Ibrahim Moumouni Translated

Page 1
CHOICE AND DIMENSIONING OF FOUNDATIONS:

Case of the Mali Béro interchange of Niamey
MEMORY FOR OBTAINING

MASTER IN WATER AND ENGINEERING
THE ENVIRONMENT
OPTION: CIVIL ENGINEERING
-------------------------------------------------- ----------------
Presented and publicly supported on 06/26/2013 By
Moumouni IBRAHIM MOUMOUNI
Works directed by: Mr Ismaila GUEYE
Teacher
CCR-EHD
Internship evaluation jury:

President: Mr H. Ciss
Members and correctors: Rémi M.
Mr kaboré
Promotion [2012/2013]
Page 2
CHOICE AND SIZING OF FOUNDATIONS: Case of the Mali Béro interchange of Niamey
Dedication:
• I dedicate this modest work to my two parents, who never stopped supporting me and
accompany me throughout my studies, and which never cease to support me in my life.
• I also dedicate this work to my grandparents for their wise advice
• I do not forget my brothers and my sister, my maternal uncle and his beautiful family
• I also dedicate it to my friends and comrades for their invaluable support and help
• I finally dedicate this work to the 2IE faculty

M Moumouni IBRAHIM MOUMOUNI M2GC / POA Promotion [2012/2013] Page i
Page 3
Thanks
▪ I would like to thank above all, ALLAH the very Generous for having granted me the grace and the
health to have completed this internship and today to report on it;
▪ I would first like to thank my parents who helped, supported and
encouraged in the quest and obtaining my internship;

▪ I would like to thank the general manager of the company ELH Hadj Mahamane Ousmane
Doutchi who simply allowed me to do the internship in his company;
▪ I would like to especially thank and express my gratitude
to the following people for the enriching and interesting experience they have given me
makes live during these 12 weeks within the company:
▪ Mr Ismaila Gueye director of memory for his precious advice,
▪ Mr Sabeur Guirat, Civil Engineer, Project Head of Mission and internship supervisor; for
the consistency of assistance he gave me during my internship;
▪ Mr Souleymane Mahamane Salissou, Civil Engineer, Works manager; for
support and availability;

▪ Mr Maman Sani, Civil Engineer;
▪ I would like to thank the whole dynamic team of the GERMS Consulting design office and
the execution company who warmly welcomed and accompanied me during my
traineeship ;
▪ I would like to thank everyone who directly or indirectly helped me in the exercise of my internship.
M Moumouni IBRAHIM MOUMOUNI M2GC / POA Promotion [2012/2013] Page ii
Page 4
Abbreviations
• FS: shallow foundations

• FP: deep foundations
•C : cohesion
• SPT, SC: core drilling
• SP: pressuremeter survey
• D: installation depth
• ELS: service limit state
• ELU: ultimate limit state
• CCGT: general technical specifications
• KW: kilowatt
• St: total settlement
• Sc: volume compaction
• Sd: deviatoric settlement
• Em: pressuremeter module
• Pl: limit pressure
• T: tonnes
• MPa: mega pascal
• Fn, Gsf: negative friction
• Arctg: tangent arc
• Qs: lateral load
• Qp: peak load
• HA: high adhesion
• T: Tor
• CPA: artificial Portland cement
• SETRA: Technical Studies Department for Roads and Motorways
• AGTS (Testing laboratory)
M Moumouni IBRAHIM MOUMOUNI M2GC / POA Promotion [2012/2013] Page iii
Page 5
summary
The project area is located in the city of Niamey (in Niger) between longitude 2 ° 06'28 '' East, and the
latitude 13 ° 32'06 ''. The geological map of Niger locates the city of Niamey and more precisely the
area affected by the project in silty sandy allusions with a shale base. On the plan
topographic, the site is almost flat.
The project consists of the construction of a slab bridge in an urban environment. The study will focus on the choice and
the design of bridge foundations. The study methodology consists of reviewing the
types of existing foundations and choose the most technically reliable and which also offers
an interesting economic competitiveness.
The satisfaction of this double objective is based on the consideration of the standards and rules in force.
We will thus rely, throughout the study, on the texts which deal with the technical rules of
design and calculation of the foundations of civil engineering works commonly called
PAPER N ° 65 - Title V.
We first studied the surveys carried out, there were core surveys and surveys
Pressuremeter. The results of core drilling show a soil composed of silty sand,
up to a depth of around 15m, below this layer we have a shale formation
up to the limit core drilling depth (45m). Pressuremeter tests give us
limit pressure values lower than 1Mpa up to the depth 6m. They then vary for
reach maximum values of 5Mpa. After studying the polls, we had to offer a choice
foundations.
The first choice was, of course, to consider the superficial foundations. We have
chosen, after studies, shooting soles. The computation of the settlements shows us differences
notables of 60mm between the settlements of the different soles. The study of the settlement of these
soles therefore shows us that they are not stable from this point of view. The case to write off was
excluded for economic conditions deemed not advantageous.
The rest of the studies led to consider deep foundations. The type of foundations on
piles is the most advantageous in this area for two technical and economic reasons. In the
range of piles, mud drilled piles, are those which have best satisfied these conditions. The
piles chosen will be non-floating piles, embedded 12m into the substratum. These stakes,
circular, will be drilled with mud, and will have a length of 28m for a diameter of 1000mm. At
a total of 108 piles will be founded to support the structure. The calculation of pile settlements we
give maximum values of 13mm. These values are largely admissible and do not pose
M Moumouni IBRAHIM MOUMOUNI M2GC / POA Promotion [2012/2013] Page iv
Page 6
notable annoyances. The piles will be scrapped over their entire length with steels
longitudinal type HA25, spaced 20cm from each other, 9 in number for a
quantity of 42kg per cubic meter of concrete. The transverse steels will be in HA20 for the steels of
fixtures and T12 cerces. The type of cement will be type CP I 42.5HRS for a quantity of
1100Tonnes. The execution of the piles will be spread over an estimated period of 184 days.
.
M Moumouni IBRAHIM MOUMOUNI M2GC / POA Promotion [2012/2013] Page v
Page 7
Abstract
The project area is located in the city of Niamey (in Niger) between longitude 2 ° 06'28 '' East and
latitude 13 ° 32'06 ''. The geological map of Niger is Niamey and more precisely the area affected by
the project in the sandy loam with allusions shale base. On the topographic map, the site is almost
flat.
The project involves the construction of a slab bridge in urban areas. The study will focus on the
selection and design of the bridge foundations. The study methodology is to review the types of
existing foundations and choose the most technically sound and also propose an interesting
economic competitiveness.
The satisfaction of this dual objective is based on the consideration of standards and rules. We will
build and throughout the study, the texts that deal with technical design rules and design of
foundations for civil engineering works commonly called BOOKLET No. 65 - Title V.
We first studied the polls, it there's been cored and pressure meter polls polls. The results of core
drilling show a soil composed of silty sand to a depth of around 15m, below this layer there is a
limit to the shale coring depth (45m). The pressure meter tests give us the values of pressure limits
below 1Mpa until 6m depth. They then vary to reach maximum values of 5Mpa. The study surveys,
we had to offer a choice of foundations.
The first choice was, of course, consider the shallow foundations. We chose after studies, strip
jogging. The calculation of settlement we show significant differences between 60mm settlements
different soles. The study of the settlement of these soles shows us that they are not stable from this
point of view. If the strike was ruled out for economic conditions deemed not beneficial.
Following studies led to consider deep foundations. The type of pile foundation is the most
advantageous material for the double technical and economic reasons. In the range of piles, bored
piles mud are those who best satisfied these conditions. The piles will be chosen non-floating batteries
embedded in the bedrock at 12m. These piles, circular, will be drilled mud, and have a length of
28m and a diameter of 1000mm. A total of 108 piles will be based to support the structure. Tea
calculation of settlement of piles gives us maximum of 13mm values. These values are well
qualified and do not pose significant inconvenience. The piles will be scrapped over their entire
length with longitudinal steels HA25 type spaced 20cm apart, number 9 for a quantity of 42kg per
cubic meter of concrete. The transverse reinforcement will be HA20 for steels T12 fixtures and
hoops. The type of cement will I 42.5HRS type CP for a quantity of 1100Tonnes. The execution of
Battery will last year Estimated 184 days period.
M Moumouni IBRAHIM MOUMOUNI M2GC / POA Promotion [2012/2013] Page vi
Page 8
CHOICE AND DIMENSIONING OF FOUNDATIONS: Case of the Mali Béro interchange

Niamey
Summary
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................... .................................................. ..................... vii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................... .................................................. ............. viii
Introduction ................................................. .................................................. ....................................... 1

Chapter 1. Surveys studies ............................................ .................................................. ........... 2
1. Core drilling .............................................. .................................................. ...................... 3

2. Pressometric surveys .............................................. .................................................. ....... 6
Chapter 2. Superficial foundations ............................................. .................................................. .. 8
1. Definitions ............................................... .................................................. ................................ 8

2. Choice of foundation ............................................. .................................................. ..................... 9
3. Pre-sizing of the soles ........................................... ................................................ 9
4. Calculation of settlements ............................................. .................................................. ............... 13
Chapter 3. Deep foundations ............................................. .................................................. ..... 21
1. Definition ............................................... .................................................. ............................... 21

2. Choice of the type of foundation ........................................... .................................................. ........ 21
3. Study of an isolated pile .......................................... .................................................. ................... 23
4. Behavior of pile groups ........................................... ........................................... 35
Chapter 4. Reinforcement and constructive arrangements ........................................... ............................. 40
1. Longitudinal reinforcement .............................................. .................................................. ........ 40

2. Transverse reinforcement ............................................. .................................................. .... 41
3. Special fittings and devices .......................................... ................................... 42
Chapter 5. Quantification and Planning ............................................ .................................................. ............ 43
1 meter ............................................... .................................................. ...................................... 43

2. Planning ............................................... .................................................. .................................. 44
Conclusion ................................................. .................................................. ....................................... 46
Bibliography ................................................. .................................................. ................................... 47
APPENDICES ................................................. .................................................. ...................................... 47
M Moumouni IBRAHIM MOUMOUNI M2GC / POA Promotion [2012/2013] Page vi
Page 9

Niamey
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Superficial foundation ............................................. .................................................. .......... 8
Figure 2: Unit friction ............................................. .................................................. .............. 25
Figure 3: Phenomenon illustrating negative friction .......................................... .............................. 29
Figure 4: Hanging effect ........................................... .................................................. ............... 31
Figure 5: Pile group under double piles (configuration 1) ..................................... ................. 36
Figure 6: Pile group under single piles (configuration2) ...................................... ................. 37
Figure 7: Proximity coefficient for a stake anchored in a rigid substratum ........................... 39
M Moumouni IBRAHIM MOUMOUNI M2GC / POA Promotion [2012/2013] Page vii
Page 10
Niamey
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Choice of type of test ......................................... .................................................. .............. 2
Table 2: Comparative table of core tests .......................................... .................................... 4
Table 3: SC1 surveys ............................................. .................................................. ..................... 5
Table 4: SC2 surveys ............................................. .................................................. ..................... 5
Table 5: Summary of efforts ............................................ .................................................. ...... 10
Table 6: Summary of the dimensions of the soles .......................................... .......................... 13
Table 7: Form coefficients λc and λd ......................................... ............................................... 14
Table 8: Rheological coefficient α ............................................ .................................................. .. 15
Table 9: Summary of settlements ............................................ ................................................ 18
Table 10: Settlement analysis ............................................ .................................................. ... 19
Table 11: Pile head loads .......................................... .................................................. ...... 23
Table 12: Values of the lift factor Kp ......................................... ....................................... 24
Table 14: Unit friction as a function of z ......................................... .................................... 26
Table 15: Balance sheet charges ............................................. .................................................. .................. 27
Table 16: Width and length ............................................ .................................................. ......... 27
Table 17: Calculation of stresses in the soil ......................................... .......................................... 32
Table 18: Summary of efforts ............................................. .................................................. ........ 33
Table 19: Summary of adapted pile ............................................ ................................................. 33
Table 20: Table of steels ............................................ .................................................. ........... 41
Table 21: Transverse reinforcement ............................................. .................................................. . 41
Table 22: Material table ............................................. .................................................. .......... 43
Table 23: Material table ............................................. .................................................. ........... 44
M Moumouni IBRAHIM MOUMOUNI M2GC / POA Promotion [2012/2013] Page viii

Page 11
Introduction
th
The government of the 7 Republic of Niger, anxious to give back to the capital, Niamey, a
radiant and attractive image launched a vast project called "Niamey Nyala". This initiative has
The main objective is to provide the capital with several major infrastructures.
One of these infrastructures, the first of its kind in Niamey, is an interchange which will also
aim to make traffic more fluid on boulevard Mali-Béro de Niamey. The establishment of such
work requires serious studies in order to optimize the cost and make it the most
technically reliable. The success of this double initiative depends closely on the attention paid
to the deck and to the foundations, whose cost increase rapidly increases that of the structure.
Particular attention will thus be paid to these two elements and in particular the foundations which
ensure the transmission of loads to the ground.
The purpose of this study will be to propose a CHOICE AND A methodology

DIMENSIONING OF FOUNDATIONS based on the case of the Mali Béro interchange
from Niamey. The objective will thus be to analyze the tests carried out and to draw information from them
necessary in order to propose a type of foundation. This foundation will then be pre-dimensioned so
to determine the dimensions and then dimensioned to draw the reinforcement plans.
The methodology will be to consider what the normative texts say and to adapt them to our
context for the choice and sizing of our foundations. At each stage of the study, it will be
question of recalling what standards impose and of obtaining the information necessary for them
needs of our study.
The adaptation of the standards under study led to the choice of foundations on circular concrete piles of
1m in diameter, 28m deep. These piles which are 108 in number will be drilled
with mud, under the supports of the bridge. The reinforcement of the piles consists of 9HA25 in longitudinal steels
and to T12 rows in transverse circles.
After defining the project, we will study the types of tests carried out in order to draw information
necessary to choose the type of foundation, then we will propose a suitable type of foundation after a
technical-economic study and finally we will proceed to its design.
M. Moumouni IBRAHIM MOUMOUNI M2GC / POA Promotion [2012/2013] Page 1
Page 12
Chapter 1. Surveys studies
Drilling is a technique for exploring the physical properties of the subsoil. It exists
several survey methods, we distinguish among others:
• Static method: or method (C-φ) is a method based on tests at

laboratory. These tests make it possible to determine the cohesion C and the angle of friction φ which
will be used to determine the bearing capacity of the soil and the assessment of settlement.
• Pressuremeter method: the Ménard pressuremeter test is an in-situ test which allows
to study a simple relation between the stresses and the strains. It is therefore very
powerful in the study of soil behavior under various loads.
• Penetrometric method: it is also an on-site test. The principle of the test consists
to measure the reaction that the soil opposes to the penetration of a cone.
• SPT: the corer penetration test is a test which consists in beating a corer under
constant energy with a sheep in free fall.
Depending on the type of foundation considered, certain types of surveys are recommended or not. It is
what Maurice CASSAN confirms in his research which led him to summarize the
following recommendations in table 1 below:
Table 1: Choice of the type of test according to the nature of the ground for the calculation of foundations
Method Method Method SPT

static pressiometric penetrometer
Type of clays Usual and recommended recommended Outcast

ground soft suitable
clays Usual and recommended Prohibited Outcast
stiff and suitable
marl
sands tolerated Recommended Usual and recommended
But suitable
up
to be
disputed
gravels Recommended proscribed Proscribed Outcast
Types Pious Proscribed recommended recommended Outcast
Page 13
of Foundation works tolerated recommended recommended Outcast

superficial But
up
to be
disputed
Our foundation project consists of taking over the loads of a bridge, the types of soundings
recommended are in-situ tests which are favorable to studies for any type of foundation. We have
then opted for pressuremeter and core drilling. The different studies to be carried out are
conform to standard NFP 94-500 of December 2006. They will be of type G0 and G3; As a reminder
G0 type geotechnical missions cover the execution of surveys, tests and measurements
geotechnical while those of type G3 define the geotechnical execution studies.
According to the demands and requirements of the project, the following tests were carried out:
• Two core drill holes (SC1 and SC2) down to 45.5m deep;
• Seven boreholes with pressuremeter tests (SP1 to SP7) every meter up to 43m
depth;
• When carrying out core drilling, SPT tests were carried out in the
sandy soils up to 15m deep (Penetric soundings consist of
measure resistance to soil penetration from a point equipped with sensors that
one comes to sink into the ground);
• Laboratory tests on materials sampled from core samples
Pressuremetering will allow us to determine the bearing capacity of the soil according to the type of
foundation and SPT tests we will give information such as water content, density
volume of the different layers crossed.
1. Core drilling
at. Definition and principle of the test
The corer penetration test is a geotechnical test which tests the ground in place and provides
a conventional feature and a reworked soil sample. The test consists of determining
the resistance to dynamic penetration of a standardized core barrel beaten at the bottom of a borehole
prior. The core drilling and consist collect as core materials
Page 14
to study its precise nature and structure. It establishes a relationship between resistance to
penetration on the one hand and characteristics and variable on the other.
This test consists of driving a core barrel into the ground from the bottom of a borehole at
walls stabilized after penetration of the corer under the effect of gravity and depression
15cm boot. Next, note the number of strokes marked "N" necessary for
penetrate the core barrel into the ground of another 30cm.
b. Test results
On the materials thus extracted, laboratory tests can be carried out later. These
drilling we will give a detailed description of the terrain as well as the depth of the water table. They
roughly indicate a lateritic layer of small thickness (50cm) lying above
a 15 m layer of sand followed by a succession of layers made up of shale. We
Let us summarize in the table below the results of the two core drillings SC1 and SC2.
The core drilling SC1 reveals the presence of the water table at 9.10m while the SC2 the
benchmark at 9.20m.
Table 2: Comparative table of core tests
depth (m) Test SC1 SC2 test
0-0.5 Reddish laterite backfill reddish lateritic embankment
0.5 to 8.5 Yellowish silty sand Yellowish silty sand
8.5-10.5 Yellowish silty sand Beige silty sand

10.5 to 15.5 Beige silty sand Beige silty sand
Greenish weathered shale (rock
15.5 to 16 Beige silty sand altered)
greenish weathered shale (rock
16-20 Altered purplish shale (weathered rock) altered)
weathered whitish shale (rock Greenish weathered shale (rock
20 to 32.5 altered) altered)
weathered whitish shale (rock Reddish weathered shale (rock
32.5 to 33 altered) altered)
weathered whitish shale (rock Greenish weathered shale (rock
33-40 altered) altered)
Page 15
greenish weathered shale (rock Greenish weathered shale (rock
40 to 45.5 altered) altered)
During core drilling, tests of reworked samples were taken for testing in
laboratory. The tables below give the results of the identification tests and the tests
chemicals carried out on these samples:
Table 3: SC1 surveys
Location of Depth Nature Weight Content % fine Equivalent

sample of Samples volume water sand
sample (ES)
SC1 2.5 to 11m Sand 2.47 0.51 6.0 45.87

slimy
yellowish
12.5 to 16m Sand 2.32 9.4 3.6 74.58

slimy
16 to 20m Weathered sand 2.15 0.23 53.3 90.32

purplish
20 to 40m Weathered sand 2.10 11.62 62.9
whitish
40 to 45.5m Weathered sand 2.21 2.15 72.5

greenish
Table 4: SC2 surveys
Location of Depth Nature Weight Content % fine Equivalent

sample of Samples volume water sand
sample (ES)
SC1 2.5 to 9m Sand 2.56 0.32 6.0 44.67

slimy
yellowish
9 to 14.50m Sand 2.44 9.42 2.0 84.55

slimy
Page 16
15 to 21.5m Weathered sand 2.00 12.26 81.0

purplish
21.5 Weathered sand 2.09 2.10 57.9
à32.3m whitish
32.7 Weathered sand 2.63 0.84 55.8

à44.5m greenish
As indicated in the tables above, the analyzes inform us about the nature of the layers of
soils crossed and densities which will be used in several calculations (constraints,
settlements, etc.).
2. Pressuremeter surveys
at. Definition and principle of the test
The Ménard pressuremeter test is an in-situ test which consists in radially dilating a probe
cylindrical sorting cell placed in the ground, to measure and record the pressures applied
by the probe and its volume variations to determine the relationship between the
applied pressure and expansion of the probe.
b. Test results
Seven tests (SP1 to SP7) were carried out in accordance with the customer's requests. These tests we
will allow to:
• Calculate the breaking stress under a deep or superficial foundation
• Assess the subsidence of the (superficial) foundations
• Calculate the reaction module under a surface foundation
• Calculate the negative friction on a deep foundation element
• Obtain precise information on the nature and quality of the soil
The holes were drilled every meter up to the depth of 43m. Attempts
pressuremeters give us limit pressure values lower than 1Mpa up to the
depth 6m. They then vary to reach maximum values of 5 MPa. Soles
surface (shooting soles) have lengths 17m and bases of 5m, 6m and 6.5m. The
E M pressuremodules vary significantly from 5Mpa to around 30Mpa up to 6m
Page 17
depth. These values then vary non-linearly to reach more maxima.

de300Mpa. More detailed results are presented in Annex 1 on the test results.
Page 18
Chapter 2. Superficial foundations
1. Definitions
The shallow foundations are those that are weakly embedded in the ground. From the standpoint
of the critical depth D c , a foundation will be called superficial if its base is above
D c . Considering the embedding depth, we will say that a foundation is superficial if D e / B
≤ 1.5 (B being the base of the foundation). The most common definition, however, is
consider a surface foundation like the one whose relationship between the embedding D and the base
B remains less than 4.

Figure 1: Superficial foundation
There are three types of superficial foundations:
• the strip footings , usually of modest width B (at most a few meters) and
great length L (L / B> 10 to fix ideas)

• the isolated footings , whose dimensions in plan B and L are both at most a few
meters; this category includes square soles (B / L = 1) and circular soles (of
diameter B);
Page 19
• the rafts or slabs , dimensions B and L important; this category includes rafts
General.
2. Choice of foundation
The choice of the type of foundation depends on the heterogeneity of the soil, the groundwater movements
phreatic, the diversity of modes of execution, the influence of already existing buildings on the ground
underlying and the economic factor. Therefore, the choice of a foundation must imperatively
meet the following requirements:
• the calculation load applied to the base of the foundation V d remains below the capacity
bearing load
• Settlements must remain admissible for the type of structure.
The first hypothesis is to consider an insulated sole. The supports (battery type) being very
closely spaced, there is a risk of overlapping the insoles, the shooting soles will therefore
more suitable. For the study of shooting soles, we will check beforehand whether
With Ss sum of the surfaces of the soles and St total surface of the structure. In other words
the total surface of the soles is less than half of the total surface occupied by
the work. If this condition is not satisfied (i.e. ) then the recommended solution
will be to base the structure on a general raft.
3. Pre-sizing of soles
The soles will be inked at 3m, and will have dimensions to be determined according to the method below.
One of the dimensions is fixed (length L or width B of the soles) and then the other is determined.
We therefore propose to take a length L such that:
For the determination of the width, we will rely on the following condition
With ;
σ soil = soil stress
Page 20
Pm = self-weight of the element
The table below summarizes the loads to be included under each type
On the support.
Table 5: Summary of efforts
ELECTED LIVE LIVE quasi-
fundamental (T) rare (T) permanent (T)
under stack of batteries
simple 1986 1503 1200
double 3407 2701 2036
under abutments 3523 2765 2150
➢ Insoles under single pile
T (load most unfavorable to the fundamental ELU)
Assume a base sole B = 2m and check if it is compatible with the
stress σ sol .
• B = 2m and L = 17m this leads us to a shooting base. According to booklet 62 title 5
of the CCGT we have:
ql = ultimate limit stress
q0 = represents the vertical pressure of the land calculated at the geometric center of the
sole.
*
Ple = the "equivalent net limit pressure"
kp = the lift factor.
The computation constraint will be taken equal to ql / 2.
3 2
q0 = γ xz = 2.7KN / m x 3m = 8.1 KN / m
Page 21
If the ground is constituted under the foundation, to a depth of at least 1.5B of the same soil,
or soils of the same type and with comparable characteristics, then we establish a linear profile
schematic, representative of the slice of soil [D; D + 1.5B] of the form:
*
Pl (z) = az + b, The equivalent limit pressure is taken equal to:
* *
Ple = pl (z e ) with z e = D + 2 / 3B
*
So we have lots = 0.446 MPa (See Annex 2)
( ) ()
De = installation distance
From = 2.7m
( ) ()
*
=
ql = 0.63Mpa = 63T / m²
q cal = ½ ql = 31.5 T / m²
Smin = L x B ⇒ B = Smin / L = 63.05 / 17 = 3.71m take B = 4m
• Verification
Σ
⇒
There are 8 rows of single batteries, i.e. a total surface area of soles equal to:
St = 8 x (4 x 17) = 544 m²
➢ Sole under file of double piles

Page 22
Let’s assume a base sole B = 5m and check if it is compatible with the
stress σ sol .

• Verification
Σ
⇒
There are 3 rows of simple batteries, i.e. a total surface area of soles equal to:
St = 3 x (6 x 17) = 306 m²
➢ Insoles under abutments
Smin = L x B ⇒ B = Smin / L = 107.9 / 17 = 6.35m take B = 6.5m
• Verification
Σ
⇒
There are 2 abutments, i.e. a total surface area of soles equal to:
St = 2 x (6.5 x 17) = 221 m²
➢ Verification ; with Ss sum of sole surfaces and St total surface of
the book
Ss = 221m² + 306 m² +544 m² = 1071 m²

St = 200m x 17 m = 3400m² ⇒ ½ St = 1700m²
Ss ≤ ½ St so no need to write off the general.
Page 23
Table 6: Summary of sole dimensions
B (m) L (m) Total surface (m²)

Single batteries 4 17 554
Double batteries 6 17 306
abutments 6.5 17 221
In addition, an identical sole height of:
( )( )
We will therefore take h = 1.6m
4. Calculation of settlements
In this part we will determine the settlements (vertical, along z) to know if:
• They are compatible with the type of work
• Differential settlements will not ruin the structure
To assess the settlement, we will rely on the calculation method from the pressuremeter
Ménard, proposed in fascicle 62 title V. It is given by:

s f = sd + sc
With: volume compaction
deviatoric settlement
q: vertical stress applied by the foundation

σv: total vertical stress before work at the base of the foundation
λc; λd: shape coefficients
α: rheological coefficient depending on the nature of the soil
B: Width of the foundation
Bo: A reference dimension equal to 0.60m
Ec; Ed: equivalent pressuremodules in the volume zone and in the zone
deviatoric, respectively.
Page 24
➢ Packing of the soles under simple batteries
• q: vertical stress applied by the foundation = stress due to loads + stress
due to the dead weight of the foundation
• λc; λd: shape coefficients, we refer to the table below
L / B = 17/4 = 4.25 we have thus:
Table 7: Form coefficients λc and λd
• α: rheological coefficient
The soil is assumed to be overconsolidated, the ratio E / pl = 7.3 / 0.32 = 22.81> 12, according to the table below.
below, α = ½
Page 25
Table 8: Rheological coefficient α
• B = 4m and Bo = 0.60m
• Calculation of Ec and Ed
The calculation of the equivalent modules Ec and Ed is carried out, on the one hand by using the distribution of the
vertical stress under a flexible foundation (uniform stress), on the other hand by considering that
the volume deformations are predominant under the foundation, up to the depth B / 2, for
the calculation of Ec, and that the distortions have an influence up to the depth of 8B.
The Ec and Ed modules are calculated as follows: Ec is taken equal to the E1 module
measured in the thickness section B / 2 located under the foundation: Ec = E1
Ed is obtained by the expression:
where Ei, j is the harmonic mean of the modules measured in the layers located at depth i
B / 2 at depth j B / 2
S = Sc + Sd = 77.89mm
The total settlement for the soles under single batteries is estimated at 77.89mm
Page 26
➢ Packing of the soles under double batteries
• λc; λd: shape coefficients
L / B = 17/6 = 2.83 we have thus:
Form coefficients λc and λd

The soil is assumed to be overconsolidated, the ratio E / pl = 7.3 / 0.32 = 22.81> 12 ⇒ α = 1/2
Rheological coefficient α
• B = 6m and Bo = 0.60m
Page 27
B / 2 at depth j B / 2.
S = Sc + Sd = 23.5mm
The total settlement for the soles under double batteries is estimated at 23.5mm
➢ Packing of soles under abutments

•
• λc; λd: shape coefficients, we refer to the table below
L / B = 17 / 6.5 = 2.61 we have thus:
The soil is assumed to be overconsolidated, the ratio E / pl = 7.3 / 0.32 = 22.81> 12, according to the table below.
below, α = 1/2
• B = 6.5m and Bo = 0.60m
Page 28
B / 2 at depth j B / 2.
S = Sc + Sd = 17.53mm
The total settlement for the soles under single batteries is estimated at 17.53m
Table 9: Summary of settlements
Sc (mm) Sd (mm) S (mm)

Sole under batteries 35.6 42.3 77.89
simple
Insoles under batteries 15.10 8.38 23.5
double
Insoles under abutment 9.98 7.54 17.53
Page 29
➢ Settlement analysis
Once the settlement at one or more points of a foundation has been determined, or
determined an average settlement, the next question is, of course, whether these settlements
are admissible for the structure carried. Any soil or structural engineer knows that
this is an extremely complex problem for a variety of reasons affecting
both on the ground and at the foundation and structure, and for which there is no general solution, nor
of theoretical origin, nor of empirical origin.
The settlement observations (S) for the bridges suggest the following limits:
• If s <50 mm, then allowable or acceptable settlement;
• If 50 ≤ s ≤ 100mm, then damaging but admissible settlement;
• If s> 100mm, then inadmissible settlements.
These considerations allow us to deduce that:
Table 10: Analysis of settlements
settlements Differential settlements Likes

general (Mm) settlements settlements
(Mm) general differential
Insoles under 77.89 54.39 with PD sole harmful Ineligible

single batteries 60.36 with sole C but admissible
(PS)
Insoles under 23.5 54.39 with PS sole Eligible and Ineligible

double batteries 5.97 with sole C acceptable except with C
(PD)
Sole under 17.53 60.36 with PS sole Eligible and Ineligible

abutments (C) 5.97 with PD sole acceptable except with PD
The soles under double piles and under abutments compact in a admissible way, those under piles
simple tamp down in a damaging manner but remains admissible. What is however
fear are the differential settlement. Indeed the table above indicates settlements
Differentials are only admissible in certain cases, which makes stability unsatisfied. The
solution on continuous footings is therefore not possible.
Page 30
We therefore draw a partial conclusion: the solution to base the supports of the bridge on footings
is therefore discarded because the settlements thereof are mostly at least
damaging.
Regarding the foundation on raft, it is excluded because of the total surface of our
work. Indeed the projected surface is estimated at 3400m² would lead to an overly massive foundation
and therefore too high a use of concrete.
Page 31
CHAPTER 3. Deep foundations

1. Definition
The deep foundations are those which allow the loads due to the structure to be transferred
that they support on layers located from the surface to a depth varying from
a few meters to several tens of meters, when the surface soil does not have a resistance
sufficient to support these loads through shallow foundations. For the calculation,
the two types of foundations (deep and superficial) are essentially differentiated by the
taking into account friction on the side walls of the foundation.
For deep foundations, the way of working and the interaction with the surrounding soil lead
to introduce the notion of critical depth which can be defined as the level below which,
in homogeneous soil, the resistance under the base no longer increases. Deep foundations have their basis
located below this depth. Another approach is to define a deep foundation

like the one whose ratio between the embedding depth D e and the base B remains greater than 5.
The most usual definition is to consider a deep foundation the one whose relationship between
the embedding D and the base B is greater than 10.
2. Choice of the type of foundation
There are several types of deep foundations:
• wells: for a foundation soil of between 3 and 8 m, wells are the technique of
recommended foundation. The wells are dug using a mechanical shovel or a
clamshell bucket, for bottom adjustment it is necessary to carry out an intervention

manual. Depending on the quality of the floors, the shielding can be provided, temporary (wood or circle
metallic) or final (concrete ferrules)
• the bars: these are elements of walls molded into the ground (width 0.60 to 1 m,
length 2 to 6 m), used as load-bearing elements. These elements can be intersecting or

parallel, so as to adapt to the geometry of the structure they support
• piles (concrete, steel or wood), this category of deep foundation is the most
used.
The bars do not allow to reach great depths and the execution of the wells is not
master the region well. Piles have large diameters (up to 2.50 m, or even
plus), a possibility of executing elements of various forms resistant to bending, a
Page 32
possibility of crossing hard benches, quality control of the terrain crossed and adaptation
easy length. We therefore use the solution of the piles to found our work. It's about
now determine the type of stake we are going to use.
There are several types of piles. Traditionally, we classify piles:
• either according to the nature of the constituent material: wood, metal, concrete;
• either according to the method of introduction into the soil:
✓ battered piles, shaped in advance and usually installed by threshing,

✓ bored piles, executed in place by concreting in a borehole, sheltered or not from a tube
metallic.
For the evaluation of the bearing capacity, in particular, it is more important to consider the type of
stress imposed on the ground by the installation of the pile. This is how we distinguish:
• piles whose placement causes the soil to be driven back;
• piles, the execution of which is carried out after extraction of the soil from the borehole and which, therefore,
do not cause backflow of the soil;

• certain pious individuals whose behavior is intermediate
The choice of pile type depends on:
• The nature of the layers of land encountered

• Overloads and efforts to resume
• The technical nature of the company
• Site environment
The structure will be built in an urban site therefore the driven piles are not suitable because they
would cause too much discomfort for the surrounding dwellings. The hype will also
as a result, the foundations of neighboring buildings are weakened. Core drilling shows
shale formation from 16m deep threshing would therefore become delicate
from this depth. The technicality of the company is also to be taken into account and it
suggests that the technique of bored piles is the best mastered.
In conclusion we decide to base our work on piles drilled in mud . It’s now
to determine the diameter φ of the pile and its length L necessary to take up the transmitted forces
by structure.

Page 33
3. Study of an isolated stake
The study of an isolated pile will allow us to determine its geometric characteristics, its
lift and settlement under the effect of the loads brought by the bridge.
at. Determination of the diameter ϕ and the length L
The diameter and length of the pile are the geometric elements that characterize it. For
determine these parameters, we consider the forces at the head of piles which are given by the table
next :
Table 11: Stake head loads
combinations V (T)
Quasi-permanent combination 226
Rare combination 300

Fundamental combination 404
➢ Assumption: The substratum is at a depth of 16m, so we will consider a

pile of φ = 800mm and embedded in the first layers of the substratum. We assume in
besides that the negative friction is neglected (this will be taken into account in the verification
limit states)
➢ The procedure consists in checking if the hypothesis allows to have liftings which satisfy
under the conditions imposed by the above pile efforts.
We will successively determine the peak load limit and the limit load by friction
lateral. These two values will be combined to obtain the different possibilities of occurrence
(combinations of fundamental, rare and almost permanent action). All calculations will be made in
compliance with the prescriptions of booklet 62 title 5.
i. Determination of peak load limit
The peak load limit is the maximum load that can be mobilized at the base of the pile. In the case of a
Menard pressuremeter test, this load is given by:
*
AK p p le
• A: tip section, 2 2
= 3.14x0.4 = 0.5024m
Page 34
• K p : lift factor. It is a coefficient which is given by the following table:
Table 12: Values of the lift factor Kp
For elements implemented without soil backflow (pile drilled with mud) in weathered rock
we have: 1.1 ≤ Kp ≤ 1.8. Take Kp = 1.1
• P le * : It is an average pressure around the base of the pile. It is determined by the
next way
P le
* ∫
With: { ⇒ a = 0.5m
b = min (a; h) where h is the height of the foundation element in the bearing layer.
h ≥ 3φ = 3 x 0.8 = 2.4m we will take h = 3m
b = min (a; h) = (0.5; 3) = 0.5m
D: installation height; D = 16 + h = 16 + 3 = 19m

*
P le ∫ ∫ Σ
*
P le = 0.5 (2.28 + 3.26) = 2.77MPa
So we have Q p = 0.5024x 1.1x 277 = 1530.81KN
Page 35
Q p = 153.08 Tons
ii. Determination of the limit load by lateral friction
The total limit force that can be mobilized by lateral friction over the entire height h concerned of the barrel of the
stake is calculated by the following expression:
Qs=P∫
• P pile perimeter: P = 2πr = 2x3.14x0.4 = 2.512m
• h: height over which the lateral friction is exerted minus the height over which
negative friction is exerted (9≤h≤19)
• q s limit unit lateral friction. The determination of q s depends on the nature of the soil, the
*
pile type and net limit pressure p l . The pile type being of type drilled with mud on
will use the curve Q 1 for loose sand, Q 2 for medium compact sand and the
shale (weathered rock). The graphs below give us the unit lateral friction
limit according to the curve used.
Figure 2: Unit friction
In addition, the fascicle 62 title 5 gives us the analytical expressions making it possible to determine
*
the values of q s as a function of p l . Thus we have for the curves Q 1 and Q 2 :
• q s = q sn ( )
• q s = q sn
Page 36
With: q sn = 0.04n; p n = (1 + 0.5n) and n number of the curve.
*
So we have the following values of q s as a function of p l :
Table 13: Unit friction as a function of z
Curve
z (m) P * l (MPa) Soil type Pn (MPa) qsn (MPa) qs (MPa)
used
sand moderately
9 1.23 compact Q2 2 0.08 0.07
sand moderately
10 1.32 compact Q2 2 0.08 0.07
sand moderately
11 1.13 compact Q2 2 0.08 0.06
sand moderately
12 1.26 compact Q2 2 0.08 0.07
sand moderately
13 1.31 compact Q2 2 0.08 0.07
14 4.82 silty sand Q2 2 0.08 0.08
15 2.58 silty sand Q2 2 0.08 0.08
16 3.05 silty sand Q2 2 0.08 0.08
17 2.92 Shale (weathered rock) Q2 2 0.08 0.08

So we can calculate Calculation of the lateral friction limit load Q s :
Qs =∫ ∫ Σ
Q s = 206 Tons
iii. Calculation of bearing capacity
The calculation of q s and q p being made, it remains only to combine them to obtain the bearing capacity
depending on the combination case.
Page 37
• fundamental ELU: Q =
• Rare ELS: Q =
• quasi-permanent ELS: Q = =
We now compare the load-bearing capacities with the pile head forces:
Table 14: Balance sheet charges
Bearing capacity (T) Efforts at conclusions

resume (T)
Fundamental ELU 256.49 404 Not verified

ELS rare 200.67 300 Not verified
LIVE quasi- 157.67 226 Not verified

permed
Partial conclusion: the efforts at the head of the piles are not taken up. The dimensions of the piles will be
then adjusted to have sufficient bearing capacity.
iv. Determination of optimal dimensions
In this section we will play on the dimensions of the pile (φ and L) which give the liftings
sufficient. In the table below we summarize for different diameters and embedments
load-bearing capacities for different load combinations:
Table 15: Width and length
Q (ELECTED
Q (ELS Q (ELS almost-
B (m) L (m) Qs (T) Qp (T) fundamental rare) permed)
0.8 19 206 153.08 256.49 200.67 157.67
0.8 25 326 181.27 362.34 289.85 227.74
1 19,254.48 239.2 354.77 272.59 214.16
1 25,408.2 283.23 493.88 388.5 303.25
Page 38
The table above shows that for the pile of diameter φ = 1m and embedded at D = 25m satisfies the
conditions imposed by pile head efforts.
A small check will be carried out to conclude that the dimensions will be adopted. It’s actually
to take into account the negative friction that was overlooked in the first place.
v. Evaluation of maximum negative friction
i. Definitions
Negative friction occurs when the ground crossed by the pile is the site of a settlement
or when a layer of soil rests on the pile and loads it. This happens in three cases
main:
• when a groundwater table is lowered,
• due to the overload of highly compressible layers by embankments,
• during soil consolidation.
The charge thus added can be large. The ground sinks relative to the stake and not the reverse
as is the case under current conditions of pile stresses. If there is displacement, it
friction then occurs on soil-pile contact (see figure below). So it develops a
lateral friction directed downwards which causes a compressive force in the pile. The
vertical displacements of the soil (settlements) are maximum at the top and decrease with
depth (Settlement T-T '> A-A'). Then comes a point where the soil compaction is
less than or equal to the driving of the pile under the effect of the load it supports . The point at
this depth is called neutral point N (figure below).
Page 39
Figure 3: Phenomenon illustrating negative friction
ii. Unit negative friction
Determining the intensity of negative friction is extremely difficult, even for a pile
isolated . For their evaluation, there are certain basic principles to follow:
• Except in special cases (liquefaction of soils), negative friction is a slow phenomenon,
since it can develop that at progressively consolidating s layers

compressible. The mechanical characteristics to be taken into account are therefore the
' '
effective characteristics ϕ and c.
• beyond the neutral point N, the negative friction no longer exists.
• if the pile crosses an embankment overloading the ground, negative friction is exerted on all
the thickness of the fill and on the compressible layer up to N.

The unit negative friction fn is given by the following formula:
fn (z) = K σ v ' (z) tanδ
'
•σv (z) being the effective vertical stress at any depth z and close
immediately from the stake,
Page 40
• K the coefficient of pressure of the soil at the soil / pile contact
• δ the soil / pile friction angle which depends on the type of pile and the nature of the soil.
iii. Maximum value of negative friction
'
According to the simplest hypothesis, we will admit that the vertical stress σ v (z) corresponds to
weight of land and overload at the depth considered. The total negative friction Fn on the
stake is then obtained by integrating the previous formula of fn from the top of the stake
to the depth of the neutral point. This method generally leads to an overestimation of the
negative friction because the catching effect is not taken into account. The estimate of
negative friction thus obtained therefore corresponds to a maximum value.
Fn = ∫
(h: possible height of the embankment, H: height of the compressible layer above the neutral point
NOT).
iv. Hanging phenomenon
At a distance ρ from the pile axis (see figure below ) , the hooking effect is no longer felt
'
and the vertical stress at the depth z designated by σ 1 (z) corresponds to the weight of land and
overloads. At a distance r between the radius of the pile R and ρ, the hooking effect reduces the
'
value of the vertical stress; let σ v (z, r) this constraint. At the distance R corresponding to the barrel
'
of the pile, the reduced stress is always designated by σ v ( z ) . This mechanism has been studied by O.
Combarieu, considering a circular pile of radius R, the balance of forces requires that:
F n (z) + 2π∫
'
The value of σ v (z, r) is given by:
σ v (z, r) - σ v ' (z) = [σ 1

' ' '
(z) - σ v (z)] [1-
λ is a coefficient characterizing the amplitude of the attachment of the soil around the foundation; he takes
the following values:
•λ= if K.tanδ ≤ 0.150
• λ = 0.385 –K.tanδ if 0.150 ≤ K.tanδ ≤ 0.385
•λ=0 if K.tanδ> 0.385
Page 41
Figure 4: Hanging effect
'
The calculation therefore consists in determining the value of
(z).σ Itv is done by cutting the ground into slices
'
horizontal and performing the calculation successively for each section from top to bottom. Let σ v
(z i ) the vertical stress in contact with the barrel of the pile at the top of the section i of thickness Δz i ; the
'
value of σ v (z i + 1 ) is given by the following formulas:
µ (λ) =
' ' '

If µ (λ) ≠ 0 σ v (z i + 1 ) = σ v(z i ) + [L o - σ v (z i )]. [1-
' '
If µ (λ) = 0 σ v (z i + 1 ) = σ v(z i ) + Δz i .
v. Calculation of Fn
To have a value as precise as possible, the calculation of the negative friction will be done by taking
account of the hanging phenomenon. To do this, we cut the layer in 1m slices
' '
to evaluate the values of σ v (z i ). The “stop function” will correspond to: i such that σ v (z i )>
'
σ v0 (Z).
For loose and loamy sands, the value of K.tanδ is taken at 0.45, it is 0.5 for sand
moderately compact . This data from K.tanδ leads us to a zero value of λ (λ = 0 for
K.tanδ> 0.385 ⇒ µ (λ) = ). The expression to use is therefore:
Page 42
' ' '

σ v (z i + 1 ) = σ v(z i ) + Δz i . . The values of σ v (z i ) are confined to the following table:
Table 16: Calculation of stresses in the soil

z (m) Type of soil K.tanδ γ
σ1 '(z) dσ'1 / dz Δz i σv '(zi)
0 loose sand 0.45 2.47 0 2.47 1 0
1 loose sand 0.45 2.47 2.47 2.47 1 2.47
2 loose sand 0.45 2.47 4.94 2.47 1 4.94
3 loose sand 0.45 2.47 7.41 2.47 1 7.41
4 loose sand 0.45 2.47 9.88 2.47 1 9.88
sand moderately
2.47
5 compact 0.5 12.35 2.47 1 12.35
sand moderately
2.47
6 compact 0.5 14.82 2.47 1 14.82
sand moderately
2.47
7 compact 0.5 17.29 2.47 1 17.29
sand moderately
2.47
8 compact 0.5 19.76 2.47 1 19.76
sand moderately
2.47
9 compact 0.5 22,23 0.97 1 20.73
The values of γ considered are those of SC2.
' '
Note that at depth z = 9m, the value of σ v (z i ) = 20.73 <22.23 = σ 1 (z). So the
neutral point is 9m deep after which there is no longer any negative friction effect or
the less its effects will be very negligible compared to the bearing capacity of the pile.
Fn = ∫ = ∫ = 3.14 ∑ .hi = 3.14x (
) =
168.3T
Fn = Gsf = 168.3Tons
Page 43
Verification of combinations of actions
• Rare ELS: Q =
Table 17: Summary of efforts
Bearing capacity (T) Efforts to conclusions

resume (T)

ELS almost 221.1 226 Not verified
permed
We can see that taking into account the negative friction, the pile of diameter 1m embedded at 25m does not
not meet the above conditions. We will therefore increase the installation by 3m and
check if the conditions are checked.
For a pile of φ = 1m and of embedding D = 28m the calculations (see Annex1) give us
Table 18: Adapted pile summaries
B Q (ELU Q (ELS Q (ELS almost-
(m) D (m) Qs (T) Qp (T) fundamental rare) permed)
1 28 483.56 299.2 438.9 336.62 264.49
All conditions are checked taking into account the effects of negative friction.
In conclusion we adopt a circular section pile with a diameter B = 1000mm and which will be
recessed at D = 28m

Page 44
It now remains to check if the pile settlements are admissible then we will study the
behavior of the pile groups on which the structure will be based.
vi. Calculation of the settlement of an isolated pile
The settlement of an isolated pile under the usual loads (almost permanent combinations, or even
rare) is generally weak and does not constitute a determining parameter for most
civil engineering structures.
Interpretation of the results of all full-scale loading tests carried out
by the Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussées shows that the settlement at the top of the piles only exceeds
very rarely the centimeter, under a reference load equal to 0.7 Qc and this, for a range of
piles whose plug length varies from 6 to 45 m and whose diameter B is between 0.30 and
1.50 m. These results make it possible to propose the following simple rules for estimating, in the cases
currents, settlement under the reference load 0.7 Qc
For bored piles: Sref = 0.006 B (with extreme values of 0.003 and 0.010 B );
We have : ⇒
Sref = 0.006 x 1000 = 6 mm

These settlements are admissible because less than 50mm.
A more rigorous method due to Maurice CASSAN under the assumptions of a unit charge
on a homogeneous soil with a pressuremeter module E M estimates the settlement of an isolated pile at:
S1= ;
With
B pile diameter (= 100cm)
E b is the modulus of elasticity of the concrete: E b = 14000MPa = 140,000 bars
λ = 4.5xE M (in bars): λ = 4.5x468 = 2106bars;
D is the pile plug D = 2800cm
S1= ;
Page 45
For a load (taken up by the pile) of 404T we have:
S = 0.0033 x 4040N = 13.4mm
These settlements are admissible because less than 50mm.
4. Behavior of pile groups
The behavior of an isolated pile serves as a reference for studies of pile groups. Indeed
during the laying of the foundations, a group of piles is carefully distributed

to ensure the recovery and transmission of loads to the ground. It is therefore necessary to analyze the
behavior of groups of piles subject to the actions of the structure. In a group, the stake has a
different behavior than when isolated. The bearing force under axial stresses, the
compaction, lateral reactions, lateral thrusts of the soil and negative friction are all
parameters to be recalculated when the pile is in a group. Two different causes are at the origin
of these group effects:
• the installation of a set of piles creates a reorganization of the soil which is different from
the one produced by the installation of an isolated stake. The reaction of the soil, under and around
stake, is changed;
• the load applied to a pile has an influence, in terms of forces and displacements, on
the behavior of neighboring stakes.

This influence can be quantified by rational methods such as the element method
finite but also by theoretical or semi-empirical methods.
at. Changes in stake behavior by group effect
Piles are, in practice, almost always beaten or drilled in groups. It is therefore appropriate
to study the influence of this neighborhood on the bearing capacity of each pile in the group and the settlement
from the whole. When the piles are close together, it is not enough to check the resistance of a pile
considered isolated. Indeed, it happens that the overall limit load Q g of the group of n piles is
lower than the sum of the limit loads of piles in group Q l, considered to be isolated . As soon as
the center distance of two piles is less than one tenth of their length, the bearing capacity of each
pile is decreased. This reduction in capacity depends on the size of each pile, the
form of the grouping as well as the nature of the land. This loss of resistance can be assessed at
using several methods.
Page 46
The efficiency coefficient C e is a correction coefficient which applies to the load-bearing capacity of the pile
isolated and used to assess the load-bearing capacity of one of the piles in the group. It is defined as follows:
Ce=Σ
This coefficient is however given by several formulas including that of Converse Labarre which
stipulate that :
()
C e = 1- ( )
With B pile diameter (1m)

S center distance (4m)
n and m the number of rows and columns in the group
Arctg (B / S) and π are taken in degrees
For the values of n and m, depending on whether the piles will support double or single piles we
will have two possible configurations:
• For piles under abutments and under rows of double flanges, twelve piles are provided
according to configuration 1 below (see figure below). In this case we have am = 6 and n = 2
(See Annex 4 for the determination of the number of rows and columns)
Figure 5: Pile group under double piles (configuration 1)
For configuration 2, in the case of piles under a single pile of piles, the configuration is provided
below which was justified in Annex 4, where m = 6 and n = 1 .
Page 47
Figure 6: Pile group under single piles (configuration2)
The calculation of C e gives:
• Configuration 1: C e = 1- () =
= () = 0.727
C e = 72.7%
• Configuration 2 : C e = 1- ()
= 1- () = 1 - 0.17 = 0.83
C e = 83%
Note: These values are average values. Indeed the "Feld rule" for example says
that the bearing capacity of an isolated pile is reduced as many times (1/16) of its value as it has
pious neighbors. So in configuration 2 for example, The pile ends work at 1-1 / 16 that is
say 93.75% while those in the middle work at 1-2 / 16 or 87.5%. However we will consider
the 83% value of Converse which is safer.
We can deduce from C e the bearing capacity of the pile group. As a reminder, we have: C e
=Σ . Thus according to the loading cases we have:
• fundamental ELU: (1) Q g = 3801.6 Tons
(2) Q g = 0.83x440x6 = 2191.2 Tons
• Rare ELS: (1) Q g = 2,911.68 Tons
(2) Q g = 0.83x337x6 = 1455.84 Tons
• quasi-permanent ELS: (1) Q g = 2,224.8 Tons
(2) Q g = 0.83x265x6 = 1319.7 Tons
(1) and (2) correspond respectively to configurations 1 and 2
Page 48
b. Calculation of pile group settlement
The settlement of a pile group can be determined by the "classical method". This method
is based on the assumption of an elastic behavior of the ground and on the fact that the connection sole does not
do not overload the ground.

If s (1) is the settlement of the isolated pile under unit load and Q the load on each pile, the settlement
of the group is:
S g = s (1) Q (1 + ∑ ) = s isolated (1+ ∑ )

α j : interaction coefficient for spacing S j
The determination of this settlement therefore boils down to finding the different interaction coefficients.
This coefficient depends on:

• Position of the base of the piles, in our case the piles are on a rigid bedrock;
• Of the relative rigidity soil-pile K = K p / K s , K p and K s are respectively the modules

elasticity of piles and soil.
Kp=
Ks =
K = K p / K s = 20.6
• The B / S ratio between the diameter and the spacing of the piles
• The D / B ratio and the fish coefficient ν.

The chart below gives us roughly the values of the interaction coefficient
for spacing S j
Page 49
Figure 7: Proximity coefficient for a stake anchored in a rigid bedrock
For the group compaction we therefore have:

(1) Configuration 1:
S g = s isolated (1 + ∑ ) = 13.4mm (1+ 2x0.42 + 0.18 + 0.1 + 0.08 + 0.07 + 0.05 + 0.12 + 0.1 + 0.07
+ 0.05) = 26.6mm
S g = 54.11mm
(2) Configuration 2:
S g = s isolated (1 + ∑ ) = 13.4mm (1 + 0.42 + 0.12 + 0.1 + 0.07 + 0.05) = 17.6mm
S g = 23.58mm
These settlements are admissible for the loads considered.
Page 50
Chapter 4. Reinforcement and constructive arrangements
The bored piles intended for the foundations of engineering structures are generally armed over their entire
height. The reinforcement must therefore be prefabricated in the factory or on the site and then lowered
in drilling. All the reinforcements constituting the reinforcement thus prefabricated bear the name of
frame cage.
In the running part, the pile reinforcement cage consists of longitudinal bars, arranged
along the generatrices of a cylinder, around which are wound and rigidly fixed
transverse reinforcement (hoops or helices, also called turns).
1. Longitudinal reinforcement
The role of longitudinal reinforcement is to resist, in each section of the pile, the moments
calculated or parasitic bending. Their diameter, which must be at least 12 mm (leaflet 68,
article 36.1), can reach 32 mm and quite exceptionally 40 mm. The lengths
current commercial supply are 12 and 14 m. The reinforcement cages of the piles of
great length (more than 15 m) must therefore be broken down into elementary sections which
are assembled on site when the reinforcement is lowered into the borehole. The frames
longitudinal are usually distributed uniformly around the periphery of the pile. Their number
must be at least equal to 6. The reinforcement section must be at least equal to 0.5% of the section
pile concrete (section 36.1 of booklet 68, title one). The minimum reinforcement corresponds to
a quantity of longitudinal reinforcement varying between 39 and 46 kg per cubic meter of concrete. The
reinforcement distribution density may vary over the periphery of the pile in the event that the forces
principals have a preferential direction, but in general, we prefer to avoid such a provision
not very compatible with the conditions of implementation (cladding, positioning in the borehole).
In the table below, we have shown the minimum reinforcement to be placed in a pile in
according to the diameter thereof and taking into account the prescriptions recalled above.
Page 51
Table 19: Table of steels

We have a pile diameter equal to 100cm, therefore a minimum recommended reinforcement of 13φ20 or
8φ25. We will take 9φ25 in longitudinal steel, i.e. a steel area of 44.18cm².
2. Transversal reinforcement
From the point of view of reinforced concrete, transverse reinforcements play three roles. Their main role is
to maintain the longitudinal reinforcement by opposing the buckling thereof. Their second
role is to resist the shearing effort. Their third role is to oppose the opening of cracks
longitudinal which could appear in concrete; they improve the resistance of concrete by
compared to that of the same unreinforced concrete, regardless of the effect of the longitudinal reinforcement.
In fact, the transverse reinforcements constitute a compression seam whose possible action
increases security. From the point of view of execution, the transverse reinforcement plays, in
association with other reinforcements (mounting template hoops for example) a role of
stiffening of the cage during handling, and maintaining the longitudinal reinforcement during
lowering the cage in the borehole and during concreting.
The recommended quantity of transverse reinforcement is at least 20 kg per cubic meter of concrete. The
recommended diameters of transverse reinforcement are contained in the following table:
Table 20: Transverse reinforcement
fittings 12 14 16 20 25 32
longitudinal
φ (mm)
fittings 6-8 6-8 8-10 12-14 12-14-16 16

transverse
φ (mm)
Page 52
The transverse reinforcements are in the form of hoops or turns wound around the reinforcements
longitudinal. The diameter of these turns is taken equal:
• to the nominal diameter of the finished pile, reduced by 10 cm (2 x 5 cm of coating) in the case
of a pile executed without working tube and not lined

• the inner diameter of the liner reduced by 6 cm when the pile is lined.
The transverse reinforcement will consist of continuous turns in T12 of 0.2cm pitch.
3. Special fittings and devices
In addition to the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement, there are other types of reinforcement and devices
which have important roles in the proper implementation of the piles.
• Assembly holes : their role is to facilitate the prefabrication of the cage, respect the
finished diameter of the latter and distribute the longitudinal reinforcement properly, these
hoops must be rigid for this their diameter is important for example for our piles
(φ = 1000mm) we recommend diameters of φ = 20 mm or 25 mm. Their spacing varies
between 2 and 3 m approximately.

• Concrete or plastic wedges : to ensure the coating of the cage frames and the
centering of it, we use shims, of circular shape, which can be made of cement or
made of plastic.
• Basket : At the bottom of the cage, it was usual to turn the frames over
longitudinal towards the center of the pile section so as to constitute a "basket". he

avoids the punching of the drilling base by the longitudinal reinforcement, it
prevents the dip tube from touching the bottom of the borehole. It now seems preferable to
admit only a slight curvature of the reinforcement towards the inside of the cage.
• Lifting frames : these frames have the role of facilitating the lifting of the cage
of reinforcements to put it possibly in the borehole. It is often necessary to
reinforce the reinforcement at the level where these reinforcements will be placed.
A reinforcement diagram showing the different components of the reinforcement cage has been
presented in appendix (APPENDIX 7).
Page 53
Chapter 5. Quantification and Planning
1 meter
The implementation of the piles requires a quantity of materials (concrete, steel, etc.) and a number of
materials well determined. The purpose of this step will be to give the quantity of materials needed
for the execution of all piles. We also present the materials used for the works of
pious. As a reminder, the sizing studies led us to choose the materials

next :
• HA type steels (φ = 12; 16; 25)
• T-type steels (φ = 12)

• Cement type CP I 42.5HRS
• Sand (medium aggregate)
• Gravel (10-40mm aggregate)
In the table below the different materials will be listed with their different
quantities:
Table 21: Materials table
No. Designation Unit Amount
1 Cement (CPA 45) T 1100
2 Aggregate (10-40mm) T 2034.72
Sand (granulate
3 way) T 1017.36
4 Concrete iron T 172.83143
HA25 T 89.882784
HA16 T 32.6685766
HA12 T 50.2800696
Page 54
Table 22: Hardware table
No. Designation Type Unit Number Power
1 Drilling machine U 4; 6 55KW
2 Mud pump 3PN U 4; 6 22KW
3 Concrete plant LOT 1 160KW
4 Bétonnier U 2
5 Dump truck U 1
6 Crane 25T U 1
7 Compressor U 1
8 Excavator 250 U 1
9 Charger 3m3 U 1
10 Total station U 2
11 Electric welder U 3
12 Generator U 1 200KW
13 Level U 1
2. Planning
The implementation schedule presents the tasks to be carried out and the duration of each task. The execution
piles goes through the following stages:
After implantation and staking of the pile locations according to the approved plans and brought
drilling equipment, it should be noted that of all the operations which preside over the execution of a
stake by excavating the ground, drilling, because it is the first and because it is the one whose
conditions depend on the largest number of often imprecise parameters, must be the subject of a
special attention. In the case of this structure, these are piles drilled with mud using
of a drill bit. Drilled in mud because this method allows to reach great depth, adaptable to
all types of site, and the stability of the drilling walls is ensured by mud; however this
stability can also be ensured by the cohesion of the soil. The drill bit used is a jaw
metal which destroys the soil by its weight. It is dropped in free fall in the drilling and
then reassembled by a cable. It is generally used to destroy rocky passages in the ground.

Page 55
It should be noted that a sludge recycling system is observed during this step in order to reuse
this heavy water from which the mud was extracted. After drilling, the cage is lowered
reinforcement and concreting using a dip tube. The cleaning of the bottom of the drilling consists finally in
correctly dispose of all the spoil located not only at the bottom, but also in
suspension in the drilling fluid so that it can be concreted under satisfactory conditions
and above all to obtain good concrete-soil contact, especially at the peak. This cleaning also allows
regularize the shape of the bottom of the borehole and extract the reworked soils by tools of the auger type
particular. Finally, the cleaning up after installation of the reinforcements and sheaths allows
to remove collapsed or sedimented materials during the time necessary for the installation of
this equipment, delays which, for long piles, can be very significant. Density to reach:
≤ 1.1
After drilling, the reinforcement cage is lowered and concreting using a dip tube.
Site safety conditions will be ensured by applying rules to be followed imposed on

the whole scope of the project. The handling of devices, not obeying the rules is prohibited. The entrance is
reserved for staff. Annex 5 returns to security conditions, while Annex 8
presents the implementation schedule.

Page 56
Conclusion
The study of the choice and sizing of foundations is a very important job in the context of
the implementation of the works. At the end of this modest work, we were able to browse the different types
of geotechnical soundings necessary to predict the behavior of the soil in the process of
choice of foundations. Core drilling shows formation of silty sand up to a
depth of 15m. Beneath these layers are shale formations to a depth
of 43m. Pressuremeter surveys indicate maximum pressure limits of 5Mpa.

The interpretation of the results of these surveys allowed us to choose from the range of
foundations the one that was most technically stable and which also offered competitiveness
interesting financial. This choice, which first turned to superficial foundations, was
found modified because these did not exhibit stability with respect to settlement especially
differentials. Indeed to base on shooting soles consists of foundations of 17m of
length for a width varying between 5 and 6.5m. These dimensions have led us to
differential settlements of more than 5 cm in some cases, which was not admissible. The choice
final to consist in adopting foundations on piles 108 in number 1m each and

recessed at 28 m. These piles will be embedded at 28m, depth at which the recovery conditions
loads are met. These piles working in points and in friction will be founded according to the
technique very suitable for mud drilling. This study was completed by the proposal of a
reinforcement plan based on the specific rigor provisions. Of these reinforcement plans we
proposed a quantity and a provisional schedule for implementing the piles.
The importance of the foundation study is indisputable because on this study will depend the stability of
structure and at the same time its sustainability. The objective set was thus achieved after the determination and
dimensioning of mud drilled piles.
The study of foundations, although very important, remains however a phase of the study
complex imposed by reinforced concrete slab bridges.
Page 57
Bibliography
[1] GUEYE I., 2012: course on deep foundations , International Institute for Water and
the environment 2IE, (37 pages)
[2] GUEYE I. 2012: course of Superficial Foundations international institute of water and
the environment 2IE, (70 pages)
[3] FRANK R. year Deep foundations Assistant Professor of Soil Mechanics at the School
National of Bridges and Roads (46 pages)
[4] SETRA (1993), Fascicle N ° 62 - Title V, Technical rules for the design and calculation of
foundations of civil engineering works, (189 pages)
[5] MONTCHO DGS PFE year : “Deep Foundations Dimensioning and design
of a calculation program ” (90 pages)
[6] AGTS , 1991, Geotechnical study of execution file N ° 2011 / F / 1303
[7] DIRECTION OF ROADS AND ROAD TRAFFIC, 1978, Les pieux forés,
code of practice , DIRECTION OF ROADS AND ROAD TRAFFIC
(194 pages)
Page 58
NOTES
ANNEX 1 ……………………………………………………………………………………… 47
ANNEX 2…. …………………………………………………………………………………… 56
APPENDIX 3 ……………………………………………………………………………………… 57
APPENDIX 4 ……………………………………………………………………………………… 73
ANNEX 5 ……………………………………………………………………………………… 74
APPENDIX 6 ……………………………………………………………………………………… 76
Page 59
APPENDIX 1: Results of pressuremeter tests.

z Em P*I
1 15.1 1.51
2 4.7 0.31
3 3.3 0.4
4 4.7 0.42
5 9.2 0.62
6 10.4 0.66
7 18.1 0.98
8 25.3 2.26
9 38.3 1.23
10 42.1 1.32
11 54.7 1.13
12 38.4 1.26
13 16.2 1.31
14 123.7 4.82
15 32.8 2.58
16 38.9 3.05
17 51.6 2.92
18 42.9 3.44
19 26.7 3.09
20 90.8 3.88
21 44.8 3.36
22 60.7 2.91
23 119.2 2.84
24 64.8 3.48
25 51 3.28
26 75.5 3.28
27 35.7 3.49
28 46.8 3.53
Page 60
29 59.7 3.4
30 56.2 5.37
31 222.4 4.77
32 94 5.85
33 156.1 4.79
34 171.6 4.78
35 179.9 4.77
36 219.4 4.76
37 166.9 5.07
38 179.8 5.06
39 178.8 4.78
40 184.5 5.06
41 155 4.75
42 154.8 5.02
43 185.4 5.01
PR1 test
z Em P*I
1 32 2.37
2 4.1 0.3
3 7.6 0.32
4 12.3 0.4
5 13.2 0.54
6 18 0.52
7 11.7 0.52
8 20.8 0.75
9 91.9 4
10 93.9 5.23
11 18.2 0.96
12 28 1.3
13,160.6 2.68
14 26.9 1.94
Page 61
15,107.6 3.03
16 155 4.81
17 61.6 2.21
18 86.6 3.68
19 35.7 2.28
20 68.3 3.26
21,167.4 4.81
22,150.1 4.94
23,121.8 4.93
24 78 5.05
25 73.6 4.99
26 86.6 4.92
27 97.8 4.89
28,119.2 4.79
29 75.4 4.98
30 83.9 5.15
31,179.2 4.76
32,117.8 4.75
33 59.8 4.74
34 63.7 4.96
35,326.6 4.71
36,166.8 4.73
37,160.9 4.82
38,174.9 4.65
39,213.2 4.72
40 65.7 5.25
41,147.8 4.71
42,139.5 4.87
43 120.2 4.97
PR2 TEST
z Em P*I
Page 62
1 5.5 0.49
2 2.6 0.39
3 2.8 0.47
4 5.1 0.67
5 6.7 0.83
6 8.9 0.86
7 14.5 1.02
8 14.7 1.05
9 28.6 1.2
10 42.4 1.44
11 27 0.77
12 19.3 0.92
13 13.9 0.89
14 8.5 1.17
15 40.8 2.3
16 88.1 4.76
17,104.4 5.02
18 65.2 5.05
19,248.2 4.72
20,165.1 4.77
21,210.8 4.73
22,129.2 4.74
23,245.8 4.75
24 97.4 4.73
25,196.1 4.74
26 92.3 5.12
27 91 5.18
28 95.1 4.74
29,174.1 4.76
30 106 5.2
31,204.3 4.74
Page 63
32 120.7 5.36
33 135 4.76
34 96 4.65
35 104.3 4.56
36,114.2 4.68
37,216.1 4.68
38,160.2 4.67
39 112.4 4.88
40 99 5.45
41 87.6 4.77
42 80.1 4.75
43 102.8 4.68
PR3 TEST
z Em P*I
1 55.5 4.57
2 6.1 0.69
3 4.6 0.74
4 7 0.65
5 10.2 0.86
6 12.5 0.97
7 62.5 3.33
8 90.6 3.45
9 19.4 1.75
10 24.9 2.81
11 30.3 3.63
12 14.3 1.26
13 38.5 3.61
14 15.7 2.18
15 138.2 4.83
16 154.8 4.83
17 79.9 4.95
Page 64
18 64.4 4.94
19 75.9 4.63
20 72.7 5.22
21 103.2 4.35
22 111.8 4.95
23 104.5 4.25
24 97.1 4.9
25 74.6 4.69
26 99.8 4.84
27 76.4 3.99
28 123.7 4.83
29 122.1 4.24
30 123.7 4.83
31 122.1 4.24
32 111 4.25
33 117.1 4.72
34 183.5 4.75
35 115.8 4.75
36 202.1 4.74
37 226 4.74
38 152 4.68
39 109.2 4.98
40 112.4 5.75
41 86 4.84
42 85.6 4.83
43 100.8 4.74
PR4 TEST
z Em P*I
1 22.1 1.32
2 6.9 0.6
3 12.3 0.32
Page 65
4 14.4 0.52
5 8.8 0.71
6 15.9 0.82
7 27 1.02
8 25.3 1.43
9 16.9 1.56
10 13 2.16
11 14.4 1.02
12 7.7 0.81
13 9.6 0.52
14 85.9 2.53
15 33.1 3.86
16 88.7 3.82
17 26.7 4.56
18 38.1 4.1
19 46 4.34
20 136.6 4.85
21 124.3 4.84
22 95.2 4.82
23 99.9 4.83
24 106.9 4.83
25 83.4 4.82
26 77.2 4.82
27 75.4 5.09
28 124.3 4.82
29 124.3 4.81
30 106 5.01
31 108.8 4.82
32 152.9 4.8
33 105.5 5.02
34 108.3 4.81

Page 66
35 105.3 4.8
36 104.5 4.82
37 258.1 4.82
38 82.4 4.82
39 85.7 5.03
40 71.1 5.06
41 69.2 5.03
42 64.5 5.08
43 64.5 5.12
PR5 TEST
z Em P*I
1 32.5 2.54
2 7.8 0.61
3 8.4 0.59
4 9.1 0.84
5 15.78 1
6 15.1 1.31
7 21.6 1.56
8 17.9 1.59
9 25.8 1.59
10 44.5 1.82
11 29.4 1.77
12 34.3 1.3
13 29.7 1.24
14 23.3 1.06
15 32.8 1.27
16 19.8 0.98
17 14.6 1.17
18 48.7 2.21
19 30.2 2.66
20 261.6 3.85
Page 67
21 64.8 4.04
22 54.1 4.18
23 102.4 3.97
24 113.5 4.28
25 59.4 5.02
26 78.2 5.12
27 91.6 5.13
28 78.9 5.19
29 78.7 5.06
30 83.2 5.18
31 130.8 5.03
32 155 5.26
33 184.2 4.81
34 209.3 4.81
35 219.8 4.8
36 202.6 4.78
37 181 4.78
38 256.1 4.78
39 225 4.78
40 222.1 4.81
41 230 4.77
42 246.1 4.76
43 230.4 4.77
PR6 TEST
z Em P*I
1 150.2 4.84
2 13.2 0.7
3 8 0.71
4 8.8 0.73
5 15.4 1
6 26.9 1.15
Page 68
7 27.2 1.45
8 25 1.14
9 17.5 1.57
10 30.2 1.8
11 154 4.81
12 267.6 4.8
13 220.1 4.79
14 251.5 4.77
15 148.5 4.77
16 103.2 4.76
17 45.5 3.96
18 211.6 4.76
19 179.6 4.99
20 155.2 4.84
21 159.2 4.23
22 224.5 4.72
23 222.7 4.73
24 214.1 4.74
25 196.6 4.74
26 114.8 4.73
27 114.8 4.73
28 227.6 4.71
29 226.9 4.72
30 210.7 4.72
31 220.3 4.71
32 242.9 4.71
33 191.2 4.72
34 239.2 4.73
35 197.1 4.77
36 182.4 7.72
37 185.4 5.13
Page 69
38 208 4.74
39 193.1 4.79
40 205.7 4.7
41 178.4 4.88
42 172.6 4.91
43 181.5 5.06
PR7 TEST
Page 70
APPENDIX 2: Determination of p le values

*
.
Ple determination for abutments

Page 71
Ple determination for double batteries
Ple determination for single batteries

So we have:
E 1 calculated at B / 2 (= 6.5 / 2 = 3.75m); E 1 = 7.6 + 0.75 x (12.3 - 7.6) = 11.125

E 2 calculated at 2B / 2 (= 2x6.5 / 2 = 6.5m); E 2 = 18 + 0.5 (18 - 11.7) = 14.85
E 3 calculated at 3B / 2 (= 3x6.5 / 2 = 9.75m); E 3 = 91.9 + 0.75 (93.9 - 91.9) = 93.4
E 4 calculated at 4B / 2 (= 4x6.5 / 2 = 13m); E 4 = 160.6
E 5 calculated at 5B / 2 (= 5x6.5 / 2 = 16.25m); E 5 = 155 - (155 - 61.6) x 0.25 = 131.65
E 6 calculated at 6B / 2 (= 6x6.5 / 2 = 19.5m); E 6 = 35.7 + (68.3 - 35.7) x 0.5 = 52
E 7 calculated at 7B / 2 (= 7x6.5 / 2 = 22.75m); E 7 = 150.1 + (150.1 - 121.8) x 0.75 = 128.875
E 9 calculated at 9B / 2 (= 9x6.5 / 2 = 29.25m); E 9 = 75.4 + (83.9 - 75.4) x 0.25 = 77.525
E 10 calculated at 10B / 2 (= 10x6.5 / 2 = 32.5m); E 10 = 117.8 - (117.8 - 59.8) x 0.5 = 103.3
E 11 calculated at 11B / 2 (= 11x6.5 / 2 = 35.75m); E 11 = 326.6 - (326.6 - 166.8) x 0.75 = 206.75
E 13 calculated at 13B / 2 (= 13x6.5 / 2 = 42.25m); E 13 = 139.5 - (139.5 - 120.2) x 0.25 = 134,675
Page 72
E 14 calculated at 14B / 2 (= 14x6.5 / 2 = 45.5m); E 14 = 213.2

E 15 calculated at 15B / 2 (= 15x6.5 / 2 = 48.75m); E 15 = 213.2
E 3.5 = ⇒
E 6.8 = ⇒
E 9.16 = ⇒
Finally
⇒ Ed = 21.50Mpa
And Ec = E1 = 11.125Mpa
sole.
*
3 2
q0 = γ xz = 2.7KN / m x 3m = 8.1 KN / m
Page 73
*
* *
*
( ) ()
From = 2.31m
( )( )
*
=
ql = 0.653Mpa = 65.3T / m²
q cal = ½ ql = 32.65 T / m²
So we have:
E 1 calculated at B / 2 (= 6/2 = 3m); E 1 = 7.6

E 2 calculated at 2B / 2 (= 2x6 / 2 = 6m); E 2 = 18
E 3 calculated at 3B / 2 (= 3x6 / 2 = 9m); E 3 = 91.9
E 5 calculated at 5B / 2 (= 5x6 / 2 = 15 m); E 5 = 107.6
Page 74

E 3.5 = ⇒ 53.68
E 6.8 = ⇒ 98.87
E 9.16 = ⇒ 90.77
Finally
⇒ Ed = 17.86Mpa
And Ec = E1 = 7.6Mpa
. So we have:
E 1 calculated at B / 2 (= 4/2 = 2m); E 1 = 4.1

Page 75

E 3.5 = ⇒
E 6.8 = ⇒
E 9.16 = ⇒
Finally
⇒ Ed = 10.15Mpa
And Ec = E1 = 4.1Mpa
sole.
*
Page 76
3 2
q0 = γ xz = 2.7KN / m x 3m = 8.1 KN / m
*
* *
*
( ) ()
From = 2.31m
( )( )
*
=
ql = 0.6894Mpa = 68.94T / m²
q cal = ½ ql = 34.47 T / m²
Smin = L x B ⇒ B = Smin / L = 98.84 / 17 = 5.81m take B = 6m

Page 77
APPENDIX 3: Determination of B and L for piles.
I. Hypothesis 2: B = 800mm and L = 25m
at. Determination of peak load limit
*
AK p p le
• A: tip section, 2
= 3.14x0.4 = 0.5024m
2
• K p : lift factor.
It is a coefficient which is given by the following table:
Lift factor values Kp

Page 78
we have: 1.1 ≤ Kp ≤ 1.8. Take Kp = 1.1
next way
*
P le ∫
With: { ⇒ a = 0.5m
h = 25m - 16m = 9m
b = min (a; h) = (0.5; 9) = 0.5m
D: installation height; D = 25m
*
P le ∫ ∫ Σ
*
P le = 0.5 (3.28 + 3.28) = 3.28MPa
So we have Q p = 0.5024x 1.1x 328 = 1812.66KN
Q p = 181.27 Tons
b. Determination of the limit load by lateral friction
Qs=P∫
• P pile perimeter: P = 2πr = 2x3.14x0.4 = 2.512m
Page 79
*
*
• q s = q sn ( )
• q s = q sn
*
Curve
z (m) P * L (MPa) Type of soil Pn (MPa) qsn (Mpa) qs (MPa)
used
sand moderately
9 1.23 compact Q2 2 0.08 0.07
sand moderately
10 1.32 compact Q2 2 0.08 0.07
11 1.13 sand moderately Q2 2 0.08 0.06
Page 80
compact
sand moderately
12 1.26 compact Q2 2 0.08 0.07
sand moderately
13 1.31 compact Q2 2 0.08 0.07
14 4.82 silty sand Q2 2 0.08 0.08
15 2.58 silty sand Q2 2 0.08 0.08
16 3.05 silty sand Q2 2 0.08 0.08
Qs =∫ ∫ Σ
Q s = 326 Tons
vs. Calculation of bearing capacity
Page 81
• Rare ELS: Q =

resume (T)

LIVE quasi- 227.74 226 verified
permed
II. Hypothesis 3: B = 1000mm and L = 19m
*
AK p p le
= 3.14x0.5 = 0.785m
2
Page 82
we have: 1.1 ≤ Kp ≤ 1.8. Take Kp = 1.1
next way
*
P le ∫
With: { ⇒ a = 0.5m
h = 25m - 16m = 9m
b = min (a; h) = (0.5; 9) = 0.5m
*
P le ∫ ∫ Σ
Page 83
*
P le = 0.5 (2.28 + 3.26) = 2.77MPa
So we have Q p = 0.785x 1.1x 277 = 2391.9KN
Q p = 239.2 Tons
Qs=P∫
• P perimeter of the pile: P = 2πr = 2x3.14x0.5 = 3.14m
*
Page 84
*
• q s = q sn ( )
• q s = q sn
*
Curve
z (m) P * L (MPa) Type of soil Pn (MPa) qsn (MPa) qs (MPa)
used
sand moderately
9 1.23 compact Q2 2 0.08 0.07
sand moderately
10 1.32 compact Q2 2 0.08 0.07
sand moderately
11 1.13 compact Q2 2 0.08 0.06
sand moderately
12 1.26 compact Q2 2 0.08 0.07
sand moderately
13 1.31 compact Q2 2 0.08 0.07
14 4.82 silty sand Q2 2 0.08 0.08
15 2.58 silty sand Q2 2 0.08 0.08
16 3.05 silty sand Q2 2 0.08 0.08
Qs =∫ ∫ Σ
Page 85
Q s = 257.48 Tons
• Rare ELS: Q =

resume (T)

LIVE quasi- 214.16 226 Not verified
permed
III. Hypothesis 4: B = 1000mm and L = 25m
Page 86
*
AK p p le
= 3.14x0.5 = 0.785m
2
we have: 1.1 ≤ Kp ≤ 1.8. Take Kp = 1.1
next way
*
P le ∫
With: { ⇒ a = 0.5m
Page 87
h = 25m - 16m = 9m
b = min (a; h) = (0.5; 9) = 0.5m
*
P le ∫ ∫ Σ
*
P le = 0.5 (3.28 + 3.28) = 3.28MPa
So we have Q p = 0.785x 1.1x 328 = 2832.28KN
Q p = 283.23 Tons
Qs=P∫
*
Page 88
*
• q s = q sn ( )
• q s = q sn
*
Curve
used
sand moderately
9 1.23 compact Q2 2 0.08 0.07
sand moderately
10 1.32 compact Q2 2 0.08 0.07
sand moderately
11 1.13 compact Q2 2 0.08 0.06
sand moderately
12 1.26 compact Q2 2 0.08 0.07
sand moderately
13 1.31 compact Q2 2 0.08 0.07

Page 89
14 4.82 silty sand Q2 2 0.08 0.08
15 2.58 silty sand Q2 2 0.08 0.08
16 3.05 silty sand Q2 2 0.08 0.08
Qs =∫ ∫ Σ
Q s = 408.2Tons
• Rare ELS: Q =
Page 90

resume (T)
Fundamental ELU 493.88 404 verified
ELS rare 388.5 300 verified

permed
IV. Hypothesis 5: B = 1000mm and D = 28m
d. Determination of peak load limit
*
AK p p le
= 3.14x0.5 = 0.785m
2

Page 91
we have: 1.1 ≤ Kp ≤ 1.8. Take Kp = 1.1
next way
*
P le ∫
With: { ⇒ a = 0.5m
h = 25m - 16m = 9m
b = min (a; h) = (0.5; 9) = 0.5m
*
P le ∫ ∫ Σ
Page 92
*
P le = 0.5 (3.53 + 3.4) = 3.465MPa
So we have Q p = 0.785x 1.1x 346.5 = 299.2
Q p = 299.2 Tons
e. Determination of the limit load by lateral friction
Qs=P∫

*
Page 93
*
• q s = q sn ( )
• q s = q sn
*
Curve
used
sand moderately
9 1.23 compact Q2 2 0.08 0.07
sand moderately
10 1.32 compact Q2 2 0.08 0.07
sand moderately
11 1.13 compact Q2 2 0.08 0.06
sand moderately
12 1.26 compact Q2 2 0.08 0.07
sand moderately
13 1.31 compact Q2 2 0.08 0.07
14 4.82 silty sand Q2 2 0.08 0.08
15 2.58 silty sand Q2 2 0.08 0.08
16 3.05 silty sand Q2 2 0.08 0.08
Page 94
Qs=∫ ∫ Σ
Q s = 483.56Tons
f. Calculation of bearing capacity (taking into account negative friction)
• Rare ELS: Q =

resume (T)
Fundamental ELU 438.9 404 verified
ELS rare 336.62 300 verified

permed
Page 95
Page 96
APPENDIX 4: Determination of the number of piles

The number of piles per line is determined by considering the total load to be taken up. We
has already determined the load on a stake when it is considered isolated. This we
will be used to determine the number of piles to put under the rows of piles or under the abutments. The
table below summarizes the total loads to be taken up by the pile group.
ELS almost
Fundamental ELU (T) rare ELS (T) permanent (T)
simple 1986 1503 1200
double 4330 3621 2436
under abutments 4805 3765 2700
Summary of total loads (Qg) under supports
The number of piles is obtained by a formula of the efficiency coefficient. This coefficient is given
by: C e = Σ . We will assume that each pile works identically in the
group than if it were isolated. Therefore we have Ce = 1 and therefore . As a reminder, in mode
isolated, a stake resumes:
ELU fundamental ELS rare (T) LIVE quasi-

(T) permanent (T)
Isolated stake 440 337 265
• Number of batteries under single battery rows
In fundamental ELU we have:
In rare ELS we have:
Page 97
In quasi-permanent ELS we have:
n ≥ 4.52 we will take n = 6. Or 6 piles under the line of single piles. The verification will be done in
calculating the efficiency coefficient and ensuring that it does not exceed "1" which would be non
meaning.
It remains to determine the spacing between the piles. The pile queue is 17m long.
The spacing S = (17m - 6m) / 4 = 2.2m we will take S = 3m.
In summary under the line of single piles we will have 6 piles spaced 3m apart
• Number of stacks under double stacks and under abutments
The number of piles under double piles and abutments will be determined at the same time by considering the
charges on double batteries. This is because these two charges Qg are close.
In fundamental ELU we have:
In rare ELS we have:
In quasi-permanent ELS we have:
n ≥ 11.17 we will take n = 12. Or 12 piles under the line of double piles and abutments. The cheking process
will be done by calculating the efficiency coefficient and ensuring that it does not exceed “1” which
would be nonsense.
There are 12 piles, so consider two rows of piles with the same configurations as in
level of single batteries.
In summary under the line of double piles and under the abutments there will be 12 piles in two rages
spaced 3m apart and the piles in each row will be spaced 3m apart.
Page 98
APPENDIX 5: Pile construction

Preparation for the execution of works
1. Organization on site
Depending on site situations and pile locations, 4 to 6 drills will be used to

foundation works. To advance the works, we intend to apply excavations
manual to dig the layers of sand
2. Documents required for the work
Pile layout plans, pile formwork plans and pile reinforcement plans, studies
of geotechnical reconnaissance, good practice, execution tables and reception tables.
3. Engineers must be organized to familiarize themselves with the execution plans, situations
geotechnical and plans must be reviewed and confirmed. Engineers must
learn about hydro geographic situations, standards, design ideas as well as
the various control panels.
4. Water, electricity and circulation for vehicles, diversions and traffic maintenance
for transporting vehicles to the work site are critical points
for the normal course of work
5. The materials must be subject to acceptance tests
6. The axes of the piles, dimensions must be confirmed and accepted to pass them on the
start of work visa procedure
7. Implementation of the necessary safety and health measures
8. Establish internal regulations to which employees must refer
Method of execution
Percussion drilling procedure
implantation
of stakes
Implantation of
lost sheath
Page 99
DRILLING AT
DEPOSIT THE THRESHING

LOST SHEATH Recyclag Cleaning of
clearing and p clay e sediment
E
Measure of
depth
Safety and hygiene
• The project director chairs the organization and coordinates the safety and health team.
Each team works in rotation for control

• Entrance defense to the site without helmet
• Handling of equipment not obeying the rules is prohibited
• Traffic signs

Page 100
• The materials must be put in order and the abandoned materials must be
treated immediately to ensure circulation.

• Equip with fire extinguishers, 24 hour surveillance, the entrance is reserved for personnel.
• The borehole is poured in concrete for pile work on 24h consecutive, the company makes
the pessary to reduce noise

• The safety meeting will take place regularly to ensure safety and hygiene.
Page 101
APPENDIX 6: Cracking materials and conditions
QF400 quality concrete
Concrete dosed with 400kg of CP I 42.5HRS cement. it is reserved exclusively for piles
Compressive strength at 28 days: fc28 fc28 / (1.2 * 1.05) = 19.84 Mpa
Tensile strength at 28 days: ft28 0.6 + 0.06fc28 = 1.79
Instantaneous deformation module: Ei28 11000 (fc28) * 1/3 = 29776Mpa
Deferred deformation module: Ev28 3700 (fc28) * 1/3 = 10007Mpa
Concrete limit compressive stress at ELS: fbc 0.3fc28 = 5.95Mpa
Limit tangential stress: rate_U Min (0.15fc28 / gamma_b), 4Mpa) = 1.98Mpa
Fish coefficient 0.20
Steel
Reinforcements with high adhesion: fe E40 A: fe = 400Mpa
Nominal diameter (in mm) 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 20, 25.32
Mild steel FeE235: fe 235Mpa
Modulus of elasticity: E = 200000Mpa
Characteristic resistance of steels: fed = fe / γs with
γs = 1.00 accidental combinations and 1.15 for all other cases

• Cracking coefficient
η = 1.0 for rl 1.3
= 1.3 for HA wires with diameter <6mm
= 1.6 HA bars and Ha wires diameters> 6mm
Page 102
• Sealing coefficient:
ϕs = 1.0 for the rl
= 1.5 for HA bars and wires
coatings
Pile reinforcement coatings: a = 0.07m
Foundation footings: a = 0.04m
Others: a = 0.03m
Cracking conditions
Harmful cracking
Cracking is considered detrimental for all elements of the works other than the piles
drilled
The tensile stress of the reinforcements is: σa = Min (2 / 3fe, Max (1 / 2fe, 110 (ηftj) 1/2))
Apron of the viaduct σa = 216Mpa
Other elements σa = 202Mpa
Very damaging cracking
LA cracking is considered very harmful for bored piles

The tensile stress of the reinforcements is: σa = 0.8 Min (2 / 3fe, Max (1 / 2fe, 110 (ηftj) 1/2))
Drilled piles σa = 160Mpa
Page 103
APPENDIX 7: Reinforcement of the reinforcement cage

Page 104
APPENDIX 8: Pile implementation schedule


Ibrahim Moumouni Translated

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ibrahim Moumouni Translated

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

CHOICE AND DIMENSIONING OF FOUNDATIONS:

MEMORY FOR OBTAINING

Presented and publicly supported on 06/26/2013 By

Moumouni IBRAHIM MOUMOUNI

Works directed by: Mr Ismaila GUEYE

Internship evaluation jury:

Members and correctors: Rémi M.

• I also dedicate this work to my grandparents for their wise advice

• I finally dedicate this work to the 2IE faculty

encouraged in the quest and obtaining my internship;

▪ Mr Ismaila Gueye director of memory for his precious advice,

support and availability;

M Moumouni IBRAHIM MOUMOUNI M2GC / POA Promotion [2012/2013] Page ii

• FS: shallow foundations

• SETRA: Technical Studies Department for Roads and Motorways

• AGTS (Testing laboratory)

M Moumouni IBRAHIM MOUMOUNI M2GC / POA Promotion [2012/2013] Page iii

an interesting economic competitiveness.

excluded for economic conditions deemed not advantageous.

M Moumouni IBRAHIM MOUMOUNI M2GC / POA Promotion [2012/2013] Page vi

CHOICE AND DIMENSIONING OF FOUNDATIONS: Case of the Mali Béro interchange

Introduction ................................................. .................................................. ....................................... 1

1. Core drilling .............................................. .................................................. ...................... 3

Chapter 2. Superficial foundations ............................................. .................................................. .. 8

1. Definitions ............................................... .................................................. ................................ 8

1. Definition ............................................... .................................................. ............................... 21

4. Behavior of pile groups ........................................... ........................................... 35

Chapter 4. Reinforcement and constructive arrangements ........................................... ............................. 40

1. Longitudinal reinforcement .............................................. .................................................. ........ 40

3. Special fittings and devices .......................................... ................................... 42

Chapter 5. Quantification and Planning ............................................ .................................................. ............ 43

1 meter ............................................... .................................................. ...................................... 43

APPENDICES ................................................. .................................................. ...................................... 47

M Moumouni IBRAHIM MOUMOUNI M2GC / POA Promotion [2012/2013] Page vi

CHOICE AND DIMENSIONING OF FOUNDATIONS: Case of the Mali Béro interchange

Figure 1: Superficial foundation ............................................. .................................................. .......... 8

Figure 2: Unit friction ............................................. .................................................. .............. 25

Figure 3: Phenomenon illustrating negative friction .......................................... .............................. 29

Figure 4: Hanging effect ........................................... .................................................. ............... 31

Figure 5: Pile group under double piles (configuration 1) ..................................... ................. 36

Figure 6: Pile group under single piles (configuration2) ...................................... ................. 37

Figure 7: Proximity coefficient for a stake anchored in a rigid substratum ........................... 39

M Moumouni IBRAHIM MOUMOUNI M2GC / POA Promotion [2012/2013] Page vii

Table 1: Choice of type of test ......................................... .................................................. .............. 2

Table 2: Comparative table of core tests .......................................... .................................... 4

Table 3: SC1 surveys ............................................. .................................................. ..................... 5

Table 4: SC2 surveys ............................................. .................................................. ..................... 5

Table 5: Summary of efforts ............................................ .................................................. ...... 10

Table 6: Summary of the dimensions of the soles .......................................... .......................... 13

Table 7: Form coefficients λc and λd ......................................... ............................................... 14

Table 8: Rheological coefficient α ............................................ .................................................. .. 15

Table 9: Summary of settlements ............................................ ................................................ 18

Table 10: Settlement analysis ............................................ .................................................. ... 19

Table 11: Pile head loads .......................................... .................................................. ...... 23

Table 12: Values of the lift factor Kp ......................................... ....................................... 24

Table 14: Unit friction as a function of z ......................................... .................................... 26

Table 15: Balance sheet charges ............................................. .................................................. .................. 27

Table 16: Width and length ............................................ .................................................. ......... 27

Table 17: Calculation of stresses in the soil ......................................... .......................................... 32

Table 18: Summary of efforts ............................................. .................................................. ........ 33

Table 19: Summary of adapted pile ............................................ ................................................. 33

Table 20: Table of steels ............................................ .................................................. ........... 41