Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
11
Michel Bustamante, Michel (Mike) Gambin, Fellow ASCE & Luigi Gianeselli
ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 186 p.127-134
19
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
35
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
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&"
borehole. This, however, stresses the soil in three dimensions anyway and at the
actual in-situ stress.
A test consists of 4 pairs of pressure and volume readings at each pressure holds at
1, 15, 30 and 60 seconds. The number of pressure holds for one test is always greater
than 7 and number of readings during a test is thus more than 50. Data loggers print
out values of the main parameters and graphs on the spot. Since tests are almost
always carried out at one meter depth intervals a lot of data is obtained from a single
borehole.
3. THEORY BEHIND THE MNARD DESIGN RULES
By a simple analysis of the continuous stress-strain curve obtained at each test
depth, two main parameters characterize each soil layer (ASTM 1987 - present) :
- an E-modulus called Pressuremeter Modulus, written EM, and
- a Limit Pressure, written pLM , which by convention is reached when the
volume of the expanded cavity has doubled.
The determination of pLM requires a simple graphical operation, EM, however must
be derived from the equation for the expansion of an infinite cylindrical cavity in an
elastic medium which produces the shear modulus G from the shear deformation of
the pressuremeter test:
R / R = [ 1 / 2G ] p
where R / R is the radial strain and
p is the corresponding increase in the applied pressure
From which E can be derived using:
EM = 2 ( 1 + QG
(2)
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&
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)
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&
(4)
(5)
R/R = [1/4G] p
(6)
Thus, the settlement zp of a pile tip is simply given (Frank & Zhao 1982) by :
zp = ( B/p ) qp
(7)
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&
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)
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&
- the pile can be subject to the thrust of a soil layer displaced under an
embankment, as an abutment pile.
In both cases, the ground stress is similar to that observed during a pressuremeter
test. Since the Winkler theory for horizontal beams on elastic supports
EI d4y / dz4 + k.B y = 0
(9)
can be used, the value of k is readily obtained from the settlement equation w = f(EM)
given by Mnard (1962) for a infinitely long strip footing, B in width : k.B = p/w.
When EM values are averaged, for B larger than 0.6 m (2 ft), and below the critical
depth :
k.B = Es = EM {18 / [4 (2.65 B/Bo) Bo/B + 3]}
(10)
where is the Mnard rheological factor ( 1/4 < < 2/3) and
Bo a reference diameter equal to 0.6 m.
FIG. 3 Soil reaction against lateral displacement for actions at head level (after
Frank 1999)
a) permanent forces at pile head ;
b) soil lateral thrust ;
b) short time forces at pile head;
d) unexpected instant forces at pile head.
This was checked using pressuremeter test data on various laterally loaded prototype
piles (Gambin 1979). The present design rules (Frank 1999) using generalized P-y
curves include the degradation of k when y increases (Fig.3).
Finally, when a soil applies a horizontal thrust on the pile (Fig.4), the last term of the
Winkler equation (9) must be replaced by
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&
(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.
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&
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.
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&
(1)
where A is
the pile tip area
kp
the tip bearing factor
[(pLM po)e] the net equivalent Mnard limit pressure under the pile tip
P
the perimeter of the pile cross section
the thickness of the soil layer I exhibiting a uniform skin
zi
friction, qsi
parameters kp and qs, which are essential to this equation, are measured on prototype
piles instrumented with removable extensometers (Fig.1) and load tested to failure
(Bustamante & Gianeselli 1981).
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&
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
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
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&"
kp per pile type in Table 3. Furthermore there is no need now to apply a reducing
factor for steel piles (Pile codes Nos. 5-7).
Table 2 Description and Characteristics of 418 Analyzed Piles.
Group Type Pile2
Code
No. Qty
1
B3
(mm)
5002,000
2701,800
2701,200
4201,100
D4
(m)
11.5-23
Pile Description
Pile or Barrette Bored in the dry
64
6-78
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&
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.
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&
Researcher, Universit Paris Est, Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chausses, 58 Bd Lefebvre,
75015 Paris, France; philippe.reiffsteck@lcpc.fr
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&
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.
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&
0,5
1,5
2,5
1,5
2,5
6
8
10
4
6
depth (m)
mean
mean modified
LCPC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
depth (m)
0,5
10
12
12
14
14
a) 16
b)
16
FIG. 2 Mnard limit pressure pLM (a) participants answers (b) mean values
For the Mnard pressuremeter modulus EM, two answers diverge markedly. These
answers came from participants Nos. 4 and 7 and may be attributable to local
practices. If we omit these two results, the modified mean then shows a tendency
towards underestimation on the part of the participants when compared with the
LCPC analysis (Fig. 3b).
0
depth (m)
6
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
mean
2
4
LCPC
10
10
12
12
14
14
16
mean modified
6
depth (m)
a) 16
FIG. 3 Mnard pressuremeter modulus EM
(a) participants answers (b) mean values
b)
A very reassuring fact is that the Mnard limit pressure pLM which is the principal
parameter used in the design method for computing ultimate shaft and toe capacity,
see equations (2) and (3), is determined with good repeatability in this exercise. The
mean error is under 24 % for the analysis made by the 9 participants and less than 20
% between curves of the 3 soundings originally analysed at LCPC. It can be
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&
200
400
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)
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&"
calculation of point resistance was made using Begemann or Meyerhof methods and
shaft resistance using different proposals for the skin friction factor (D and O
methods among others). The bearing capacities deduced from CPT methods are all
conservative. The discrepancy in the values for the bearing capacity prediction seems
to be at least partially due to the design method used: I-c, CPT SPT or PMT.
Qu predicted/Qu observed
1,6
fI, c
PMT
CPT
NUM
SPT
1,4
1,2
1
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
1
10
11
participants
Prediction of settlement
At present, no settlement prediction method is suggested for piles in Eurocode 7
part 2 (CEN 2008). In Fascicule 62-V (MELT 1993), two methods are proposed. In
the first the settlement is arbitrarily defined as a percentage of the pile diameter
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&
(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
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.
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&
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
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&
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.
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&& "
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.
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&
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
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&
down to 40 m around the proposed tanks and in their center, though many of these
refused at 25 m, and three Mnard PMT (ASTM D 4719) soundings to 65 and 95 m
depth at each tank location.
The soil profile is as follows :
- 0 12 m
the upper sand layer (USL)
- 12 28 m black soft clay (SoC)
- 28 60 m yellowish fine to medium sand underlying an intermittent layer of
stiff silty clay (DS & SC)
- 60 95 m grey to black stiff clay with peat pockets (HC)
- 95 110 m dense sands (DS)
FIG. 1. Mnard PMT data: (a) Pressuremeter Modulus EM, and (b) Limit Pressure
pLM.
Mnard PMT data logs are plotted together in Fig.1 and mean values for the 6
boreholes are listed below in Table 1 :
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&
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.
%&&&&&&&
&$$!& && $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!& &
1200
Time (minutes)
0
800
Settlement (mm)
Load (tonnes)
1000
600
400
200
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Time (minutes)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
tonnes)
Settlement (mm)
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Load (tonnes)
0.01
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
y = 6.38E-04x + 3.83E-03
Settlement (mm)
10
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&
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 :
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&"
10
12
Stress q (MPa)
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
qc = 10.35 MPa
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Loading test
Settlement after Gambin (1963)
Settlement after Frank & Zhao (1982)
Settlement w
(cm)
%&&&&&&&
&$$!&&& $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&"
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)
(7)
%&&&&&&&
&$$!& && $&!$&$
&# &!!
&!!&&"
4pages:Mise en page 1
10/09/09
10:26
Page 3
4pages:Mise en page 1
10/09/09
10:26
Page 4