0 Suka0 Tidak suka

26 tayangan44 halamanDec 07, 2014

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

26 tayangan

© All Rights Reserved

- Time Effects on Bearing Capacity of Driven Piles
- lateral load pile P-Y method.xls
- Detail Tulangan Spun-pile
- Pressure Grouting
- Integral Abutment and Jointless Bridges
- FINAL BOQ
- Writeup for Fdp
- Method Statement - Test Piling
- Raithel_Nottingham
- Challenges-and-Recent-Advance-in-Geotechnics-for-Foundation-Engineering.pdf
- Piling Specs
- 3 0ktober 2012 Latihan Industri.vvpptx
- TRACK RECORDS Pile Instrument
- 2001_02
- Pile Problem 1
- 4.01.General Requirements for Piling Work
- Attachment #2-1_Badra Soil Report_Pile
- Knysna Half Viaduct
- 278 Ground Vibration Analysis
- An Advanced Software for the Geotechnical Design of Foundations

Anda di halaman 1dari 44

10/09/09

12:09

Page 1

FOUNDATION DESIGN

WITH MNARD PRESSUREMETER TESTS

French contributions to

International

Foundation Congress

& Equipment Expo '09

Excerpts from Contemporary Topics in In Situ Testing, Analysis, and Reliability of Foundations,

Proc. Int. Foundation Congress and Equipment Expo 09 (IFCEE09),

Orlando, Florida, 15-19 March 2009,

ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 186.

4pages:Mise en page 1

10/09/09

10:26

Page 2

SUMMARY

DESIGN RULES

1.

Michel (Mike) Gambin, Fellow ASCE & Roger Frank

11

Michel Bustamante, Michel (Mike) Gambin, Fellow ASCE & Luigi Gianeselli

ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 186 p.127-134

19

ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 186 p.50-57

CASE HISTORIES

4. Rades Bridge Drilled Shafts Designed and Tested Using

27

Mnard Pressuremeter

Franois Schlosser, Alain Guilloux, Kamel Zaghouani, Patrick Berthelot

ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 186 p.42-49

Mnard PMT

Jean-Yves Boumedi, Jean-Pierre Baud & Bruno Radiguet

ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 186 p.103-110

35

& $$!&

& & $& !$& $

& # & !! & !!&&

Mnard Pressuremeter Test

Michel (Mike) Gambin1, Fellow ASCE & Roger Frank2

1

Professor, Universit Paris-Est, Ecole nationale des ponts et chausses, Navier-CERMES, Cit

Descartes, Champs sur Marne, France

2

ABSTRACT

Direct design rules derived from PMT data are used for estimating the bearing

capacity and settlement of piles and for their behaviour under lateral loading. The

theoretical background of these rules is explained by comparing borehole expansion

by the pressuremeter to soil response under the various pile displacements. The most

recent developments are submitted.

1. INTRODUCTION

The Mnard pressuremeter is probably the instrument which most closely models

the way soil behaves around a pile (Baguelin et al. 1978). It yields a failure

parameter and a small strain (10-2) deformation parameter. It is a particularly good

tool to analyze axial bearing capacity, pile settlement and behaviour under lateral

loading (Briaud 1995).

2. THE MNARD PRESSUREMETER

A Mnard pressuremeter test (PMT) is somewhat different from other in-situ tests

such as SPT or CPT which are or were originally used in geotechnical design on the

basis of correlations. In a MPM test a cylindrical cavity, typically at one meter

intervals of depth, in any type of soil from soft soil to weak rock, is subjected to

pressure increments and the resulting expansion is measured in terms of a volume

increase. Louis Mnards question was to ask: why take a sample from a borehole,

bring it to a lab and test it, sometimes in poor condition and certainly having

undergone a stress reversal, when it is possible to insert an instrument into a predrilled hole and to carry out a plane strain loading test on the in-situ soil? Since the

hole is very small (60mm), caving is unlikely and, if it could occur, drilling with a

mud as in the oil industry is an excellent way to create a suitable cavity.

Since it is impossible in a simple test to stress the soil vertically as the structure

will do testing is by applying a known lateral pressure on the vertical wall of the

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&"

borehole. This, however, stresses the soil in three dimensions anyway and at the

actual in-situ stress.

A test consists of 4 pairs of pressure and volume readings at each pressure holds at

1, 15, 30 and 60 seconds. The number of pressure holds for one test is always greater

than 7 and number of readings during a test is thus more than 50. Data loggers print

out values of the main parameters and graphs on the spot. Since tests are almost

always carried out at one meter depth intervals a lot of data is obtained from a single

borehole.

3. THEORY BEHIND THE MNARD DESIGN RULES

By a simple analysis of the continuous stress-strain curve obtained at each test

depth, two main parameters characterize each soil layer (ASTM 1987 - present) :

- an E-modulus called Pressuremeter Modulus, written EM, and

- a Limit Pressure, written pLM , which by convention is reached when the

volume of the expanded cavity has doubled.

The determination of pLM requires a simple graphical operation, EM, however must

be derived from the equation for the expansion of an infinite cylindrical cavity in an

elastic medium which produces the shear modulus G from the shear deformation of

the pressuremeter test:

R / R = [ 1 / 2G ] p

where R / R is the radial strain and

p is the corresponding increase in the applied pressure

From which E can be derived using:

EM = 2 ( 1 + QG

(2)

Note that the parameters c and I cannot easily be obtained since, unlike a

confined tri-axial soil sample, each concentric ring of soil around the pressuremeter

is at a different level of stress and strain.

Bearing Capacity of Piles and Drilled Shafts

The theory, due to Prandtl, using c and I to assess the bearing capacity of a

shallow footing is recognised as only approximate, since, in terms of the Rankine

passive earth pressure theory, the soil is assumed to behave as a rigid-plastic body.

The soil response in a pressuremeter test behaves much closer to the way soil reacts

to a loaded deep foundation a fact observed by many researchers e.g. Skempton et

al., (1953), Vesic, (1972) & (1977), Salgado & al. (1997), and, of course, Louis

Mnard (1963) who not only originated the theory, but checked it against full scale

tests on prototype footings and piers.

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

(a) to estimate the soil bearing failure under shallow strip footings or spread

footings, analysis using c and I gives good results but, since the ultimate bearing

capacity is almost always a direct function of the size of the footing, it is the estimate

of the settlement, which provides the value of the bearing stress in service (Terzaghi

& Peck, 1948), especially in sands,

(b) when deeper foundations are considered, as when piers and piles have to be

designed, conventional theory does not permit modelling the actual soil failure below

a pile tip: The soil around the tip is in a plastic state and the soil reaction around this

sheared volume can be compared with the response to the expansion of a deeply

embedded cavity. Elastic/plastic theory must be used, where the elastic response

FIG.1 Shallow foundation bearing failure against pile tip bearing failure in an

homogeneous soil (EM & pLM constant).

of the soil outside the sheared volume dominates. Mnard (1963) shows that there is

a simple theoretical relationship between the soil failure stress below the tip of a pile

qL and the limit pressure pLM measured at completion of a pressuremeter test.

Beginning from the work of Bishop et al, (1945), he could write :

qL - qo = kp (pLM po)

(3)

qo the vertical overburden stress at pile tip depth

kp the Mnard Bearing Factor for this pile tip in this type of soil

pLM the Mnard limit pressure at pile tip depth

po the insitu horizontal effective stress at pile tip depth

and it appears that, below a critical depth, the tip bearing capacity alone is much

less than predicted by the c and I theory (Fig.1).

Similarly, he also showed that a relationship between q s, the maximum skin friction

resistance at a given depth, and pLM at the same depth can be written in the form of

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

(4)

hundreds of observations carried out by the French Government Laboratories for

Bridges and Roads (LPCs) on all types of prototype piles and drilled shafts using

strain gauges along the whole pile shaft (Bustamante et al. 1981 - 2009).

From this the ultimate total axial pile capacity Q can be expressed by

Q = A kp (pLM po) + P (qsj . zj )

(5)

P the perimeter of the pile cross section

zj the thickness of the jth soil layer exhibiting a uniform qsj skin friction.

The EUROCODE 7-2, in its Annex E, E.3 Example of a method to calculate the

compressive resistance of a single pile (CEN, 2006) also quotes the LPCs method.

Pile Settlement Prediction

For soil settlement below shallow footings, Mnard showed that this settlement is

mostly governed by the deviatoric component of the stresses and not by the isotropic

component. He derived an equation w = f (EM) involving both shear and, to a smaller

extent, compression deformation, but also which took into account the degradation of

the shear modulus G with increasing strain (Mnard 1961, 1962 & 1965).

This approach could be extended to the settlement of piles using the method now

called the load transfer method (Gambin 1963, Frank & Zhao 1982), in which the

pile is divided into a series of equal length elements as in Fig.2.

For the pile tip, the shear stress effect controls the settlement even more than below

a footing since the expansion of the spherical cavity R/R around the plastic body of

soil is similar to the pressuremeter equation (1) :

R/R = [1/4G] p

(6)

Thus, the settlement zp of a pile tip is simply given (Frank & Zhao 1982) by :

zp = ( B/p ) qp

(7)

qp the pile tip pressure, with qp < qL, (Fig.2) and

p is a factor which varies from 4.8 EM in coarse soils up to 11 EM in fine

soils up to a stress of qL /2 and is 5 times smaller above the qL / 2 stress.

The skin friction qsi mobilized during the settlement of the ith pile shaft element is

then obtained as a function of zsi the local shear displacement of this shaft element

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

against the adjacent soil layer. This function involves EM (Frank & Zhao 1982) as

FIG. 2 Load transfer method to estimate pile settlement (Frank & Zhao, 1982).

follows :

zsi = ( B/s ) qsi

(8)

qsi the estimated shaft friction of the ith element against the soil but limited

by to a maximum of qs as shown in Fig.2 values are given in Bustamante et al.

(2009) and

s a factor which

- varies from 0.8 EM in coarse soils to 2 EM in fine soils up to a stress of qs /2

- and is 5 times smaller above the qs / 2 stress.

Results of comparisons between prediction and observation of pile load tests were

given in a number of previous papers. In these Proceedings Boumedi et al. (2009)

and Schlosser et al.( 2009) confirm them as satisfactory.

Pile Lateral Loading Behaviour

There are various cases where piles are subjected to lateral loading :

- either the pile may be subject to a force or a moment or both at its head , as

in a mooring dolphin or

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

- the pile can be subject to the thrust of a soil layer displaced under an

embankment, as an abutment pile.

In both cases, the ground stress is similar to that observed during a pressuremeter

test. Since the Winkler theory for horizontal beams on elastic supports

EI d4y / dz4 + k.B y = 0

(9)

can be used, the value of k is readily obtained from the settlement equation w = f(EM)

given by Mnard (1962) for a infinitely long strip footing, B in width : k.B = p/w.

When EM values are averaged, for B larger than 0.6 m (2 ft), and below the critical

depth :

k.B = Es = EM {18 / [4 (2.65 B/Bo) Bo/B + 3]}

(10)

where is the Mnard rheological factor ( 1/4 < < 2/3) and

Bo a reference diameter equal to 0.6 m.

FIG. 3 Soil reaction against lateral displacement for actions at head level (after

Frank 1999)

a) permanent forces at pile head ;

b) soil lateral thrust ;

b) short time forces at pile head;

d) unexpected instant forces at pile head.

This was checked using pressuremeter test data on various laterally loaded prototype

piles (Gambin 1979). The present design rules (Frank 1999) using generalized P-y

curves include the degradation of k when y increases (Fig.3).

Finally, when a soil applies a horizontal thrust on the pile (Fig.4), the last term of the

Winkler equation (9) must be replaced by

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

(11)

.

FIG. 4 A pile subject to earth pressure (after Frank 1999)

where y(z) is replaced by [y(z) g(z)], g(z) being the free horizontal displacement of

the soil in the absence of the pile. It is assumed that at equilibrium, for given values

of applied forces and moments at pile head and pile tip, g(z) plays a role similar to

that of y(z) in equation (8).

Baguelin et al. (1978) have shown that the application of these design methods is

satisfactory.

CONCLUSION

The present paper has tried to show that Mnard direct design rules are not a black

box. The rules are based on a novel but rigorous approach to Soil Mechanics. In the

search for sustainable developments and savings in materials, structural deformations

cannot be overlooked as they used to be. Stiffness of soil has become as important as

its strength. Since pressuremeter testing delivers 2 parameters associated with

strength and stiffness the Mnard pressuremeter appears the ideal tool for our

profession in this new century (Baker 2005).

REFERENCES

ASTM D-4719 (since 1987). Standard Test Method for Prebored Pressuremeter

Testing in Soils. 2008 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04-06.

Baguelin, F., Jzquel, J.-F., Shields, D.H. (1978). The Pressuremeter and

Foundation Engineering, Trans Tech Publications, Clausthal, 617 pages.

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

Design from Chicago to Kuala Lumpur. ISP5, Proc. Int. Symp., LCPC, Paris

Bishop, R.F., Hill, R., Mott, N.F. (1945). The theory of indentation and hardness test,

Proc. Physical Society, No.57, London.

Briaud, J-L., (1992). The Pressuremeter, A. A. Balkema, Brookfield VT.

Bustamante, M. & Gianeselli, L. (1981). Observed and Predicted Bearing Capacity

of Isolated Piles Using the Pressuremeter Method. (in French) Revue Franaise de

Gotechnique, No.16 Paris

Bustamante, M., Gambin, M., Gianeselli, L. (2009). Pile Design at Failure Using

the Mnard Pressuremeter : an Up-Date. Proc. IFCEE 09, ASCE.

CEN (2006). Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design Part 2: Ground investigation and

testing, pp. 123-124, Brussels.

Clarke, B.G. (1995). Pressuremeters in Design, Blackie Academic and Professional

[now :Taylor & Francis], London.

Frank, R. (1974). Theoretical Study of Axially Loaded Piles - Introducing Dilation.

(in French) Rapport de Recherche No.46, LCPC Paris

Frank, R (1999). Design of Shallow and Deep Foundations (in French), Presses des

Ponts, Paris, p. 80 123.

Frank, R & Zhao, S. R. (1982). Estimating the Settlement of Axially Loaded Bored

Piles in Fine Sand by PMT Data. (in French) Bull. Liaison LPC No.119 Paris

Gambin, M. (1963). Estimation of the Settlement of a Deep Foundation in Terms of

Pressuremeter Tests Data. (in French), Sols-Soils No.7, 1963 Paris

Gambin, M. (1979). Calculation of Foundations Subjected to Horizontal Forces

Using Pressuremeter Data. Sols-Soils No.30-31, Paris

Mnard, L. (1961). Influence of Stress Level and Stress History on Settlements. (in

French) Proc. Vth ICSMFE, 1/42 pp.249-253, Dunod Publisher, Paris

Mnard L. (1962). Evaluation of Settlements. (in French) Sols-Soils No.1.

Mnard, L. (1963). Calculation of the Bearing Capacity of Foundations Based on

the Results of Pressuremeter Tests. (in French) Sols-Soils No.5 & 6.

Mnard L. (1965). Rules for Estimating Bearing Capacity and Settlement of

Foundations Using PMT Data. (in French) Proc. VIth ICSMFE, 4/15 pp.295-299.

Salgado, R. Mitchell, J. & Jamiolkowski, M. (1997). Cavity Expansion and

Penetration Resistance in Sand. J. Geotech. Eng. Vol.123, No.4

Skempton, G. W. Yassin, A. A. & Gibson, R. E. (1953). A Theory for the Bearing

Capacity of Piles in Sand. (in French), Proc. (2nd) ECSMFE, Annales de lITBTP

No.63-64, Paris

Terzaghi K. & Peck R. (1948). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, Wiley, NewYork (art. 54)

Vesic A. S. (1972). Expansion of Cavities in Infinite Soil Mass. J. SM&F Div. Vol.

98 No. SM3, pp.265 - 290

Vesic, A. S. (1977). Design of Piles. U.S. Transp. Res. Board, NCRP Synth. No.42

Washington D.C.

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

an Up-Date

Michel Bustamante1, Michel (Mike) Gambin2, Fellow ASCE

& Luigi Gianeselli3

1

Scientific Adviser, Apageo, 21 quai dAnjou, 75004 Paris, France, mgambin@magic.fr

3

Senior Engineer : MB Fondations, Saint Cloud, France, luigi.gianeselli@free.fr

2

ABSTRACT : The paper summarises the results of 30 years of pile loading tests on

prototype piles installed by more than 26 different techniques and in which the soil

was previously characterised using the Mnard pressuremeter. The present paper is

based on the analysis of 561 load tests on more than 400 piles instrumented to record

the limit unit skin friction of each separate soil layer and the limit end bearing. These

are then compared with the PMT direct design rules initiated by Louis Mnard in the

1960s. These rules are based both on the theory of cavity expansion in soils and on

his own experiments. In a companion paper to this conference this method is applied

to pile settlement prediction and to the design of piles subjected to lateral loading.

1. INTRODUCTION

Since the early 1990s, when the new French Code of Practice for Foundations

(M.E.L.T. 1993), known as Fascicule 62-V, was published (Bustamante & Frank

1999), additional experimental data have been gathered by the LCPC, the French

Highways Agency. These data include comprehensive site investigations with PMT,

CPT and SPT. The plan was to test instrumented piles up to 2 m in diameter and :

1) to include the most recent installation techniques which are now common

practice,

2) to refine the values in the analysis of the limit unit skin friction qs and the pile tip

bearing factor kp.

The aim was greater simplification whilst preserving the essentials of the method.

2. THE DIRECT DESIGN MNARD PMT METHOD

The principles of this method are given in another paper to this Conference

(Gambin & Frank 2009). During most pile load tests, the end of the test occurs when

the pile head begins rapid subsidence. The load at this threshold is called the limit

load QL. QL is defined as being the load at which the head settlement sL is given by

sL t B/10 + 'e, where B is the diameter of the pile, and 'e is the pile elastic

shortening.

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

Q = A kp [(pLM po)e] + P (qsi . zi )

(1)

where A is

the pile tip area

kp

the tip bearing factor

[(pLM po)e] the net equivalent Mnard limit pressure under the pile tip

P

the perimeter of the pile cross section

the thickness of the soil layer I exhibiting a uniform skin

zi

friction, qsi

parameters kp and qs, which are essential to this equation, are measured on prototype

piles instrumented with removable extensometers (Fig.1) and load tested to failure

(Bustamante & Gianeselli 1981).

By recording the strain gauge readings during the pile load test, it is possible to

obtain the values of both qs for each soil layer along the shaft and kp for the pile tip

(Bustamante & Doix, 1985), as shown by Reiffsteck (2009) in his Fig.4.

3. THE EXPERIMENTAL SUPPORT FOR THE UP-DATED RULES

The Geotechnical Calibration

In the previous papers the data were obtained from a total of 204 sites at which site

investigations involved PMTs, CPTs, sometimes SPTs and also lab tests on cored

samples. It is interesting to analyze the chance of success of the various investigation

techniques at depth to provide the required data (pLM, qc, N, or c and I). The main

soil categories investigated are clay, silt, sand, gravel, chalk, marl, marly limestone

and weathered or fragmented rock.

Although pile load tests were also carried out in other types of soil such as coral,

volcanic and collapsible soils, swelling soils, etc., results are not yet sufficiently

complete to derive specific design rules for them.

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

Table 1 shows that for a large number of soil types in which piles are embedded

(weathered or fragmented rocks, hardened or very fine cohesionless formations), the

Mnard pressuremeter remains the most versatile site investigation tool.

Table 1. Feasibility of in situ tests or coring at 204 sites.

Type of test

Tests

Tests

Tests

Insufficient

Possible but

2

3

Completed

No. of Tests

Inadequate 4

Curtailed

155 Sites

3 Sites

46 Sites

0 Sites

(76%)

(1.5%)

(22.5%)

(0%)

60 Sites

79 Sites

23 Sites

42 Sites

(29.4%)

(38.7%)

(11.3%)

(20.6%)

26 Sites

54 Sites

72 Sites

52 Sites

(12.7%)

(26.5%)

(35.3%)

(25.5%)

PMT

(pLM)

CPT

(qc)

SPT

(N)

Coring for

21 Sites

67 Sites

69 Sites

47 Sites

Laboratory

(10.3%)

(32.8%)

(33.8%)

(23.1%)

(c and I)

1

It is assumed that a PMT or an SPT log includes a test every meter. 2 Throughout

the whole pile depth at least. 3 Insufficient No. of tests (PMT), premature refusal

(CPT), excessive blow count (SPT) or sample badly recovered. 4 Tests deemed

inadequate beforehand due either to soil type or to soil resistance.

The Various Piles Analyzed

Our up-dated analysis identified 26 basic pile installation techniques as opposed to

17 types for the French Fascicule 62-V (MELT 1993). These techniques are set out

in Table 2. Techniques with common factors are now grouped under the same code

number. This helps to choose the tip bearing factor k p.

Among the 408 pile and anchor loading tests recently analyzed, 180 tests (or 44%)

are related to piles which do not appear in Fascicule 62-V. They were described in

five important papers (Bustamante & Gianeselli 1993 and 2005; Bustamante et al.,

1991, 1998 and 2002). Out of a total of 561 tests to date, 276 tests (or 49%) could be

taken to the limit load. For the remainder, the load was extrapolated up to this value

by one of the usual analytical methods (Borel et al. 2004). Finally, 13% of the piles

were subjected to tensile tests.

4. CHOOSING kp AND qs

The use of the tables for kp and qs, need some explanations.

The Tip Bearing Factor kp

Parameter kp value can be chosen from Table 3 once the pile group code number is

known. Since we now have more pile types in Table 2 we can select a single value of

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&"

kp per pile type in Table 3. Furthermore there is no need now to apply a reducing

factor for steel piles (Pile codes Nos. 5-7).

Table 2 Description and Characteristics of 418 Analyzed Piles.

Group Type Pile2

Code

No. Qty

1

B3

(mm)

5002,000

2701,800

2701,200

4201,100

D4

(m)

11.5-23

Pile Description

Pile or Barrette Bored in the dry

Slurry

1

Bored

and

Cased

Pile

3

2

20-56

(permanent casing)

Bored

and

Cased

Pile

4

28

5.5-29

(recoverable casing)

Dry Bored Piles / or Slurry

51

4

520-880

19-27 Bored Piles with Grooved

Sockets / or Piers (3 Types)

Bored Pile with a single or a

1

2

6

50

410-980

4.5-30

double-rotation CFA (2 types)

7

38

310-710

5-19.5 Screwed Cast-in-Place

3

8

1

650

13.5

Screwed Pile with Casing

Pre-cast or Pre-stressed

6.530

280-520

91

Concrete Driven Pile (2 types)

72.5

Coated Driven Pile

4

10

15

250-600

8.9-20

(concrete, mortar, grout)

11

19

330-610

4-29.5 Driven Cast-in-Place Pile

12

27

170-810

4.5-45 Driven Steel Pile, Closed End

5

13

27

190-1,22

8-70

Driven Steel Pile, Open End

14

23

260-600

6-64

Driven H Pile

6

15

4

260-430

9-15.5 Driven Grouted 5 or 6 H Pile

7

16

15

3.5-2.5 Driven Sheet Pile

17

2

80-140

4-12

Micropile Type I

1

18

8

120-810

8.5-37 Micropile Type II

SGP 5 Micropile (Type III) /

10019

23

8.5-67

or SGP Pile

1,220

8

MRP 6 Micropile (Type IV) /

20

20

130-660

7-39

or MRP Pile

1

Some types may include several sub-types 2 Some piles subjected to several tests.

3

Minimum and maximum nominal diameter B. 4 Minimum and maximum full

embedment depth D. 5 involving a Single Global Post grouting. 6 with Multiple

Repeatable Post grouting.

2

64

6-78

(i) select the pile type from Table 2 and (ii) find the Qi applicable as a function

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

Table 3. Values for the Tip Bearing Factor kp

Group

Clay

Sand,

Marl and

Chalk

Limestone

Code

& Silt

Gravel

1

1.25

1.2

1.6

1.6 *

2

1.3

1.65

2.0

2.0

3

1.7

3.9

2.6

2.3

4

1.4

3.1

2.4

2.4 *

5

1.1

2.0

1.1

1.1 *

6

1.4

3.1

2.4

1.4 *

7

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1 *

8

1.4

1.6

1.8

1.8

* A higher kp value can be used but must be proven by a load test

Weathered

Rock

1.6

2.0

2.3

2.4 *

1.1 *

1.4 *

1.1 *

1.5*

Table 4. Selecting the Qi line to obtain the limit unit skin friction values qs

Marl,

Weathered

Rock

Limestone

1

Q2

Q2*

Q5

Q4

Q6**

2

Q2

Q2

Q5

Q4

Q6**

3

Q1

Q1

Q1

Q2

Q1**

4

Q1

Q2

Q4

Q4

Q4**

5

Q3

Q3*

Q5

Q4

Q6

6

Q2

Q4

Q3

Q5

Q5**

7

Q3

Q5

Q4

Q4

Q4**

8

Q1

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2**

9

Q3

Q3**

Q2

Q2**

(a)

10

Q6

Q8

Q7

Q7

(a)

11

Q2

Q3

Q6**

Q5**

(a)

12

Q2

Q2**

Q1

Q2**

(a)

13***

Q2

Q1

Q1

Q2

(a)

14***

Q2

Q2

Q1

Q2**

(a)

15***

Q6

Q8

Q7

Q7

(a)

16***

Q2

Q2

Q1

Q2**

(a)

17

Q1

Q1

Q1

Q2

Q6**

18

Q1

Q1

Q1

Q2

Q6**

19

Q6

Q8

Q7

Q7

Q9**

20

Q9

Q9

Q9

Q9

Q10**

* If ground properties permit. ** Use of a higher value must be proven by a load

test. *** Cross section and perimeter estimated according to Fig.3.

(a) For pile groups No.9 16 and if rock condition permits penetration, choose

the qs value proposed for marl and limestone or a higher one if this can be proven

either by a load test or by reference to an existing example in the same local area.

Pile Type No.

Clay,

Loam

Sand,

Gravel

Chalk

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

(iii) use Figure 2 to obtain on the selected Qi curve the qs for the Mnard limit

pressure pLM measured at the same depth.

The graph in Fascicule 62-V for the upper lines (then Q6 Q7) shows a set of

discontinuous straight lines. In Fig.2, the same qs lines (now Q6 Q10) are

continuous, which avoids any ambiguity when choosing this parameter.

0,70

qs

0,65

0,60

Q10

(MPa)

Q9

0,55

Q8

0,50

0,45

Q7

0,40

Q6

0,35

0,30

0,25

Q5

0,20

Q4

0,15

Q3

0,10

Q2

0,05

pLM (MPa)

Q1

0,00

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

FIG. 2. Direct Design using PMT Data. Chart for unit skin friction qs

Additional recommendations

Most of the recommendations given in the current Code of Practice (MELT 1993)

are valid for the use of Tables 2, 3 and 4 and the Chart in Figure 2. For driven piles

areas and perimeters must be calculated according to Figure 3. For vibrated piles kP

and qs must be reduced by a factor of 0.5 and 0.3 respectively (Borel et al. 2002). For

more information about grouted piles and micropiles, the reader can consult the

paper by Bustamante & Doix (1985).

Finally, to design piles in hard soils PMT data should be obtained from high

pressure equipment (Massonnet 2005).

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

FIG. 3. Areas A and Perimeters P to be used for open-end steel piles & sheet

piles

5. VALIDITY OF THE UP-DATE

All the previous factors were checked by using them in reverse to calculate the

ratio QL measured / QL calculated. Some results are given in Table 5.

Table 5. Measured QL / Calculated QL Ratios.

All Types of Piles 1

No. of piles

204

Mean

1.020

Standard error 0.009

Median

1.018

Standard deviation 0.124

Variance

0.015

Screwed Cast in Place Piles

No. of piles

38

Mean

1.029

Standard error

0.016

Median

1.026

Standard deviation

0.099

Variance

0.009

1

Bored Piles 2

No. of piles

37

Mean

1.047

Standard error

0.020

Median

1.052

Standard deviation 0.119

Variance

0.014

Grouted Piles and Micropiles3

No. of piles

19

Mean

0.980

Standard error

0.029

Median

1.011

Standard deviation

0.127

Variance

0.016

Only loading tests strictly carried out to QL and excluding tension tests

Sub-set of the previous group

3

Involving either a Single Global Post grouting or Multiple Repeatable Post

grouting.

2

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

6. CONCLUSION

Up-dating the Direct Design Mnard Pressuremeter Method for calculating the

limit pile load QL led to :

1)

an adjustment of the parameters qs and kp for a total of 26 different pile types

2)

a simplification in the number of tip bearing factors kp for each soil category

and pile technique;

3)

the proposal of a chart involving 10 continuous qs curves incorporating the

most recent pile techniques.

8. REFERENCES

Borel, S., Bustamante, M., Gianeselli, L. (2004). An appraisal of the Chin method

based on 50 instrumented pile tests, Ground Engineering, January, Vol.37, No.1,

pp.22-26.

Bustamante, M., Borel, S., Gianeselli, L., (2002). Two comparative field studies of

the bearing capacity of vibratory and impact driven sheet piles, Proc.

TRANSVIB, 19-21 March, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, Balkema.

Bustamante, M., Doix, B. (1985). Design Method for Ground Anchors and Grouted

Micropiles (In French) Bull. Liaison Labo. P. et Ch. No.140, pp.75-92.

Bustamante, M., Frank, R. (1999) Current French Design Practice for Axially

Loaded Piles Ground Engineering March, London, pp.38 44.

Bustamante, M. & Gianeselli, L. (1981) Observed and Predicted Bearing Capacity

of Isolated Piles Using the Pressuremeter Method (in French) Revue Franaise

de Gotechnique, No.16, Presses des Ponts, Paris

Bustamante, M., Gianeselli, L., (1993). Design of auger displacement piles from in

situ tests", 2nd Intern. Geotech. Seminar: Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger

Piles, Balkema.

Bustamante, M., Gianeselli, L. (2005). Design of Screwed Piles with Mnard

Pressuremeter (in French). Proc. ISP5, 22-24 August, Presses des Ponts, Paris,

Vol. 1, pp.447-456.

Bustamante M., Gianeselli L., Koch G. (1991). Vertical Bearing Capacity of SheetPiles (in French), Proc. Col. Inter. Fondations Profondes, Presses des Ponts,

Paris, pp.145-152.

Bustamante, M., Gianeselli, L., Weber, L., (1998).The bearing capacity of driven

steel piles in weathered chalks, Proc. 7th Int. Conf. and Ex. on Piling and Deep

Foundations, DFI 98.

Gambin, M. (1963). The Mnard Pressuremeter and the Design of Foundations(in

French) Actes Journes des Fondations, Laboratoire Central des Ponts et

Chausses, Paris.

Gambin, M. and Frank, R. (2009), "Direct Design Rules for Piles Using

Mnard Pressuremeter, Proc. IFCEE 09, ASCE.

Massonnet, R., (2005). High Pressure Mnard Pressuremeter Proc. ISP5, Presses

des Ponts Paris, pp. 81-90.

M.E.L.T. (1993) Design Rules for Foundations, Tender Documents for Public

Works, Fasc. No.62, Titre V (in French), Imprimerie Nationale Paris.182 pages.

Reiffsteck, P. (2009) ISP5 Pile prediction revisited, Proc. IFCEE 09.

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

Philippe Reiffsteck1, A.M. ASCE

1

Researcher, Universit Paris Est, Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chausses, 58 Bd Lefebvre,

75015 Paris, France; philippe.reiffsteck@lcpc.fr

and its accompanying national application documents and standards for geotechnical

investigation and testing there are still outstanding problems with the various

national practices of pile design.

This paper presents a revised interpretation of the prediction exercise for pile

bearing capacity and settlement originally presented at ISP5 in August 2005. The

field tests with the Mnard pressuremeter, the static cone penetrometer, and the SPT

performed at the site, the answers to the exercise and a detailed investigation of the

practice are discussed. The results are compared to the predictions of other national

codes and of customarily used design methods and to the results from an

instrumented CFA drilled shaft tested on the site.

INTRODUCTION

Determining the working load of a pile so as to be close to its actual bearing

capacity is still very difficult. In most countries, development of piling techniques

were made simultaneously with the establishment of specific design methods. At the

same time, significant efforts have been made to improve the soil investigation on

which these methods were based. France has a large variety of extremely complex

soils for which intact sampling is not possible. Engineers have therefore favoured insitu testing. Their choice lay between the static cone penetration test (CPT) and

Mnard pressuremeter tests (PMT).

For a pile the static capacity Qu is computed from:

Qu = Qpu + Qsu

(1)

where: Qpu is the ultimate pile toe (base) capacity and

Qsu the ultimate skin (shaft) resistance capacity.

This separation of the pile capacity into two terms is a common feature of all the

design methods used in practice: analytical methods based on friction (proportional

to I-c') and empirical methods based on in situ tests (CPT, SPT, PMT).

The tip capacity is related to a mean value of the shear strength deduced from

laboratory or in situ tests multiplied by a factor related to the failure mechanism and

adjusted for the soil type and for the remoulding effect of the installation technique.

The shaft term accounts for the change of soil properties in the vicinity of the pile

after it has been installed, for the soil variability and for the (complex) pile-soil

interaction.

For laboratory as for in situ tests, due to technical features such as penetration

speed for CPT, length of the sampler for SPT or of the probe for PMT, the

segmentation of the soil log varies. Hence, for every segment of the shaft, shaft

resistance has to be computed from the shear strength times a factor depending of the

three influences above.

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

When PMT results are used, in the general case of a layered ground for which the

distribution of pressuremeter limit pressures pLM with depth are known, each of these

terms will be calculated from the following equations:

Qpu = [qo+k.(pLMe-po)]SB/4

(2)

(3)

Qsu =6in qsi.SB.li

where:

qo is the total vertical pressure,

k is the bearing factor,

po is the horizontal total pressure,

B is the diameter of the pile,

qs is the limiting unit shaft friction of the ith layer,

l the thickness of the ith layer.

pLMe the equivalent limit pressure defined as the geometric mean of

the pLM values obtained near the tip of the pile.

While it is unnecessary to comment on most of the parameters in these equations, it

is important to appreciate how to determine the bearing capacity factor k and the unit

shaft friction qs. Altogether they characterize the Mnard direct design method.

The tip bearing factor k is found from charts based on a range of soil classes and

depends on the nature of soil, its density (known by pLM) and the installation process.

The limit unit shaft friction qs is given by empirical charts of limit pressure pLM

plotted against the nature and density (pLM) of the soil, the method of installation of

the pile and the nature of the pile shaft (Bustamante et al. 2009).

First proposed in the 1960s, the charts were obtained by analysis of a limited

number of pile load tests. Twenty years later and after about 186 load tests on 88

instrumented piles, the database was used to readjust the method (Bustamante and

Gianeselli 1981; Combarieu 1990). A new Design Code for bridge foundations was

set up as Fascicule 62-V (MELT 1993). The method is proposed in an Appendix to

Eurocode 7-2 (CEN 2006) and is still under improvement by a steering group of the

French standardisation committee (Combarieu and Canpa 2007). Before analysing

the results of the ISP5 exercise, we briefly outline the data given to the participants.

ISP5 BENCHMARK EXERCISE

Outline

At the ISP5 symposium commemorating the 50th anniversary of the first Mnard

pressuremeter patent, a benchmarking exercise was organised (Reiffsteck 2005). The

purpose was to calculate the bearing capacity under axial load of a test pile drilled

using a continuous flight auger. The pile, 0.5 m in diameter and 12 m deep (Fig. 1a)

was installed on an experimental site located in Merville in Northern France on a

former WWII airfield. The soil is silt overlying highly overconsolidated and fissured

Flanders clay (similar to London clay).

Raw data from three pressuremeter soundings, each of them involving 14 PMT,

together with the pressure loss correction curves, were given to the participants who

were asked to make their own interpretation of the tests and to quote the method

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

used. Additional geotechnical data were also provided such as CPT and SPT profiles

(Figs. 1b and 1c).

The participants were asked to calculate (i) the bearing capacity of the pile, (ii) the

settlement under a load equal to one third of the limit load and (iii) the settlement

under a load of 500 kN. Methods based on the Mnard pressuremeter test results

were to be favoured, but alternative approaches were to be accepted.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910

1.8m

2.4m

N SPT

qc (MPa)

silt

10 20 30 40 50

0

2

SPT 1

SPT 2

CPT1

CPT2

CPT3

0.5 m

6

depth (m)

clay

depth (m)

12 m

10

10

12

12

14

14

a) 16

b) 16

c)

FIG. 1 (a) Pile and soil sketch (b) CPT sounding (c) SPT sounding

Analysis of Mnard pressuremeter tests

The readings of the 42 tests were provided to the participants but it was decided for

clarity reasons not to give the table of the pressure and volume readings at 15 s and

30 s at each pressure hold. This point has caused comment relating to the potential

scattering of the data due to the analysis method (Long 2008). Because from a

graphical analysis of the diagram (p, 'V60/30) it was not possible to estimate the creep

pressure pf, participants had to explore the area between the group of readings in the

pseudo-elastic phase of the pressuremeter curve and the group of readings at large

strains, since the Mnard modulus EM is obtained from the first group of readings

(AFNOR 1991).

Figures 2a and 3a show the mean curves of the three logs proposed by nine of the

participants. To a first approximation, the curves seem to be parallel, i.e. the trend for

each participant is systematically to underestimate either the modulus or the creep

pressure (participant No.6) or in opposition to do the inverse (participants Nos.5 and

8). For the limit pressure, the mean value of the 9 participants answers is very close

to the one observed by the LCPC team (Fig. 2b) which is also in the range defined by

the standard deviation of the 9 answers.

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

0

0,5

1,5

2,5

1,5

2,5

6

8

10

4

6

depth (m)

mean

mean modified

LCPC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

depth (m)

0,5

10

12

12

14

14

a) 16

b)

16

FIG. 2 Mnard limit pressure pLM (a) participants answers (b) mean values

For the Mnard pressuremeter modulus EM, two answers diverge markedly. These

answers came from participants Nos. 4 and 7 and may be attributable to local

practices. If we omit these two results, the modified mean then shows a tendency

towards underestimation on the part of the participants when compared with the

LCPC analysis (Fig. 3b).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

depth (m)

6

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

mean

2

4

LCPC

10

10

12

12

14

14

16

mean modified

6

depth (m)

10

20

30

40

50

60

a) 16

FIG. 3 Mnard pressuremeter modulus EM

(a) participants answers (b) mean values

b)

A very reassuring fact is that the Mnard limit pressure pLM which is the principal

parameter used in the design method for computing ultimate shaft and toe capacity,

see equations (2) and (3), is determined with good repeatability in this exercise. The

mean error is under 24 % for the analysis made by the 9 participants and less than 20

% between curves of the 3 soundings originally analysed at LCPC. It can be

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

penetration tests at the Bothkennar site and 23 % of the acceptable error for Class 1

application of the CPT European Standard on the qc profile presented by Long

(2008).

PILE LOAD TEST

The pile was loaded axially and instrumented by LPC removable extensometers

over its entire length (Bustamante and Jzquel 1989). The limit load Qu is

conventionally defined as the settlement at pile head equal to the higher of the two

values: either 20 mm or B/10, which is here equal to 50 mm (Fig. 4a) (MELT 1993).

Defining the total limit load Qu and using the LPC removable extensometers to find

the limit point resistance Qpu permits the determination of the limit shaft friction Qsu

(Fig. 4b). It gives Qu = Qpu + Qsu = 373 + 939 = 1312 kN for 50 mm of displacement

and a creep load of Qc = 1000 kN. The settlement yo at the top for a 500 kN load is 1

mm and at one third of the total limit load it is 0.75 mm.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Qu = 1312 kN

1200

1400

500

1500

15

Qc = 1000 kN

20

4

depth z (m)

10

25

30

E

8

D

C

35

10

B

A

40

12

45

Qu = 1312 kN

50

Qpu = 373 kN

14

a)

FIG. 4 Test results

b)

Prediction of bearing capacity

The bearing capacity values computed by the participants using PMT direct design

method lie spread between 0.6 and 1.4 times that measured. On average, the

participants have underestimated the measured value. The mean value of the

normalised answers is equal to 0.89 with a standard deviation of V = 0.23 (Fig. 5).

The values of the bearing capacity predicted by the I-c method based on

laboratory tests are slightly overestimated, but in a range similar to that obtained by

the pressuremeter method. For the CPT method used by three of the participants,

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&"

calculation of point resistance was made using Begemann or Meyerhof methods and

shaft resistance using different proposals for the skin friction factor (D and O

methods among others). The bearing capacities deduced from CPT methods are all

conservative. The discrepancy in the values for the bearing capacity prediction seems

to be at least partially due to the design method used: I-c, CPT SPT or PMT.

Qu predicted/Qu observed

1,6

fI, c

PMT

CPT

NUM

SPT

1,4

1,2

1

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0

1

10

11

participants

Table 1 shows a comparison of several design methods either proposed in

Eurocode 7-2, or by national rules or, still, customarily used. The pressuremeter

design method using the original LCPC log for pLM values slightly underpredicts the

experimental bearing capacity of the CFA pile. In the calculation of bearing capacity

using the Dutch CPT design method, where the three CPT soundings of fig. 2b are

considered, overestimation is observed (NEN 1991). For the French national rule

(Fascicule 62-V), the CPT based method, a large underestimation is seen. The D, E

and O methods all underestimate the bearing capacity of the pile (Bowles 1997).

Table No. 1 Comparisons Between Some Design Methods Used to Derive the

Bearing Capacity in MN

F62-V F62-V NEN 6743 B&2G

D

O

E

EC7-2 E

EC7-2 D

PMT

CPT

CPT

PMT I-c I-c I-c

Qpu

0.373

0.346

0.227

0.343

0.254 0.168 0.168 0.168

Qsu

0.939

0.901

0.754

1.117

0.848 0.906 0.968 0.604

Qu

1.312

1.248

0.982

1.461

1.103 1.074 1.136 0.772

F62-V: Fascicule 62-V; EC7-2D: EN 1997-2 Annex D; EC7-2E: EN 1997-2 Annex

E, B&2G: Bustamante et al., 2009. Note that 1MN =100 metric tonnes

Q

Load

(MN) test

Prediction of settlement

At present, no settlement prediction method is suggested for piles in Eurocode 7

part 2 (CEN 2008). In Fascicule 62-V (MELT 1993), two methods are proposed. In

the first the settlement is arbitrarily defined as a percentage of the pile diameter

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

(marked A in Fig. 6a). The second method is a determination of load transfer q-z

curves as a function of Mnard pressuremeter modulus (marked t-z on Fig. 6a) as

proposed by Frank and Zhao in 1982 (Gambin and Frank 2009). When input

parameters come from the CPT, the method proposed by NEN 6743 (NEN 1991)

relies on the same principle but q-z curves are smoothed curves.

In addition to the elastic or semi-empirical methods, numerical methods have been

used by three participants (NUM in Fig. 6a). Several methods have been applied in

order to identify the constitutive parameters of the soil model adopted: laboratory test

results given in the paper (participant No.1), parameters imposed in the benchmark

data (participant No.1), correlations based on the Mnard pressuremeter modulus

(participants Nos.8 and 9), inverse analysis of pressuremeter curves (participants

Nos.6 and 10).

Figure 6b shows the proposed load-settlement curves as calculated according to

Fascicule 62-V and to NEN 6743 and as submitted by five participants in the

benchmarking compared with the actual pile load test curve. Among conventional

methods, it seems that the q-z or t-z curve method used by four of the participants

gives results closest to reality (participants Nos.8 and 9 on fig. 6b).

8

600

800 1000 1200 1400

t-z

10

NUM

5

NUM

NUM

t-z

2

t-z

t-z

settlement (mm)

yo predicted/yo observed

400

200

15

20

25

9 10 11

participants

1

6

8

30

35

40

Load test

9

10

NEN6743

45

a) 50

FIG. 6 Settlement prediction

b)

Parameter origin

Parameter values

yo (mm)

Load

Fasc. 62-V

NEN Poulos &Davis

(1974)

test Frank & Zhao 6743

PMT

CPT

Triaxial

Particip. No.9 table 1

Es=50 MPa

1

1

3.9

1.2

Bowles

(1997)

SPT

N=25

1.6

Under a 500 kN load, the settlements estimated by PMT and CPT methods and more

classical methods are very similar (Fig. 6a & table 2). It is difficult to judge the

accuracy of these computations as the measured settlement is very small. During the

benchmarking, the participants have overestimated the settlement by an average ratio

of 3.42.

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

CONCLUSIONS

In the ISP5 pile prediction exercise, whichever the method used, the bearing

capacity and settlements estimated were conservative compared to the actual pile

load test results. Predicted bearing capacities have proven relatively close to

observation while some of the settlements were seriously overestimated. This finding

may be due to the nature of soil: a very overconsolidated and fissured clay leads to a

difficult assessment of the mechanical characteristics. However the t-z curve

method seems to give the best results.

REFERENCES

AFNOR (1991). Essai pressiomtrique Mnard French Standard NF P 94-110, La

Plaine Saint-Denis, 43 p.

Bowles J.E. (1997) Foundation analysis and design, 5th edition, Mc Graw-Hill Int.

Eds., 1175 p.

Bustamante M., Gianeselli L. (1981). Prvision de la capacit portante des pieux

isols sous charge verticale, Rgles pressiomtriques et pntromtriques, Bull.

des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chausses, 113: 83-108.

Bustamante M., Jzquel J.-F. (1989). Essai statique de pieu isol sous charge axiale,

Mthode dessai LPC n31, LCPC Paris, 12 p.

Bustamante M., Gambin M., Gianeselli L. (2009). Pile Design at Failure Using the

Mnard Pressuremeter : an Up-Date, Proc. IFCEE 09, ASCE.

Combarieu O. (1990). Comparaison des rgles pressiomtriques 1972 et 1985 de

calcul de la capacit portante des pieux, Bull. des Laboratoires des Ponts et

Chausses, 170: 101-111.

Combarieu O., Canpa Y.(2007). Mthode de calcul de la capacit portante des

pieux, Working document CNOG P94-262, 4 p.

CEN (2006). Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design Part 2: Ground investigation and

testing, European Standard EN 1997-2, 222 p.

Gambin M., Frank R. (2009). Direct Design Rules for Piles Using Mnard

Pressuremeter, Proc. IFCEE 09, ASCE.

Long M. (2008). Design parameters from in situ tests in soft ground recent

developments, ISC3 Taiwan, Geotechnical and Geophysical Site

Characterization Huang & Mayne (eds) Taylor & Francis Group, London,

pp.89-116

MELT (1993). Rgles techniques de calcul et de conception des fondations des

ouvrages de gnie civil, CCTG Fascicule 62 Titre V, Ministre de

lquipement, du Logement et des Transports, Paris, Texte officiel N 93-3,

182 p.

NEN (1991). Calculation method for bearing capacity of pile foundation,

compression pile, Dutch Standard NEN 6743, 31 p.

Poulos H. G., Davis E. H. (1974). Elastic solutions for soil and rock mechanics, John

Wyley & Sons, 411 p.

Reiffsteck P. (2005). Portance et tassements des fondations profondes : prsentation

des rsultats du concours de prvision, Symp. Int. ISP5-PRESSIO 2005, 50 ans

de pressiomtres, Gambin et al. (eds.), Presses de l'ENPC/LCPC, 2 :521-536.

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

Menard Pressuremeter

Franois Schlosser1, Alain Guilloux2, Kamel Zaghouani3, Patrick Berthelot4.

1

Professor Em., Ecole Nat. des Ponts et Chausses. Marne-la-Valle, France ; schlosserfr@wanadoo.fr

General Manager, Terrasol, 72 av. Pasteur, 93108 Montreuil Cedex, France ; a.guilloux@terrasol.com

3

Manager, Terrasol Tunisie, 2 rue M. Abdessalem, El Menzeh V, Tunis ; k.zaghouani@terrasol.com.tn

4

Geotechnical Director, Veritas, 92400 Courbevoie, France; patrick.berthelot@bureauveritas.com

2

ABSTRACT: The founding soil of the Rades-La Goulette cable-stayed bridge in the

Tunis Lake is made up of compressible clays for depths exceeding 120 m. The two main

towers were founded on groups of 2m OD and 80 m deep drilled shafts. Two soil

surveys were carried out with the Menard pressuremeter down to 105 m depth and were

used to predict the bearing capacity of the piles and to estimate their settlement. To

check the predictions loading tests were performed, in particular a Class A one on a 1

meter OD and 80 meter deep test drilled shaft. Comparing the observed settlement

versus load curve with the predicted one showed a fairly good agreement.

INTRODUCTION

The Rades-La Goulette cable-stayed bridge, constructed in the lake of Tunis area

provides a north to south connection which avoids the Downtown area by spanning the

Straight Canal linking the old Tunis harbor to the sea. The bridge is connected to the

Tunis-La Goulette expressway by an interchange which has replaced the road along the

old canal. Land reclaimed from the lake was required to construct the interchange for

which embankments and access bridges were erected. The main part of the bridge

consists of three cable-stayed spans, respectively 70 m, 120 m and 70 m long so

providing a 20 m high and 70 m wide passage for ships. The two towers reach 40 m

above sea level. Figure 1 shows a longitudinal section of the cable stayed bridge with the

soil profile also shown.

One of the main features of the project was the founding soil of compressible clays

exceeding 120 meters deep. For this reason the foundations of the two main piers P12

and P13 was originally designed with a square group of 8 piles 2 m OD and 100 m deep.

Shaft drilling started in 2005 with bentonite slurry using conventional auger boring

down to 60 m depth and then reverse circulation drilling (RCD) below that. RCD was

required to correct departures from verticality.

The construction of the first drilled shaft for pier P12 faced difficulties with RCD due

to a sticky clay from 60-70 m depth and it refused at 80 m depth. A new foundation was

therefore designed for the two piers P12 and P13, consisting in a square group of 9

shorter piles at 75 m deep. Furthermore a loading test on a 1meter OD pile was

commissioned in addition to an Osterberg pile load test performed in 2005. However the

two adjacent piers P11 and P14 at the ends of the bridge remain founded on a square

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

GEOTECHNICAL SURVEYS

Two geotechnical surveys, one for the preliminary design and one for the construction

design were required for the foundations of the main cable-stayed span, the access

bridges and the interchange. As the Mnard pressuremeter (PMT) was considered to be a

very useful tool for the design of deep foundations in compressible clays the first survey

for the main span involved two pressuremeter boreholes down to 105 m depth and 2

boreholes to the same depth for soil sampling. The second survey involved 4 PMT

soundings down to 115 m depth, 4 boreholes to the same depth for soil sampling and 2

CPTu (piezocone) soundings though these last refused at 25 m depth. Disturbed and

undisturbed samples were used for determining index properties and for laboratory

direct shear, triaxial and consolidation tests.

The soil stratification in the cable-stayed bridge area was as follow:

x mud and very soft clay (0.5 to 8.5 m depth) : layer I

x sand and clayey sand (8.5 to 17.5 m depth) : layer II

x plastic clay (17.5 to 24 m depth) : layer III

x fine sand and fine silty sand (24 to 35.5m): layer IV

x plastic medium stiff and stiff clay (35.5 m to 115 m) : layer V

These five layers were divided into sub-layers as shown in figure 2 once the Mnard

parameters were known. Fig. 2 also shows the pLM*(= pLM p0) graphs for the six PMT

soundings. It is interesting to note that the mean pLM* values in the clay layer V changes

fairly linearly from 1 MPa at 35.5 m depth to 2.3 MPa at 90 m depth.

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

DESIGN

The PMT data were used to design the deep foundations of the cable-stayed and

access spans both in the preliminary design and in the construction design. The bearing

capacity and the settlement of the pile groups were estimated. However, only the

construction design of the deep foundations for main piers P12 and P13 and for the

adjacent piers P11 and P14, are presented here.

Bearing capacity of the isolated shaft and of the shaft group

The conventional Menard formula : ql qo = kp.pLM* was used for estimating the limit

load Qp at the isolated shaft tip or at a shaft group base, where the bearing factor kp as a

function of soil type and pile type is obtained from the French Code of Practice

(M.E.L.T. 1991; Frank 1994). The qs(z) values for estimating the total limiting friction

resistance Qs along the shaft were also determined using this Code of Practice from qs,

and pLM* curves plotted as a function of soil type and pile type. This method is based on

the analysis of a large number of pile load tests (Bustamante et al. 2009).

For an isolated drilled shaft 75 m deep and 2 m OD at piers P12 or P13 and a similar

one 60 m deep and 1 m OD at piers P11 or P14, the limit bearing capacity at the tip Qp

and in friction along the shaft Qs are given by equations (1) where kp = 1.2 :

Qp = (kp.pLM* + q0).S

Qs '0L qs(z).dz

(1)

From the French Code of Practice, the creep load Qc and the maximum serviceable

load Qa of the shaft are given by equations (2) :

Qc = 0.5 Qp + 0.7 Qs

Qa = Qc/1.4

(2)

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

Numerical results are presented in table 1. The maximum serviceable load on the shaft

must be checked against the (Q + Wp) load where Q is the maximum quasi permanent

in-service load on the isolated shaft and Wp is the self-weight of the pile. The ratios for

piers P11, P12, P13 and P14 are respectively 1.16, 1.05, 1.05 and 1.39, i.e. all greater

than 1.0 as required.

Table 1. Pile Tip Resistance Qp, Shaft resistance Qs, Creep Load Qc

& Service Load Qa

Shaft

Qp (MN)

Qs(MN)

Qc (MN)

3.92

7.99

12.25

20.36

10.54

18.25

P11 or P14

P12 or P13

Qa=Qc/1.4 (MN)

7.53

13.03

For the drilled pile group at piers P11, P12, P13 and P14, two methods were used for

estimating the admissible load: (a) using the group effect efficiency coefficient Ce and

(b) using the equivalent pile concept of a vertical cylinder enveloping the shafts. Both

give acceptable values of the ratio R of the maximum serviceable load Qga to the actual

service load (Q + W). R must, obviously, be greater than 1.0. However, method (a) gives

smaller values of R than the equivalent pile method (b).

Settlement prediction

The pressuremeter modulus EM gave valuable settlement information at the deep

foundations of all three bridges. The pile group at pier P12 is now presented.

A preliminary calculation was performed for an isolated drilled shaft, 75 m deep and 2

m OD, subject to the maximum service load in one of the 9 pile group. The method of

Frank and Zhao (1982) was used to find the mobilized shDIWIULFWLRQVWUHVVYHUVXVWKH

local shaft displacement s, and the mobilized vertical stress q versus the tip displacement

sp $V LQGLFDWHG LQ ILJXUH WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ FXUYHV V DQG TVp) have a non linear

shape and involve 4 parameters : the maximum values qs, qp and two gradients k and kq.

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

For soil and reinforced concrete, a short term and a long term E-modulus were

considered. A pressuremeter modulus at long term was set at 1.5 times the short term

value. The reinforced concrete modulus values calculated are respectively 40 600 MPa

in the short term and 22 000 MPa in the long term, taking into account the steel

reinforcement effect.

The distribution of shear stress ]DQGRIORDG4]DUHGHWHUPLQHGIURPGLIIHUHQWLDO

equations resulting from considerations of a) local equilibrium of the shaft; b) linear

elasticity of the shaft; c) Frank and Zhao mobilization of qs and qu stresses.

A settlement calculation of the isolated pile of pier P12 was then performed using two

methods: (a) Frank and Zhao method using the FOXTA computer program of Simon et

al., (2002) and (b) the Finite Element Method (FEM). using PLAXIS and an elastoplastic behavior of the soil in which the elastic modulus E is taken as EM 7KH

settlement values for the maximum in-service load are as follows :

where sst : short term settlement

FOXTA : sst = 5.3 mm; slt = 8.9 mm

slt : long term settlement

PLAXIS : sst = 14 mm; slt = 26 mm

Settlements calculated by PLAXIS are around 3 times those calculated by FOXTA.

However, the Frank and Zhao method gives a settlement fairly close to the actual value

as will be seen later. In order to get similar results with PLAXIS, the elastic modulus of

the soil would have to be taken as equal to 3 EM /)LJXUHVKRZVWKHORDG-settlement

curve calculated by FOXTA for the isolated pile above. There is a sudden change in the

slope at 19 MN pile head load. This corresponds fairly well to the creep load Qc

calculated as 18.25 MN.

The settlement of the group of 9 piles under pier P12 was calculated by the same two

methods as for the isolated pile. The group was also modeled by an equivalent pile

enveloping the drilled shafts and the soil between them, i.e. a pile section close to a

square assumed to behave as a solid body. The equivalent elastic modulus of this pile

was calculated from the elastic modulus of the drilled shaft and of the soil with E = EM

/LPLWLQJVKDIWIULFWLRQTs of the soil elements along the equivalent pile were taken as

equal to the soil shear strength and the same value of the bearing factor at the base kp =

1.2 was taken as for isolated pile. The FEM calculation was in two dimensions assuming

axisymmetry. Settlement values are as follows:

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

where sst : short term settlement

slt = 52 mm

slt : long term settlement

PLAXIS : sst = 37 mm;

As for the isolated drilled shaft, the settlements calculated by FEM are roughly 3 times

those calculated by Frank and Zhao, which are in the range of the observed E/EM values

(Baguelin et al. 1986).

This leads to a stiffness of the drilled shaft group under the service load about 3 times

smaller than that of one of the 9 isolated piles. It results from the fact that shaft friction

is proportionally smaller in the group than in the isolated pile.

Calculations from the FOXTA program using Frank and Zhao were considered to be

the most representative ones.

PILE LOADING TESTS

sterberg pile load test

The first pile loading test using the Osterberg O-cell procedure was performed in 2005.

It consists of loading a pile constructed in two parts approximately 2/3 and 1/3 of the

total length and with a horizontal hydraulic jack located at the junction. Strain gauges

are placed at the tip for measuring the mobilization of the tip resistance .This particular

pile was 1.5 m OD and 63 m long.

Figure 5 shows a loadsettlement curve obtained from the test data of a conventional

load test. Also shown is the curve calculated by the Frank and Zhao method using the

FOXTA program. The two curves coincide until the load attains the creep load Qc of 10

MN for the two curves. After creep load, failure is much more rapidly reached in the

experimental curve. This difference was identified as a defect at the drilled shaft tip and,

it was decided as a result to grout all drilled shaft tips.

Instrumented pile test with loading at the pile head

To show that a reduction of the drilled shaft length to 75 m for the foundations of piers

P12 and P13 was possible a conventional Class A pile loading test was performed

according to the French Standard. The pile was equipped with vibrating wire strain

gauges to measure the distribution of the load along the pile.

The pile tested was 80 m deep and 1.5 m in diameter. Figure 6 shows the experimental

load-settlement (Q, s) curve and the one predicted by FOXTA using the Frank-Zhao

method.

Contrary to the Osterberg pile load test results, the comparison between experimental

and predicted curves shows a good agreement for the limit load. QLE= 12.5 MN for a

B/10 settlement and the predicted QL = 12.1 MN. However, some differences in the

creep load, experimental Qc = 10.2 MN and predicted Qc = 8.1 MN, as well as in the pile

stiffness which was observed to be twice the predicted value. This observation increased

the safety of the bridge foundations and the results of this second pile load test justified

the use of reduced length piles in the final construction.

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

curves from results of the sterberg

pile load test with the predicted curve

for a pile 60 m deep and 1.5 m OD.

FIG. 6. Measured and calculated loadsettlement curves for the class A drilled

shaft loading test (pile: 80 m length, 1 m

in diameter)

It is interesting to look at graphs of the load distribution in the pile as presented in

figure 7.

In each Q-z curve, the slope is proportional to the value of the mobilized shaft friction

DWWKLVOHYHO4] 6ZKHUH6LVWKHSLOHFURVVVHFWLRQDODUHD)RUWKHORDGDWWKH

pile head Q0 = 1.5 MN the shaft friction is only slightly mobilized and there is

practically no load in the shaft below 55 m depth. Under increasing load, the whole pile

is progressively stressed until the whole shaft friction is mobilized. This corresponds to

Q0 = 9 MN where the tip resistance is not yet mobilized and the shaft behaves as a

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&& "

friction pile. As Q0 increases the tip resistance is progressively mobilized and the load

distribution graph translates upwards. Since the creep load Qc is 10.2 MN, the pile

behaves as a friction pile for all Q0 values in the range (0, Qa) of the shaft service loads,

where Qa = Qc/1.4 = 7.3 MN.

CONCLUSION

The Menard pressuremeter was a most valuable tool for the design of very deep

foundations in compressible clays at the Rades bridge. It easily characterized the soil

down to 105 meters deep and reliably measured important soil properties.

It is shown here to be very well adapted to the direct design of deep foundations both

for bearing capacity and for settlement. This finding confirms the results of large

numbers of instrumented pile load tests.

The fairly good agreement between estimated and measured settlements in the

instrumented pile loading tests performed for the Rades bridge is an additional proof of

its capability.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors are grateful to the Ministry of Public Works of Tunisia and to Tasei

Corporation for permitting to use the data of the investigations and the pile loading tests.

REFERENCES

Baguelin, F., Bustamante, M., Frank, R. (1986). The pressuremeter for foundations:

French experience. Proc. Conference on the Use of In-Situ Tests in Geotechnical

Engineering, Blacksburg, VA, ASCE, Geot. Special Pub., No.6, pp.31-46.

Bustamante, M., Gambin, M., Gianeselli, L. (2009) Pile Design at Failure Using the

Mnard Pressuremeter: an Up-Date, Proc. IFCEE 09, ASCE.

Frank, R., Zhao S.R. (1982). Estimation par les paramtres pressiomtriques de

lenfoncement sous charge axiale des pieux fors dans les sols fins. Bull. Liaison

Labo P. et Ch., n 119 : 17-24.

Frank, R. (1994). The new Eurocode and the new French code for the design of the deep

foundations. Proc. Int. Conf. Design and Construction of Deep Foundations.

Orlando. Florida. FHWA Vol.1: 279-304.

M.E.L.T. (1991). Design Rules for Foundations, Tender Documents for Public Works.

CCTG, Fasc. n 62, TitreV (in French). Imprimerie Nationale Paris.

Simon, B., Kazmierczak, J.B., Bernhardt, V. (2002). Benefits from a modular foundation

design software. Proc. 5th Eur. Conf. Numerical Methods in Geot. Eng. NUMGE,

Mestat (ed.) 2002, Presses de l'ENPC/LCPC, Paris; 357 362.

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

Using Mnard PMT

Jean-Yves Boumedi1, Jean-Pierre Baud2 & Bruno Radiguet3

1

jy.boumedi@bouygues-construction.com

CEO, Eurogeo, Avrainville, France, baud@eurogeo.fr

3

Head, Design Office, Bouygues-Travaux Publics, Le Challenger, St. Quentin en Yvelines, France,

b.radiguet@bouygues-construction.com

2

ABSTRACT: The Damietta Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) tank farm is situated in the

lower Nile Valley, in an area prone to earthquakes. The design of the piles was based on

a combination of various in situ surveys, using mainly Mnard PMT. The results of

vertical and horizontal load tests showed good agreement with predictions based on

Mnard PMT direct design methods.

1. INTRODUCTION

The gas liquefaction plant of Damietta (Dumyt) in Egypt is located along the eastern

stream of the Nile delta. It will produce 5 million tonnes of LNG per year. It includes

4 tanks 40 m high, 80 m in diameter and on 155 m centers, each is designed to store

150 000 m3 of liquefied gas. The storage tank design integrates a pre-stressed concrete

wall with an above-ground dual metal shell structure. The two Train # 1 reservoirs, built

in 2003 (Union Fenosa 2006) are the subject of this paper.

2. GEOLOGY

Damietta Harbour, located on the Mediterranean, is in a seismic area due to the

colliding of the African and Eurasian tectonic plates. The zone is classified 3 on the

Egyptian Seismic Scale. Tsunamis were recorded in the years 365, 1303 and 1908 (Riad

and Yousef 1999).

The Nile delta recent deposits include sub-horizontal layers of gravel, sand, silt and

clay interbedded over depths exceeding 1000 m. These deposits date from the end of the

Tertiary era to the present day. Several aquifers fed by the Nile river flow through this

geological profile.

Several site investigations were carried out at various stages of the project, including

two boreholes down to 45 and 95 m depth with core-sampling and SPTs, 15 CPTus

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

down to 40 m around the proposed tanks and in their center, though many of these

refused at 25 m, and three Mnard PMT (ASTM D 4719) soundings to 65 and 95 m

depth at each tank location.

The soil profile is as follows :

- 0 12 m

the upper sand layer (USL)

- 12 28 m black soft clay (SoC)

- 28 60 m yellowish fine to medium sand underlying an intermittent layer of

stiff silty clay (DS & SC)

- 60 95 m grey to black stiff clay with peat pockets (HC)

- 95 110 m dense sands (DS)

FIG. 1. Mnard PMT data: (a) Pressuremeter Modulus EM, and (b) Limit Pressure

pLM.

Mnard PMT data logs are plotted together in Fig.1 and mean values for the 6

boreholes are listed below in Table 1 :

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

Layer

Upper Sand

Soft Clay

Stiff Silty Clay

Dense Sand

Hard Clay

+1.4

-12

-29

-36

-60

EM (MPa)

5.8

8.1

12.2

20.7

22.1

pLM (MPa)

0.69

0.57

1.55

2.98

2.59

3. TANK FOUNDATIONS

Each tank applies a pressure of 0.264 MPa to the soil. The foundation is resting on

1.20 m (4 ft) O.D. drilled shafts, 316 in number and 47 m deep. Together they represent

15 300 m of large diameter drilling and 20 000 m3 of concrete.

Each shaft, drilled using bentonite slurry, required 7.4 metric tonnes of reinforcement

and 53 m3 of concrete. Sonic control pipes were installed in 48 of the piles. One vertical

load test and one lateral load test were performed, each following ASTM D1143:1 and

ASTM D3966:1. In addition, 29 piles were subjected to sonic testing, all 316 piles were

tested by the impedance method and two were dynamically tested.

%&&&&&&&

&$$!& && $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!& &

Vertical Load Testing

The vertical test pile was located between the 2 tanks as in Fig. 2 and was drilled down

to a depth of 47.80 m at a diameter of 1200 mm. It was loaded up to 1000 tons (Fig. 3),

i.e. twice the service capacity of the foundation piles.

TIME - LOAD DIAGRAM

1200

Time (minutes)

0

800

Settlement (mm)

Load (tonnes)

1000

600

Pile length : 47,80 m

400

200

0

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Time (minutes)

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Ultimate Bearing Capacity

Various methods were used to assess the ultimate pile capacity, among them the Chin

modified method (Chin 1978) in which the ratio of settlement divided by corresponding

applied load is plotted against the settlement (Fig. 4). The slope of the best linear fit to

the graph gives 1364 tonnes here corresponding to a pile stress q =11.8 MPa. This

method has been recently tested on 50 instrumented piles in various soils (Borel et al.

2000). The authors there showed that if the test is not carried close enough to failure, the

assumptions lead to an underestimate of pile ultimate capacity.

CHIN'S MODIFIED METHOD (1978)

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

tonnes)

Settlement (mm)

0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Load (tonnes)

0.01

0.009

0.008

0.007

0.006

0.005

0.004

0.003

0.002

0.001

0

y = 6.38E-04x + 3.83E-03

Settlement (mm)

10

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&

According to EUROCODE 7, part 2 (CEN 2006), the ultimate load Qult can be

calculated from Mnard pressuremeter tests using the equation :

Qult = Qpu + Qsu

(1)

(2)

- the ultimate tip load being

Qpu = A x kp x [pLM p0]

where A is the pile section, kp a bearing factor based on soil type and p0 is the horizontal

earth pressure at rest, (Gambin & Frank 2009),

- and the ultimate skin friction

Qsu = P x 6 [qsi x zi]

where P is the pile perimeter and qsi the unit shaft resistance at a depth zi.

(3)

By using these equations and the Mnard PMT design parameters, listed in Table 2, it

is possible to predict Qult = 1554 tonnes (qult = 13.48 MPa) which is rather higher than

Qult found by extrapolating the vertical pile loading by Chin's method.

Table 2. Mnard Design Parameters by Layer

Layer

Upper Sand

Soft Clay

Stiff Silty Clay

Dense Sand

pLM (MPa)

0.70

0.57

1.55

3.00

kp

1.2

qsi (MPa)

0.04

0.03

0.10

0.14

zi (m)

14.0

17.0

8.0

24.0

According to the French Design Code (M.E.L.T. 1993), the creep bearing capacity Qc

corresponding to the end of the pseudo elastic resistance for the pile, can be obtained by

Qc = 0.5 Qpu + 0.7 Qsu

(4)

Here, the Qc value was 985 tonnes (q = 8.5 MPa), which was conservative.

Pile Settlement Estimate

An iterative method to estimate pile settlement from Menard pressuremeter data was

proposed in the early years of the development of this technique (Gambin 1963). In this

method a small displacement w at the pile tip under a first load step is assumed and

which results in a small tip pressure q , given by :

w = (q / 2EM) . 0.3 (B/0.6)

(5)

where O is a shape factor, The skin friction then mobilized in each soil layer for a

displacement wi is calculated by :

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&"

(6)

where Cj varies with the type of pile,

qsi is the mobilized skin friction for the displacement wi limited by a value now

given by EUROCODE 7 (CEN 2006),

is the rheological factor of the layer exhibiting a modulus EM.

Good agreement with pile test data was obtained using a coefficient Cj = 1.1 (Fig. 5).

0

10

12

Stress q (MPa)

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

qc = 10.35 MPa

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

Loading test

Settlement after Gambin (1963)

Settlement after Frank & Zhao (1982)

Settlement w

(cm)

Today, the French Design Code (MELT 1993) and EUROCODE 7 recommend the use

of the more sophisticated method introduced for fine soils by Frank and Zhao (1982).

The skin friction mobilisation equation becomes qsi = Kt . w up to qsi = qs /2 for that

soil layer and then qsi = (Kt /5) w up to qs, (Gambin & Frank 2009),

where the modulus of subgrade reaction Kt is given :

- for fine soils : Kt = 2.0 EM/B

- for granular soils : Kt = 0.8 EM/B

This method was tested with the PIVER software of the French Government

Laboratories for Bridges and Roads (LPCs). The best fit was obtained for Kt = 1.3 EM/B

in all fine sands and silt layers (Fig.5).

For these two methods at this site, the authors think it necessary to use the pile

parameters closer to fine soils or clays than to sands, due to the very fine grain size

of sands and silts in all layers.

%&&&&&&&

&$$!&&& $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&"

A lateral loading test between the same pile and an additional reaction pile was carried

out according to ASTM D 3966.

Load (tonnes)

The applied lateral load was 100 tonnes, i.e. twice the design service load for the pile.

The results (Fig.6) typically show a reaction with two linear segments corresponding to

the two moduli of subgrade reaction, the second being half the first, as it appears on

diagram in article 3.1 in Appendix C5 of the French Design Code for Public Works

(MELT 1991), for short time action.

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

85 tonnes

K/2

50 tonnes

K

18,32 mm

5,01 mm

10

20

30

Displacement (mm)

It was possible to calculate the value of this reaction from PMT data, using a

"modulus" Kf derived from EM. Here Kf = 40 MPa. The maximum displacement G can

then be estimated with pL = 0.7 MPa as measured in the top meter of the pile. The value

obtained, G = 31 mm compares well with the observation of 28 mm measured at 100

tonnes loading.

By following the original Mnard Direct Design Rules (Gambin 1979), the head

displacement of a pile deeper than 3 times the elastic length L0 is given by :

y0 = 2T0/L0.k.B

(7)

displacement under 85 tonnes is 16.4 mm, in good agreement with observation.

%&&&&&&&

&$$!& && $&!$&$

&# &!!
&!!&&"

Union Fenosa LNG tanks at Damietta, founded on 316 piles, 47 m deep, were

successfully designed using PMT data. The various loading tests carried out on a test pile

proved the accuracy of the Menard Direct Design Rules. The influence of the soil grain

size was pointed out.

The authors appreciate the collaboration of Prof. R. Frank and J.-C. Dupla (Cermes,

Marne-la-Valle) for having let them use the PIVER software, and Mr. Clive Dalton

(Cambridge Insitu Ltd, UK) for reviewing the final version of the text.

6. REFERENCES

ASTM (2008). D 1143-1 Standard Test Method for Piles Under Axial Compressive

Load, D 3966 Standard Test Method for Piles Under Lateral Load and D 4719

Standard Test Methods for Prebored Pressuremeter Testing in Soils, Annual Book of

Standards.

Borel, S., Bustamante, M., Gianeselli, L. (2004). An appraisal of the Chin method based

on 50 instrumented pile tests, Ground Engineering, January, Vol.37, No.1, pp.22-26.

Bustamante, M., Frank, R. (1999). Current French Design Practice for Axially Loaded

Piles Ground Engineering, March, London, pp.38 44.

Bustamante, M., Gambin, M. and Gianeselli, L. (2009). " Pile Design at Failure Using

the Mnard Pressuremeter", Proc. IFCEE 09, ASCE.

CEN (2006). Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design Part 2: Ground investigation and

testing, pp. 123-124, Brussels.

Chin F.K. (1978). Diagnosis of pile condition, Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 9, pp. 85104.

Frank, R. and Zhao, S. R. (1982). "Estimation par les paramtres pressiomtriques de

l'enfoncement sous charge axiale des pieux fors dans les sols fins", Bull. liaison Labo

P. et Ch., n 119, mai-juin 1982, pp. 17-24.

Gambin, M. (1963). "Settlement of a deep foundation in terms of PMT data" (in French),

Sols-Soils, n7, Paris, pp. 11-31 (large abstracts in English and in German).

Gambin, M. (1979). Calculation of Foundations Subjected to Horizontal Forces Using

Pressuremeter Data, Sols-Soils, No. 30-31, Paris, pp.17-59.

Gambin, M. and Frank, R. (2009). "Direct Design Rules for Piles Using Mnard

Pressuremeter, Proc. IFCEE 09, ASCE.

M.E.L.T. (1993). Design Rules for Foundations, Tender Documents for Public Works.

CCTG, Fascicule 62, Titre V (in French), Imprimerie Nationale, Paris

Riad, S. and Yousef, M. (1999). Earth Hazards Assessment on the Southern Part of the

Western Desert of Egypt, Assiut University Report, Egypt, January.

Union Fenosa (2006). "Damietta LNG plant, first LNG plant in Egypt", GE Oil and Gas

Annual Meeting, Florence, January 30-31, 2006 (available at www.unionfenosa.com).

4pages:Mise en page 1

10/09/09

10:26

Page 3

4pages:Mise en page 1

10/09/09

10:26

Page 4

http://www.apageo.com

or contact info@apageo.com

Tel. +33 130523542 - Fax. +33 130523028

- Time Effects on Bearing Capacity of Driven PilesDiunggah olehsmw
- lateral load pile P-Y method.xlsDiunggah olehCarlos Valverde Portilla
- Detail Tulangan Spun-pileDiunggah olehAlan
- Pressure GroutingDiunggah olehbdr7676
- Integral Abutment and Jointless BridgesDiunggah olehNurali Mamen
- FINAL BOQDiunggah olehGoanengineer
- Writeup for FdpDiunggah olehPrakash Mahandra
- Method Statement - Test PilingDiunggah olehMcr Kumara
- Raithel_NottinghamDiunggah olehJamie Moore
- Challenges-and-Recent-Advance-in-Geotechnics-for-Foundation-Engineering.pdfDiunggah olehCherry Ng
- Piling SpecsDiunggah olehElvis Gray
- 3 0ktober 2012 Latihan Industri.vvpptxDiunggah olehGillian Hurley
- TRACK RECORDS Pile InstrumentDiunggah olehAnonymous S7Cq7ZDgP
- 2001_02Diunggah olehJalaluddin Johan
- Pile Problem 1Diunggah olehReemALMousawi
- 4.01.General Requirements for Piling WorkDiunggah olehAnonymous 94TBTBRks
- Attachment #2-1_Badra Soil Report_PileDiunggah olehtanujaayer
- Knysna Half ViaductDiunggah olehkhitruilong
- 278 Ground Vibration AnalysisDiunggah olehBobby Setiawan
- An Advanced Software for the Geotechnical Design of FoundationsDiunggah olehHiren Desai
- 6.4.2017 pilelogDiunggah olehKarl Todd
- 1973_05_0029Diunggah olehFederico Montesverdes
- 13Diunggah olehshivamomshanti
- Development of a Database for Drilled SHAft Foundation Testing (D.pdfDiunggah olehsunilvenky
- 250mm B- WALL Estimate NewDiunggah olehRAHUL KUMAR
- Influence of Anchor Inclination on Pull-out Resistance of ClaysDiunggah olehSen Hu
- LpileDiunggah olehelahi1979
- Temporary Works_ Principles of Design and Construction ( PDFDrive.com ).pdfDiunggah olehTarek Abulail
- 310 Discussion on pile stiffness.pdfDiunggah olehDavid
- TTesttatementDiunggah olehWray Tan

- Comprehensive Design Example for Prestressed Concrete (Psc) Girder Superstructure BridgeDiunggah olehaleitaosilva
- One Dimensional Nonlinear Ground Response Anlyses of Soft Soil Deposits of Kathmandu Valley, NepalDiunggah olehHem Shahi
- NERA ManualDiunggah olehCristi Neagu
- Second Ammendant on Notice No--10-PMEU-073-74, Package No-- PMEU-337159-073-74 DPR 14-15, PMEU-337335-073-74 DPR 1-7, PMEU-337123-073-74 DPR 1-6,PMEU. (1)Diunggah olehHem Shahi
- Eni et alDiunggah olehHem Shahi
- List of Irc CodesDiunggah olehMichael Chang
- For 35m SPAN Plate Grider Bridge Layout1 (3)Diunggah olehHem Shahi
- Revised Geo Technical Reports of Trishuli River Bridge at NuwakotDiunggah olehHem Shahi
- Rara ShortDiunggah olehHem Shahi
- Kalika EngineeringDiunggah olehHem Shahi
- Guideline for Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Volume 1.pdfDiunggah olehHem Shahi
- Rock Type and SymbolDiunggah olehHem Shahi
- ProfileDiunggah olehHem Shahi
- ProfileDiunggah olehHem Shahi
- NasuDiunggah olehHem Shahi
- Bearing Capacity FactorsDiunggah olehHem Shahi
- Beam DetailingDiunggah olehHem Shahi
- Solution of SMDiunggah olehHem Shahi
- Aplication CV CertificateDiunggah olehHem Shahi

- 2009-Neuronorma-4-VOSP-JLO.pdfDiunggah olehSu Aja
- 06_PlateTheory_06_PolarCoordinatesDiunggah olehRajeswari Machiraju
- validityDiunggah olehnirma_avon
- FARM+ACTSC_Fin2012-13Diunggah olehthomas94joseph
- 123.docxDiunggah olehsyed najaf ali
- eocscholarstutoringprogram2017Diunggah olehapi-320099480
- int ii disclosureDiunggah olehapi-261771450
- [16]_Analysis and Design of an Active Power Filter Using Quad-series Voltage-source PWM ConvertersDiunggah olehrakeshee2007
- 1433453475R P Newsletter _June 2014FINALDiunggah olehAtul Gupta
- Capacity of Piles GroupDiunggah olehRajesh Shukla
- equilibriumDiunggah olehahmedwamai
- Sbi Clerk Mains Question Paper 2018.PDF 83Diunggah olehKetan Amrute
- GEDION.pdfDiunggah olehyeshi janexo
- Electro Magnetic FieldDiunggah olehKapil_1983
- SCH 4U Molar Enthalpy and Calorimetry PptDiunggah olehKhairatun Nisa
- ComputationalDiunggah olehSangeeth Roshan
- 1-s2.0-S0301479714004150-main(1).pdfDiunggah olehHamzah M
- The Main Eigenvalues and Number of Walks in Self-complementary GraphsDiunggah olehKelli Chang
- Linear Convolution Using GUIDiunggah olehRamya R Mallya
- Harvard Applied Mathematics 21a SyllabusDiunggah olehJ
- 10 -- LAB -- Geogebra and Streching FunctionsDiunggah olehjnewman85
- KTU ME-VBDiunggah olehBibin Mathew Jose
- hw5Diunggah olehKiran Adhikari
- Quantum ChromodynamicsDiunggah olehgladioacuto
- sqwdewfwefwDiunggah olehKent Emmanuel C. Soria
- Tutorial - Flat SlabDiunggah olehsijagal
- Detecting and Resolving Firewall Policy AnomaliesDiunggah olehmanojkumar_216
- MathDiunggah olehyanaamari
- catapult info sheetDiunggah olehapi-169639475
- Heat DistributionDiunggah olehabcpqr123456

## Lebih dari sekadar dokumen.

Temukan segala yang ditawarkan Scribd, termasuk buku dan buku audio dari penerbit-penerbit terkemuka.

Batalkan kapan saja.