise in 5.6.6 (2)

f The partial factor γE is applied to overturning moments and partial factor γRe to restoring moments

Question do we need to add the following? NO.

Provided the conditions specified in prEN 1997-1:2022 4.4.3(10) are satisfied, the value of
γRN and γRT for transient design situations may be multiplied by a factor KR,tr ≤ 1,0 provided
that the products KR,tr γR and KR,tr γRe are not less than 1,0. For embedded walls: KR,tr = 1.0

NOTE For gravity retaining structures, the value of KR,tr is 1,0 unless the National Annex gives a
different value.

CR0131 final 17-7-2022 Page 4 of 5

 SC7_N1661 page 36

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

BUT: Put into Part 1, 4.4.1.5 (2)

(2) <PER>Provided 4.4.1.3(7) is satisfied, the value of γR for transient design situations may be
multiplied by the reduction factor Ktr given in 4.4.1.3 (6)

CR0131 final 17-7-2022 Page 5 of 5

 SC7_N1661 page 37

CEN/ TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Title / subject: Partial factors for accidental design situations

1997 document: Part 3

Clause : Tables 4.1, 4.2, 5.2, 5.3, 9.3, 10.1, 10.3, and 10.5
A2 General CR0136
Request
number
Request by TGA2
TG +
TG internal
number
Date 23-02-2022
request
Decision A2 TG A2-meeting on 7th April: TG A2 agrees to ask TG A1 to provide the
Date : background information for the square root rule

Also: TG D2 agrees with the square root factor, would like a maximum value of 1.2.

TG A1: There are no rules for application of the square root factoring. In many
countries the values for persistent loading are used, however this is felt too
conservative. Setting all values to 1.0 is too optimistic. In Germany and UK the square
root rule is used.

15-6-2022: Agreed by TG A2, but following changes applied:

NO changes to EN1997-3

Add to EN1997-1
Add to Part 1, 4.4.1.5:
NOTE: The value of γR for an accidental design situation is equal to the square root of
the value of γR for the corresponding persistent design situation, unless the National
Annex gives a different value.
Add to Part 1, 4.4.1.3:
NOTE: The value of γM for an accidental design situation is equal to the square root of
the value of γM for the corresponding persistent design situation, unless the National
Annex gives a different value.
Delete to Part 1:
last column of Table 4.8 (accidental material factors).

Comment during implementation: The change that were added to part 3 were that any
values of partial factors in brackets were deleted. Any table that only include
accidental values were deleted.
The other changes implemented relates to part 1
Reason for The values of partial material and resistance factors for accidental design situations
change are provided for some but not all geotechnical structures. The most common way of
providing these values is to include them in brackets in the same table as the values
for the fundamental (persistent and transient) design situations.

This CR addresses three issues:

1. It adds values for accidental design situations to the tables from which they
are missing
CR0136 Final 23-8-2022 Page 1 of 8
 SC7_N1661 page 38

CEN/ TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

2. It combines values for fundamental and accidental design situations where
these are given in separate tables

Generally, the accidental resistance factors are taken as the square root of the
fundamental values.

Tables 4.1 and 4.2 are combined. Tables 5.2 and 5.3 are combined.
Tables 9.3, 10.1, 10.3, and 10.5 are amended
Original
content

CR0136 Final 23-8-2022 Page 2 of 8

 SC7_N1661 page 39

CEN/ TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

CR0136 Final 23-8-2022 Page 3 of 8

 SC7_N1661 page 40

CEN/ TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

CR0136 Final 23-8-2022 Page 4 of 8

 SC7_N1661 page 41

CEN/ TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Change See below

(NEW TEXT)
Revised
wording to Table 4.1 (NDP) – Partial factors for the verification of ground resistance of
comply with slopes, cuttings, and embankments for fundamental (persistent and
transient) and accidental design situations
N1250 and
technical Verification of Partial factor on Symbol Material factor approach
English. (MFA)a ,b
(TGA1) Actions, effects-of- γF, γE VC3 (not factored)d
Overall stability actions
Ground propertiesc γM M2b

Bearing see Clause 5

resistance
aValues of the partial factors for Verification Case 3 (VC3) are given in EN 1990 Annex A.
bValues of the partial factors for Set M2 are given in EN 1997-1, 4,4,1,3.

cAlso includes ground properties of Class AI ground improvement (Clause 11)

d
Values in brackets are given for accidental design situations

Table 5.1 (NDP) − Partial factors for the verification of ground resistance of
spread foundations for fundamental (persistent and transient) and
accidental design situations

Verification Partial Symbol Material factor Resistance

of factor on approach (MFA), factor
either both approach
combinations (a) (RFA), either
and (b) or the combination
single (d) or (e)c
combination (c)
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Overall See Clause 4
stability

CR0136 Final 23-8-2022 Page 5 of 8

 SC7_N1661 page 42

CEN/ TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Actions, γF, γE VC1a VC3a VC1a VC1a VC4
effects-of-
(not factored)d
actions

Bearing and Ground γM M1b M2b M2b Not factored

sliding properties
resistance Bearing γRN Not factored 1.4 (1.2)d
resistance
Sliding γRT Not factored 1.1 (1.05)d
resistance
aValues of the partial factors for Verification Cases (VCs) 1, 3, and 4 are given in EN 1990 Annex
A.
bValues of the partial factors for Sets M1 and M2 are given in EN 1997-1, Table 4.7.
cUse combination (d) except where specified otherwise in Fout! Verwijzingsbron niet
gevonden. (2) and (3)
d
Values in brackets are given for accidental design situations

Table 9.1 (NDP) – Partial factors for the verification of resistance of

reinforced fill structures for fundamental (persistent and transient) and
accidental design situations

Verification of Partial factor on Symbol Resistance

factor
approach
(RFA)

Overall and See Clause 4

compound stability
Bearing resistance See Clause 5
and sliding
Overturning See Clause 7
Pull-out failure of Pull-out sheet fill γR,po,gs 1.25 (1.1)a
reinforcing resistance of reinforcement
elements
discrete fill γR,po,dis 1.25 (1.1)a
reinforcement
polymeric coated γR,po,pwm 1.25 (1.1)a
steel wire mesh
reinforcement
Direct shear failure Resistance to direct shear γR,ds 1.25 (1.1)a
along interface along interface for sheet fill
reinforcement
Rupture of Tensile geosynthetic γ M,re 1.1 (1.05)a
reinforcing element resistance of reinforcement
structural steel γM0 specified in
per EN10025-2 or
EN10025-4 EN 1993-1-1

reinforcing steel γS specified in

CR0136 Final 23-8-2022 Page 6 of 8

 SC7_N1661 page 43

CEN/ TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

per EN10080 EN 1992-1-1
steel γM2 specified in
reinforcement EN 1993-1-1
polymeric coated γ M,pwm 1.25 (1.1)a
steel wire mesh
reinforcement
Tensile strength of γR,con 1.25 (1.1)a
polymeric coated steel wire mesh
Rupture of reinforcement
connections
between Tensile strength of 1.35 (1.15)a
reinforcing polymeric coated steel woven wire
elements mesh connection

Geosynthetic 1.35 (1.15)a

Rupture Tensile strength γR,con 1.35 (1.15)a
Connections to
facing
a
Value in brackets is given for accidental design situations

Table 10.1 (NDP) – Partial factors for the verification of resistance of rock
bolts for fundamental (persistent and transient) and accidental design
situations
Verification of Partial factor Symbol Values of
on partial factors
Structural resistance of reinforcing Steel See EN 1993-1
element and any connections
Geotechnical resistance, mobilised Pullout γR,po 1,5 (1,25)a
at the interface between rock bolt,
grout and/or rock
a
Value in brackets is given for accidental design situations

Table 10.3 (NDP) – Partial factors for the verification of resistance of soil
nails for fundamental (persistent and transient) and accidental design
situations
Verification of Partial factor Symbol Values of
on partial factors
Structural resistance of reinforcing Steel See EN 1993-1
element and any connections.
Geotechnical resistance, mobilised Pullout γR,po 1,5 (1,25)a
at the interface between soil nail
and ground
a
Value in brackets is given for accidental design situations

Table 10.5 (NDP) – Partial factors for the verification of resistance of wire
meshes for fundamental (persistent and transient) and accidental design
situations

Verification of Partial Symbol Value of

factor on partial factors

CR0136 Final 23-8-2022 Page 7 of 8

 SC7_N1661 page 44

CEN/ TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Structural resistance of steel wires Steel See EN 1993-1-
1
Geotechnical resistance Connection γR,con 1,5 (1,25)a
Connection wire mesh and its
connection element
a
Value in brackets is given for accidental design situations
Background Typically throughout Eurocode 7 and other Eurocodes (e.g. Eurocode 2), the values of
information partial material factors for accidental design situations are approximately equal to the
square root of the values given for the fundamental (persistent and transient) design
situations. The same relationship has been assumed for the values proposed by this
CR.

TG A2 Part 1 , 4.4.1.5
decision NOTE: The value of gamma_r for an accidental design situation is equal to the square
root of the value of gamma_r for the corresponding persistent design situation,
unless the National Annex gives a different value.

Part 1, 4.4.1.3
NOTE: The value of gamma_M for an accidental design situation is equal to the square
root of the value of gamma_M for the corresponding persistent design situation,
unless the National Annex gives a different value.

Delete last column of Table 4.8.

CR0136 Final 23-8-2022 Page 8 of 8

 SC7_N1661 page 45

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Title / subject:
“Execution specification” definition

1997 document: EN1997-1

Clause : 3.1.9.7
A2 General CR0145
Request number
Request by TG + TG C4 – CR4
TG internal number
Date request 28/03/2022
Decision A2 17-5-2022: Change definition into:
Date
3.1.9.7
execution specification
set of documents comprising drawings, a description of the works,
product choices, execution classes, tolerance classes, and other
technical data and requirements necessary for the execution of the
works

Reason for change To align new EN1997 definition with existing execution standards definition
Original content 3.1.9.7
execution specification
Is the synthesis of the requirements on material, products, dimensions,
execution methods, control and construction stages from the Geotechnical
Design Report.

NOTE to entry: A execution specification can include method statements,

supervision plan, inspection plan, monitoring plan, maintenance plan,
contingency plan, material specification, technical description etc. The
information can e.g. be presented in text, drawings, models, databases.
Change execution specification
(NEW TEXT) set of documents covering all drawings, technical data and requirements
necessary for the execution of a particular project
NOTE The execution specification is not one document but signifies the total
sum of documents required for the execution of the. It includes the project
specification prepared to supplement and qualify the requirements of the
European Standards, as well as referring the national provisions relevant in
the place of use.
Revised wording to
comply with N1250
and technical
English. (TGA1)
Background
information

CR0145 final 17-3-2022 Page 1 of 1

 SC7_N1661 page 46

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Title / subject: X.4 Groundwater

1997 document: pr EN1997-1

Clause : X.4
A2 General CR0153
Request number
Request by TG + TG-DI
TG internal number TG-DI-06
Date request 04.04.2022
Decision A2 17-5-2022: TG A2 rejects to proposed changes by TG-DI, but adds on (1);
date
(1) <RCM> If there is sufficient data to derive its value on the basis of
the annual probability of exceedance, the representative value of
groundwater pressure Gw,rep should be selected as either:
− a single permanent value, equal to the characteristic upper
Gwk;sup or lower Gwk;inf value of groundwater pressure
(whichever is more adverse according to the considered limit
state);
− the combination of:
− a permanent value Gwk, equal to the mean value of
groundwater pressure, and
− a variable value, equal to the representative value Qw,rep of
the variation in groundwater pressure

(2) remains unchanged

Reason for change Clauses X.4 entirely refer to EN 1997-1, 6.

With reference to the content of EN 1997-1, 6.4, the use of probabilistic

methods appears rarely applicable even if historical sets of records are
available since usually the depth of the groundwater table strongly depends
on human activities also (for instance agriculture, industry and others) and
not only on natural phenomena.

In this view, there is no reason to recommend to follow a probabilistic

approach (1) and to submit the option to select a cautious estimate to the
occurrence of an “if” condition (2), the latter being probably the most
common real situation.

Moreover, in (2) the actual meaning of “insufficient data” is not clear.

Original content 6.4 Representative values of groundwater pressures

(1) <RCM> The representative value of groundwater pressure Gw,rep

should be selected as either:
− a single permanent value, equal to the characteristic upper
Gwk;sup or lower Gwk;inf value of groundwater pressure
(whichever is more adverse according to the considered limit
CR0153 final 17-7-2022 Page 1 of 3
 SC7_N1661 page 47

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

state);
− the combination of:
− a permanent value Gwk, equal to the mean value of
groundwater pressure, and
− a variable value, equal to the representative value Qw,rep of
the variation in groundwater pressure

(2) <RCM> If there is insufficient data to derive their values on the

basis of the annual probability of exceedance, Gwk,sup and Gwk,inf
should be selected as cautious estimates of the most adverse values
likely to occur during the design situation.

Change Merge subclauses (1) and (2) as follows:

(NEW TEXT) 6.4 Representative values of groundwater pressures

(1) <RCM> The representative value of groundwater pressure Gw,rep

should be selected as either:
− a single permanent value, equal to the characteristic upper
Gwk;sup or lower Gwk;inf value of groundwater pressure
(whichever is more adverse according to the considered limit
state);
− the combination of:
− a permanent value Gwk, equal to the mean value of
groundwater pressure, and
− a variable value, equal to the representative value Qw,rep of
the variation in groundwater pressure
− a cautious estimate of the most adverse upper Gwk;sup or lower
Gwk;inf values likely to occur during the design service file of the
structure according to the considered limit state.

Revised wording to TG A1: nominal value is always an alternative of characteristic value 

comply with N1250 agreed
and technical
English. (TGA1)
Background
information

CR0153 final 17-7-2022 Page 2 of 3

 SC7_N1661 page 48

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

CR0153 final 17-7-2022 Page 3 of 3

 SC7_N1661 page 49

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Titel / subject:
EN 1997-3 Effects of subsequent works on ground properties

1997 document: EN 1997-3

Clause : 6.3.1, x.3.1

A2 General CR0155
Request number
Request by TG + TG-D
TG internal number TG-DI-08

Date request 04.04.2022

Decision A2 1-6-2022: TG A2 agrees with TG A1 proposal. Add to Part 1.

Date :
Reason for change Effects of subsequent works on values of ground properties should be
considered for all geotechnical structures. Now this is recommended only
for piles (6.3.1(3)). This recommendation should be extended to other
geotechnical structures, as the designer should always be considering
(thinking about) the potential changes that the activities associated with
construction can make to the initial values obtained prior to the works.

Original content Nothing given for structures other than 6.3.1(3).

Change Add a paragraph from 6.3.1(3) under x.3.1 for all other clauses:
(NEW TEXT) <RCM> The effect of subsequent excavation, placement of overburden, or
changes in groundwater pressure on the values of ground properties should
be considered.

Revised wording to In order to overcome many new paragraphs, include text in Part 1 –
comply with N1250 4.3.2.1 Representative values of ground properties:
and technical
English. (TGA1) (2) <REQ> The determination of representative values of ground
properties shall take into account:
− pre-existing knowledge including geological information and data from
previous projects;
− effect of subsequent excavation, placement of overburden or changes
in groundwater pressure;
− uncertainty due to the quantity and quality of site-specific data (4.2.4);
− uncertainty due to the spatial variability of the measured property; and
− the zone of influence of the structure at the limit state being
considered.

-----
Background
information

CR0155 final 17-7-2022 Page 1 of 1

 SC7_N1661 page 50

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Titel / subject:
EN 1997-3 Plain and reinforced concrete

1997 document: EN 1997-3

Clause : 6.3.2
A2 General CR0157
Request
number
Request by TG-D
TG + TG-DI-10
TG internal
number
Date request 04.04.2022

Decision A2 1-6-2022: TG A2 Agreed with TG DI, but asks TG DI to check contents of subclauses
Date : (3), (5) and (6) with the new version of EN1992, whether the values given in these
subclauses are found in EN1992. Also use the Tremie Concrete Guide as a reference.
If the values are not in Eurocode 2 we should keep the subclauses 3, 5 and 6 in Part
3.

July 18th, Text changed after contact with TG DI/W.Bogusz-Chair. New text in box
“Update after contact with TG DI - W. Bogusz”

Note during implementation: The changes were implemented both in part 1 and part 3.

Reason for There is no reference to exposure classes in clauses other than 6 on piles. Some
change paragraphs should be added to clauses 5 and 7 as well.

Although concrete cover is not mentioned for XA exposure class, in most cases it will
be 40 mm or 75 mm due to requirement for concrete cast against the ground, so
more than for most exposure classes anyway. Therefore, the note to paragraph (3) is
meaningless.

The content of paragraph (5) is for EC2 to specify. In 2020 draft of EC2 it was 40 mm.
Subclause 4.4.1.3 referenced in paragraph (6) does not exist in the 2nd generation of
EC2 (2020 draft).

CR0157 Final 26-7-2022 Page 1 of 3

 SC7_N1661 page 51

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Original
content

Change Add to subclauses 5.3.2 and 7.3.2:

(NEW TEXT) (2) <REQ> Exposure classes for concrete shall comply with EN 206.
(3) <REQ> Concrete cover requirements shall comply with EN 1992-1-1.

Change the subclause 6.3.2:

6.3.2 Plain and reinforced concrete

(1) <REQ> EN 1997-1, 5.5 shall apply to piled foundations.

(2) <RCMREQ> Exposure classes for concrete should shall comply with EN 206.

(3) <REQ> Concrete cover requirements shall comply with EN 1992-1-1.

NOTE For many reinforced concrete piles or piled foundations constructed in natural
ground, the exposure class will be XA1, XA2 or XA3. Currently EN 1992-1-1 does not
provide guidance for the cover allowance for durability for these exposure classes.

(4) <RCM> In the absence of alternative guidance, the minimum cover for
environmental conditions cmin,dur should be 25 mm for reinforced concrete used for
both precast and cast-in-place piles.

(5) <RCM> In the absence of alternative guidance, the allowance for deviation Δcdev
should be 50 mm for concrete cast against the ground and 10 mm for precast piles.
NOTE EN 12794 and EN 13369 give additional recommendations.

(65) <PER> The value for Δcdev for precast piles may be reduced in accordance with
EN 1992-1-1 , 4.4.1.3 (3) when fabrication is subject to a quality assurance system
with measurement of concrete cover.

Revised Agree with Proposal.

wording to But include into EN1997-1 – Section 5.5:
comply with After present (2)
N1250 and (2) <RCM> For the design of concrete incorporated in geotechnical structures, the
technical minimum concrete cover value should be based on Cmin,dur as defined in EN 1992-
English. 1-1.
(TGA1)

CR0157 Final 26-7-2022 Page 2 of 3

 SC7_N1661 page 52

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

New (3) <REQ> Exposure classes for concrete shall comply with EN 206.

The subclause on concrete cover, is already incorporated in the present (2)

Agreed with proposal for Clause 6, EN1997-3.

Update after include into EN1997-1 – Section 5.5:
contact with Present (2)
TG DI - W. (2) <RCM> For the design of concrete incorporated in geotechnical structures, the
Bogusz minimum concrete cover value should be based on Cmin,dur as defined in EN 1992-
1-1.

Add:

NOTE For reinforced concrete foundations constructed in the ground, the exposure
class is commonly XA1, XA2 or XA3. EN 1992-1-1:2004 does not provide guidance for
the cover allowance for durability for these exposure classes.

(3) <RCM> In the absence of alternative guidance, a minimum cover for

environmental conditions cmin,dur should be applied for reinforced concrete in
geotechnical structures.
NOTE: The value of cmin,dur is 25 mm, unless the National Annex gives a different
value.

NOTE: Guidance is given in “Guide to Tremie Concrete for Deep

Foundations, Second edition 2018, EFFC-DFI”

(4) <REQ> Exposure classes for concrete shall comply with EN 206.

In Subclause 5.3.2 and 7.3.2: no changes

Change the subclause 6.3.2:

6.3.2 Plain and reinforced concrete

(1) <REQ> EN 1997-1, 5.5 shall apply to piled foundations.

(2) <PER> The allowance for deviation of concrete cover Δcdev for precast piles may be
reduced in accordance with EN 1992-1-1 , 4.4.1.3 (3) 6.5.3 when fabrication is subject
to a quality assurance system with measurement of concrete cover.

Add reference to:

Guide to Tremie Concrete for Deep Foundations, Second edition 2018,

EFFC-DFI

CR0157 Final 26-7-2022 Page 3 of 3

 SC7_N1661 page 53

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Titel / subject:
EN 1997-3, x.4.2, Groundwater control systems

1997 document: EN 1997-3

Clause : 4.4.2, 5.4.2, 7.4.2, 9.4.2 and all other x.4.2

A2 General CR0164
Request
number
Request by TG-D
TG + TG-DI-17
TG internal
number
Date 04.04.2022
request
Decision A2 1-6-2022: TG A1 agreed with CR:
Date : All x.4.2 subclauses (except clause 12) should include general reference:
(1) <REQ> Clause 12 shall apply to (type of the geotechnical structures covered by the
clause).

Potential increase of groundwater pressures should be added in Clause 6 of Part 1, in

Subclause 6.1 after (8):
(9) <RCM> If a groundwater control system is not provided, then the design should be
verified to withstand potential increase of groundwater pressures.

A generalized paragraph should be added in Part 3 – Clause 12.8.1 general (new text,
CR0134):
<RCM> Where the ultimate and serviceability limit states of a geotechnical structure
depend on the successful performance of a groundwater control system, one or more
of the following measures should be taken:
− inspection and maintenance of the system, which should be specified in the
Maintenance Plan, see EN 1997-1, 5;
− installing a drainage system that will perform according to specification without
maintenance; and
− installing a secondary (“backup”) system.

Reason for Only paragraphs 5.4.2, 7.4.2, and 9.4.2 provide general reference to Clause 12. This
change general reference should be as (1) for all x.4.2 subclauses.

Paragraph related to potential increased groundwater pressures is provided in 4.4.2(2)

and in slightly different form in 9.4.2(2), but not in 7.4.2 where it should also be
relevant for retaining structures. A harmonized version of this paragraph should be
present for all three of those clauses (potentially maybe even for other clauses as
well).

Only 4.4.2(4) and 5.4.2(3), as well as 7.4.2(2) provides recommendations for situations
where safety and/or serviceability of a structure depends on successful performance of
groundwater control system. This is applicable to practically all geotechnical structures
CR0164 final 17-7-2022 Page 1 of 3
 SC7_N1661 page 54

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

so this paragraph should be present in all the clauses.
Original
content

Change All x.4.2 subclauses (except clause 12) should include general reference:
(NEW (1) <REQ> Clause 12 shall apply to (type of the geotechnical structures covered by the
TEXT) clause).

Potential increase of groundwater pressures should be covered in harmonized form in

CR0164 final 17-7-2022 Page 2 of 3

 SC7_N1661 page 55

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

4.4.2(2), 9.4.2(2), and 7.4.2:
<RCM> If a groundwater control system is not provided, then the design should be
verified to withstand potential increase of groundwater pressures.

A generalized paragraph should be used for all subclauses x.4.2:

<RCM> Where the ultimate and serviceability limit states of a geotechnical structure
depend on the successful performance of a groundwater control system, one or more
of the following measures should be taken:
− inspection and maintenance of the system, which should be specified in the
Maintenance Plan, see EN 1997-1, 5;
− installing a drainage system that will perform according to specification without
maintenance; and
− installing a secondary (“backup”) system.

Revised All x.4.2 subclauses (except clause 12) should include general reference:
wording to (1) <REQ> Clause 12 shall apply to (type of the geotechnical structures covered by the
comply clause).
with N1250 TG A1: agree
and
technical Potential increase of groundwater pressures should be covered in harmonized form in
English. 4.4.2(2), 9.4.2(2), and 7.4.2:
(TGA1) <RCM> If a groundwater control system is not provided, then the design should be
verified to withstand potential increase of groundwater pressures.
TG A1: Delete these clauses, as this is covered in Part 1, Clause 6.

A generalized paragraph should be used for all subclauses x.4.2:

<RCM> Where the ultimate and serviceability limit states of a geotechnical structure
depend on the successful performance of a groundwater control system, one or more
of the following measures should be taken:
− inspection and maintenance of the system, which should be specified in the
Maintenance Plan, see EN 1997-1, 5;
− installing a drainage system that will perform according to specification without
maintenance; and
− installing a secondary (“backup”) system.
TG A1: include this subclause in Clause 12.8 (Implementation of design), Clause 12.8.1
– General
Backgroun
d
informatio
n

CR0164 final 17-7-2022 Page 3 of 3

 SC7_N1661 page 56

CEN/TC250/SC7 Change Request

Title / subject:
prEN 1997-1 Clause 4.7 Observational method
Document: prEN 1997-1
Clause: 4.7
Request number: CR0174
Request by TG: TGD\SGIII TGD\SGIII\CR2
Date request: 01-04-2022
Decision A2 17-5-2022: TG A2 agrees with new Subclause (2). Also keep revised (7) from
Date CR0030.
Reason for change: Monitoring shall allow to detect incipient failures (included in the
foreseeable relevant ground responses). If it’s not the case, the
Observational Method can not be used.
That’s why it’s proposed to:
• add a new sub-clause (2) with a note,
• renumber sub-clauses (2) to (10).
Original content 4.7 Verification by the Observational Method

(1) <REQ> When using the Observational Method to verify limit states,
a range of different design variants (including corresponding
Geotechnical Design Models) shall be established, covering all
foreseeable relevant ground responses and ground-structure
interactions.
(2) <REQ> A contingency plan shall be prepared that defines
contingency measures to be applied when actual behaviour violates
acceptance criteria or threshold values.
(3) …

Change 4.7 Observational Method

(NEW TEXT)
(1) <REQ> When using the Observational Method to verify limit states,
a range of different design variants (including corresponding
Geotechnical Design Models) shall be established, covering all
foreseeable relevant ground responses and ground-structure
interactions.
(2) <REQ> If monitoring of the relevant ground responses and ground-
structure interactions does not allow to detect incipient failures,
the Observational Method shall not be used.
Note: Cases where the observational method is not appropriate
include (but are not limited to) brittle behaviour, sudden plastic-
softening.
(3) <REQ> A contingency plan shall be prepared that defines
contingency measures to be applied when actual behaviour
violates acceptance criteria or threshold values.
(4) …

No change to other sub-clauses of 4.7, apart from renumbering.

CR0174 final 17-47-2022 Page 1 of 2

 SC7_N1661 page 57

CEN/TC250/SC7 Change Request

Revised wording to Comments by TG A1:
comply with N1250 In CR0030 Clause 4.7 (7) was already changed into:
and technical (7) It shall be possible to apply contingency measures rapidly enough to
English. (TGA1) avoid exceeding the limit state.

NOTE
Non-ductile behavior of the ground can prevent contingency methods from
being sufficiently rapid to avoid exceeding the limit state and to make the
observational method unsuitable.

Recommendation TG A1: proposed new (2) is already tackled by (7) in

CR0030, reject CR.

Background -
information

CR0174 final 17-47-2022 Page 2 of 2

 SC7_N1661 page 58

CEN/TC250/SC7 Change Request

Title / subject:
prEN 1997-1 Clause 4.7 Observational method Subclause (5)
Document: prEN 1997-1
Clause: 4.7(5)
Request number: CR0175
Request by TG: TGD\SGIII TGD\SGIII\CR3
Date request: 01-04-2022

Decision A2 TG A2 meeting 17-5-2022: Agreed Delete (5) + NOTE. The probability of

Date failure at SLS is defined in EN 1990. Hence (4) already covers the REQ to
check this.

Reason for change: Subclause (5) is inconsistent with clause (4) as it is introducing a different
definition of ultimate limit states, based on an acceptable probability, that
is not defined neither in clause 4.2.5 nor in clause 9.
SGIII would suggest to check whether “(5) <REQ> It shall be verified that
there is an acceptable probability to fulfil the serviceability criterion.” (apart
of the Note) remains necessary.
Original content 4.7 Verification by the Observational Method

…
(4) <REQ> Ultimate and serviceability limit states shall be verified for each
design variant.
(5) <REQ> It shall be verified that there is an acceptable probability to fulfil
the serviceability criterion.
NOTE Guidance on determination of serviceability criterion is given in 4.2.5
and Clause 9.
…

Change 4.7 Observational Method

(NEW TEXT)
No proposal has been issued but SGIII would suggest to check if “(5) <REQ>
It shall be verified that there is an acceptable probability to fulfil the
serviceability criterion.” (apart of the not) is necessary.
Revised wording to Recommendation by TG A1:
comply with N1250 Delete (5). The probability of failure at SLS is defined in EN 1990. Hence (4)
and technical already covers the REQ to check this.
English. (TGA1) Accept CR

Background -
information

CR0175 final 17-7-2022 Page 1 of 1

 SC7_N1661 page 59

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Titel / subject:
Implementation of design extension first note

1997 document: 1997-1

Clause : 10.1 General

A2 General CR0177
Request number
Request by TG + TG-D-IV in mind of TGD2
TG internal number 01
Date request 2022-03-28

Decision A2 17-5-2022: TG A2 decided to delete the note completely, as it is very general

Date : and does not give specific information.
Reason for change Appropriate stage remains vague. Importance to insist on discussion
between designer and contractor.
Complete the note by “and involves discussions between designer and
contractor”

Original content EC7-1

10.1
NOTE The specifications are prepared at an appropriate stage during the
design.

Change 10.1
(NEW TEXT) NOTE The specifications are prepared at an appropriate stage during the
design and involve discussions between designer and contractor.

Revised wording to TG A1: designers and contractors are specific parties and should not be
comply with N1250 mentioned. Maybe better to delete this NOTE at all.
and technical
English. (TGA1)
Background
information

CR0177 final 17-7-2022 17-7-2022 Page 1 of 1

 SC7_N1661 page 60

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Title / subject:
EFA – Equivalent factoring

1997 document:
Clause : EN 1997-1, 8.2 (6), 8.2 (7)
A2 General CR0181
Request number
Request by TG + D1.6_1 and subsequently TGD-V
TG internal number
Date request 31/03/2022
Decision TG A2 17-5-2022: CR was agreed by TG A2
Date:
Reason for change Broadening the range of application of numerical methods without leaving
the framework of EN 1997.

The current recommendation of checking ULS both with MFA and EFA does
not deal with load redistribution capabilities within the structure or
structural element. The proposed additional Note highlights a technique
which allows making use of load redistribution capabilities without deviation
from the partial safety concept.

It is important that engineers are able to utilize reserves of strength to

ensure more economic constructions that use fewer resources and thus
reduce impact on the environment.

The second Note of (6) is difficult to understand, especially the term “infinite
design values”. This should be deleted and replaced with a new Note in (7).

The original second Note of (7) is also difficult to follow. It is inferred that its
aim is to highlight that MFA is not suitable for assessing e.g. anchor pullout
due to the complexity of the situation and that this is why EFA is also
required. However it could be argued that either a more detailed model
should be used or a model factor adopted. It is not clear that EFA factors on
their own can account for all situations. While the NOTE is not wrong, it is
incomplete, but difficult to expand without becoming a clause. It is
therefore recommended that it is omitted.
Original content (6) <PER> Ground strength reduction may be combined with structural
strength or resistance reduction to help identify potentially critical collapse
mechanisms of combined ground and structure failures.

NOTE Reducing structural material strength or resistance reduces the

effective stiffness of structures. Therefore, structural forces can be
underestimated.

NOTE Design values of forces into structural elements depend on the

constitutive law used. When elastic behaviour is considered, design values
can become infinite and lead to inappropriate results. When elasto-plastic
behaviour is considered, design values are limited to the ultimate resistance
of the structural elements.

CR0181 final 17-7-2022 Page 1 of 3

 SC7_N1661 page 61

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

(7) <RCM>Design values of force output in structures obtained by EFA

should be used to verify adequate resistance in addition to the MFA
verification.

NOTE 1 Examples of force output is axial force, shear force and bending
moment. The considered structures are e.g. piles, ground anchors,
diaphragm walls and soil nails.

NOTE 2 The resistance of structures such as piles, diaphragm walls, ground

anchors and soil nails are highly dependent on the properties of the
interface and disturbed ground immediately around such structures.
Consequently, factoring the undisturbed ground strength alone cannot
provide a sufficiently reliable means of verifying the ultimate limit state of
such structures.
Change Make the following changes:
(NEW TEXT)
(6) <PER> Ground strength reduction may be combined with structural
strength or resistance reduction to help identify potentially critical collapse
mechanisms of combined ground and structure failures.

NOTE Reducing structural material strength or resistance reduces the

effective stiffness of structures. Therefore, structural forces can be
underestimated.

NOTE Design values of forces into structural elements depend on the

constitutive law used. When elastic behaviour is considered, design values
can become infinite and lead to inappropriate results. When elasto-plastic
behaviour is considered, design values are limited to the ultimate resistance
of the structural elements.

(7) <RCM>Design values of force output in structures obtained by EFA

should be used to verify adequate resistance in addition to the MFA
verification.

NOTE 1 Examples of force output are axial force, shear force and bending
moment. The considered structures are e.g. piles, ground anchors,
diaphragm walls and soil nails.

NOTE 2 The resistance of structures such as piles, diaphragm walls, ground

anchors and soil nails are highly dependent on the properties of the
interface and disturbed ground immediately around such structures.
Consequently, factoring the undisturbed ground strength alone cannot
provide a sufficiently reliable means of verifying the ultimate limit state of
such structures.

NOTE 2 In a variant of EFA which enables utilization of load redistribution

capacities, action factors are initially applied to the resistance side of the
equation, i.e., to the strength parameters of the structure. If a ULS state is
not achieved in the analysis, then the EFA verification against ULS is
Kommenterad [BS1]: Thi
successful. The action effects from this analysis, multiplied by the action s part of the not seems
effect factors will not exceed the resistances of the structural elements. obvious.

CR0181 final 17-7-2022 Page 2 of 3

 SC7_N1661 page 62

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Adaptation of the stiffness parameters of the structure is an option to
counteract possible stiffness reduction due to
factoring of the strength parameters. The scope for load redistribution can
be limited by the presence of brittle components in the system. Kommenterad [BS2]: Thi
s part of the note can be
moved to a note 3.
NOTE 2 In a variant of EFA which enables utilization of load redistribution Kommenterad [BS3]: Ne
capacities, action factors are initially applied to the resistance side of the w proposal:
equation, i.e., to the strength parameters of the structure. NOTE 2 In a variant of EFA
which enables utilization of
load redistribution
NOTE 3 Adaptation of the stiffness parameters of the structure is an option capacities, action factors
to counteract possible stiffness reduction due to factoring of the strength are initially applied to the
parameters. The scope for load redistribution can be limited by the presence resistance side of the
equation, i.e., to the
of brittle components in the system.
strength parameters of the
structure.
Revised wording to Agree with CR
comply with N1250 NOTE 3 Adaptation of the
stiffness parameters of the
and technical
structure is an option to
English. (TGA1) counteract possible
Background Numerical software packages often contain nonlinear constitutive laws not stiffness reduction due to
information only for soil, but also for structural materials, e. g. reinforced concrete or factoring of the strength
steel. Requiring design action effects to not exceed design resistances in parameters. The scope for
load redistribution can be
every point of a structure would prevent utilization of load redistribution limited by the presence of
capacities. brittle components in the
system.
It is emphasized that the proposed note does not ask the designer to adopt Kommenterad [C4R3]: A
a new factoring approach that might be inconsistent with the principles of greed
Eurocode. The proposed approach is a calculation methodology that allows
load redistribution in numerical models and thus allows the designer to
benefit fully from the capability of numerical models. The final result will
always satisfy the original EFA inequality i.e. design action effect <= design
resistance.

CR0181 final 17-7-2022 Page 3 of 3

 SC7_N1661 page 63

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Title / subject: Use of terminology ‘Capillary Rise’

1997 document: 3
Clause : 4.5.2.1
A2 General CR0184
Request
number
Request by TG-DV Numerical Methods
TG +
TG internal
number
Date 31/03/22
request
Decision A2 TG A2 agrees with CR, TG A1-proposal
Date:
Comment during implementation: A change of a word in 6.1 (10)
Reason for Clause refers to capillary action only which is restrictive and excludes any other
change form of partial saturation. Recommend using term ‘pore water suctions’.
Original
content

Change (5) <PER> The stabilizing effect from pore water suctions arising in the unsaturated
(NEW TEXT) zone may be used in transient design situations, provided its effect can be verified
by comparable experience, groundwater pressure measurements or monitoring.

NOTE The stabilizing effect is also referred to as apparent cohesion and can be
significantly reduced with an increase or decrease in moisture content. A common
approach is to assume zero groundwater pressure above the piezometric level.
Revised “Pore water suction" is better in 4.5.2.1(5). Accept CR.
wording to
comply Also add "Change "Ground suction" to "Pore water suction" in EN1997-1 6.1 (10).
with N1250 Change NOTE into:
and
technical NOTE The stabilizing effect is also referred to as apparent cohesion and can be
English. significantly vary with a change of moisture content. A common approach is to
(TGA1) assume zero groundwater pressure above the piezometric level.

Background
information

CR0184 final 17-7-2022 Page 1 of 1

 SC7_N1661 page 64

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Title / subject: Implicit demonstration of Ed < Rd

1997 document: 1
Clause : 4.4.1.1.
A2 General CR0185
Request number
Request by TG + TGD-V
TG internal
number
Date request 31/03/22
Decision TGA2 17-5-2022: Agreed including proposal by TG A1 (≤ iso <, 2 times)
Date:
Reason for 1. Equation 8.1 of EN1990 requires that it be verified that Ed < Rd. This may be
change demonstrated explicitly by calculating Ed and Rd or implicitly. The latter case
is often encountered in numerical models and certain geotechnical problem
types.
2. While it is clear that it must be shown that Ed < Rd, clients may require
explicit computation of Ed and Rd which generates additional unnecessary
work. There is anecdotal evidence of this with the current code.
3. It would therefore ease use of the code and remove ambiguity if it was
explicitly stated that Ed and Rd do not need to be explicitly calculated.
4. An additional subclause (5) has been added to cover this issue.
Original content

CR0185 final 17-7-2022 Page 1 of 2

 SC7_N1661 page 65

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Change 4.4.1.1. Verification by the partial factor method

(NEW TEXT)
(5) <PER> The ultimate limit state may be verified implicitly by demonstrating that
Ed < Rd without computing specific values of Ed and Rd.

NOTE Implicit demonstration that Ed < Rd can be achieved by showing that:

− the system is stable for design actions and design material properties, or
− a ULS will only occur if:
− material strengths are reduced below their design value, or
− unfavourable material self weights (according to the single source
principle) are increased above their design value.

Revised wording TG A1: agree, but “<” should be “≤” (smaller equal to), 2 times
to comply with
N1250 and
technical
English. (TGA1)
Background
information

CR0185 final 17-7-2022 Page 2 of 2

 SC7_N1661 page 66

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Title / subject:
Procedure for verifying ULS with numerical models

1997 document: CEN-TC250-SC7_N1565_prEN_1997-_MASTER_v2021.06_to_SC7_clean

Clause : EN 1997-1, 8.2(4) and Table 8.1
A2 General CR0186
Request
number
Request by D1.6_1 and subsequently approved by TGD-V
TG +
TG internal
number
Date 31/03/2022
request
Decision TG 17-5-2022: Agreed by TG A2, with changes in Footnote 3:
A2 3
If the analysis cannot perform strength reduction or apply different material
Date; factors to different soils, then Step 2 also continues from Step 1 of the
preceding Construction Stage using design material properties determined
with partial factors from Set M2.

Reason for 1. It is not clear that Step 1 of any given Construction Stage continues from the end of
change Step 1 of the preceding construction stage (rather than Step 2). A new Note 2 is
proposed to clarify this.

2. The recommended MFA procedure, i.e. DC3 + M2, requires the Design Values to be
obtained by "Strength reduction procedure". Such procedure is only available in
specific numerical analysis tools. Furthermore, such procedure is also questionable
when a mixture of drained and undrained soils are present in the model, i.e. the
material partial factors for drained and undrained soils are not the same values.
If strength reduction is not possible then the M2 step cannot follow the
representative step of the current stage and must continue from Step 1 of the
previous stage. In other words the construction stage activity is modelled first using
representative values and then again using M2 parameters as illustrated in the below
example

CR0186 final 17-7-202 Page 1 of 4

 SC7_N1661 page 67

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

The words "Strength reduction procedure" should be deleted and a new Note 3
added.

3. It is implied but not stated that strength reduction begins with representative
values. To clarify this explicitly a sentence has been added to the NOTE to clause 8.2
(4).

Original (4) <RCM> Strength reduction should be used to verify that design values of ground
content strength parameters are not exceeded.

NOTE Different procedures are available to account for stress and strain changes
caused by strength reduction and it is important that a suitable procedure is adopted
in order to predict the most critical failure mechanisms accurately. Standard strength
reduction procedures are not necessarily applicable to advanced
constitutive models.

and also:

Table 8.1 (see highlighted proposed changes in next section). Note this includes
markup from previous accepted edits to this Table (removal of original Note 2).

Change (4) <RCM> Strength reduction should be used to verify that design values of ground
(NEW TEXT) strength parameters are not exceeded.

NOTE 1 Different procedures are available to account for stress and strain changes
caused by strength reduction and it is important that a suitable procedure is adopted
in order to predict the most critical failure mechanisms accurately.

NOTE 2 Standard strength reduction procedures are not necessarily applicable to

advanced constitutive models. Strength reduction will normally start from
representative values.

CR0186 final 17-7-202 Page 2 of 4

 SC7_N1661 page 68

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Revised Agree
wording to
comply with
N1250 and
technical
English.
(TGA1)
Background Not all numerical software are able to undertake strength reduction procedure and,
information even if they do, the procedure may be inappropriate for mixed drained and undrained
soil conditions whereby M2 factors are different.

CR0186 final 17-7-202 Page 3 of 4

 SC7_N1661 page 69

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

CR0186 final 17-7-202 Page 4 of 4

 SC7_N1661 page 70

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Title / subject:
Verification of ULS with numerical models

1997 document:
Clause : EN 1997-1, 8.2 (1)
A2 General CR0189
Request
number
Request by D1.6_1 and subsequently TGD-V
TG +
TG internal
number
Date 31/03/2022
request
Decision TG 17-5-2022: Agreed by TG A2 with improved English (see row: Agreed text by TG A2).
A2
Date:
Reason for 1. Clauses such as EN1997-3 5.6.2, and 7.6.2. (1) and (3) are examples of clauses that
change require specific failure modes to be checked and this is fully accepted. However there
is a risk that users of the code will interpret these clauses as a need to explicitly
demonstrate that each mode complies with the code generating significant additional
work.
2. This negates the advantages of using a continuum numerical model with generally
applicable partial factors. Such an approach should implicitly consider multiple
possible failure modes and reproduce the critical case (which may be none of those
listed in the various clauses in the code). We are aware of cases with the current
Eurocode where clients insist each individual mode is shown to comply despite being
shown the critical case.
3. To avoid this issue an additional NOTE in EN1997-1 8.2 (1) is proposed.
4. Related to this issue is a proposed edits to 8.2 (1) NOTE 4. For 8.2(1) NOTE 4, no
numerical model can cover ‘all possible.. ultimate limit states’. The wording has been
changed to ‘multiple’.

Original
content

CR0189 final 17-7-2022 Page 1 of 4

 SC7_N1661 page 71

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Change Insert new clause (3) and NOTEs, and renumber subsequent clauses.
(NEW
TEXT) (1)….

CR0189 final 17-7-2022 Page 2 of 4

 SC7_N1661 page 72

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

NOTE 4 In MFA, multiple geotechnical ultimate limit states are verified by demonstrating that Kommenterad [BS1]: No
equilibrium can still be obtained with design values of input parameters, without excessive need to add this word that
deformation or a failure mechanism being activated either in the ground or in structural is not used elsewhere.
elements. Kommenterad [C2R1]: T
he original wording was ‘all
NOTE 4 In MFA, a number of geotechnical ultimate limit states are simultaneously verified by possible’ which we felt was
too broad. I The preference
demonstrating that equilibrium can still be obtained with design values of input parameters, from TGDV (also
without excessive deformation or a failure mechanism being activated either in the ground or subsequently
in supported by
structural elements. a german numerical group)
was to retain ‘multiple’ if at
all possible. If not, the sense
(2) <PER> Verification of either of the approaches in (1) may be omitted when it is obvious that
of ‘multiple’ or ‘all possible;
verification of the other approach is less favourable. should be retained We have
suggested the alternatiive
(3) <PER> Where specific individual failure modes for a given geotechnical structure are required ‘a number of .. are
to be verified by EN1997-3 using a design approach that utilizes partial factors that are not simultaneously verified’.
Either way the use of the
specific to any failure mode, explicit individual verification may be omitted if using a numericalwording ‘are
model that verifies multiple geotechnical ultimate limit states and these implicitly include simultaneously’ is
verification of these individual failure modes. It is sufficient to demonstrate that the critical failure
important.
mode complies with the code.

(3) <PER> Explicit verification of individual failure mechanisms may be omitted when using a
numerical model that implicitly determines the most critical failure mechanism.

NOTE 1 Examples of individual failure modes include sliding, overturning, bearing failure, global
failure. Kommenterad [BS3]: Th
e proposed clause (3) is too
long and includes two
NOTE 2 MFA is a design approach that, in general, uses partial factors that are not specific to any
sentences. The second
failure mode. Some types of EFA calculations also fall into this category. RFA, in general, usessentence does not include
partial factors that are specific to a given failure mode. any shall/should/may.
Please below a suggestion:
(4) <RCM> The ground strength mobilized in numerical models should not exceed the design (3) Explicit verification of
individual failure
value.
mechanisms may be
omitted when using a
…. numerical model that
implicitly determines the
most critical failure
mechanism.
Revised Agree, but Note 1 Examples of
wording to • reword paragraph (1) NOTE 4 as follows: individual failure
comply NOTE 4 In MFA, a number of several geotechnical ultimate limit states are simultaneously
mechanisms include sliding,
with N1250 verified … (yellow = added, as proposed in the CR) overturning, bearing failure,
overall stability.
and • Agree to add para (3), but suggest "specific" instead of "individual".
technical • NOTE 1 to (3) should read "failure modes mechanisms" to match the paragraph's Kommenterad [C4R3]: A
English. greed
wording.
(TGA1) • NOTE 2 to (3) is too wordy, also 4.4.1 does not discuss EFA. Therefore keep here. Kommenterad [BS5]: Thi
Agreed text (1) s note should be moved to
4.4.1.3. TGA1 can decide
by TG A2 NOTE 4 In MFA, several geotechnical ultimate limit states can be simultaneously verified by the best placet o put this
demonstrating that equilibrium can still be obtained with design values of input parameters, note.
without excessive deformation or a failure mechanism being activated either in the ground or in
Kommenterad [C6R5]: A
structural elements. greed

CR0189 final 17-7-2022 Page 3 of 4

 SC7_N1661 page 73

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

(2) <PER> Verification of either of the approaches in (1) may be omitted when it is obvious that
verification of the other approach is less favourable.

(3) <PER> Explicit verification of individual failure mechanisms may be omitted when using a
numerical model that implicitly determines the most critical failure mechanism.

NOTE 1 Examples of specific failure mechanisms include sliding, overturning, bearing failure,
global failure.

NOTE 2 MFA and some type of EFA calculations use partial factors that are not specific to any
particular failure mechanism. RFA, however, uses partial factors that are specific to a given failure
mechanism.

Background
information

CR0189 final 17-7-2022 Page 4 of 4

 SC7_N1661 page 74

CEN/TC250/SC7 Change Request

Title / subject: EN 1997-1 4.3.2.1(8) – Conversion factor

Document: prEN 1997-1

Clause 4.3.2.1 (8)
Request number: CR0206
Request by TG: WG1/TG-C1
Sub-group DG4
Date request:
Decision by TG A2 17-5-2022: TG A2 agrees with CR
date
Reason for change: It is not clear why the Note to 4.3.2.1(8) only refers to nominal values and
not also to characteristic values with regard the η factor being 1.0.
Original content: prEN1997-1: 4.3.2.1:
(8) <PER> When appropriate, a conversion factor accounting for
effects, among others, of scale, moisture, temperature, ageing of
materials, anisotropy, stress path or strain level may be used to obtain
the representative value of a ground material property by considering
either Formula (4.3) or Formula (4.4):
𝑋𝑋rep = 𝜂𝜂𝜂𝜂nom (
𝑋𝑋rep = 𝜂𝜂𝜂𝜂k (
Where, in addition to the symbols defined for Formula (4.1) and (4.2)
η is a conversion factor accounting for effects of scale, moisture,
ageing of materials, anisotropy, stress path or strain level.
NOTE The value of η is 1.0 for cases, where effects of scale,
moisture, temperature, ageing of materials, anisotropy, stress path and
strain level already are included in selecting the nominal value.

Change: prEN1997-1: 4.3.2.1:

(Revised or (8) <PER> When appropriate, a conversion factor accounting for effects,
additional text) among others, of scale, moisture, temperature, ageing of materials,
anisotropy, stress path or strain level may be used to obtain the
representative value of a ground material property by considering either
Formula (4.3) or Formula (4.4):
𝑋𝑋rep = 𝜂𝜂𝜂𝜂nom (4. 3)
𝑋𝑋rep = 𝜂𝜂𝜂𝜂k (4. 4)
where, in addition to the symbols defined for Formula (4.1) and (4.2)
η is a conversion factor accounting for effects of scale, moisture,
temperature, ageing of materials, anisotropy, stress path or strain level.
NOTE The value of η is 1.0 for cases, where effects of scale, moisture,
temperature, ageing of materials, anisotropy, stress path and strain level
already are included in selecting the nominal or characteristic value.

Revised wording: Agreed, corresponds to the formulae (4.3) and (4.4)

[To comply with
N1250 and
technical English]
CR0206 final 17-7-2022 Page 1 of 2
 SC7_N1661 page 75

CEN/TC250/SC7 Change Request

Background None required.
information:

CR0206 final 17-7-2022 Page 2 of 2

 SC7_N1661 page 76

CEN/TC250/SC7 Change Request

Title / subject:
prEN 1997-1 – A.4(3) – Types of characteristic value // Scale of fluctuation

Document 1997-1
Clause A.4 (3)
Request number: CR0207
Request by TG: WG1/TG-C1
Sub-group DG4
Date request:

Decision by TG A2 17-5-2022: TG A2 agrees with the following text of NOTE 1:

Date: (3) The procedure described in this Annex may be applicable for
the determination of the characteristic value of a ground
property, considered as an estimate of either:
a. the mean value [Case A]; or
b. the inferior (5% fractile) or superior (95% fractile) value
[Case B].
NOTE 1 The ratio of the scale of fluctuation to the extent of the failure
surface can be used in the determination of the characteristic values.
NOTE 2 Alternative assessment procedures can be given in the National Annex.
Reason for change: The present text of A.4(3) states that characteristic value may be an
estimate of either the mean value (Case A) or the inferior or superior value
(Case B). These two cases (options) do not allow for the effect of spatial
variability on the sensitivity to be taken into account.
Besides that, 4.3.2.1(2) second bullet says “The determination of
representative values of ground properties shall take into account:
- uncertainty due to the spatial variability of the measured
property”
but there is no indication on how to do it in the procedure described in
Annex A, so something needs to be added. (see paragraph in yellow below)
Original content: (3) The procedure described in this Annex may be applicable for
the determination of the characteristic value of a ground
property, considered as an estimate of either:
− the mean value [Case A]; or
− the inferior (5% fractile) or superior (95% fractile) value [Case B].
NOTE Alternative assessment procedures can be given in the National
Annex.
Change: (4) The procedure described in this Annex may be applicable for
(Revised or the determination of the characteristic value of a ground
additional text) property, considered as an estimate of either:
a. the mean value [Case A]; or
b. the inferior (5% fractile) or superior (95% fractile) value
[Case B].
NOTE An intermediate value can also be determined dependent on the
ratio of the scale of fluctuation to the extent of the failure surface.
NOTE Alternative assessment procedures can be given in the National
Annex.
Revised wording: TG A1 - the scale of fluctuation is taken into account when determining the
CR0207 final 17-7-2022 Page 1 of 2
 SC7_N1661 page 77

CEN/TC250/SC7 Change Request

[To comply with spatial average (50 % fractile) and the 5 % fractiles . Adding a new (vague)
N1250 and term would be most unhelpful
technical English] Recommend to reject CR
Background None required.
information:

CR0207 final 17-7-2022 Page 2 of 2

 SC7_N1661 page 78

CEN/TC250/SC7 Change Request

Title / subject: prEN 1997-1 – Annex A - Editorial changes

Document 1997-1
Clause A4 Tables A.1, A.2 and A.3 and (3), (7), (8), (10), (11) and (12)
Request number: CR0208
Request by TG: WG1/TG-C1
Sub-group DG4
Date request:

Decision TG A2 Editorial changes to be implemented.

Reason for change: Annex A has three types of cases, Cases A and B are the types of estimates
of the representative value, Case 1, 2 and 3 relate to the knowledge of Vx,
and Cases A1 etc. are the combinations of the previous two cases. This is
confusing, For clarity, suggest changing Cases A and B to Types A and B, and
the combination of the cases to Combinations A1 etc. The Vx cases are re-
numbered to make them consistent with the numbering of the Vx cases in
EN 1990-1 and hence paragraphs (7) and (8) are reordered. Other editorial
corrections include:
- renumbering of Tables A.1 to A.3 so they are in the sequence they are
referred to in Annex A;
- rearranging the rows and columns of what is now Table 3 so that the rows
are for the different Vx cases rather than for the different types of estimate
of the characteristic value;
- correcting “redisdual” to “residual” in what is now Table A.1
- changing “Coarse soils” to “All soils” and “SPT” to “SPT blowcount” in what
is now Table A.2.
Original content:
(3) PER> The procedure described in this Annex may be applicable for the
determination of the characteristic value of a ground property,
considered as an estimate of either:
- the mean value [Case A]; or
- the inferior (5% fractile) or superior (95% fractile) value [Case B].
(7) <RCM> Case 2 “VX assumed” should be used when the designer decides
to use the indicative values in Table A.2, for ground parameters, or
Table A.3, for test parameters.
(8) <RCM> Case 3 “VX unknown” should be used when the coefficient of
variation of the ground property being determined is unknown ab
initio.
(10) <RCM> The value of kn should be obtained from Table A.1 which
collates Formulas (A.4) to (A.7) for the Cases defined above.
Table A.1 —Values of kn for different cases and type of estimations
CASES Case 1: “VX known” & Case 3
Case 2: “VX assumed” “VX unknown”
Case A: Estimate of 1
𝑘𝑘𝑛𝑛 = 𝑁𝑁95 � (A.4) 1
the mean value 𝑛𝑛 𝑘𝑘𝑛𝑛 = 𝑁𝑁95,𝑛𝑛−1 � (A. 5)
𝑛𝑛
Case B: Estimate of 1 1
𝑘𝑘𝑛𝑛 = 𝑁𝑁95 �1 + 𝑘𝑘𝑛𝑛 = 𝑁𝑁95,𝑛𝑛−1 �1 +
the inferior or 𝑛𝑛 𝑛𝑛
superior value (5% or (A.6) (A.7)
CR0208 final 17-7-2022 Page 1 of 4
 SC7_N1661 page 79

CEN/TC250/SC7 Change Request

95% fractile)”

(11) <PER> For Case 2 “Vx assumed”, indicative values of Vx

may be taken from Table A.2, for ground parameters, or Table A.3, for
test parameters, unless the National Annex gives different values.

Table A.2 (NDP) — Indicative values of coefficient of variation for

different ground properties

Soil / Rock Ground Symbol Coefficient of variation

Type property Vx (%)

All soils and Weight density γ 5-10

rocks
Shear strength in cu 30-50
Fine-grained
soils total stressanalysis

Peak or redisdual c'p c'r 30-50

All soils and
rocks effectivecohesion

Table A.3 (NDP) — Indicative values of coefficient of variation for

different test parameters
Soil / Rock Test Symbol Coefficient of variation
Type parameter Vx (%)

Coarse soils SPT NSPT 15-45

(12) <RCM> For Case 3 “Vx unknown”, the value of VX should be

calculated by Formula (𝐴𝐴. 8):
Formula (A.8)
where:
sx is the standard deviation of the sample derived values.
NOTE Tables A.4 to A.7 collates the values of Normal and Student’s t
factor (N95 or t95,n-1) and resulting kn for the different Cases and type of
estimation, according to Formulas (A.4) to (A.7)
Table A.4 — Selected values of N95 and kn to estimate the characteristic
value as the mean value [Case A1 & A2], according to Formula (A.4)
Change:
(3) PER> The procedure described in this Annex may be applicable for the
(Revised or
determination of the characteristic value of a ground property,
additional text)
considered as an estimate of either:
- the mean value [Type A]; or
- the inferior (5% fractile) or superior (95% fractile) value [Type B].
(7) <RCM> Case 2 “VX unknown” should be applied when the coefficient of
variation of the ground property being determined is unknown ab
initio.
(8) <RCM> Case 3 “VX assumed” should be applied when the designer

CR0208 final 17-7-2022 Page 2 of 4

 SC7_N1661 page 80

CEN/TC250/SC7 Change Request

decides to use indicative values for ground parameters or for test
parameters.
Note: Indicative values for ground properties are given in Table A.1 (NDP)
and for test parameters in Table A.2 (NDP) unless the National Annex gives
different values
Table A.1 (NDP) — Indicative values of coefficient of variation for different
ground properties
Soil / Rock Ground Symbol Coefficient of variation
Type property Vx (%)

All soils and Weight density γ 5-10

rocks
Shear strength in cu 30-50
Fine-grained
soils total stressanalysis

Peak or residual c'p c'r 30-50

All soils and
rocks effectivecohesion

Table A.2 (NDP) — Indicative values of coefficient of variation for different

test parameters
Soil / Rock Test Symbol Coefficient of variation
Type parameter Vx (%)

All soils SPT NSPT 15-45

blowcount

(10) <RCM> The value of kn should be obtained from Table A.3 which
collates Formulas (A.4) to (A.7) for the combinations of types of
estimate and Vx cases defined above.

Table A.3 —Values of kn for different Vx cases and types of estimation

Vx Cases Types of estimation
Type A: Estimate of the Type B: Estimate of the
mean value inferior or superior value
(5% or 95% fractile)
Case 1: “VX known” & 1 1
𝑘𝑘𝑛𝑛 = 𝑁𝑁95 � (A.4) 𝑘𝑘𝑛𝑛 = 𝑁𝑁95 �1 +
Case 3: VX assumed 𝑛𝑛 𝑛𝑛
(A.6)
Case 2: “VX unknown” 1 1
𝑘𝑘𝑛𝑛 = 𝑁𝑁95,𝑛𝑛−1 � (A.5) 𝑘𝑘𝑛𝑛 = 𝑁𝑁95,𝑛𝑛−1 �1 +
𝑛𝑛 𝑛𝑛
(A.7)

(11) <RCM> For Case 2 “Vx unknown”, the value of VX should be

calculated by Formula (𝐴𝐴. 8):
Formula (A.8)

CR0208 final 17-7-2022 Page 3 of 4

 SC7_N1661 page 81

CEN/TC250/SC7 Change Request

where:
sx is the standard deviation of the sample derived values.

NOTE Tables A.4 to A.7 collates the values of Normal and Student’s t
factor (N95 or t95,n-1) and resulting kn for the different combinations of Vx
cases and type of estimate, according to Formulas (A.4) to (A.7)

(12) <PER> For Case 3 “Vx assumed”, indicative values of Vx may be taken
from Table A.1, for ground parameters, or Table A.2, for test
parameters, unless the National Annex gives different values.

Table A.4 — Selected values of N95 and kn to estimate the characteristic

value as the mean value [Combinations A1 & A2], according to Formula
(A.4)

In following Table A.5, A.6 and A.7 captions change Case A3, Case B1 &
B2 and Case B3 to Combination A3, Combinations B1 & B2 and
Combination B3
Revised wording: See above.
[To comply with
N1250 and
technical English]
Background None required.
information:

CR0208 final 17-7-2022 Page 4 of 4

 SC7_N1661 page 82

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Titel / subject:
Effects of freezing and thawing

1997 document: prEN 1997-1,

Clause : 6.6 Groundwater in freezing conditions

A2 General CR0210
Request number
Request by TG + TG A1: This CR is based on discussions within the review group, during
TG internal number checking of November draft.

Date request 2022-05-25

Decision A2 28-6-2022 – TG A2 agrees with Change Request

Date :
Reason for change Items related to freezing and thawing have partly been collected under the
heading of Groundwater. This give the wrong impression that these
phenomena only are relevant in relation to groundwater. Cross-checking the
text, it is also obvious that part of the text is already covered by 4.3.1.3
Environmental influences.

The proposal is to add additional text in 4.3.1.3 and delete 6.6.

By adding text in 4.3.1.3 the influence on actions, design situation, durability
and material properties will be included. The only additional items to add is
the consideration frost heave and thaw weaking in ULS and SLS.

Original content 6.6 Groundwater in freezing conditions

(1) <REQ> The effect of groundwater in freezing conditions shall be
considered if all of the following
apply:
− there is groundwater or sufficient moisture available;
− the geotechnical structure is in an area with temperatures
below zero; and
− the ground is frost-susceptible.
NOTE Guidance on the determination of ground frost-susceptibility is given in
EN 1997-2.

(2) <RCM> If freezing of moist soil is possible during the design service
life, the following should be
considered:
− frost heave;
− thaw weakening;
− deformations and ultimate limit state due to frost and
subsequent thaw;
− change of material properties due to frost and its effect on frost
heave;
− change of material properties due to thaw and its effect on
thaw weakening;
− change of material properties with temperature in general; and
− iteration effects of freeze thaw occurrences.

CR0210 final 17-7-2022 Page 1 of 4

 SC7_N1661 page 83

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.3.1.4 Environmental influences
(1) <REQ> EN 1990, 6.1.4 shall apply.
(2) <REQ> The adverse effects on actions of the following environmental
influences shall be considered:
− existing and future climate conditions such as precipitation,
temperature change, and wind;
− freezing and/or thawing of groundwater and surface water;
− mass displacement due to ground improvement, piling, or
other installation in the ground;
− increase in groundwater pressure due to construction work or
other activities; and
− biological activity.

(3) <REQ> The adverse effects on the design situation of the following
environmental influences shall be considered:
− natural and man-made cavities and underground spaces;
− pre-existing activities at regional scale (dewatering, oil or gas
extraction, mining);
− climate change effects such as sea level rise; and
− natural dissolution features.
(4) <REQ>The adverse effects on the durability of the structure, of the
following environmental influences on degradation, corrosion, leaching
and erosion shall be considered:
− existing and future climate conditions due to precipitation,
temperature and wind;
− freezing and/or thawing of groundwater and surface water;
− electro-chemical composition of ground, groundwater, surface
water and any fill;
− salinity of ground, groundwater and surface water;
− mineralogical composition of the ground;
− change of physical, chemical and/or mineralogical composition
in the ground;
− evaporation;
− any electrical current flowing in the ground;
− biological activity; and
− existing or potential contaminated ground, groundwater, or
surface water.
(5) <REQ> The adverse effects on strength and stiffness properties of
ground and construction material
of the following environmental influences shall be considered:
− existing and future climate conditions due to precipitation,
temperature and wind;
− evaporation;
− biological activity; and
− freezing and/or thawing of groundwater and surface water.
(6) <RCM> The adverse effects of environmental influences other than
those given in (2)- (5) should be considered where present.
Change 6.6 Groundwater in freezing conditions
(NEW TEXT) (1) <REQ> The effect of groundwater in freezing conditions shall be
considered if all of the following
apply:
− there is groundwater or sufficient moisture available;

CR0210 final 17-7-2022 Page 2 of 4

 SC7_N1661 page 84

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

− the geotechnical structure is in an area with temperatures
below zero; and
− the ground is frost-susceptible.
NOTE Guidance on the determination of ground frost-susceptibility is given in
EN 1997-2.

(2) <RCM> If freezing of moist soil is possible during the design service
life, the following should be
considered:
− frost heave;
− thaw weakening;
− deformations and ultimate limit state due to frost and
subsequent thaw;
− change of material properties due to frost and its effect on frost
heave;
− change of material properties due to thaw and its effect on
thaw weakening;
− change of material properties with temperature in general; and
− iteration effects of freeze thaw occurrences.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.3.1.4 Environmental influences
(1) <REQ> EN 1990, 6.1.4 shall apply.
(2) <REQ> The adverse effects on actions of the following
environmental influences shall be considered:
− existing and future climate conditions such as precipitation,
temperature change, and wind;
− freezing and/or thawing of groundwater and surface water;
− mass displacement due to ground improvement, piling, or
other installation in the ground;
− increase in groundwater pressure due to construction work or
other activities; and
− biological activity.

(3) <REQ> The adverse effects on the design situation of the following
environmental influences shall be considered:
− natural and man-made cavities and underground spaces;
- freezing and/or thawing of groundwater and surface water;
− pre-existing activities at regional scale (dewatering, oil or gas
extraction, mining);
− climate change effects such as sea level rise; and
− natural dissolution features.
(4) <REQ>The adverse effects on the durability of the structure, of the
following environmental influences on degradation, corrosion, leaching
and erosion shall be considered:
− existing and future climate conditions due to precipitation,
temperature and wind;
− freezing and/or thawing of groundwater and surface water;
− electro-chemical composition of ground, groundwater, surface
water and any fill;
− salinity of ground, groundwater and surface water;
− mineralogical composition of the ground;
− change of physical, chemical and/or mineralogical composition
in the ground;

CR0210 final 17-7-2022 Page 3 of 4

 SC7_N1661 page 85

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

− evaporation;
− any electrical current flowing in the ground;
− biological activity; and
− existing or potential contaminated ground, groundwater, or
surface water.
(5) <REQ> The adverse effects on strength and stiffness properties of
ground, groundwater and construction material of the following
environmental influences shall be considered:
− existing and future climate conditions due to precipitation,
temperature and wind;
− evaporation;
− biological activity; and
− freezing and/or thawing including iteration effects. of
groundwater and surface water.
(6) <RCM> The adverse effects of environmental influences other than
those given in (2)- (5) should be considered where present.

(7) <REQ> If the geotechnical structure is in an area with temperatures

below zero, frost heave and thaw weaking shall be considered in ULS and
SLS verifications.
NOTE Guidance on the determination of ground frost-susceptibility is
given in EN 1997-2.

Revised wording to Agreed

comply with N1250 -----
and technical
English. (TGA1)
Background
information

CR0210 final 17-7-2022 Page 4 of 4

 SC7_N1661 page 86

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Titel / subject:
Partial factors for numerical methods

1997 document: prEN 1997-1,

Clause : 8.2 Procedure for numerical models

A2 General CR0212
Request number
Request by TG + TG-B1, TG A1
TG internal number
Date request 2022-05-28

On 15-6-2022: TG A2 took the decision on this CR

Thereafter the Numerical stated that this decision was not correct. The
Numerical Group proposed the proposal in the box below in green to be
discussed on 14-7-2022

The final decision by TG A2 was taken on 14-7-2022 and is indicated in

“Decision A2”.

Note 5 is modified from CR0188.

Decision A2 14-7-2022: TG A2 agreed with CR, with following changes:

Date : Change (1) into:
(1) <RCM> For geotechnical structures, verification of ultimate limit
states by numerical models
(Table 8.1) should be based on the less favourable outcomes given by:
− input factoring using:
— factors on actions γF from Verification Case 3 and;
— factors on material properties γM from Set M2;
− output factoring, using:
- factors on effects-of-actions γE from Verification Case 4;
— factors on material properties γM from Set M1;

NOTE 1: In input factoring no factors are applied to ground resistance or

to effects of actions.

NOTE 2: in output factoring no factors are applied to ground resistance

or to permanent actions.,

NOTE 3: The resistance of structural members is verified according to

the other structural Eurocodes and EN1997-3.

NOTE 5. The National Annex can specify cases where ultimate limit
states can be verified by input or output factoring alone (existing NOTE)

(2) As an alternative to (1), verification of Ultimate Limit State by

numerical methods may be based on output factoring, using:
- factors on effects-of-actions γE from Verification Case 4;
- factors on resistance γR according to prEN 1997-3 for the geotechnical
structure.

CR0212 final 17-7-2022 Page 1 of 3

 SC7_N1661 page 87

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

Reason for change TG B1 has performed analyses of case studies and applied numerical
models. In the discussion of the results, it was concluded that the table 8.1
was a great improvement and gave increased ease-of-use. However, there is
one additional item that need to be clarified and that is the selection of the
values of the partial factors. The tables with partial factors in part 3 do not
correspond to the cases pre-selected to use for numerical methods (MFA
with VC3+M2, EFA with VC4+M1). In those cases, there they do not match,
should values in part 1 or part 3 be used? The term EFA is also judged to be
unclear.

Based on the discussion in TG B1, TG A1 propose the following change of the

text.
Original content 8.2 Procedure for numerical models
(1) <RCM> For geotechnical structures, verification of ultimate limit
states by numerical models (Table 8.1) should be based on the less
favourable outcomes given by the:
− Material Factor Approach (MFA), using:
— factors on actions γF from Verification Case 3 and;
— factors on material properties γM from Set M2;
− Effect Factor Approach (EFA), using:
— factors on effects-of-actions γE from Verification Case 4 and;
— factors on material properties γM from Set M1.

Change 8.2 Procedure for numerical models

(NEW TEXT) (1) <RCM> For geotechnical structures, verification of ultimate limit
states by numerical models (Table 8.1) should be based on the less
favourable outcomes given by the:
− input Input factoring Method using:
— factors on actions γF from Verification Case 3 and;
— factors on material properties γM from Set M2;
- resistance is not factored.
- effects of actions is not factored
− output Output factoring Method, using:
— factors on effects-of-actions γE from Verification Case 4;
— material properties are not factored; and
- factors on resistance γR according to prEN 1997-3 for the
geotechnical structure.

NOTE 5. The National Annex can specify cases where ultimate limit states
can be verified by input or output factoringInput Factoring Method alone
or Output factoring Method alone (added in CR0188)

NOTE 6. Guidance for the application of factors on effect-of-actions for

Verification Case 4 are given in Clause 4.4.1.1 (4) (new clause, see
CR0211)

Revised wording Change (1) into:

proposal by (1) <RCM> For geotechnical structures, verification of ultimate limit
Numerical group states by numerical models
(Table 8.1) should be based on the less favourable outcomes given by:

CR0212 final 17-7-2022 Page 2 of 3

 SC7_N1661 page 88

CEN/TC250 /SC7 A2 Change Request

− input factoring using:
— factors on actions γF from Verification Case 3 and;
— factors on material properties γM from Set M2;
- no factors are applied to resistance.
- no factors are applied to effects of actions.
− output factoring, using:
— no factors are applied to actions
- factors on effects-of-actions γE from Verification Case 4;
— material properties are not factored; and
- no factors are applied to resistance
- factors on resistance γR according to prEN 1997-3 for the geotechnical
structure.

NOTE; 3 Input factoring refers to factoring of input material of ground

and interfaces with ground, whereas in Output factoring these input
parameters remain unfactored. In Output factoring the effects of actions
transferred through the ground on structural and reinforcing elements
are factored. Ground resistances are not factored.

NOTE 5. The National Annex can specify cases where ultimate limit
states can be verified by input or output factoring alone

Background
information

CR0212 final 17-7-2022 Page 3 of 3

 SC7_N1661 page 89
Review-comments on the November Draft
Summary of discussion 2022-04-22

4.3.2.1 Representative values of ground properties

April-draft (3) <REQ> The representative value of a ground property shall be the value
affecting the occurrence of the limit state, corresponding to one of the following:
− an average value of the ground property in the volume involved in the
limit state, when the occurrence of the limit state in study is insensitive to
the spatial variability of the ground property in the volume of the ground
involved in the limit state; or
− an inferior or superior value of the ground property in the volume involved
in the limit state, when the occurrence of the limit state in study is
sensitive to the spatial variability of the ground property in the volume of
the ground involved in the limit state
Nov-draft (3) <REQ> The representative value of a ground property shall be determined
for each limit state, according to its sensitivity to spatial variability of the ground
property in the volume of ground involved.
(4) <REQ> If the limit state is insensitive to spatial variability of the ground,
the ground property shall be determined as an average value.
(5) <REQ> If the limit state is sensitive to spatial variability of the ground, the
ground property shall be determined as an inferior or superior value.
Comment The change is acceptable
Action Keep the Nov-draft

April-draft <REQ> The representative value of a ground property Xrep shall be determined
from either Formula (4.1) or Formula (4.2):

𝑋𝑋rep = 𝑋𝑋nom (4. 1)

𝑋𝑋rep = 𝑋𝑋k (4. 2)
where
Xnom is the nominal value of the ground property;
Xk is the characteristic value of the ground property.
Nov-draft
(6) <REQ> The representative value of a ground property Xrep shall be determined
from either Formula (4.1) or Formula (4.2):
𝑋𝑋rep = 𝑋𝑋nom (4. 3)
𝑋𝑋rep = 𝑋𝑋k (4. 4)
where
Xnom is the nominal value of the ground property;
Xk is the characteristic value of the ground property.

(7) <RCM> The representative value Xrep should be determined from (4.2) when
there is sufficient data to allow a reliable determination of the characteristic value
Xk; otherwise, it should be determined from (4.1).

Comment Not acceptable.

In the discussion it has been very clear that the two paths shall be equal. It is up to
the competent engineer to decide based on the design situation and available
information. The decision is not only related to "sufficient data". DELETE (7)
Action Delete (7)
 SC7_N1661 page 90
Review-comments on the November Draft
Summary of discussion 2022-04-22
4.3.2.2 Characteristic values of ground properties

April-draft (1) The characteristic value of a ground property Xk shall be determined by

statistical methods such that the probability of a worse value governing the
occurrence of the limit state under consideration is not greater than 5%, taking
into account statistical uncertainty, as follows:
− when an average value is to be used: an estimate of the mean value of the
ground property;
− when an inferior value is to be used: an estimate of the 5% fractile of the
distribution of the ground property; or
− when a superior value is to be used: an estimate of the 95 % fractile of the
distribution of the ground property.
Nov-draft (1) <RCM> In addition to prEN 1990:2021, 6.2 (2), when the verification of
a geotechnical limit state is insensitive to the variability of a ground property,
its characteristic value should be defined as 50% fractile (i.e. mean value)

(2) <RCM> When the verification of a geotechnical limit state is sensitive to

the variability of a ground property, its characteristic value should be defined
as:

− the 5% fractile value, where a low (inferior) value of the ground property is
unfavourable; or
− the 95% fractile value, where a high (superior) value of the ground property
is unfavourable

Comment Not acceptable. The following changes are necessary. Marked with blue.

(3) <RCM> In addition to prEN 1990:2021, 6.2 (2), when the verification of
a geotechnical limit state is insensitive to the variability of a ground property,
its characteristic value should be defined as an estimate of the mean value

(4) <RCM> When the verification of a geotechnical limit state is sensitive to

the variability of a ground property, its characteristic value should be defined
as:

− An estimate of the 5% fractile value, where a low (inferior) value of the

ground property is unfavourable; or
− An estimate of the 95% fractile value, where a high (superior) value of the
ground property is unfavourable.

Action Keep the Nov-draft with the changes suggested in the comments (blue)
 SC7_N1661 page 91
Review-comments on the November Draft
Summary of discussion 2022-04-22

6.3 Measurements

April-draft (4) <RCM> Representative values of piezometric levels should correspond to

the annual probability of exceedance of the groundwater pressures that arise from
them.

NOTE The annual probability of exceedance of the representative values of the

groundwater pressures is given in 6.4.
Nov-draft Deleted!
Comment Not acceptable
This is not a change due to comments from TC250 or N1250 or Editorial
Action Go back to April-draft

6.5.1Design values of groundwater pressures for ultimate limit state design

April-draft (1) <REQ> Design values of groundwater pressures in ultimate limit states
shall be determined by one of the following methods:
− direct assessment; or
− applying a deviation to the representative piezometric level or to the
representative groundwater pressure; or
− applying a partial factor to the representative groundwater pressures or to
their action effects.
Nov-draft (1) <REQ> Design values of groundwater pressures in ultimate limit states
shall be determined by one of the following methods:
− direct assessment; or
− applying a deviation to the representative groundwater pressure; or
− applying a partial factor to the representative groundwater pressures or to
their action effects.
Comment Not acceptable
This is not a change due to comments from TC250 or N1250 or Editorial
Return to wording in April draft
Action Go back to April-draft

This also implies that the changes in table 8.1 should be reverted to the April draft version.