Cardoso, A. S. & Fernandes, M. M. (2001). GeÂotechnique 51, No.
6, 519±531
Characteristic values of ground parameters and probability of failure in
design according to Eurocode 7
A . S . C A R D O S O  a n d M . M . F E R NA N D E S 
Limit state design applied to geotechnical structures requires
the selection of characteristic values of ground parameters
and the use of partial safety factors. These factors, and the
way that characteristic values are selected, will govern the
calculated probability of failure of the structure. The paper
presents a methodology for estimating the probability of
failure provided by the application of Eurocode 7 to the
design of spread foundations and embankments. A para-
metric study is presented enabling the identi®cation of the
reduction factors by which the mean value of soil resistance
parameters should be multiplied to obtain the characteristic
value that will ensure a target probability of failure.
KEYWORDS: bearing capacity; embankments; footings; limit state
design.
INTRODUCTION
The essential objective of the structural Eurocodes is to estab-
lish a common and consistent framework for evaluating the
safety and reliability of structures designed by civil engineers.
Like most of the codes for structural design used in western
Europe in recent decades, the structural Eurocodes are based on
the principles of limit state design. These principles are sum-
marised in the provisional version of Eurocode 1 (ENV 1991-1,
1999). For each relevant limit state for the problem under
analysis, the application of these principles essentially requires:
(a) separate identi®cation of all the variables that affect safety,
which, in general, can be divided into three groups: actions,
material properties and geometrical data
(b) characterisation of each variable by its design value
(c) a safety check with respect to each limit state by ensuring
that the design value of the effect of actions does not
exceed the design value of the resistance, Ed < R d , or that
the design value of the effect of destabilising actions is less
than or equal to the design value of the effect of stabilising
actions, Ed,dst < Ed,stb , depending upon the type of limit
state.
The design values of actions and material properties should, in
general, be obtained from the respective characteristic values by
application of partial safety factors.
The pre-standard version of Eurocode 7 (ENV 1997-1, 1994),
devoted to the geotechnical aspects of the design of buildings
and civil engineering works, adopted the same principles. In
contrast to the other Eurocodes, the application of Eurocode 7
(EC 7) involves a signi®cant change in the current geotechnical
design practice in most European countries, which has essen-
tially been based upon the use of global safety factors.
The safety provided by the application of EC 7 depends not
only on the partial safety factor values speci®ed by the code but
also on the way the characteristic values of shear strength
parameters of the ground are obtained. In fact, among the
delicate aspects involved in accommodating geotechnical design
to the `structure' of the Eurocodes, it has emerged that the
concept of the characteristic value of a resistant property of the
Manuscript received 5 August 1999; revised manuscript accepted 5
April 2000.
Discussion on this paper closes 21 February 2002, for further details see
inside back cover.
 Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Portugal.
519
La meÂthode de l'eÂtat limit appliqueÂe aux structures geÂotech-
niques a besoin des valeurs caracteÂristiques des parameÁtres
du massif et de l'utilisation des facteurs partiels de seÂcuriteÂ.
Ces facteurs et la facËon comme les valeurs caracteÂristiques
sont seÂlectioneÂes deÂtermineront la probabilite de rupture de
la structure. Cet article preÂsente une meÂthodologie pour
estimer la probabilite de rupture fournie par l'application
du Eurocode 7 au projet des fondations super®cielles. Un
eÂtude parameÂtrique est presente permettant l'identi®cation
des facteurs de reÂduction que doivent multiplier la valeur
moyenne des parameÁtres reÂsistants du sol pour obtenir la
valeur caracteÂristique assurant une probabilite ®xeÂe de rup-
ture.
ground and its evaluation are not as straightforward as in the
case of conventional structural materials.
In this paper an approach is developed enabling the evalua-
tion of the so-called reliability index, which is directly related
to the probability of failure, through the application of the
partial safety factors of EC 7 to problems involving the loading
of the ground at the surface, such as shallow foundations and
embankments.
On the basis of certain assumptions, characteristic values of
random variables (action effect and resistance provided by the
bearing ground) are determined from the corresponding mean
values. This requires, on the one hand, consideration of the
coef®cients of variation of permanent and live loads, in order to
obtain a combined coef®cient of variation of the action effect.
On the other hand, the coef®cients of variation of shear strength
properties of soils obtained from tests are treated together with
typical in situ scales of variation of the same properties, in
order to obtain the coef®cient of variation of the resistance in
the zone of the ground relevant to a given limit state.
The method is applied to bearing capacity analyses of
embankments on soft clayey soils and to spread footings on
cohesive and on non-cohesive soils. Bearing in mind target
values of the reliability index, corresponding to allowable prob-
abilities of failure, practical criteria are proposed for selecting
characteristic values of soil parameters from the respective
mean values by multiplying the latter by the so-called conver-
sion or reduction factors.
UNCERTAINTIES AND METHODOLOGIES FOR SAFETY
EVALUATION
The sources of uncertainty in geotechnical design essentially
arise from the following issues (Becker, 1996a):
(a) the estimate of actions
(b) the natural variability of the ground
(c) the evaluation of the geotechnical properties of soil and
rock masses
(d ) the capability of the calculation model properly to re-
produce the behaviour of the structure and of the bearing
ground.
In view of such uncertainties, the design must ensure, with a
margin of safety considered acceptable, that the resistance is
higher than the effect of the actions. The comparison between
520 CARDOSO AND FERNANDES
the effect of the actions and the available resistance can be
carried out in different ways:
(a) by de®ning an overall safety factor, as in the methods based
on working stresses
(b) by using partial safety factors associated with the different
actions and strength properties of the materials, as is
proposed by the methods based on limit state design
(c) by ensuring that the probability of failure is suf®ciently low,
as in the methods based on the theory of reliability or in the
probabilistic methods.
The methods included in the ®rst group, the approach tradition-
ally used in geotechnical design, take account of all the
uncertainties involved in the design process by means of a
single safety factor.
In contrast, in the methods of the second group, the safety
factors can be ®xed according to the variability of each of the
parameters relevant to the design. Such partial factors have been
used in structural engineering during recent decades, and they
are an important feature of the structural Eurocodes.
The use of probabilistic methods is not yet common in the
design of structures by civil engineers. Based on a historical
survey of the collapse of foundations, embankments and earth
retaining structures, and by carrying out a judicious evaluation
and assessment of the cases considered, Meyerhof (1993, 1995)
calculated the probabilities of failure for different types of
structure. These probabilities are summarised in Table 1, to-
gether with the corresponding values of the reliability index, â.
This index is de®ned as the ratio between the mean value and
the standard deviation of a random variable relating the resis-
tance and the action effects for a given limit state. For normal
and log-normal distributions as used in this paper there is a
simple relationship between â and the probability of failure (see
below).
Table 1 therefore indicates the magnitude of the risks asso-
ciated with the design of the various types of structure. Since
these risks seem to be considered as socially acceptable, any
methodology of safety evaluation should therefore use the
values indicated for reference.
RELEVANT POINTS OF EC 7 FOR THE STUDY
Table 2 shows the values of the safety factors for actions and
ground strength properties presented in EC 7 for use in the
check of safety concerning ultimate limit states in persistent
and transient design situations. Of the three load cases A, B
and C, just Case C will be considered in this paper, since it is
typically the critical one for the geotechnical aspects of the
design: that is, for problems such as the stability of embank-
Table 1. Probability of failure and reliability index (adapted from Meyerhof (1993, 1995))
Structure
Geotechnical works:
offshore foundations
earthworks
retaining structures
foundations
Reinforced concrete structures
Steel structures
Table 2. Partial factorsÐultimate limit states in persistent and transient situations (ENV 1997-1, 1994)
Case Actions
Permanent
Unfavourable Favourable
A 1´00 0´95
B 1´35 1´00
C 1´00 1´00
ments or slopes and the external stability of foundations and
retaining structures, where the resistance of the ground is
crucial and the strength of the structural elements is not relevant
(Simpson & Driscoll, 1998; Orr & Farrell, 1999).
As can be observed in Table 2, a check of safety according
to Case C considers reduced values for the strength parameters
of the ground (since its characteristic values are divided by
partial safety factors greater than 1´0), characteristic values for
the permanent actions, such as the weight of the structure and
of the ground, and moderately increased values for the variable
actions (whose characteristic values are multiplied by 1´3).
Selection of the characteristic values of the shear strength
parameters of the ground is an essential aspect of the method-
ology of geotechnical limit state design. The factors applied to
the actions and the shear strength parameters are interconnected
and depend on the way the characteristic values are de®ned. If
either the values of the partial safety factors for the actions or
the way the characteristic values are de®ned is changed, it will
then become necessary to modify the values of the safety
factors for the strength properties.
Therefore a clear de®nition of the characteristic value of the
resistance and a consistent and rational methodology for its
selection are essential. In fact, it is not logical to apply partial
coef®cients to poorly de®ned characteristic values. For any
established values of partial coef®cients, such as those that are
included in the pre-standard version of EC 7, it is necessary to
specify the basis for the selection of the characteristic values.
In EC 7 Part 1, paragraph 2.4.3 (Ground properties), some
statements are included that should be used as guidelines for
the de®nition of the characteristic values of soil and rock
properties. These statements include the code requirement that
the selection of the characteristic value of a soil or rock
parameter shall be the result of a cautious estimate of the value
affecting the occurrence of the limit state. In order to clarify
this speci®cation, reference is made to the following facts:
(a) The extent of the zone of ground governing the behaviour
of a geotechnical structure at a limit state, which will in
principle depend on the structure itself, is usually much
larger than the extent of the zone in a soil or rock test.
(b) The governing parameter is often a mean value over a
certain surface or volume of the ground.
(c) The characteristic value is then a cautious estimate of this
mean value.
(d ) Statistical methods may be employed in the selection of
characteristic values for ground properties, which should be
derived such that the calculated probability of a worse value
governing the occurrence of a limit state is not greater than
5%.
Probability of failure Reliability index, â
1 3 10ÿ2 ±4 3 10ÿ3 2:3±2:7
4 3 10ÿ3 ±1 3 10ÿ3 2:7±3:1
1 3 10ÿ3 ±4 3 10ÿ4 3:1±3:4
4 3 10ÿ4 ±1 3 10ÿ4 3:4±3:7
5 3 10ÿ4 ±1 3 10ÿ5 3:3±4:3
, 1 3 10ÿ4 . 3:7
Ground properties
Variable
Unfavourable tan ö9 c9 cu
1´50 1´10 1´20 1´20
1´50 1´00 1´00 1´00
1´30 1´25 1´60 1´40
 GROUND PARAMETERS AND FAILURE PROBABILITY IN DESIGN TO EC 7
In summary, the characteristic value of a ground parameter
should be considered as a cautious estimate of the mean value
in the zone governing the behaviour of the geotechnical struc-
ture for the limit state under analysis.
EC 7 AND THE RELIABILITY INDEX IN FOUNDATION DESIGN
Hypotheses
In the case of foundations of buildings and embankments, in
contrast to what occurs in other types of geotechnical structure,
it is usually possible to separate the effects of the actions from
the effects of the resistance, since the actions are usually
external to the bearing ground and, for static conditions, can be
assumed to be vertical. Then the overall vertical resistance of a
foundation may be considered to be characterised by a random
variable, R, which depends on a set of random variables, X i ,
corresponding to the parameters involved (geometrical data, unit
weights, shear strength parameters, etc.), R ˆ g(X i ). The func-
tion g represents the analytical calculation model, which in the
case of shallow foundations corresponds to the classical formula
of bearing capacity (Terzaghi, 1943).
As regards the action effect, it will be assumed that it may
be characterised in overall terms by a single random variable,
E. This variable is not necessarily independent from R. How-
ever, in order to obtain expressions that can be easily treated, it
will be assumed that the variables R and E are independent and
that they have a probabilistic distribution according to the
normal or log-normal distributions.
Assuming the probabilistic distributions of the parameters
contributing to the resistance, X i , and of the action effects, E,
are known, the corresponding mean values, X mi and Em, and
standard deviations, ó X i and ó E, can be evaluated. The char-
acteristic values, X ki and E k, are de®ned by
X k i ˆ á X i X mi (1a)
Ek ˆ á E Em (1b)
where á X i and á E are the coef®cients of conversion of mean
values into characteristic values, which are also called reduction
factors in EC 1. The design values, X di and Ed, are calculated
as follows:
X ki
X di ˆ (2a)
ãX i
Ed ˆ ãE E k (2b)
in which ãX i are the partial safety factors of each of the
parameters involved in the resistance evaluation and ãE is the
partial safety factor of the action effect.
As the resistance design value, R d , is de®ned by
R d ˆ g(X di ) ˆ g(á X i X mi =ãX i ) (3)
safety is ensured provided that the following is veri®ed:
Rd
Ed < R d ˆ. ãE á E Em ˆ (4)
æ that its value is highly sensitive to the shape of the assumed
in which æ < 1 represents an excess of safety with respect to
the minimum.
The values of ãX i adopted in EC 7 for each shear strength
parameter have been included in Table 2. The value of ãE must
be based on the values of the partial safety factors indicated in
the code for each type of action, as discussed later.
Lastly, the coef®cients á X i and á E, which depend on the
standard deviations and on the type of the corresponding
distribution, should be selected in order to obtain the character-
istic values of the respective parameters. The aim, in the case
of shear strength parameters of soil or rock, is to provide a
cautious estimate of the mean value by duly considering the
extent of the zone governing the response of the structure. In
the case of the action effects, the purpose is to ensure a
characteristic value whose probability of being exceeded is
small; in the latter case, a value of 5% is usually accepted.
521
Probability of failure; reliability index
In a system with a resistance characterised by the random
variable R, submitted to a random action effect E, the prob-
ability of E being less than or equal to R is designated as
reliability or con®dence (Benjamin & Cornell, 1970):
… ‡1
Pc ˆ P[E < R] ˆ P[E < rjR ˆ r] dr
ÿ1
… ‡1 … ‡1
ˆ f Ej R (e, r) de dr (5)
ÿ1 ÿ1
in which f Ej R represents the joint probability density function
of the two variables. The probability of collapse is de®ned by
Pf ˆ 1 ÿ Pc (6)
Therefore, in general, the evaluation of the reliability or
of the probability of collapse requires the knowledge of the
joint probability density function of R and E or of their
probability density function if they are independent variables
[ f Ej R (e, r) ˆ f E (e) f R (r)]. Furthermore, the solution of equation
(5) requires the use of a numerical integration procedure.
Nevertheless, if R and E follow certain types of probabilistic
distributions, particularly normal or log-normal distributions, it
is possible to establish equations for the evaluation of the
probability of failure, Pf . In these conditions (Whitman, 1984)
Pf ˆ 1 ÿ FU ( â) (7)
in which FU is the cumulative distribution function of the
standardised normal variable and â represents the reliability
index. For normal or log-normal distributions of the random
variables R and E, assumed as independent, â is given, respec-
tively, by
1 ÿ Em =R m
∠(8a)
[V 2R ‡ (Em =R m )2 V 2E ]1=2
2 !1=2  3
2
V ‡ 1 Rm 5
ln4 E
V 2R ‡ 1 Em
∠(8b)
fln[(V 2E ‡ 1)(V 2R ‡ 1)]g1=2
in which V R and V E represent the coef®cients of variation of R
and E respectively.
The value of Em can be determined from equation (4) for a
particular R d value. On the other hand, the characteristic value
of E, E k ˆ á E Em , which corresponds to a 5% probability of
being exceeded, can be deduced from the following equations
for normal or log-normal distributions respectively:
á E ˆ 1 ‡ 1:645V E (9a)
expf1:645[ln(V 2E ‡ 1)]1=2 g
áE ˆ (9b)
(V 2E ‡ 1)1=2
Some authors (Bolton, 1993; Lo & Li, 1993) express reserva-
tions about the calculation of the reliability index, pointing out
statistical distribution of each parameter, and particularly to the
tail of the distribution. However, as was stressed by Becker
(1996a), this shortcoming does not necessarily mean that relia-
bility analyses are meaningless. For the present, such calcula-
tions are the only rational way of combining and evaluating the
in¯uence of the different uncertainties involved in the design of
civil engineering structures, despite the fact that absolute values
of the level of safety will never be obtained.
The consideration of normal and log-normal distributions,
whose tails are quite different, makes it possible to analyse the
in¯uence of the distribution shape through simple calculations,
in the context of the structures considered in this study. The
results presented below identify situations in which that in¯u-
ence is particularly relevant, as well as situations where the type
of distribution does not signi®cantly affect the calculated relia-
bility index.
522 CARDOSO AND FERNANDES
Parameters de®ning the action effect
In the methodology previously presented the parameters of
the action effect that operate independently are the partial safety
factor, ãE , and the coef®cient of variation, VE . Since there are
not, in general, values available for these two parameters, they
must be evaluated on the basis of values previously established
for the various types of actions.
In a very simpli®ed way, the action effect, E, results from
the following linear combination of the effects (EG, EQi , etc.)
of each of the distinct actions (G, permanent actions; Qi ,
variable actions; etc.):
X X
E ˆ EG ‡ EQi ˆ a G G ‡ a Qi Øci Qi (10)
i i
in which Øci represents the coef®cients of combination and a G
and a Qi represent parameters or functions that model the effects
of each action in a certain part or section of the structure.
Tables 8 and 9 in Appendix 1 show the coef®cients of
variation of actions induced by gravity and live loads in
buildings respectively.
Live loads, apart from the variability of their magnitude,
present also variability as regards location. In EC 1 the latter is
eliminated by specifying, for the calculation of the action effect
in each structural section, a particular combination of the values
of variable actions to be considered in each span. Therefore, in
the example below, only the variability of the magnitude of
actions is considered.
Generally, when structures exhibit non-linear behaviour, a G
and a Qi are functions of the mechanical characteristics of these
structures. However, by assuming simply a linear behaviour, a G
and a Qi become constant. Thus Ëmi , the ratio between the
effects of the variable and permanent actions, derived using the
respective mean values, and Ëki, a similar relation but in which
the action effects are de®ned by the characteristic values, are
expressed by
EQmi a Qi Øci Qmi
Ëmi ˆ ˆ (11)
EGm a G Gm
EQki Ëmi á Qi
Ëki ˆ ˆ (12)
EGk áG
in which á G and á Qi can be de®ned by one of equations (9).
Consequently, it can be easily shown that the coef®cient of
variation, V E , and the partial safety factor, ãE , of the action effect
that govern the methodology referred to above are de®ned by
 P  independent (that is, considering the property has a certain
V G 2 ‡ (Ëmi V Qi )2 1=2
i
VE ˆ P (13)
1‡ Ëmi
i 1993). Such a parameter can be the so-called scale of ¯uctua-
P tion, ä X , which measures the dimension of the zone of soil in
ãG ‡ ãQ Ëki
i which the property X exhibits a strong correlation. If two points
ãE ˆ P (14)
1‡ Ëki
i values of the property at these points are smaller or greater than
Table 3 includes an evaluation of the values of V E and ãE
(the latter between brackets) for the so-called Case C of EC 7,
considering a single variable action, the ranges of V Q , V G , Ëmi
indicated in the table, and evaluating á G and á Qi , on the basis
of one of equations (9), which is equivalent for practical
purposes.
It can be veri®ed that V E exceeds 0´35 only when the
variable actions are very signi®cant (Ëmi ˆ 1:5) and have very
high coef®cients of variation (V Q ˆ 0:6). On the other hand, it
can be also observed that for V E , 0:15, ãE is greater than
1´05; for 0:15 < V E , 0:25, ãE is in most cases greater than
1´1; and for 0:25 < V E , 0:35, ãE is very close to 1´2.
So, considering that the smaller ãE is, the larger Em becomes
(equation (4)) and, consequently, the smaller â is (equations
(8)), it can be concluded that a cautious option usually consists
of considering, as presented below, the following pairs of
values: V E ˆ 0:0(ãE ˆ 1:0), V E ˆ 0:1(ãE ˆ 1:0), V E ˆ 0:2
(ãE ˆ 1:1) and V E ˆ 0:3(ãE ˆ 1:2).
Parameters de®ning the resistance
Mean value of shear strength parameters in a given zone.
Table 10 in Appendix 1 contains a summary of the values
indicated by various authors for the coef®cients of variation of
the shear strength properties of the soils, determined from in situ
and laboratory tests. An examination of the table shows that, as
the values of the properties increase, the corresponding coef®-
cients of variation decrease. However, in the case of undrained
shear strength, cu , there is a high scatter of the values of that
coef®cient, even for soils with a high shear strength.
Note that the results included in Table 10 correspond to tests
involving very small volumes of soil. This implies that the
evaluation of the characteristic values of strength properties in
accordance with EC 7Ðthat is, the cautious estimate of mean
value in the region that governs the behaviour of the geotechni-
cal structureÐcannot be directly based on Table 10, since the
coef®cient of variation tends to decrease as the dimensions of
that zone increase. The determination of the parameters that
de®ne the variability of the shear strength properties, taking into
account the dimensions of the zone of ground that governs each
limit state, will be discussed later.
It is assumed that a given shear strength property of a certain
soil considered as homogeneous is a random variable X char-
acterised by a mean value, X m , and a standard deviation, ó X ,
which are obtained through tests involving relatively small
volumes of soil. Since the values of the property under analysis,
determined at close points, are not, in principle, completely
autocorrelation), then, in order to complete the description of
the spacial variability of X , one has to de®ne another parameter
describing that autocorrelation (Wickremesinghe & Campanella,
in the soil are separated by a distance smaller than ä X , then the
the mean value, X m . Consequently, a small value of ä X
represents strong ¯uctuations in the value of the property in

Table 3. Values of VE and ãE (the latter between brackets)

VG Ëmi ˆ 0:2 Ëmi ˆ 0:5 Ëmi ˆ 1:0 Ëmi ˆ 1:5

VQ VQ VQ VQ

0´2 0´4 0´6 0´2 0´4 0´6 0´2 0´4 0´6 0´2 0´4 0´6
0´0 0´03 0´07 0´10 0´07 0´13 0´20 0´10 0´20 0´30 0´12 0´24 0´36
(1´06) (1´07) (1´09) (1´12) (1´14) (1´15) (1´17) (1´19) (1´20) (1´20) (1´21) (1´22)
0´05 0´05 0´08 0´11 0´07 0´14 0´20 0´10 0´20 0´30 0´12 0´24 0´36
(1´06) (1´07) (1´08) (1´11) (1´13) (1´14) (1´17) (1´18) (1´19) (1´19) (1´21) (1´22)
0´1 0´09 0´11 0´13 0´09 0´15 0´21 0´11 0´21 0´30 0´13 0´24 0´36
(1´06) (1´07) (1´08) (1´11) (1´12) (1´14) (1´16) (1´18) (1´19) (1´19) (1´20) (1´22)
0´15 0´13 0´14 0´16 0´12 0´17 0´22 0´13 0´21 0´31 0´13 0´25 0´36
(1´05) (1´06) (1´07) (1´10) (1´12) (1´13) (1´15) (1´17) (1´18) (1´18) (1´20) (1´21)
 GROUND PARAMETERS AND FAILURE PROBABILITY IN DESIGN TO EC 7
relation to the mean value (high variability), and a high value
represents a small variation of the property (low variability).
The evaluation of the scale of ¯uctuation requires a large
number of tests performed at several points in the soil mass.
Only thus is it possible to de®ne the variance function from
which that parameter is determined (Wickremesinghe & Campa-
nella, 1993). In the case of the evaluation of the undrained
shear strength a large number of tests are normally carried out.
However, the same does not usually occur when the effective
shear strength parameters are to be evaluated.
Yu & Mostyn (1993) indicate values of 0´32±0´67, 0´61, 1´02
and 1´56 m for the scale of ¯uctuation of the undrained shear
strength of four clay deposits and a value of 2´1 m for the
drained shear strength of a clay. Thorne & Quine (1993)
mention that the scale of ¯uctuation very often ranges from 1 to
3 m, in spite of being quite different from deposit to deposit,
and that it is typically lower in the vertical direction than in the
horizontal one.
Let us assume that, for a speci®c problem, it is possible to
de®ne the dimensions of the zone of the ground involved in the
structural behaviour, and that MX is the random variable
representing the mean value of the values of X in that zone.
Naturally MX m ˆ X m but ó MX depends not only on ó X but
also on the dimension of the zone under consideration: the
larger this dimension, the smaller ó MX is. Various forms for
ó MX ˆ ó MX (ó X , dimensions) have been proposed, which have
been deduced from different theories of autocorrelation. Never-
theless, for most applications it can be assumed that (Thorne &
Quine, 1993)
ó MX ˆ ó X (ð i ä Xi =Li )1=2 (15)
where the zone involved is de®ned by the dimensions Li , and
ä X i is the scale of ¯uctuation in the corresponding directions.
The dimensions of the soil involved in the previous equations
have to be carefully selected. By taking into account the
considerations presented by Bauduin (1998) on this issue, two
types of situation can be considered:
(a) The limit state is governed by the mean value (or overall
mean) of all the ground affected by the structure if, on the
one hand, the volume of the ground affected is so great that
the in¯uence of weak spots is compensated by stiffer zones
and if, on the other hand, the structure has a capacity to
redistribute loads from the weak spots to the stiffer zones.
(b) The limit state is governed by a low value (or local mean)
when the limit state may be governed by weaker spots or
the structural failure may occur before load redistribution
has taken place.
Assuming, for spread footings, that the dimensions of the
zone that controls the potential structural collapse depend on
the dimensions, B and L, of the foundation and not on the
dimensions of all the ground affected by the structure, which
represents a cautious option, then it is reasonable to consider
Lvertical ˆ Nv B (16a)
Ltransverse ˆ Nt B (16b)
Llongitudinal ˆ L (16c)
in which Nv and Nt depend on the angle of shearing resistance
(Meyerhof, 1948). For the 2D and 3D situations, Table 4 shows
equations that make it possible to evaluate ó MX =ó X for various
cases, by assuming that the scales of ¯uctuation are equal for
all the directions and are de®ned by ä X .
Table 4. Evaluation of óMX from óX
Xi Nv Nt
cu 0´7 2´0
ö9 ˆ 308 1´1 4.0
ö9 ˆ 458 2´2 9.0
523
Evaluation of the mean value and coef®cient of variation of
R. With regard to the resistance, the mean value, R m , and the
standard deviation, ó R , are involved in the equations de®ning the
reliability index because V R ˆ ó R =R m . In the next few lines, a
presentation is made of some methodologies for evaluating those
parameters based on the corresponding parameters for the shear
strength properties on which R depends.
According to the classical equations for the bearing capacity
of shallow foundations, the resistance may result from various
random parameters, such as geometrical data, unit weight, and
strength properties of the ground. For the sake of simplicity, in
EC 7 the uncertainties associated with the geometrical data and
with unit weight are normally not considered directly but are
included, indirectly, in the selection of the characteristic values
of the properties of materials and actions.
Therefore it can reasonably be assumed that the main source
of uncertainty of R results from the variability of the parameters
concerning the shear strength. Thus, considering geometrical
data and unit weight as deterministic variables, the resistance of
the foundation becomes a function of a single random variable,
which is the mean value of the governing strength parameter in
the zone of soil that affects the structural behaviour, as de®ned
in the previous section. In this case the probability density
function of R, f R (r), is related to that of MX , f MX (x), as
follows (Benjamin & Cornell, 1970):
R ˆ g(X ) ) f R (r) dr ˆ f MX (x) dx (17)
This relation means that the probability of R taking a value
in the interval of width dr centred on r is equal to the
probability of X being situated in the interval centred on the
corresponding value x ˆ g ÿ1 (r), but with width equal to
dx ˆ d g ÿ1 (r). By using this relation it is possible to de®ne the
function f R when f MX is known, as is illustrated in Fig. 1.
Subsequently, it is simple to calculate the parameters referred to
above.
Another possibility consists of determining directly the mean
value and the standard deviation of R, using a Taylor-series
expansion about the mean value MX m to approach the function
g(x):
X g (i) (MX m )(x ÿ MX m )i
g(x) ' (18)
i
i!
in which g (i) (MX m ) represents the value of the ith derivative
when x ˆ MX m . By using only the ®rst three terms of Taylor-
series expansion, one obtains
g (2) (MX m )ó MX 2
R m ˆ g(MX m ) ‡ (19)
2
ó2R ˆ [ g (1) (MX m )ó MX ]2 ‡ g (1) (MX m ) g (2) (MX m )ì MX (3)
 2
g(2) (MX m )
‡ ( ì MX (4) ÿ ó MX 4 ) (20)
2
where ì MX ( n) being the nth central moment.
This approach usually leads to good results when the coef®-
cient of variation V MX is small. For large values of this coef®-
cient, the applicability of the procedure depends on the form of
the function g(x), and when the latter is signi®cantly non-linear,
it depends on the number of terms of the Taylor-series expan-
sion. Note also that when many terms of that expansion are
used, it becomes necessary to know the high level moments and
central moments of the random variable MX , which is not
always possible to achieve.
ó MX =ó X (2D) ó MX =ó X (3D)
3=2
0:85ä X =B 0:85ä X =BL1=2
3=2
0:48ä X =B 0:48ä X =BL1=2
3=2
0:23ä X =B 0:23ä X =BL1=2
524 CARDOSO AND FERNANDES
r g(x)

r = g(x)

x = g –1(r)

dr
P [r ≤ R ≤ n 1 dr ] = fR(r)dr 
dr
=
1
dx dx
 
dr

Equal areas

dx
dr  = dx
dr

fR(r)
fMX(x)

fR(r) x

fR(r)dr = fMX(x)dx = fMXdxdr = P [x ≤ MX ≤ x + dr dx ]

dr dr

Fig. 1. Determination of f R (r) when f MX (x) and r g(x) are known (Benjamin & Cornell, 1970)

Determination of the reliability index
Bearing in mind the previous developments, the proposed
approach to obtain the reliability index can ®nally be sum-
marised. Considering the values of V G and ãG for permanent
actions, those of V Qi and ãQ for variable actions, and the values
of X mi , V X i , ãX i and á X i for the shear strength properties, the
calculation sequence is as follows:
(a) Determine V E from equation (13), using V G and V Qi , and
compute ãE from equation (14), using ãG and ãQ .
(b) Calculate á E using one of equations (9) as a function of
VE.
(c) Select MX mi and V MX i , considering the values of X mi and
V X i and the observations presented above.
(d ) Determine R d from MX mi , ãX i and á X i , using equation (3).
(e) Evaluate Em from R d , ãE and á E, using equation (4). In
principle, æ ˆ 1.
( f ) Determine R m and V R from MX mi and V MX i , using the
methods discussed above.
( g) Finally, compute the reliability index, â, from equations (8),
using Em , V E , R m and V R .
EXAMPLES OF APPLICATION
Total stress stability analyses
Governing equations. In this paragraph the proposed
methodology is applied to the stability analysis of embank-
ments and spread foundations on clayey ground using total
stresses. The bearing equation for those cases is
R ˆ [q ‡ sc (2 ‡ ð)cu ] BL
where
sc ˆ 1 ‡ 0:2 B=L
and q is the total vertical stress at the level of the foundation
base.
If the geometrical data and unit weight of the ground are
assumed to be deterministic parameters, the undrained shear
strength, cu , remains the sole random variable in the function
expressing the resistance. On the other hand, since R depends
linearly on cu , the values of R m and ó R may be calculated
exactly from the ®rst terms of equations (19) and (20):
R m ˆ g(Mcum ) ˆ (r ‡ 1)sc (2 ‡ ð) BL Mcum (23)
(1)
ó R ˆ g (Mcum ) ˆ sc (2 ‡ ð) BLó Mcu (24)
V R ˆ ó R =R m ˆ V Mc u =(r ‡ 1) (25)
where Mcum , ó Mcu and V Mcu are, respectively, the mean value,
the standard deviation and the coef®cient of variation of the
variable Mcu , which represents the average of the values of cu
in the zone relevant for design, and
q ˆ rsc (2 ‡ ð)Mcum (26)
From equation (3), the design value of the resistance is given
by
R d ˆ (r ‡ á c u =ãc u )sc (2 ‡ ð) BL Mcum (27)
Therefore, introducing equations (23) and (27) in equation (4),
one obtains
r ‡ á c u =ãc u
Em =R m ˆ (28)
æãE á E (r ‡ 1)
By assuming that R and E follow a normal distribution, equa-
tion (9a) yields á E and, lastly, equation (8a) leads to the
reliability index. In the case of a log-normal distribution, equa-
tions (9b) and (8b), respectively, should be used instead.
Application to embankments on soft soils. In the case of
embankments on soft soils, q is usually zero (and so r ˆ 0), and
(21) since the permanent loads signi®cantly exceed the live loads, it
can be assumed, in a simpli®ed way, that Qi ˆ 0; consequently,
V E ˆ V G and ãE ˆ ãG (equations (13) and (14) respectively). On
(22) the other hand, the coef®cient of variation of the action effect,
which is signi®cantly controlled by the dead load of the ®ll, can
be assumed to be close to zero (V E ˆ 0), from which, assuming
a normal distribution and using equation (9), it follows that
á E ˆ 1. Therefore, from equation (28), it can be deduced that
Em ácu
ˆ (29)
R m æãG ãc u
 GROUND PARAMETERS AND FAILURE PROBABILITY IN DESIGN TO EC 7 525
For normal and log-normal distributions, the reliability index is 1·0
then obtained, respectively, as
1 ÿ á c u =(æãG ãc u )
∠(30a) 0·9
V Mcu

Maximum reduction factor, αcu

" #
æãG ã Cu
ln
á cu (V 2Mcu ‡ 1)1=2
∠(30b)
[ln(V 2Mcu ‡ 1)]1=2
In the case of embankments on soft soils the undrained shear
strength is usually quite low. Therefore it can be expected that the
corresponding coef®cient of variation obtained from tests, V c u ,
may be in the range 0´26±0´82 (see Table 10 in Appendix 1).
On the other hand, the width of the embankment involved in
slip surfaces observed in case histories of failure is usually
higher, or even much higher, than 5 m. This arises from the fact
that these surfaces are in general quite deep, because of the
presence of an overconsolidated surface crust formed by desic-
cation and weathering.
Thus, by taking into account the expression from Table 4
applicable to this case, in which a 2D situation is a conservative
assumption (i.e. ó Mcu =ó c u ˆ 0:85ä X =B ˆ 0:17ä X ), and by ad-
opting the range 0´5±1´5 m for the scale of ¯uctuation (see
above), one concludes that (0´1±0´25) ó c u may be considered a
prudent estimate of ó Mcu . Consequently V Mcu ˆ 0:02±0:2, with
the most probable values ranging from 0´05 to 0´1.
Table 5 shows the reliability index, â, obtained considering
normal and log-normal distributions of the action and of the
undrained shear strength. The selected coef®cients of variation,
V Mcu , range from 0´05 to 0´20, and the selected coef®cients for
converting the mean value into the characteristic value (reduc-
tion factors), á c u , range from 1´0 to 0´5.
Assuming that the target â value for embankments on soft
soils should be higher than 2´7±3´1 (see Table 1) it can be
concluded that:
(a) For the most common situations (V Mcu ranging from 0´05 to
0´1), a characteristic value of the undrained shear strength
equal to the mean value obtained in tests can be used in the
design.
(b) When the coef®cient of variation obtained from test results,
V c u , is particularly high and the thickness of the over-
consolidated crust is comparatively small, which leads to
V Mcu higher than 0´10, that is when V c u > 0:12B=ä c u (for
B ˆ 5 m and ä c u ˆ 1:5 m, V c u > 0:40), it is advisable to
multiply the mean value by a reduction factor to obtain the
characteristic value; if V Mcu is about 0´15 the reduction
factor to be used should be 0´8±0´9.
(c) For values of V Mcu greater than 0´15 the type of distribution
has a large in¯uence on the shear strength and the action
effect. In fact, for V Mcu ˆ 0:20, the reduction factor to be
used in the design should be 0´7±0´8 for log-normal
distributions, and signi®cantly less, about 0´5±0´6, for
normal distributions.
Considering the worst situation, V Mcu ˆ 0:25V c u , Fig. 2 com-
pares the values of the reduction factor determined from Table
5 for ⠈ 2:9 with the values obtained applying the simpli®ed
equation proposed by Schneider (1997):
0·8
0·7 Normal
Log-normal
0·6
Schneider
0·5
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8
Coefficient of variation of the test results, Vcu
Fig. 2. Embankments on soft soils: reduction factors (V Mcu
0:25 V cu ) for normal and log-normal distributions
X ki VX
áX i ˆ ˆ1ÿ i (31)
X mi 2
It can be concluded that Schneider's proposal is quite conserva-
tive, especially for log-normal cases.
Application to spread footings. Spread footings for building
structures on clayey soils are used only in the case of signi®cant
undrained shear strength, cu . By taking into account equation
(26), it can be veri®ed that a value of r ˆ 0:1 corresponds to
considering the base of the foundation at about 1´5 m depth if
Mcum ˆ 50 kPa, and this parameter will increase for higher
values of cu . Then, in the calculations presented below, r is
taken as equal to 0 and 0´1.
In view of the observations made above about the coef®cients
of variation, V E , and partial safety factor, ãE , of the action
effects, the following pairs of values are adopted: (V E ±ãE ) ˆ
(0:0±1:0), (0:1±1:0), (0:2±1:1), (0:3±1:2).
Table 10 in Appendix 1 shows that for mean values of cu
higher than 50 kPa, coef®cients of variation, V c u , ranging from
0´15 to 0´60 have been found. By assuming that the scale of
¯uctuation is less than 1 m (most values indicated by Yu &
Mostyn (1993) are actually equal to or less than 1 m, see above)
and that the width of the foundation is larger than 2 m, from
the expression of Table 4 applicable to this case it can be
concluded that ó Mcu ˆ 0:85(ä X =B)3=2 ó c u ˆ 0:3ó c u for square
footings, which represents the most unfavourable case. Conse-
quently, V Mcu ˆ 0:05±0:20.
The reliability index, â, can be determined by the procedure
already described. Table 6 shows the values obtained assuming
normal and log-normal distributions of the action effect and of
undrained shear strength, for coef®cients of variation, V Mcu ,
ranging from 0´05 to 0´2 and for coef®cients of conversion of
the mean value into characteristic value, á c u , ranging from 1´0
to 0´5.
According to Meyerhof's studies, the target value of the

Table 5. Embankments on soft soils: values of â

á cu Normal distributions, V Mcu Log-normal distributions, V Mcu

0´05 0´10 0´15 0´20 0´05 0´10 0´15 0´20

1´0 5´7 2´9 1´9 1´4 6´7 3´3 2´2 1´6
0´9 7´1 3´6 2´4 1´8 8´8 4´4 2´9 2´1
0´8 8´6 4´3 2´9 2´1 11´2 5´6 3´7 2´7
0´7 10´0 5´0 3´3 2´5 13´9 6´9 4´6 3´4
0´6 11´4 5´7 3´8 2´9 16´9 8´4 5´6 4´2
0´5 12´9 6´4 4´3 3´2 20´6 10´3 6´8 5´1
526 CARDOSO AND FERNANDES
Table 6. Spread footings on clayey soils (total stress analysis): values of â
á cu Normal distributions, V Mcu Log-normal distributions, V Mcu

0´05 0´10 0´15 0´20 0´05 0´10 0´15 0´20

r ˆ 0:0±0:1 r ˆ 0:0±0:1 r ˆ 0:0±0:1 r ˆ 0:0±0:1 r ˆ 0:0±0:1 r ˆ 0:0±0:1 r ˆ 0:0±0:1 r ˆ 0:0±0:1

1´0 5´7±5´7 2´9±2´9 1´9±1´9 1´4±1´4 6´7±6´0 3´3±3´3 2´2±2´2 1´6±1´6
0´9 7´1±7´1 3´6±3´6 2´4±2´4 1´8±1´8 8´8±8´6 4´4±4´3 2´9±2´8 2´1±2´1
VE ˆ 0:0 0´8 8´6±8´6 4´3±4´3 2´9±2´9 2´1±2´1 11´2±10´8 5´6±5´4 3´7±3´6 2´7±2´7
ãE ˆ 1:0 0´7 10´0±10´0 5´0±5´0 3´3±3´3 2´5±2´5 13´9±13´3 6´9±6´6 4´6±4´4 3´4±3´3
0´6 11´4±11´4 5´7±5´7 3´8±3´8 2´9±2´9 16´9±16´1 8´4±8´0 5´6±5´3 4´2±4´0
0´5 12´9±12´9 6´4±6´4 4´3±4´3 3´2±3´2 20´6±19´3 10´3±9´6 6´8±6´4 5´1±4´8
1´0 4´9±4´7 3´3±3´3 2´4±2´4 1´9±1´9 4´5±4´2 3´5±3´4 2´7±2´7 2´2±2´2
0´9 6´0±5´7 3´9±3´9 2´8±2´8 2´2±2´2 5´4±5´1 4´3±4´1 3´3±3´3 2´6±2´6
V E ˆ 0:1 0´8 7´3±6´9 4´6±4´5 3´2±3´3 2´5±2´5 6´5±6´0 5´1±4´9 4´0±3´9 3´2±3´1
ãE ˆ 1:0 0´7 8´7±8´1 5´2±5´2 3´7±3´7 2´8±2´8 7´7±7´0 6´0±5´7 4´7±4´5 3´8±3´7
0´6 10´2±9´6 5´9±5´9 4´1±4´1 3´1±3´2 9´1±8´2 7´1±6´6 5´6±5´3 4´5±4´3
0´5 11´8±11´1 6´6±6´6 4´5±4´6 3´4±3´5 10´7±9´5 8´4±7´7 6´6±6´1 5´3±5´0
1´0 4´7±4´5 3´7±3´6 2´9±2´9 2´3±2´4 3´7±3´6 3´4±3´3 3´0±3´0 2´6±2´6
0´9 5´5±5´2 4´2±4´2 3´2±3´3 2´6±2´6 4´2±4´0 3´9±3´7 3´4±3´4 3´0±3´0
V E ˆ 0:2 0´8 6´6±6´1 4´8±4´7 3´6±3´6 2´8±2´9 4´8±4´5 4´4±4´2 3´9±3´8 3´4±3´4
ãE ˆ 1:1 0´7 7´8±7´2 5´4±5´3 4´0±4´0 3´1±3´2 5´4±5´1 5´0±4´7 4´4±4´2 3´9±3´8
0´6 9´2±8´4 6´1±6´0 4´4±4´4 3´4±3´5 6´2±5´7 5´7±5´3 5´1±4´8 4´5±4´3
0´5 10´8±9´8 6´8±6´7 4´8±4´8 3´7±3´8 7´1±6´4 6´5±6´0 5´8±5´4 5´1±4´8
1´0 4´6±4´5 3´9±3´8 3´1±3´2 2´6±2´7 3´4±3´3 3´2±3´1 3´0±3´0 2´8±2´8
0´9 5´4±5´1 4´4±4´3 3´5±3´5 2´8±2´9 3´7±3´6 3´6±3´4 3´3±3´2 3´1±3´0
V E ˆ 0:3 0´8 6´3±5´9 4´9±4´8 3´8±3´9 3´1±3´2 4´1±3´9 3´9±3´8 3´7±3´6 3´4±3´3
ãE ˆ 1:2 0´7 7´4±6´8 5´5±5´4 4´2±4´2 3´3±3´4 4´6±4´3 4´4±4´1 4´1±3´9 3´8±3´6
0´6 8´7±7´9 6´2±6´0 4´6±4´6 3´6±3´7 5´1±4´7 4´9±4´5 4´6±4´3 4´2±4´0
0´5 10´3±9´2 6´9±6´7 5´0±5´0 3´8±4´0 5´7±5´2 5´5±5´0 5´1±4´7 4´7±4´4

reliability index should be higher than 3´4±3´7 (see Table 1).
From Table 6 the following conclusions for spread foundations
on clayey soils can be extracted:
(a) The in¯uence of the depth of the foundation base on the
reliability index, represented by r, is negligible.
(b) The type of distribution adopted has a signi®cant in¯uence
on the reliability index; in the case of a log-normal
distribution, the value of â is less sensitive to the coef®cient
of variation of the undrained shear strength, V Mcu , than in
the case of a normal distribution.
(c) As regards the variability of the action effect, represented
by V E, it can be veri®ed that the reliability index is affected
by the value of V Mcu : the higher the value of V E , the less it
is affected. This conclusion is supported by the fact that
higher partial safety factors of the action effect, ãE , are
associated with higher values of V E .
From a practical point of view, it is important to emphasise
the following conclusions deduced from the analysis of Table 6:
(a) If V Mcu is about 0´05 a characteristic value of undrained
shear strength equal to the mean value obtained in the tests
can be used in the design.
(b) When V Mcu is about 0´1 the mean value obtained in the tests
should be multiplied by 0´9 so as to obtain the characteristic
value.
(c) If V Mcu is about 0´15, the mean value from the test results
should be multiplied by 0´7±0´8 in order to obtain the
characteristic value in structures in which permanent loads
prevail, and by 0´8±0´9 in structures subjected to signi®cant
variable actions.
(d ) When the coef®cient of variation obtained from test results,
V cu , is particularly high and/or the dimension B is low,
which leads to values of V Mcu of about 0´20 or higher, there
is a large in¯uence of the type of statistical distribution on
the resistance and on the action effect; in fact, for
V Mcu ˆ 0:20 the coef®cient of conversion of the mean
value into the characteristic value should be 0´6±0´7, for
log-normal distributions and signi®cantly lower, usually
under 0´5, for normal distributions.
(e) Values of V Mcu higher than 0´2 are likely to prevent the
adoption of spread footings, unless in soils with high shear
strength; fortunately, in very stiff or hard soils such high
values of the coef®cient of variation are usually not found.
Using the values of Table 6, the reduction factors were
evaluated assuming ⠈ 3:55 and r ˆ 0:05. In Fig. 3 these
values are compared with Schneider's proposal (equation (31)).
It appears that this proposal varies from slightly conservative to
quite conservative for log-normal distributions and for normal
distributions when V c u is less than 0´4 (V Mcu , 0:12). For the
latter distribution, and for V c u higher than 0´4, the proposal
seems to be unsafe in some cases.
Effective stress (drained) stability analyses
Governing equations. Assuming a cohesionless soil as the
bearing ground, the resistance is expressed by
R ˆ (q9N q s q ‡ 0:5Bã9Nãsã) BL (32)
where
N q ˆ e ð tan ö9 tan2 (458 ‡ ö9=2) (33a)
N㠈 2(N q ÿ 1) tan ö9 (33b)
s q ˆ 1 ‡ sin ö9(B=L) (34a)
s㠈 1 ÿ 0:3(B=L) (34b)
In the following calculations the variables B, q9 and ã9 are
assumed to be deterministic. On the other hand, the effective
stress on the horizontal plane at foundation level is taken as
q9 ˆ rBã9sã M tan ö9m (35)
where M tan ö9m is the mean value of the variable M tan ö9,
which represents the average of the values of tan ö9 in the zone
of the soil mass affecting the foundation design. Introducing
equations (35) and (33b) in equation (32), we obtain
 GROUND PARAMETERS AND FAILURE PROBABILITY IN DESIGN TO EC 7 527

1·0
VE γE

0·0/1·0
0·9
Maximum reduction factor, αcu
0·1/1·0
0·8

0·2/1·1
0·7

0·3/1·2

0·6

Schneider

0·5
(a)

1·0 VE γE

0·0/1·0

0·9
Maximum reduction factor, αcu

0·1/1·0

0·8
0·2/1·1

0·7
0·3/1·2

0·6
Schneider

0·5
0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5 0·6 0·7
Coefficient of variation of the test results, Vcu
(b)

Fig. 3. Spread foundations on clayey soils: reduction factors (V Mcu 0:3 V cu ) for: (a) normal distribution;
(b) log-normal distribution

 
(N q ÿ 1)M tan ö9
R ˆ rs q N q ‡ à (36)
M tan ö9m
in which
à ˆ B2 Lã9sã M tan ö9m
Taking account of equation (3), the design value of R is
expressed by
R d ˆ [rs qd N qd ‡ (N qd ÿ 1)átan ö9 =ãtan ö9 ] Ã
where N qd and s qd are calculated on the basis of equations
(33a) and (34a) respectively, by using
ö9d ˆ a tan(átan ö9 M tan ö9m =ãtan ö9 )
Then, taking into consideration equation (4), we obtain
Em Rd
ˆ (40)
Rm æã E á E R m
Owing to the assumption that R and E have log-normal
distributions, á E is calculated by equation (9b) and, ®nally, â is
obtained from equation (8b).
Since the function R ˆ g(M tan ö9) is highly non-linear, in
contrast to what has been assumed above, the determination of
R m and ó R from equations (19) and (20) is not feasible for the
present case. Then, as discussed below, a methodology based on
the procedure illustrated by Fig. 1 has to be applied.
Owing to the equation that de®nes the factor N q, the function
R ˆ g(M tan ö9) is controlled by the exponential term eð tan ö9 .
Therefore, if the variable M tan ö9 has a normal distribution, the
function R will exhibit a distribution not far from a log-normal
one. Then, in the following calculations, normal and log-normal
distributions are assumed for M tan ö9 and R respectively. The
latter assumption requires that the log-normal distribution is
(37) adjusted to the actual distribution of R obtained from the
(normal) distribution of M tan ö9.
As the distribution of R is known, it is possible to determine
R m , ó R and V R, which are used for obtaining the reliability
(38) index. This procedure naturally implies that a log-normal dis-
tribution of the action effect is also assumed.
(39) Application to spread footings. Taking account of equation
(35), r ˆ 1 corresponds to a footing embedded between 0´4B
and 0´6B for ö9 ˆ 308, and between 0´7B and 1´0B for ö9 ˆ 458.
In the calculations presented below r is taken equal to 0 or 1.
For the coef®cient of variation, V E , and the partial safety factor
of the effect of the actions, ãE , the same pairs of values adopted
above have been considered.
According to Table 10 in Appendix 1, it is reasonable to
expect the coef®cient of variation of tan ö9 to be lower than
0´20 and 0´15 for ö9 equal to 308 and 458 respectively. Consid-
ering square footings with B ˆ 2:0 m and the ö9 equal to 308
and 458 respectively. Considering square footings with
B ˆ 2:0 m and the scale of ¯uctuation of the ground also equal
to 2:0 m, the coef®cient of variation of the mean value,
V M tan ö9 , in the zone affecting the behaviour of the foundation
is then (see Table 4) lower than or equal to 0´1 and 0´05 for ö9
equal to 308 and 458 respectively. The values of these para-
528 CARDOSO AND FERNANDES
meters will increase for footings of smaller dimensions and for
higher scales of ¯uctuation, according to Table 4.
Table 7 includes the values of the coef®cient of reliability, â,
obtained for the ranges of ö9 and V M tan ö9 mentioned above and
for the reduction factor, á M tan ö9 , in the range 1´0±0´5.
For spread footings the target value of the reliability index
should be above 3´4±3´7 (see Table 1). Analysis of this Table 7
suggests the following comments regarding the reliability of
spread foundations under drained conditions:
(a) The in¯uence of the depth of the base of the foundation is
not relevant.
(b) The greater V E , the smaller is the in¯uence of V M tan ö9 on
the reliability index. This general conclusion is corroborated
by the fact that greater values of V E are associated with
values of the partial safety factor on the action effects, ãE ,
that are also high.
(c) For any pair of values of the coef®cients of variation
(V M tan ö9 and V E ), the values of the reliability index are
similar, almost independent of the value of M tan ö9.
This ®nding leads to the following practical conclusions, which
are independent of the value of the angle of shearing resistance
of the soil:
(a) If V M tan ö9 is of the order of 0´05, a characteristic value of
tan ö9 equal to the mean value obtained from tests can be
used in the design.
(b) If V M tan ö9 is around 0´1, the characteristic value should be
obtained by multiplying the mean value by 0´8±0´9.
(c) When VMtan ö9 is about 0´15, which, in principle, will occur
only in cases of low angles of shearing resistance, the
characteristic values should be adopted by multiplying the
mean value by 0´6, for the case of structures where
permanent loads are predominant, or by 0´7 when there are
signi®cant live loads.
Reduction factors were evaluated through Table 7 assuming
⠈ 3:55 and r ˆ 0:05. In Fig. 4 the values obtained are
compared with Schneider's proposal. It appears that this propo-
sal is quite conservative for ö9 equal to 458; for ö9 equal to
308, it is slightly conservative if Vtan ö9 is less than 0´2
(VMtan ö9 , 0:1), and seems to be optimistic when Vtan ö9 is
higher than 0´2.
CONCLUSIONS
A methodology has been presented for the evaluation of the
probability of failure provided by the application of Eurocode 7.
If a given target probability of failure, corresponding to
socially acceptable risk, is assumed for each type of geotechni-
cal structure, then the safety provided by Eurocodes must
comply with these values. This compliance depends not only on
the values of the partial safety factors for the actions and
ground properties but also on the de®nition of characteristic
values of the resistant parameters of the soil.
On the basis of a parametric study for embankments on soft
ground and spread foundations on cohesive or non-cohesive
soils, it was possible to evaluate the reduction factors by which
the mean value of strength parameters (cu or tan ö9) should be
multiplied to obtain characteristic values that will ensure that
the target probability of failure is achieved.
For embankments on soft ground it was possible to conclude
that, for common situations, the reduction factor can be taken
as equal to 1´0: that is, the characteristic value can be taken as
equal to the mean value. Furthermore, the reduction factor will
be lower than the range 0´8±0´9 only in quite uncommon cases.
As expected, for spread foundations on clayey soils reduction
factors are highly dependent on the coef®cient of variation of
cu , especially when this is larger than 0´3, and, to a certain
extent, on the relative importance of the permanent and variable
loads.
For spread foundations on typical non-cohesive soils
(Vtan ö9 , 0:15) the range 0´95±1´00 seems to be appropriate for
the reduction factor. When Vtan ö9 exceeds 0´15 the reduction
factor becomes dependent on the value of the angle of shearing
resistance, decreasing as and when this angle reduces.
Concerning the simpli®ed equation proposed by Schneider
(1997) for evaluation of the reduction factor, it can be con-
cluded that:
(a) it is generally quite conservative for embankments on soft
ground

Table 7. Spread footings on non-cohesive soils (effective stress analysis): values of â

átan ö9 ö9m ˆ 308 ÿ V M tan ö9 ö9m ˆ 458 ÿ V M tan ö9

0´05 0´10 0´15 0´05 0´10

r ˆ 0:0±1:0 r ˆ 0:0±1:0 r ˆ 0:0±1:0 r ˆ 0:0±1:0 r ˆ 0:0±1:0

1´0 4´5±4´5 2´1±2´1 1´3±1´3 5´4±5´5 2´6±2´7
0´9 6´3±6´0 3´0±2´9 1´9±1´9 6´9±6´8 3´4±3´3
V E ˆ 0:0 0´8 8´1±7´7 3´9±3´7 2´6±2´4 8´4±8´3 4´2±4´1
ãE ˆ 1:0 0´7 10´1±9´3 5´0±4´6 3´3±3´0 10´2±9´8 5´0±4´8
0´6 12´3±11´1 6´1±5´5 4´0±3´6 12´0±11´5 6´0±5´7
0´5 14´8±12´9 7´4±6´4 4´9±4´2 14´2±13´2 7´1±6´6
1´0 4´8±4´7 2´5±2´5 1´6±1´6 5´7±5´7 2´9±2´9
0´9 6´3±6´0 3´3±3´3 2´2±2´2 7´0±7´0 3´6±3´6
V E ˆ 0:1 0´8 8´0±7´4 4´2±4´1 2´8±2´7 8´5±8´3 4´4±4´3
ãE ˆ 1:0 0´7 9´8±8´9 5´2±4´9 3´5±3´3 10´1±9´7 5´2±5´1
0´6 11´7±10´4 6´3±5´7 4´3±3´9 11´9±11´3 6´2±5´9
0´5 14´0±12´0 7´5±6´6 5´1±4´5 13´9±12´9 7´2±6´8
1´0 4´7±4´5 2´9±2´9 2´0±2´0 5´7±5´6 3´2±3´3
0´9 5´9±5´5 3´6±3´6 2´5±2´5 6´8±6´7 3´9±3´9
V E ˆ 0:2 0´8 7´2±6´6 4´5±4´3 3´1±3´0 8´1±7´8 4´6±4´6
ãE ˆ 1:1 0´7 8´6±7´7 5´4±5´0 3´8±3´6 9´5±9´0 5´5±5´3
0´6 10´2±8´8 6´4±5´8 4´5±4´1 11´0±10´3 6´4±6´1
0´5 12´0±10´0 7´5±6´6 5´3±4´7 12´8±11´7 7´4±6´9
1´0 4´4±4´2 3´1±3´1 2´2±2´3 5´4±5´3 3´4±3´4
0´9 5´4±5´0 3´8±3´7 2´8±2´8 6´4±6´2 4´0±4´0
V E ˆ 0:3 0´8 6´4±5´8 4´5±4´3 3´3±3´2 7´4±7´1 4´7±4´7
ãE ˆ 1:2 0´7 7´5±6´7 5´3±5´0 4´0±3´7 8´6±8´1 5´5±5´3
0´6 8´8±7´5 6´2±5´6 4´6±4´3 9´9±9´2 6´4±6´0
0´5 10´2±8´4 7´2±6´3 5´4±4´8 11´4±10´3 7´3±6´8
 GROUND PARAMETERS AND FAILURE PROBABILITY IN DESIGN TO EC 7 529

1·0
VE γE
30° 0·0/1·0
Maximum reduction factor, αtanφ
0·9
30° 0·1/1·0

30° 0·2/1·1
0·8
30° 0·3/1·2

45° 0·0/1·0
0·7
45° 0·1/1·0

45° 0·2/1·1
0·6
45° 0·3/1·2

Schneider
0·5
0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4
Coefficient of variation of the test results, Vtanφ′

Fig. 4. Spread foundations on non-cohesive soils: reduction factors (V M tan ö9 =Vtan ö9 0:5 and 0´25 for 308 and 458
respectively) for log-normal distribution

(b) it supplies estimates that vary from slightly to quite Table 9. Coef®cients of variation of live loads in buildings (Calgaro,
conservative for the most common cases of spread found- 1996)
ations Live loads in buildings VQ
(c) for this type of structure it may lead to some unsafe results
when the coef®cient of variation is high and the variables Houses 0´25
exhibit a normal distribution. Of®ces basements and ground-¯oor 0´37±0´54
other ¯oors 0´26±0´39
Furthermore, this study leads to the conclusion that the
in¯uence of the two types of statistical distribution considered, Shops pharmacies 0´16
which have quite different tails, is signi®cantly relevant only drugstores 0´22
megastores 0´32
when the coef®cient of variation of the ground resistance is
bookshops 0´38
high to very high. groceries 0´44
Finally, it should be mentioned that with the introduction of
minor changes the approach presented can be applied to any Warehouses pharmacies 0´18±0´21
other sets of partial safety factors for actions and ground drugstores 0´25±0´30
megastores 0´36±0´43
resistance properties. bookshops 0´43±0´51
groceries 0´50±0´60
Parking of cars 0´03±0´05
APPENDIX 1: COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION OF ACTIONS AND
OF SHEAR STRENGTH PROPERTIES OF THE GROUND  The ®rst value refers to large areas and the second one to areas of
COLLECTED FROM THE LITERATURE about 10 m2
In this appendix a presentation is made of the values of the coef®cients
of variation of the actions and resistant properties of the ground collected
from bibliography. EQi effect of variable action Qi
Tables 8 and 9 show, respectively, the values of the coef®cients of EQki , EQmi characteristic, mean value of EQi
variation of actions due to the weight of the ground and structure and of FU cumulative distribution function
surcharges (live loads) in buildings. G permanent action
Table 10 shows a summary of the values of the coef®cients of Gm mean value of G
variation of the strength properties of the soils, determined from L length of the foundation
laboratory and in situ tests. Lvertical , dimensions of the zone of ground governing the limit
Ltransverse , state
Llongitudinal
NOTATION MX i , Mcu , random variable representing the mean value of
B width of the foundation M tanö9 X i , cu , tan ö9 in the zone governing the limit state
E random variable representing the action effect MX mi , Mcum , mean value of MX i , Mcu , M tan ö9
Ed , Ek , Em design, characteristic, mean value of E M tan ö9m
Ed,dst , Ed,stb design value of the effect of destabilising and stabilising Nt , N v ratio between Ltransverse , Lvertical and B
actions N q , Nã bearing capacity factors
EG effect of permanent actions N qd bearing capacity factor calculated by ö9d
EGk , EGm characteristic, mean value of EG Pc reliability or con®dence

Table 8. Coef®cients of variation of actions due to gravity

Actions due to gravity V  G References
Ground 0´04±0´16 Kulhawy (1992); Cherubini et al. (1993)
(0´07) Becker (1996b)
Concrete constructions 0´04±0´08 Calgaro (1996)
Steel constructions 0´02 Calgaro (1996)
 The mean value of V is indicated between brackets when available
G
530 CARDOSO AND FERNANDES
Table 10. Coef®cients of variation of shear strength properties of typical soils
X i X mi V  Xi References
cu , 50 kPa 0´26±0´82 Kulhawy et al. (1991); Cherubini (1992)
50±150 kPa 0´19±0´66
150±300 kPa 0´19±0´53
. 300 kPa 0´13±0´41

All the ranges 0´12±0´85 Hammitt (1966); Grolimund & Recordon (1972); Alonso (1976);
Fredlund & Dahlman (1977); Cassan (1979); Baghery (1980); Kulhawy (1992);
Cherubini et al. (1993); Meyerhof (1993, 1995)
(0´34) Becker (1996b)
ö9 , 308 0´03±0´15 Kulhawy et al. (1991); Cherubini (1992)
30±408 0´10±0´22

All the ranges 0´05±0´25 Schultze (1972); Singh (1972); Harr (1977); Baghery (1980); Kulhawy (1992);
Manoliu & Marcu (1993); Cherubini et al. (1993); Meyerhof (1993, 1995)
(0´13) Becker (1996b)
tan ö9 0´07±0´15
Lumb (1966); Schultze (1972); Alonso (1976); Kulhawy et al. (1991)
 The mean value of V is indicated in brackets when available
Xi

Pf probability of collapse Limit States Design for Foundations. Part I. An overview of the
Qi variable action foundation design process. Can. Geotech. J. 33, 956±983.
Qmi mean value of Qi Becker, D. E. (1996b). Eighteenth Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium:
R random variable representing the resistance Limit States Design for Foundations. Part II. Development for the
R d , Rk , R m design, characteristic, mean value of R National Building Code of Canada. Can. Geotech. J. 33, 984±1007.
V E , VG , coef®cients of variation of E, G, X i , MX i , Mcu , Benjamin, J. R. & Cornell, C. A. (1970). Probability, statistics, and
V X i , V MX i , M tan ö9, Qi , R, cu decision for civil engineers. McGraw-Hill, New York.
V Mcu , V M tan ö9 , Bolton, M. D. (1993). What are partial safety factors for? Proceedings
V Qi , V R , V c u of the international symposium on limit state design in geotechnical
Xi random variable on which the resistance depends engineering, Copenhagen, vol. 3, pp. 565±583.
X di , X ki , X mi design, characteristic, mean value of X i Calgaro, J. A. (1996). Introduction aux Eurocodes. SeÂcurite des constru-
a G , a Qi parameter or function modelling the effect of G, Qi tions et bases de la theÂorie de la ®abiliteÂ. Paris: Presses de l'EÂcole
cu undrained shear strength Nationale des Ponts et ChausseÂes.
f E , f R , f MX probability density function of the random variables E, Cassan, M. (1979). Determination probabiliste des caracteÂristiques meÂ-
R, MX caniques des sols. ConfeÂrence prononceÂe aÁ l'EÂcole Centrale des Arts
f Ej R joint probability density function of the random variables et Manufactures. (Referred in Magnan (1982)).
E and R Cherubini, C. (1992). Collecting coef®cients of variation of some
q, q9 total and effective vertical stress at the level of the geotechnical properties. Unpublished report referred in Cherubini et
footing base al. (1993).
s c , s q , sã shape factors of the bearing capacity equation Cherubini, C., Giasi, C. I. & Rethati, L. (1993). The coef®cients of
Ëki , Ëmi ratio between EQi and EG de®ned by the respective variation of some geotechnical parameters. In Probabilistic methods
characteristic or mean values in geotechnical engineering (eds K. S. Li and S. C. R. Lo), pp.
á E , áG , coef®cients of conversion of E, G, Qi , X i 179±184 A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
á Qi , á X i ENV 1997-1 (1994). Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design. Part 1: General
â reliability index rules. Brussels: CEN, European Committee for Standardization.
äX i scale of ¯uctuation of X i ENV 1991-1 (1999). Eurocode 1: Basis of design and actions on
ö9 effective angle of shearing resistance structures. Part 1: Basis of design. Brussels: CEN, European Com-
ö9d design value of ö9 mittee for Standardization.
ãE , ãG , ãQ , partial safety factors for E, G, Q, X i , cu , tan ö9 Fredlund, D. G. & Dahlman, A. E. (1977). Statistical geotechnical
ãX i , ãcu , properties of glacial Lake Edmonton sediments. Proc. 1st Int. Conf.
ãtan ö9 Applications of Statistics and Probability in Soil and Structural
ã9 effective soil unit weight Engineering, Hong Kong, 203±228.
ì MX central moment Grolimund, J. P. & Recordon, E. (1972). EÂtude statistique sur les
r factor proportional to the vertical (total or effective) reÂsultats d'essais de laboratoire effectueÂs sur un sol consideÂreÂ
stress at the level of footing base comme homogeÁne. Laboratoire de GeÂotechnique de l'EÂcole Polytech-
ó R, ó X , standard deviation of R, X , MX , cu , Mcu , tan ö9 nique FeÂdeÂrale de Lausanne.
ó MX , ó cu , Hammitt, G. M. (1966). Statistical analysis of data from a comparative
ó Mcu , ótan ö9 laboratory test program sponsored by ACIL. Vicksburg: US Army
Ø ci coef®cient of combination of action effects Engineers Waterways Experiment Station.
æ ratio between R d and Ed Harr, M. E. (1977). Mechanics of particulate mediaÐa probabilistic
approach. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Kulhawy, F. H. (1992). On evaluation of static soil properties. Proceed-
ings of the ASCE specialty symp. stability and performance of slopes
REFERENCES and embankments, New York, vol. 2, pp. 95±115.
Alonso, E. (1976). Risk analysis of slopes and its application to slopes Kulhawy, F. H., Roth, N. J. S. & Grigoriu, N. B. (1991). Some statistical
in Canadian sensitive clays. GeÂotechnique 26, No. 3, 453±472. evaluations of geotechnical properties. Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Applica-
Baghery, S. (1980). ProbabiliteÂs et statistiques en meÂcanique des sols. tions of Statistics and Probability in Soil and Structural Engineering,
Analyse probabiliste de la stabilite et des tassements de remblais sur Mexico City, 705±712.
sols compressibles (Site expeÂrimental de Cubzac-les-Ponts). TheÁse de Lo, S.-C. R. & Li, K. S. (1993). Issues in reliability-based design in
docteur-ingeÂnieur, EÂcole Nationale des Ponts et ChausseÂes, Paris. geotechnical engineeringÐa discussion. Proceedings of the interna-
Bauduin, C. (1998). Eurocode 7: Background and introduction to tional symposium on limit state design in geotechnical engineering,
practical applications. Notes from the Short Course on EC 7, Copenhagen, vol. 3, pp. 659±663.
University of Porto, October 1998. Lumb, P. (1966). Variability of natural soils. Can. Geotech. J. 3, 74±97.
Becker, D. E. (1996a). Eighteenth Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium: Magnan, J. P. (1982). Les meÂthodes statistiques et probabilistes en
 GROUND PARAMETERS AND FAILURE PROBABILITY IN DESIGN TO EC 7
meÂcanique des sols. Presses de l'Ecole Nationale des Ponts et
ChausseÂes, Paris.
Manoliu, I. & Marcu, A. (1993). 25 years of utilisation of the limit state
concept in the Romanian Code for geotechnical design. Proceedings
of the international symposium on limit state design in geotechnical
engineering, Copenhagen, vol. 2, pp. 533±542.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1948). An investigation of the bearing capacity of
shallow footings on dry sand. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Soil Mech.
Found. Engng, Rotterdam 1, 237±243.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1993). Development of geotechnical limit state design.
Proceedings of the international symposium on limit state design in
geotechnical engineering, Copenhagen, vol. 1, pp. 1±12.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1995). Development of geotechnical limit state design.
Can. Geotech. J. 32, 128±136.
Orr, T. L. & Farrell, E. R. (1999). Geotechnical design to Eurocode 7.
London: Springer-Verlag.
Schneider, H. (1997). De®nition and determination of characteristic soil
properties. Proc. 14th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng, Hamburg
4, 2271±2274.
Schultze, E. (1972). Frequency distributions and correlation of soil
properties. Proc. 1st Int. Conf. Applications of Statistics and Prob-
531
ability in Soil and Structural Engineering, Hong Kong, 371±388.
Simpson, B. & Driscoll, R. (1998). Eurocode 7: a commentary. London:
ARUP/BRE, Construction Research Communications Ltd.
Singh, A. (1972). How reliable is the factor of safety in foundation
engineering? Proc. 1st Int. Conf. Applications of Statistics and
Probability in Soil and Structural Engineering, Hong Kong, 389±424.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics. John Wiley & Sons,
New York.
Thorne, C. P. & Quine, M. P. (1993). How reliable are reliability
estimates and why soils engineers rarely use them. In Probabilistic
methods in geotechnical engineering (eds K. S. Li and S. C. R. Lo),
pp. 325±332. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Yu, Y. F. & Mostyn, G. R. (1993). Spatial correlation of rock joints. In
Probabilistic methods in geotechnical engineering (eds K. S. Li and
S. C. R. Lo), pp. 241±255. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Wickremesinghe, D. & Campanella, R. G. (1993). Scale of ¯uctuation
as a descriptor of soil variability. In Probabilistic methods in
geotechnical engineering (eds K. S. Li and S. C. R. Lo), pp. 233±
239 A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Whitman, R. V. (1984). Evaluating calculated risk in geotechnical
engineering. J. Geotech. Engng 110, No. 2, 145±188.