ASIRI Recommandations 2012 Translated

Machine Translated by Google
ASIRI national project
Recommendations
for the design, calculation,
execution and control
of works on soils improved
by vertical rigid inclusions
This book is part of the Irex collection, it is published by the Presses des Ponts.
It is available from the Presses des Ponts, in its printed version:
http://www.presses-des-ponts.fr/notre-librairie/303-projet-national-asiri.html
Presses des
Ponts 15 rue de la Fontaine
au Roi 75127 Paris
cedex 11 Tel. : 01.44.58.27.40
You can also obtain it from Irex, in its electronic version (www.irex.asso.fr/boutique).
IREX
9 rue de Berri
75008 PARIS
contact@irex.asso.fr - +33 (0)1 44 13 32 79

ASIRI national project
Recommendations
for the dimensioning, execution
and control of the
improvement of
foundation soils by rigid inclusions
It is forbidden to reproduce this work in whole or in part, without authorization from the French
Center for the Exploitation of Copying Rights (CFC, 20 rue des Grands-Augustins, 75006 Paris,
Tel.: 01 44 07 47 70 / Fax: 01 46 34 67 19).
© 2012 ISBN: 978-2-85978-462-1
Presses of the Bridges 15, rue de la Fontaine-au-Roi

75127 Paris Cedex 11
Printed in France
Foreword
These "Recommendations on the improvement of foundation soils by rigid inclusions" constitute

the culmination of the National ASIRI Project whose research and study activities were carried
out from 2005 to 2011 with an overall budget of 2.7 million euros. This collective action
mobilized thirty-nine companies and partner organizations; It has received financial support
from the Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transport and Housing (Research
and Innovation Department) and constant help from IREX for the entire management of the
project.
This project was born thanks to an initiative relayed by the Soil Competences center of the
IREX with builders and public works engineering to support the development of a new
technique for improving foundation soils, which appeared in France in the 1990s, and consisting
in associating a network of vertical rigid inclusions with a granular layer to form the foundation
platform for civil engineering works (rafts, reservoirs, slabs, embankments) or buildings
( pavings). If old applications were already known and if the use under embankments was
also already practiced in other European countries, the increasing use of this technique for civil
engineering and building works appeared to be a national specificity, characteristic of the
dynamism of the players in the sector (companies and design offices), which however required,
in the absence of any regulatory reference, the development of specific adapted rules.
The National ASIRI Project has endeavored to define, conduct and interpret the experiments
and models necessary to understand the mechanisms by which this innovative foundation
system operates. This applied research program has benefited from the range of skills of all
the actors in the project, whether they are from the academic world or the professional sector,
just as it has also been able to make the most of the material and human resources that each
organization made available.
A completely exceptional database of experimental data and numerical results has been
created, supporting nine doctoral theses carried out within the framework of the project itself.
Observations and models were thus able to be compared for a wide variety of structures. New
perspectives have emerged
3
Foreword
which show how the association of such different elements (soil, inclusions, granular
mattress) leads to an effective and particularly economical composite system.
The result of this approach is the development of practical rules for the design,
dimensioning, execution and inspection of structures on rigid inclusions, for use by all
players interested in the development of this technique.
Another specificity of these recommendations is to include the proposed design

methods in the general framework of limit state design according to the Eurocodes
and more particularly Eurocode 7-1 relating to geotechnical calculations.
The transposition of the general principles to the dimensioning
of a soil improvement method is an original and pioneering work, because it was
necessary to explain specific rules for structures that do not fall into any of the
categories of foundations explicitly treated in the Eurocode 7-1.
The innovative character of the technique is thus well underlined, as well as the extent
of the applications which it makes it possible to envisage.
This important work was possible thanks to the support of all the partner organizations
but also thanks to the motivation of all the people who were passionate about this task.
May everyone here be warmly thanked.
B. SIMON
Director of the Scientific and Technical Committee
4
Partners of the National ASIRI Project

ANTÉA Group, BALINEAU, BOTTE Foundations, BOTTE Surveys, BOUYGUES-TP, CNAM
(National Conservatory of Arts and Crafts), DURMEYER, EDF SEPTEN, EGIS, EIFFAGE
Construction, École des Ponts-ParisTech (formerly ENPC) , ESTP (Special School of Public
Works), FFB (French Building Federation), FNTP (National Federation of Public Works),
FONDASOL, FRANKI Fondations (FAYAT group), GTM (VINCI group), GTS, ICE, IFSTTAR
(formerly LCPC), INCLUSOL, INERIS, INSA Lyon, KELLER Special Foundations, 3SR (ex.
LIRIGM, Joseph-Fourier University), MÉ NARD, NAVIER Laboratoire (ex. CERMES),
PIEUX Ouest, PINTO, Grand Port maritime du Havre, QUILLE, RFF (French rail network),
RINCENT BTP, SAIPEM, SNCF, SOLETANCHE BACHY, SPIE Foundations, TENCATE
(formerly BIDIM Geosynthetics), TERRASOL.
The National Project included a management committee chaired by François SCHLOSSER, assisted
by Olivier COMBARIEU, vice-president, and a scientific and technical committee headed by Bruno
SIMON.
The research actions organized around five themes were led by Laurent BRIANÇON (full-scale tests),
Élisabeth HAZA-ROSIER (tests on sites), Luc THOREL (physical models), Daniel DIAS (numerical
modelling) and Olivier COMBA RIEU ( recommendations).
Also contributing to this project and are thanked: the General

Council of Seine-et-Marne (77), Ports of Paris, SOCOTEC, Bureau VERITAS, SOREDAL, AXSOL
France.
Working group The
recommendations comprise eight chapters, drawn up by five working groups, under the direction of
the scientific committee and validated by a review committee. The following people participated in
the development and drafting of the recommendations: Management of the scientific
and technical committee B. SIMON (Terrasol)
Animators
O. COMBARIEU (Expert), Cl. PLUMELLE (Professor Emeritus), J.-P. IORIO (Saipem), C. POILPRÉ
(X-Amsol), L. CARPINTEIRO (Socotec), S. LAMBERT (Keller Special Foundations)
Members
P. BERTHELOT (Veritas), T. BRET (Keller Special Foundations), L. BRIANÇON (Cnam), S. BRULÉ

(Ménard), C. COPAL (Keller Special Foundations), J. CRÉPET (Soredal), D. DIAS ( INSA Lyon), J.-
B. DROUET (Ménard), J.-R. GAUTHEY (Spie Fondations), M. GLANDY (Solétanche Bachy), J.
GRIPON (Franki Fondations), V. KELLER (Durmeyer), E. LAVÉDER (Axsol France), B. LÉGER
(Quille), F. MASSÉ (Ménard) A. NANCEY (Tencate), U. OKYAY
5
ASIRI NATIONAL PROJECT
(Pinto), B. PEZOT (Ménard), C. PLOMTEUX (Ménard), J. RACINAIS (Ménard), C. SIMON

(EDF), S. TURLE (Inclusol),
Proofreading Committee
President F. SCHLOSSER (Professor Emeritus)

R. KASTNER (Professor Emeritus), A. GUILLOUX (Terrasol), P. LIAUSU (Ménard), P.
AGUADO (Apave), F. BAGUELIN (Fondasol)
Figures : Mr. ANIC ANTIC (Terrasol)
English translation : R. SACHS
6
Summary
Foreword 3
Partners of the National ASIRI Project 5
Ratings 9
Chapter 1. Description and development up to the national project 29
Chapter 2. Mechanisms and operation 55
Chapter 3. Calculation models 113
Chapter 4. Design 177
Chapter 5. Rationale 189
Chapter 6. Soil recognition 293
Chapter 7. Execution 311
Chapter 8. Controls and Instrumentation 347
Contents 375
7
Ratings
Units/
Rating Description Description Dimension
Units
Area of a cell (one inclusion + Surface area of a mesh

AT L2 (m²)
surrounding soil) (inclusion + surrounding soil)
Area of the compressed section Surface area of the compressed

Ac of an inclusion cross-section of an inclusion L2 (m²)
AS Compressible soil area Surface area of the soft soil L2 (m²)
Area of the inclusion head Surface area

PA
of the inclusion head L2 (m²)
(slab)
Characteristic length of the I

To Include cap width (m)
slab (inclusion head)
Spacing of inclusions in a Spacing between inclusions I

a,b (m)
rectangular mesh within a rectangular mesh
Reference dimension of a Reference dimension
B I (m)
shallow foundation of a shallow foundation
CC Compression index index compression (–)

Limit value for calculating Limiting design value
CD the effect of an action of the effect of an action
Maximum resistance value

Maximum value of the
compression of a sive strength
of an inclusion, in inclusion taking
into account the recognition
of the consistency consistency that
Cmax it is necessary that must be ML–1T–2 (Pa)
applied to the fresh to give to concrete,
grout or concrete, grout or
mortar depending on fresh mortar
following the technique used
cs Recompression Index index recompression (–)

Secondary consolidation rate
Cÿ Rate of secondary consolidation (–)
cÿe Creep index creep index (–)
Cohesion (in terms Cohesion (in terms

vs' ML–1T–2 (Pa)
of effective stress) of effective stress)
9
Coefficient of variation of Coefficient of variation of the log

ck logarithm of permeability of permeability (–)
with void ratio with the void index
cu Undrained cohesion Undrained shear strength ML–1T–2 (Pa)
Apparent cohesion Apparent cohesion

cuu ML–1T–2 (Pa)
of unsaturated soil of an unsaturated soil
Vertical consolidation Coefficient of consolidation

resume L2T–1 (m2/s)
coefficient in the vertical direction
D Diameter of an inclusion Inclusion diameter I (m)

Equivalent tip diameter for a Equivalent tip diameter for an
dp non-circular section inclusion inclusion with a non-circular I (m)
cross-section
Equivalent shaft diameter Equivalent diameter of the shaft

ds for a non-circular section for an inclusion with a non- I (m)
inclusion circular cross-section
Nominal diameter of the largest I

dmax Maximum soil grain diameter (m)
grain of a soil
Horizontal distance between the Horizontal distance between the
said axis of an inclusion and the center of axis of an inclusion and the I (m)
the foundation center of the foundation
Dimension at n% (n% of the n percent dimension (n% of par

dn particles by weight have ticles by weight with a I (m)
dimensions less than dn) dimension of less than dn)
E Charging efficiency Load efficiency (–)
Effectiveness in terms
Etass Settlement efficiency (–)
of compaction
Efficiency by model Efficiency according to the

EV
Hewlett and Randolph when Hewlett and Randolph model
(–)
controlled by the break at the when controlled by failure
top of the vault at the arch summit
Efficiency by model Efficiency according to the

Hewlett and Randolph when Hewlett and Randolph model
AND (–)
controlled by the break at the when controlled by failure at the
foot of the arch base of the arch
Fraction of the total load to Proportion of total load to

be applied at the head be applied at the head of a
EQP
of the fictitious column of an fictitious column associated (–)
with an analytic model of a common mesh
analytical model of a running mesh
Calculation value of the Design value of the effect
Ed
effect of an action of actions
10
Ratings
Young's modulus, Modulus of

E Young's modulus ML–1T–2 (Pa)
elasticity
Modulus of deformation Apparent deformation modulus of the

E* visible from the ground reinforced reinforced soil subjected to vertical ML–1T–2 (Pa)
under vertical loading loading
Conventional modulus determined

Normalized Menard pressure meter
EM mined during the standardized ML–1T–2 (Pa)
modulus
Ménard pressuremeter test
Tangent modulus of the first Tangent modulus for initial loa ding
Hey ML–1T–2 (Pa)
loading
Eoed Oedometric module Oedometric modulus ML–1T–2 (Pa)
Reference value of the tangent Reference value of the tangent

ref oedometric modulus in the “Har dening ML–1T–2
Eoed oedometric modulus in the Hardening (Pa)
soil model soil” model
Oedometric modulus equivalent to Equivalent oedometric modulus of the

Eoedo* the volume of soil reinforced by soil volume reinforced by inclusions ML–1T–2 (Pa)
inclusions
Young's modulus of
Ep Young's modulus of inclusion ML–1T–2 (Pa)
inclusion
Apparent modulus of soil Apparent deformation modulus of the

Is ML–1T–2 (Pa)
deformation soil
Modulus of deformation of Deformation modulus of

Esol ML–1T–2 (Pa)
unreinforced soil the non-reinforced soil
Reference value of the secant modulus

Reference value of the secant
at 50% of the failure deviator in the
E50ref modulus at 50% strength in the ML–1T–2 (Pa)
model
"Hardening soil" model
hardening soil
Reference value of the recompression Reference value of the unloa ding-
Eurref modulus in the reloading modulus in the ML–1T–2 (Pa)

Hardening soil model “Hardening soil” model
e Void index Void ratio (–)
e0 Initial void index Initial void ratio (–)
Maximum Void Index (in Maximum void ratio (in the loo sest
emax (–)
loosest state) state)
Minimum Void Index (in densest state) Minimum void ratio (in the den sest
emin (–)
state)
FN Resultant of negative friction Resultant of negative friction MLT–2 (NOT)
Design value of the compressive

Design value of the compressive
strength of the concrete, grout or
cdf strength of the concrete, grout or ML–1T–2 (Pa)
mortar used on an inclusion
mortar of an inclusion
11
Characteristic compressive strength Characteristic value of the com

of concrete, grout or mortar measured pressive strength of the con crete,
fck ML–1T–2 (Pa)
on cylinders after 28 days grout or mortar measured on cylinders
at 28 days
Characteristic compressive strength Characteristic value of the com

of concrete, grout or mortar measured pressive strength of the con crete,
fck (t) ML–1T–2 (Pa)
on cylinders at t days grout or mortar measured on cylinders
at t days
Characteristic value of the com

Characteristic compressive strength
pressive strength of the con crete,
fck* of concrete, grout or mortar of an ML–1T–2 (Pa)
grout or mortar used on an inclusion
inclusion
Resistance design value Design value of the shear and

in shear and in compression of the compressive strength of the
fcvd ML–1T–2 (Pa)
concrete, grout or mortar of an inclusion concrete, grout or mortar used on an
inclusion
Resistance design value Design value of the tensile

fctd to the traction of the concrete, grout strength of the concrete, grout or ML–1T–2 (Pa)
or mortar of an inclusion mortar used on an inclusion
Characteristic value of the com

Characteristic value of the
pressor strength value at 28 days
fc28 compressive strength at 28 days of ML–1T–2 (Pa)
for the ground slab con crete
the concrete of a slab
Characteristic value of the tensile Characteristic value of the ten

strength by splitting at 28 days of sile strength value by splitting at 28
ftsplitting28 ML–1T–2 (Pa)
the concrete of a slab days for the ground slab con crete
fn Unit negative friction Negative skin friction ML–1T–2 (Pa)
Marginal rate of effort transfer on the Marginal load efficiency ratio on the
G (–)
head of an inclusion inclusion head
G shear modulus Shear modulus ML–1T–2 (Pa)
G11,G12, Qualifier of standardized Qualifier of standardized geo

G2,G3 geotechnical missions technical missions
G4 (standard NF P 94-500) (NF P 94-500 Standard)
Equivalent shear modulus Equivalent shear modulus of

G* ML–1T–2 (Pa)
of reinforced soil the reinforced soil
Gravity acceleration
Acceleration due to earth gravity (g =
g earthly LT–2 (m/s2)
9.81 m/s2)
(g = 9.81m/s2)
Permanent part of an overload Permanent component of a surcharge

g ML–1T–2 (Pa)
12
Ratings
Imposed lateral displacement of Imposed lateral displacement I

g(z) the soil around an inclusion of the soil around an inclusion (m)
Maximum value of lateral Maximum imposed lateral

gmax displacement imposed displacement value around an I (m)
around an inclusion inclusion
H Compressible floor height Height of the soft soil I (m)
Height of equal Height of the equal settlement I

Hey
settlement plane (m)
plane
HR or HR Fill height Embankment height I (m)
HM or hm Mattress height Platform height I (m)
Plane digital model height Height of the numerical model I

H.M. (m)
plane
H, HS Compressible soil thickness Soft soil thickness I (m)

h Thickness of a slab Thickness of a ground slab I (m)
Action height of negative Height of negative friction action
h.c. friction in the com pressible taking place in the soft layer I (m)
layer (critical height) (critical height)
Vertical distance between the Vertical distance between the

point of intersection of a failure point of intersection of a failure
hey I (m)
mechanism with an inclusion and mechanism with an inclusion
the center of the foundation and the foundation center
Height of application of Height of negative friction

negative friction on the application on the fictitious
hr , ha I (m)
fictitious column column positioned
overcoming the inclusion headon top of the inclusion head
Product of inertia for a cross

I Product of inertia of a section L4 (m4)
section
ID Density index Density index (–)
CI Consistency index Consistency index (–)
IP Plasticity index Plasticity index (–)
J Stiffness of a
Stiffness of a geosynthetic layer MT–2 (N/m)
geosynthetic aquifer
Coefficient of the law of variation Coefficient of the modulus varia
k of the modulus in the rheological tion law in the "Hardening soil" (–)
model Hardening soil rheological model
Reaction modulus of Coefficient of subgrade reaction
KS or ks
of soft soil (supporting soil)
compressible soil (supporting soil)
ML–2T–2 (kN/m3)
Relationship between Ratio between horizontal and

K horizontal and vertical stresses vertical stresses (–)
13
Earth pressure factor Coefficient of earth pressure at

KB rest (–)
at rest
Earth pressure coefficient Coefficient of active earth

Ka (–)
pressure
Coefficient of passive earth

kp Earth stop coefficient (–)
pressure
Transmission coefficient Coefficient of overload

kg of an overload in a non-heavy mass transmission within a weight (–)
less medium
Horizontal impedance of Horizontal impedance of a shal low

Kx foundation MT–2 (kN/m)
a shallow foundation
Horizontal and vertical Coefficients of horizontal

kh, kv permeability coefficients LT–1 (m/s)
and vertical permeability
Underside reaction module Coefficient of subgrade reaction on

the underside of a ground slab
who of a slab near the axis of a rigid ML–2T–2 (kN/m3)
adjacent to the axis of a rigid
inclusion (r < rk)
inclusion (r < rk)
Reaction modulus of the Coefficient of subgrade reaction of

compressible soil or reaction the soft soil or coefficient of
ks modulus on the underside of a slab subgrade reaction on the under side ML–2T–2 (kN/m3)
at a distance from of a ground slab removed from the
the inclusion (r > rk) inclusion (r > rk)
Slopes of mobilization laws Slopes of the Frank and Zhao

kÿ, kq from Frank and Zhao for the laws for both the mobilization ML–1T–2 (Pa)
rubbing and the tip friction and the tip
Empirical coefficient for determining

Empirical coefficient for
determining the value of the design value of the
calculation of resistance in com compressive strength of the
concrete, mortar or grout on a
pressure of concrete, mortar or
deep foundation (NF P 94 262
grout of a deep foundation (standard
k1 Standard); this coefficient (–)
NF P 94 262); takes into
accounts for the mode of placement
account the mode of installation
in the soil as well as possible cross-
in the ground as well as possible
section variations
variations in section according to
depending on the technique
the technique used
employed
Empirical coefficient for Empirical coefficients for deter

determining the value of mining the design value of the
pressure of concrete, mortar or concrete, mortar or grout on a
k2 grout of a deep foundation (standard deep foundation (NF P 94 262 (–)
NF P 94 262); takes into Standard); this coefficient
account the concrete difficulties accounts for concreting difficult
related to the geometry of the ties tied to the inclusion geo
inclusion. metry
14
Ratings
Empirical coefficient for Empirical coefficients for deter

determining the value of mining the design value of the
pressure of concrete, mortar or concrete, mortar or grout on a
k3 (–)
grout of a deep foundation deep foundation (NF P 94 262
(standard NF P 94 262); Standard); this coefficient
takes into account the integrity accounts for the structural
checks carried out integrity testing conducted
Reference dimension of a Reference dimension for a shal
I I (m)
shallow foundation low foundation
I Length of an inclusion Include length I (m)
Width of the logarithmic spiral

Width of the logarithmic spiral in I
L1 that in the mechanism of the Prandtl mechanism (m)
Prandtl
Reference dimensions of a Reference dimensions of a

L1, L2 I (m)
paving ground slab
Length required to mobilize the Length required to mobilize

anchoring forces counted anchorage forces, measured as
Lal from the last inclusion in the of the last inclusion in the I (m)
longitudinal direction embankment longitudinal
direction
Length required to mobilize the Length required to mobilize

anchoring forces counted anchorage forces, measured as
Lat from the last inclusion in the of the last inclusion in the I (m)
direction embankment transverse
transverse direction
Anchorage length of a Anchorage length of a

Lfr geosynthetic layer counted from geosynthetic layer, measured I (m)
the head of the slope from the top of the slope
Length available for the Length available for the ancho

anchoring of a geosynthetic rage of a geosynthetic layer, I
Lht (m)
layer counted from the head of measured from the top of the
the slope slope
Half-width of the planar digital Half-width of the numerical

LM I (m)
model plane-strain model
Mechanism width Width of the Prandtl mechanism,

Lmax Prandtl counted from the outer measured from the outer edge ML–1T–2 (Pa)
edge of the inclusion of the inclusion
M Moment of a force torsor Net moment of a system

ML2T–2 (Nm)
of loads
M Bending moment Bending moment ML2T–2 (Nm)

Design value of the moment of a Design value of net moment
md ML2T–2 (Nm)
force torsor of a system of loads
15
Torsor moment of the reactors Net moment of reactions deve

ments developed in the inclusions loped in inclusions, for verification of
MR ML2T-2 (Nm)
for the ULS bearing verification ULS load-bearing capacity
Mr Radial moment in a plate Radial moment in a plate ML2T-2 (Nm)
Bending moment in a plate around Bending moment in a plate

Mx ML2T-2 (Nm)
the axis (0y) around the (0y) axis
Bending moment in a plate around Bending moment in a plate

My ML2T-2 (Nm)
the axis (0x) around the (0x) axis
Bending moment which stresses the Bending moment that loads the upper
msup upper fiber of the slab in tension fiber of the ground slab in tension ML2T-2 (Nm)
Bending moment which stresses the Bending moment that loads the lower
minf lower fiber of the slab in tension fiber of the ground slab in tension ML2T-2 (Nm)
MO Organic matter content Organic matter content (–)
Exponent of the modulus variation Exponent of the modulus variation

m law in the rheological model Hardening law used in the “Hardening soil” (–)
soil rheological model
Moment calculated in a continuous Computed moment in a continuous

my slab on equivalent homogenized ground slab on an equivalent ML2T–2 (Nm)
soil homogenized soil
Corrective term representing the Corrective term representing the

mb influence of rigid inclusions on a influence of rigid inclusionson a ML2T–2 (Nm)
continuous slab continuous ground slab
Corrective term representing the Corrective term representing the

mc interactions between rigid inclusions interactions between rigid inclusions ML2T-2 (Nm)
and joints and joints
Frank's law coefficients and Coefficients of Frank and Zhao

mÿ, mq Zhao of mobilization of friction and mobilization laws for both friction (–)
peak term and the tip term
Nc, Nq, N Bearing capacity factors Bearing capacity factors (–)
Correlation factor between undrained Correlation factor between

nk cohesion cu and peak strength qc undrained cohesion cu and cone (–)
resistance qc
Correlation factors between undrained

Correlation factors between
cohesion cu and piezocone tip
Nkt undrained cohesion cu and cor rected (–)
resistance qt
piezocone resistance qt
not Porosity Porosity (–)
P Scope of inclusion Perimeter inclusion I (m)
16
Ratings
Horizontal Constraint horizontal-stress

p ML–1T–2 (Pa)
against an inclusion against an inclusion
Mean effective stress = (ÿ1' + ÿ2'+ Effective mean stress

p' ML–1T–2 (Pa)
ÿ3')/3 = (ÿ1' + ÿ2'+ ÿ3')/3
Conventional limit pressure Standard limit pressure determined

please determined during the standardized when conducting the standard ML–1T–2 (Pa)
Ménard pressure test Menard pressuremeter test
Conventional limit pressure counted Standard net limit pressure cor

* from the total horizontal stress rected from the total horizontal
please ML–1T–2 (Pa)
prevailing in the ground during the stress acting in the soil at test
test elevation
Ultimate value of the horizontal stress Ultimate value of the lateral soil
plim ML–1T–2 (Pa)
against an inclusion pressure against an inclusion
Vertical resultant of a force torque Vertical net force of a system of

Q MLT–2 (NOT)
loads
Calculation value of the vertical resultant Design value of the vertical net force
Qd of a force torque
MLT–2 (NOT)
of a system of loads
Vertical resultant of the forces Vertical net force of applied

Q* applied (in the absence of inclusions) loads MLT–2 (NOT)
(in the absence of inclusions)
Vertical resultant of forces applied Vertical net forces of applied

to the area of an inclusion head loads over the inclusion head
Qp* area MLT–2 (NOT)
Vertical resultant of the torsor of the Vertical net force of reactions

reactions developed in the inclusions developed in inclusions, for
QR MLT–2 (NOT)
for the ULS lift verification verification of ULS load-bearing
capacity
Vertical resultant of forces applied Vertical net force of loads

to the inclusion section placed at applied to the inclusion cross
Qs(z) MLT–2 (NOT)
depth z under the head section placed at depth z
below the head
Load applied at the corner (or

Load applied at the corner (or edge)
edge) of the ground slab serving to
of the paving which cancels the
cancel out the lifting due to the
Q's uplift due to differential shrinkage MLT–2 (NOT)
differential shrinkage and
and the temperature gradient (DTU
temperature gradient
13.3)
(DTU 13.3)
Vertical resultant of forces applied Vertical net force of loads

to the complementary area of an applied on the complementary area
Qs* inclusion head (in the absence of an inclusion head (in the MLT-2 (NOT)
of inclusions) absence of inclusions)
17
Vertical resultant of forces Vertical net force of loads

Qp(0) or
+ applied at the head of an inclusion applied at the head of an inclusion MLT–2 (NOT)
PQ
Vertical resultant of forces

Qs(0) or Vertical net force of loads
+ applied to the surface of the MLT–2 (NOT)
QS applied to the soft soil surface
compressible soil
q Stress diverter Equivalent shear stress ML–1T–2 (Pa)
Variable component of
q Variable part of a surcharge ML–1T–2 (Pa)
a overload
Stress applied at the profile head

Stress applied at the head of the
q0 ML–1T–2 (Pa)
profile (overload)
(excess surface load)
Vertical stress acting on the Vertical stress acting upon the non-
q* unreinforced compressible soil (without reinforced soft soil (without ML–1T–2 (Pa)
inclusion) inclusion)
Asymptotic value of the deviator in

Asymptotic value of the hyper bolic
the hyperbolic adjustment of the
qa fitting of stress-strain curve in primary
stress-strain curve of a
triaxial loading
triaxial test
Peak resistance (or cone resistance)

sth Cone resistance ML–1T–2 (Pa)
Limit resistance at the peak of Limit value of point resistance of an

qp ML–1T–2 (Pa)
an inclusion inclusion
qs Limit unit lateral friction Limit value of skin friction ML–1T–2 (Pa)
Cone resistance corrected for

Peak resistance (or cone resistance)
qty pore water pressure ML–1T–2 (Pa)
of the piezocone
(piezocone testing)
Constraint applied to the compressible Stress applied on the soft soil at the
* soil where the embedding head location of the inclusion head
ML–1T–2 (Pa)
qp would be if it were in place (provided an inclusion had been placed)
* stress applied to the compressible Stress applied on the soft soil

qs ML–1T–2 (Pa)
soil (without inclusion) (without an inclusion)
+ stress applied to the head of the Stress applied on the inclusion head
ML–1T–2 (Pa)
qp inclusion
Limit value of the stress on the head of Limit value of stress on the
the inclusion calculated with the inclusion head, as calculated using ML–1T–2 (Pa)
qp +(P)
Prandtl mechanism the Prandtl mechanism
18
Ratings
Limit value of the stress on Limit value of stress on the

the head of the calculated inclusion inclusion head, as calculated for
qp +(L) for an overhang L of the footing an overhang length L of the foo ML–1T–2 (Pa)
with respect to the edge of the ting relative to the inclusion
inclusion edge
Design limit value of con
+ Design limit value of the stress
qp,d train applied to the head of the ML–1T–2 (Pa)
inclusion applied on the inclusion head
+ Stress applied to the surface Stress applied to the soft soil

qs ML–1T–2 (Pa)
of the compressible soil surface
R Radius of the equivalent mesh Radius of the equivalent mesh I (m)
R Radius of a circular footing Radius of a circular footing I (m)
Threshold in the displacement Threshold in the load-displace

RC load curve of a foundation on ment curve of a foundation built MLT–2 (NOT)
inclusions we include
Inclusion Peak Ultimate Ultimate point resistance

Rb MLT–2 (NOT)
Resistance of the inclusion
Maximum radius of the diffusion Maximum radius of the diffusion

CR I (m)
cone cone
Resistance design value Design value of the resistance

Rd to one share to an action
RF qf /qa ratio qf /qa ratio (–)
Characteristic Characteristic resistance value

Rk resistance value
Ultimate resistance mobilized Ultimate resistance mobilized

Rs by friction on the shaft by friction on the shaft MLT–2 (NOT)
of an inclusion of an inclusion
Rock Overconsolidation report Overconsolidation ratio (–)

Design value of the critical Design critical ground bearing
strength (creep) in ground resistance value (creep) in
Rc, cr; d MLT–2 (NOT)
compression for an isolated compression for an isolated
inclusion inclusion
Characteristic value of the Characteristic value of short

short-term tensile strength of term tensile strength of the geo
Rt ; k the geosynthetic measured synthetic, as measured MT–2 (N/m)
according to standard NF EN according to the NF EN ISO 10319
ISO 10319 Standard
Design value of the ultimate

Design value of the ultimate ten
Rt ; d tensile strength of the MT–2 (N/m)
sile strength of the geosynthetic
geosynthetic
19
Resistance design value Design value of the ultimate ten

ultimate traction of the geosynthetic sile strength of the geosynthetic
Rt-L; d MT–2 (N/m)
in the longitudinal direction of the in the longitudinal direction of
embankment the embankment
Resistance design value Design value of the ultimate ten

ultimate tension of the geosynthetic sile strength of the geosynthetic
Rt-T; d MT –2 (N/m)
in the transverse direction of the in the transverse direction of the
embankment embankment
Resistance design value Design value of the ground bea

Rev; d land under a foundation ring resistance beneath a shal I (m)
superficial low foundation
Radius defining the distribution of Radius defining the distribution

rk reaction coefficients of coefficients of subgrade I (m)
ki and ks reaction ki and ks
rp Inclusion radius Radius inclusion I (m)

S Footing area Footing area I (m)
Saturation ratio, degree

sr degree of saturation of saturation (–)
Constraint Reduction Rate

SRR Stress reduction ratio (–)
your
Spacing of inclusions in a Center-to-center distance of the

s I (m)
square mesh inclusions in a square mesh
Shape factors for the calculation of Shape coefficients for

sc, sÿ, sq (–)
bearing capacity computation of the load-bearing capacity
Horizontal resultant of a tor Horizontal net force of a system
T MLT–2 (NOT)
effort sor of loads
Calculation value of the resultant Design value of the horizontal

Td MLT–2 (NOT)
horizontal of a force torsor net force of a system of loads
Tensile design value Design value of tension in the
Td MT–2 (N/m)
in geosynthetics geosynthetic
Tensile design value
Design value of tension in the
in the geosynthetic resulting from vertical
Td; mesh geosynthetic resulting from MT–2 (N/m)
loads on a mesh
vertical loads on a mesh

geosynthetic resulting from hori
in the geosynthetic resulting from zontal outward thrust of the
Td ; thrust the thrust forces of the slope, MT–2 (N/m)
evaluated at the bare exterior
embakment fill, as evaluated on
the external unfinished side of
of the last include head
the last inclusion head
20
Ratings

geosynthetic resulting from hori
in the geosynthetic resulting from zontal outward thrust of the
Td; thrust ;
the thrust forces of the slope, MT–2
max (N/m)
embakment fill, as evaluated in
evaluated directly above the crest
of the slope alignment with the slope ridge line
Resistance design value Design value of geosynthetic

Tgeo MT–2
(N/m)
geosynthetic aquifer layer resistance

Tgeo, long MT–2
of the geosynthetic aquifer in layer resistance in the longitudinal (N/m)
the longitudinal direction direction

Tgeo, trans MT–2
of the geosynthetic aquifer in layer resistance in the (N/m)
the transverse direction transverse direction
Horizontal resultant of tor Horizontal net force of the react

TR of the reactions developed in the tions developed in inclusions, for MLT–2
(NOT)
inclusions for the ULS bearing verification of ULS load-bea
capacity verification ring capacity
Shear force in an inclu

T Shear force in an inclusion MLT–2
(NOT)
if we
TV Oedometric time factor Time factor
U Degree of consolidation,
Degree of consolidation consolidation ratio (–)
a Pore pressure, pore overpressure Pore pressure, excess pore

ML–1T–2 (Pa)
pressure
V LT–1
Speed of a rigid block Velocity of a rigid block (m/s)
V Specific volume = (1 + e) Specific volume = (1 + e)
VBS Methylene blue value of a soil (g/100 g

Methylene blue value of a soil
of soil)
vi Vertical force applied at the foot of Vertical force applied at foot of a MLT-2
(NOT)
a rack rack
v Lateral displacement Lateral displacement I (m)
Weight of the mattress volume of a Weight of the load platform for

W MLT–2
(NOT)
unit cell a unit cell
Weight of the mattress Weight of the load platform

wp supported by the head of an MLT–2
supported by an inclusion head in a (NOT)
inclusion in a mesh unit cell
Vertical load supported by a Vertical load supported by a

WT MLT–2
geosynthetic layer between two geosynthetic layer placed (NOT)
inclusions between two inclusions
21
Relative displacement between

Relative displacement between the
w(z) the soil and the inclusion I (m)
ground and the inclusion; = ys(z) – yp(z)
= ys(z) - yp(z)
w Water content water content (–)
wn Natural water content Natural water content (-)
wL Liquidity limit Liquid limit (–)
wP Plastic limit plastic limit (–)
there
Settlement Settlement I (m)
ys Soil compaction Soil settlement I (m)
yp Inclusion settlement Inclusion settlement I (m)
Settling on the surface of the Settlement at the load platform

yM I (m)
mattress surface
ÿ Coverage
Coverage area ratio/Area
(–)
replacement ratio/Area ratio
ÿ
Angular deformation of a foundation Angular deformation
(rad)
of a foundation
Soil-geosynthetic interface friction Reduction coefficient of friction

ÿ reduction coefficient at the soil-geosynthetic (–)
interface
Coefficient for the calculation Coefficient for the characteris

ÿcc of the characteristic resistance of tic concrete strength (–)
concrete computation
ÿ Force diffusion angle Diffusion angle of forces (°)
Correction coefficient Correction coefficient for eva

ÿ to assess the apparent luating the apparent modulus of (–)
modulus of the reinforced soil reinforced soil
Relative rotation of a foundation

ÿ Relative foundation rotation (–)
tion
ÿ Deflection of a foundation Foundation deflection (–)
ÿ Deformation Strain (–)
ÿ1 or ÿa Axial deformation Axial strain (–)
ÿv Volume deformation Volume strain (–)
Angle of shearing resistance (in

Effective internal friction angle terms of effective stress),
ÿ' (°)
effective angle of shearing resistance
tance
22
Ratings
Critical state internal friction Angle of shearing resistance at

ÿ' crit
critical state (°)
angle
Friction angle of the soil- Angle of friction at the soil-geo

ÿgeo (°)
geosynthetic interface synthetic interface
Effective internal friction angle Effective angle of shearing

ÿ' NC in the nor range resistance within the normally (°)
poorly consolidated consolidated domain
Effective internal friction angle Peak angle of shearing

ÿ' peak
resistance (°)
at peak
Effective internal friction angle Effective angle of shearing

ÿ' SC in the domain on resistance within the overcon (°)
consolidated solid domain
ÿ Angle of dilatancy Angle of dilatancy (°)
Proportionality factor between

the maximum values of the Proportionality factor between
the maximum horizontal and
ÿ horizontal and vertical (–)
vertical
displacement of the ground around an inclu displacement values for
the soil around an inclusion
if we
Partial factor related to the time- Partial coefficient related to the

dependent behavior of
behavior over time of geosyn
geosynthetics; ÿflu = 1/ÿflu as
ÿflu thetics; ÿflu =1/ÿflu, as defined in (–)
defined in standard NF P 94270
the NF P 94270 Standard,
appendix F.4.3.
Appendix F.4.3
Partial coefficient linked to the Partial coefficient related to the

aging of geosynthetic products,
aging of geosynthetic products,
for example by hydrolysis or
eg by means of hydrolysis or
oxidation, depending on the
environmental conditions of the oxidation, as a function of product
ÿdeg (–)
environmental conditions; ÿdeg =
product; ÿdeg = 1/
1/ ÿdeg, as defined in the NF P
ÿdeg as defined
in standard NF P 94270 94270 Standard, Appen dix F.4.4
appendix F.4.4.
Partial coefficient corresponding

Partial coefficient corresponding
to the damage to the geosynthetic
to the damage of geosyn thetic
reinforcements produced by reinforcements caused
their installation and the
by their installation and emban
end compaction of the (–)
embankments. kment compaction;
ÿend = 1/ ÿend, as defined in the
ÿend = 1/ ÿend as defined in
standard NF P 94270 appendix NF P 94270 Standard, Appen
dix F.4.2
F.4.2
ÿ Soil density Soil unit weight ML–2T–2 (kN/m3)
ÿ' Planed density Submerged unit weight of soil ML–2T–2 (kN/m3)
23
Partial coefficient relative to

Partial coefficient relating to concrete
ÿC concrete (NF EN 1992-1-1 (–)
(NF EN 1992-1-1 2.4.2.4 Standard)
2.4.2.4)
Partial factor for permanent action Partial factor for a permanent

ÿG
action (–)
Partial factor of geosynthetic Partial factor of the geosynthetic

ÿM; you
material (–)
material
Partial factor for variable action Partial factor for a variable

ÿQ stock (–)
Partial factor for slip resistance Partial factor for sliding resistance
ÿR;h (–)
Partial factor for uncertainty in Partial factor for the level of

ÿR;d a resistance model uncertainty in a resistance (–)
tance model
Partial factor for soil-

Partial factor for the soil-geo
ÿR; f geosynthetic interaction resistance (–)
synthetic interaction resistance
Partial factor for lift (resistance) Partial factor for the load-bea
ÿR; v (–)
ring capacity (resistance)
Partial factor for peak resistance Partial factor for inclusion

ÿb (–)
of an inclusion resistance point
Partial factor for effective Partial factor for effective cohesion

ÿc'
cohesion if we (–)
Partial factor for undrained Partial factor for undrained

ÿcu
cohesion cohesion (–)
Partial safety factor on the

Partial safety factor on the geo
ÿgeo resistance of the geosynthetic
synthetic resistance
aquifer
Partial factor for friction

Partial factor for resistance by
ÿs resistance on the shaft of an friction on the inclusion shaft (–)
inclusion
Partial factor for the angle of Partial factor for the angle of
ÿÿ' (–)
internal friction (tanÿ') internal friction (tanÿ')
Partial factor for density

ÿÿ Partial factor for the unit weight (–)
ÿr Backfill density Unit weight of the embankment ML–2T–2 (kN/m3)
ÿs Soil density Unit weight of the soil ML–2T–2 (kN/m3)
ÿp Pile unit weight Unit weight of the pile ML–2T–2 (kN/m3)
ÿw Specific weight of water Unit weight of water ML–2T–2 (kN/m3)
24
Ratings
Index of decompression
Unloading-reloading index in the
recompression in behavior
ÿ* constitutive soft soil model
model Soft soil =
= 2Cs /2.3 (1 + e)
2Cs /2.3 (1 + e)
ÿ
Coefficient of attachment in the Latching coefficient used in
method of Combarieu Combarieu's method (–)
Compression index in Soft Compression index used in the

ÿ* behavior model constitutive Soft Soil model = Cc/
Soil = Cc /2.3 (1 + e) 2.3 (1 + e)
Undrained cohesion increase

Undrained cohesion cu
factor cu as a function of
ÿcu increase factor as a function of (–)
consolidation stress increase consolidation stress
Coefficient of the differential Coefficient of the differential

µ equation in the method of equation used in Combarieu's M–1 1/m
Combarieu method
Creep index in Soft Soil behavior Creep index used in the constituent
ÿ* model = Soft Soil model = Cÿe / 2.3 (1 +
Cÿe /2.3 (1 + e) e)
ÿ Poisson coefficient Fish's ratio (–)
ÿ Total constraint total stress ML–1T–2 (Pa)
ÿc Confining pressure Stressful containment ML–1T–2 (Pa)
ÿh Horizontal Constraint horizontal-stress ML–1T–2 (Pa)
Supposedly uniform vertical stress Vertical stress assumed uni

ÿi on the disc r ÿ rk on the underside form over the disc r ÿ rk on the ML–1T–2 (Pa)
of the slab ground slab underside
Supposedly uniform vertical stress Vertical stress assumed uni

on the ring rk ÿ r ÿ R on
ÿs form over the ring rk ÿ r ÿR on the ML–1T–2 (Pa)
the underside of the paving
ground slab underside
Isotropic consolidation stress Isotropic consolidation stress

ÿc' ML–1T–2 (Pa)
during a triaxial test during a triaxial test
ÿv Total vertical stress Total vertical stress ML–1T–2 (Pa)
ÿv' Effective vertical stress Effective vertical stress ML-1T–2 (Pa)
Average effective vertical stress Average effective vertical

ÿv
ÿ
in a horizontal section stress within a horizontal cross ML–1T–2 (Pa)
section
Design value of limit vertical Design value of the ultimate

ÿv, d stress at ground surface vertical stress at the soil on face ML–1T–2 (Pa)
25
Vertical stress applied to the Vertical stress applied on the

ÿv, geo ML–1T–2 (Pa)
geosynthetic layer geosynthetic layer
ÿ1, ÿ2, ÿ3 Total principal stresses Main total stresses ML–1T–2 (Pa)
'
ÿ1', ÿ2 , Effective Principal Stresses
Main effective stresses ML-1T-2 (Pa)
ÿ3'
Free effective vertical stress in Effective vertical stress in free

the ground in the final state, field in the final state, as calculated
calculated without taking without taking into account
ÿ1' into account the presence of the presence of the inclusion ML–1T–2 (Pa)
the inclusion (in the model of (within the negative friction
negative friction according to model, according to
Combarieu) Combarieu)
Tensile stress in an unreinforced Tensile stress in a non-reinfor ced

ÿELS ML–1T–2 (Pa)
slab ground slab
ÿ Shear stress shear-stress ML–1T–2 (Pa)
Design value of the shear stress

in the inclusion
Design value of shear stress in
cp ML–1T–2 (Pa)
inclusion
ÿ Rotating a foundation Rotation of a foundation (rad)
Correlation factors for evaluating

Correlation factors for evaluating
the results of static loading tests of
ÿ1, ÿ2 the results of inclusion static (–)
inclusions
loading tests
Correlation factors to derive the

resistance of an inclusion Correlation factors for deriving the
resistance of an inclusion from
from the results of ground
ÿ, ÿ4 field investigation results, with the (–)
reconnaissance excluding
exception of inclusion loading tests
loading tests ment of inclusions.
ÿ Inclination of a foundation Inclination of a foundation (rad)
26
Ratings
Abbreviations
ASIRI: Soil improvement by vertical rigid inclusions

CSTB: Scientific and technical building center
DTU: Unified technical document
DPM: Specific contract documents
SLS: Serviceability Limit State
ULS: Ultimate Limit State
G11, G12, G2, G3, G4, G5: standardized geotechnical missions (NF P 94 500)
ICEDA: Conditioning and storage facility for activated waste (project carried out by
Électricité de France on the Bugey site)
MV1, MV2, MV3: simplified models for the calculation of flanges on rigid inclusions,
subjected to vertical loading MH1, MH2,
MH3: simplified models for the calculation of flanges on rigid inclusions, subjected
to lateral loading ma: result of the
calculation of a slab on equivalent homogenized soil (Appendix C of DTU 13.3) mb:
influence
of rigid inclusions on a continuous slab mc: interaction
between rigid inclusions and joints OPM: modified Proctor
optimum Soed(SJ): result of the
calculation of a continuous slab resting on an equivalent homogenized soil Soed(JT):
result of
the calculation of a slab with joints resting on an equivalent homogenized soil
IR(SJ): result of
the calculation of a continuous slab resting on a network of rigid inclusions IR( JT):
result
of the calculation of a slab with joints resting on a network of rigid inclusions
27
CHAPTER 1
Descriptions and development

up to the national project
The concept of foundations on soil reinforced by rigid inclusions is one of the

recent techniques for soil improvement and reinforcement. It considerably reduces
the settlement of the foundation mass under the applied loads, while improving
its punching stability.
It is not a question of improvement of the soil itself, the mechanical characteristics
of which remain in the majority of cases unchanged after the implementation of
the inclusions. It is actually a reinforcement of the soil, by creating a composite
mass in which the added loads are distributed between the soil itself and the
inclusions.
This foundation concept requires the presence of a “load transfer platform”
between the inclusions and the structure they support.
1. RIGID INCLUSIONS AND FOUNDATION TYPES

It is useful to place the concept of foundation on soil reinforced by rigid inclusions
in the general framework of the main principles of structure foundations:
– the shallow foundation solution is obviously the one that is preferable as soon
as the foundation soil makes it possible to guarantee stability and leads to
acceptable settlements for
the structure; – if at least one of these two criteria is not verified, the traditional
alternative consists in using deep foundations, then sized to take up the entire
load. This load is transmitted to the piles by a rigid element which ensures the
role of distribution of the forces between them: it is the sole (also called header)
or the slab in which the piles are embedded.
But there are many intermediate situations of average quality ground and/or
structures that can accept some deformations, where the superficial solution is
not admissible, while the deep solution is "oversized" compared to what would
be strictly necessary.
29
This can be remedied by simultaneously taking into account the respective bearing
capacities of the footing or the slab and the piles, considering that part of the loads
brought by the structure is transferred to the ground under the footing. This concept,
known as a mixed foundation, is interesting for soils with average and homogeneous
characteristics; it makes it possible to arrive at a completely suitable intermediate
foundation system. In this type of foundation, there is a rigid connection between the
piles and the footing, similar to that of piles surmounted by a header; the saving then
relates to the lower stresses in the piles (since part of the load is taken up by the footing),
and therefore to a lower volume of foundations: reduced length or diameter of the piles.
The mixed foundation, also known as “radier-pieux” or “radier-brush”, is unfortunately
still little used in France, unlike in other countries, such as Germany for example.
The foundation on rigid inclusions is similar to the mixed foundation, in the sense that it
associates rigid vertical elements, the inclusions, and a footing or a slab, but without
there being a rigid mechanical connection between them. From a purely theoretical point
of view, the concept of rigid inclusion appears as soon as, in the composite foundation,
the traditional rigid connection between footing and piles disappears.
In practice, the passage from the mixed foundation to the foundation on rigid inclusions
results in a geometric and mechanical discontinuity, with the introduction of a mattress
with a minimum thickness.
Figure 1.1. The different types of foundation.
This concept includes different modes of interaction between the inclusions, possibly
topped with a head, the load transfer platform (often called a mattress) directly
supporting the foundation, and the ground between the inclusions.
The diagram in figure 1.2 summarizes these different interactions, with in particular a
differential settlement at the base of the mattress, which causes, on the one hand, a
transfer of load on the heads of the inclusions by arch effect in the mattress and, on the
other hand, on the other hand, a negative friction along the inclusions in the upper part of the soil
30
Chapter 1 - Descriptions and development to the national project
between inclusions. This transfer of loads by negative friction thus constitutes the
fundamental element of this concept, which will be developed in chapter 2.
Figure 1.2. The four components of a complete rigid inclusion foundation.
2. DEFINITION OF A RIGID INCLUSION

The rigid inclusions themselves are made up of slender elements that are often
cylindrical, mechanically continuous, and generally vertical. They are arranged in a
regular grid, which must be adapted to the nature and geometry of the loads
applied and to the soil conditions.
The cross-section of an inclusion is in principle constant, except for the head, which
can have a much larger section.
For vertical inclusions, the term group is used and these Recommendations are
devoted to groups only. If the inclusions are inclined, most often in a variable way,
we speak of a lattice.
The qualifier “rigid” is essential as soon as the material of which it is made presents
a strong permanent cohesion, conferring on it moreover a rigidity clearly superior
to that of the surrounding soil. This rigidity can however be very variable depending
on the type of inclusion made, ranging from the column of fine soil treated in place
with lime to the metal profile, passing by the column of gravel injected with cement
grout, mortar or in reinforced concrete or not.
The concept of rigid inclusion assumes that the stability of the column is ensured
without lateral restraint of the surrounding soil, which fundamentally differentiates it
from that of stone columns, the justification for which is therefore totally different
from those of rigid inclusions.
31
The force applicable at the head, for a given section, depends on the intrinsic
resistance of the material constituting the inclusion, and therefore varies from one
type of inclusion to another.
The different types of inclusions, which are described in chapter 7, reveal large
families, characterized by their rigidity and their intrinsic capacity. Thus, the
dimensioning of a reinforcement by rigid inclusions requires that the internal
resistance of the material of the inclusion is sufficient, and must take into account the
interactions with the surrounding soil: lateral friction, forces at the top and at the tip.
The dimensions of the inclusions are therefore also very variable. Their length
usually reaches at least the thickness of the compressible soils concerned, knowing
that shorter inclusions would have reduced effectiveness due to a lack of bearing
capacity. The diameter or the transverse dimensions can also vary greatly since
current techniques, at least in France, lead to the implementation of diameters
commonly ranging from 250 mm ("pins" in concrete), up to 800 mm for drilled
elements. using a hollow auger, the latter then using a technology identical to that of
the piles.
With this last diameter, inclusions 30 m long were made on the banks of the Loire at
Montoir-de-Bretagne (Loire-Atlantique). In an exceptional case, metallic tubular
elements 2 m in diameter were installed by ramming in Greece for the foundations of
the Rion-Antirion bridge (Pecker, 2004). One can however imagine inclusions of
smaller diameter to which the supporting calculation leads or which practice has
validated. This is the case with the use of wood, such as bamboo in the Far East, or
mortar elements 15 cm in diameter cast in place and then reinforced with a dark
metal profile immediately after execution of the element, as was used in Germany.
The inclusions, as the study of their operation in chapters 2 to 5 shows, are required
to take up a large fraction of the loads applied to the compressible soil mass. They
must therefore be sized to actually be able to support these loads; they are, with an
appropriate cross section, most often stopped in a horizon of sufficiently resistant
ground.
Generally unreinforced, especially if the loads are vertical, the inclusions can
sometimes receive reinforcement to resist any transverse forces that affect them.
This is the case, for example, of the reinforcement of the base of very high
embankment slopes on soft ground where stability against sliding must be ensured.
In such a case, in addition to the reinforcements in the inclusions, it may be necessary

to arrange above the heads, but also in the body of the embankment,
32
reinforcements such as geosynthetics taking up forces by traction, and limiting the

transverse forces transmitted to the inclusions. Finally, the absence of a rigid connection
between the inclusions and the supported structure, as well as the group effect, are
favorable in the event of seismic stress (see chapter 2).
3. INCLUDE HEADS
The inclusion head is the top part of the rigid inclusion. The surface of its cross-section
compared to that of the mesh of the reinforcement, determines what is called the
“coverage rate”. The latter, often around 2 to 10%, is an essential factor in the
effectiveness of the reinforcement.
In most common cases, the inclusion is simply anchored in the distribution mat; in
some cases, in order to increase the coverage rate, it may be necessary to widen the
diameter of the inclusion at the top, or to cover it with a slab.
One can effectively choose relatively tight uniform inclusions or else elements of
identical diameter to the previous ones, but more spaced out and topped with a head;
in both cases, the recovery rate is the same.
But economic considerations also come into play in the choices to be made regarding
the geometry of the heads.
4. THE LOAD TRANSFER PLATFORM

The concept of rigid inclusions implies that their heads are not structurally linked with
the supported structure, unlike what is conventionally done for a foundation on piles
embedded in a connecting header.
On the contrary, a connection is ensured by inserting between the heads and the work,
a distribution layer (or mattress) on which the work to be built rests.
It is indeed the presence of this layer, also called “load transfer platform”, most often in
gravel, which makes the specificity of the technique of reinforcement by rigid inclusions.
The implementation of the inclusions, associated with the covering of their heads by a
mattress, ultimately leads to a composite solid mass, globally more resistant and less
deformable than the initial soil solid mass, on which the work can be directly founded
superficially.
A minimum mattress thickness is necessary, so as to allow good load transfer between
the inclusions and the ground, on the one hand, and to limit the forces in the supported
structure (pavings, footings, etc.), on the other hand. . This thickness, often of the
order of 40 to 80 cm, is moreover essential to the
33
optimal dimensioning of the supported structure, particularly with a view to

reducing bending moments in the slabs.
The load transfer platform can be made, depending on the application: – of a single
layer of well-compacted granular material; – a layer of soil
treated with hydraulic binders; – or a layer of soil
reinforced with horizontal layers of geosynthetics.
In the case of a layer of granular materials, it is sought to obtain good compactness
giving it a high deformation modulus.
In the case of materials treated with hydraulic binders (lime or lime-cement),
excessive rigidity of the treated layer must be avoided, to avoid its cracking; in the
extreme, we would end up with a slab supported on deep foundations, which would
then no longer fall under the principle of the foundation on inclusions.
Reinforcement of the mattress by layers of geosynthetics is frequently used in
Anglo-Saxon countries. Geotextiles, arranged in one or more horizontal layers
within the mattress, are little used in France, as they are considered too deformable,
especially under paving. The use of stiffer geosynthetics, such as geogrids, or
even welded mesh, is more judicious because of the low deformations sufficient to
mobilize significant forces. They can also be arranged in one or more layers, in
the mattress or at the base of a homogeneous backfill, resting directly on the
heads. For a given thickness of the mattress, the geosynthetic makes it possible to
reduce the coverage rate.
The designer therefore has a large number of possible solutions at his disposal,
which should be optimized in a global technical and economic approach with a
view to the best dimensioning.
5. THE SOIL CONCERNED

In principle, the system of rigid inclusions can be applied to all types of terrain. In
practice, it is of economic interest only in loose, most often compressible soils:
clay, silt or peat. However, it is emphasized that peat, and in general all materials
containing organic matter, must be the subject of particular attention, because they
are the site of delayed deformations.
The nature of the soil, which is very often saturated, its identification, its state, its
history and its characteristics are elements that contribute to the choice of the
method of making rigid inclusions, some of which may be, as for piles, not
recommended.
The most frequent applications relate in particular to borderline cases of application
of traditional soil improvement techniques either because they
34
do not make it possible to guarantee the required settlement criteria, or because

they require a minimum quality of the surrounding soil.
Reinforcement by rigid inclusions can also be suitable for building on former waste
storage sites. The analysis of the latter, in terms of chemical aggressiveness and
evolution, is then essential as for organic soils. Settlements, in particular delayed
ones, must be given special attention. The consideration of these various elements
is discussed in Chapter 6.
In any case, it is important to remember that a foundation on rigid inclusions will

undergo settlement of the order of a few centimeters.
6. FIELDS OF APPLICATION
Any structure, whatever its nature, is subject to both internal and external
dimensioning which must ensure its integrity throughout its construction, then during
its operation. This integrity is ensured in particular if the deformations, settlements,
horizontal displacements, distortions, remain acceptable, knowing that it is often
difficult to fix the precise thresholds.
The European standardization also prescribes in the field of geotechnical structures
the calculation in deformation. We were most often satisfied, until recently, with
justifications for failure, the application of the usual safety coefficients generally
leading to acceptable deformations for the structures built. Only very severe
deformation conditions lead to the undertaking of such calculations, which are often
complex and ultimately amount to choosing higher safety coefficients than those
usually used. The design of the foundation, particularly in the case of compressible
soils, amounts to seeking the most appropriate solution to satisfy the objectives of
stability and deformation with a view to optimizing costs and construction times.
When the pre-dimensioning of a structure shows that the foundation soil as it is is

not able to take up the loads transmitted by this structure without excessive
settlement or risk of rupture, the designer must then consider using deep foundations
or prior ground improvement.
The choice of the solution therefore depends on the nature of the structure, the type
of loads provided, either mainly distributed or rather punctual, the structure's
sensitivity to settlement, the type of soil encountered and the time available for
construction.
35
In general, soil improvement solutions are mainly used for structures with a large
footprint and whose loads are mainly of the distributed load type.
For example, a high-rise building with a high point load, founded on poor soil will,
in general, fall within the purview of traditional deep foundations of the pile or
barrette type. Conversely,
there are many structures that transmit loads to the ground distributed over large
areas, including: – paving and foundations of industrial and commercial
buildings; – storage tanks (water, petroleum products or liquid chemicals)
as well as basins and structures of treatment plants; – motorway or railway
embankments for high-speed trains.
a) Slabs and foundations of industrial buildings
b) Access embankment to a structure
36
c) Reservoirs and basins

Figure 1.3. Examples of structures reinforced by rigid inclusions.
For all these categories of structures, the use of soil improvement solutions often
proves to be appropriate and leads to savings compared to other possible solutions.
Under what conditions should one move towards rigid inclusions rather than
other soil improvement solutions, such as vertical drains with pre-loading,
stone columns, dynamic or vibration compaction?
It is essentially the soil conditions, the type of structure with its maximum settlement
specifi cations as well as the construction deadlines and the cost of construction
that will guide the choice.
With regard to soil conditions, we know for example that cohesive soils cannot be
improved by dynamic methods such as dynamic compaction or vibro-flotation. We
also saw in the previous paragraph that certain very soft cohesive soils (mud for
example) or organic ones could prohibit the use of an uncemented soil reinforcement
technique such as stone columns.
The depth of the poor soil is also an element to be taken into account, certain
techniques having limits of effectiveness at depth, whereas the technology for
making rigid inclusions is similar to that of piles and makes it possible to achieve
greater great depths with suitable tools.
It is therefore generally in the case of soft or very soft soils, natural or
anthropogenic, of significant thickness that rigid inclusions will be well suited.
As far as the structure is concerned, it is obvious that recourse to a solution of
rigid inclusions will be necessary in the case of relatively high loads (very heavily
loaded paving or very high reservoir, for example), rather than a solution of flexible
inclusions of the stone column type which would not sufficiently reduce foreseeable
settlements.
37
Consideration of construction deadlines can be a determining factor. For example,

in the case of the construction of an embankment on compressible soil, a preloading
solution with vertical drainage is often suitable and economical, but requires
significant available time: installation time for the vertical drains, raising of the
embankment to its final height increased by compensation for settlement and
temporary overload (which may require an ascent in phases if stability is not
ensured), waiting for consolidation and removal of the residual overload. The work
schedule does not always allow for this time, whereas a solution of rigid inclusions
will allow the embankment to be erected quickly and the settlements to be mobilized
immediately.
Finally, the cost of the solution obviously remains the primary selection criterion,
with the solution chosen having to prove to be the most competitive for the client.
We can point out here that, in a certain number of cases, several solutions can be
technically possible, and that it is therefore useful to compare the cost of these
different options, bearing in mind that this cost depends on the nature and the
density of inclusions required, but also the performance of the tools offered by the
companies.
What are the specificities of these different types of structures for which rigid
inclusion solutions are frequently used?
For the first category, that of industrial and commercial building slabs, the problem
to be solved is essentially that of reducing settlement, the ground being generally
able to take up these distributed and low loads without risk of rupture.
For these structures, particular attention must be paid to the dimensioning of the
load transfer platform since the structure of the slab is generally thin and sensitive
to the bending moments that may develop there. In addition, it will be necessary to
take into account the fact that the operating load on the slab will not necessarily be
uniform (more or less loaded strips, circulation aisles, rack feet, etc.), which will
make the dimensioning more complex. , as we will see in Chapter 5.
It should also be indicated that if it is the problem of the foundation of the slab which
leads to a solution of rigid inclusions, the same technology can be used in addition
under the foundation blocks of the structure.
For the second category, that of reservoirs, tanks and basins, the sizing criterion
often remains that of settlements, the amplitude of which is greater here due to the
significantly higher stress than that of the first category. Due to the load brought by
a liquid, the stress of ex-
38
ploitation will be perfectly uniform, except under the walls or skirts of the tanks
which will require different localized reinforcements.
It should be noted, however, that certain structures of the metal tray type are
capable of withstanding larger settlements while remaining entirely suitable for their
use. For the tallest and heavily laden bins, the problem of bearing capacity may
also arise.
Finally, in the third category , that of embankments, we are in the presence of
structures whose load is mainly permanent and provided by the embankment itself,
the operating overload due to road or rail traffic being relatively low. There is no
structure here, strictly speaking, unlike the first two categories, and it is here the
base of the embankment itself that must be treated specifically to ensure the role
of load transfer platform.
This is also why the full-scale tests undertaken within the framework of the ASIRI
project have indeed been divided into two distinct programs, inclusions under
paving and inclusions under embankment.
For low-height embankments, the dimensioning criterion will be that of settlements,
while for higher-height embankments, the problem of stability will become
preponderant and will generate parasitic horizontal forces in the inclusions which
should be assessed. and take into account.
7. HISTORY OF RIGID INCLUSIONS

The technique of reinforcement by rigid inclusions constitutes, among all the
techniques for improving a foundation soil, a new and effective technique. However,
it has already been used many times by men throughout history to build in difficult
sites, such as marshy areas, and without knowing very well how it works.
It has been observed that for a very long time wooden piles driven into the ground
have served as the foundation for increasingly heavy structures over the ages.
But it is only when there is interposed between these piles and the structure a layer
of sand or fascines that one can begin to consider that it is a question of
reinforcement by rigid inclusions.
We can also cite Kerisel (1986) who mentions an interesting work by Coles (1986),
relating to the construction of Neolithic roads in England. The ingenious principle is
as follows: long wooden piles are beaten at an angle to form a succession of
trestles at the tops of which a plank traffic lane is placed, but which can also include
a line of vertical piles not linked to the planks and placed on its center line as shown
to the right of Figure 1.4.
39
Figure 1.4. Foundation of Neolithic ways (England).
In the latter case, the boards are pierced with holes on this central line allowing
the vertical piles to slide freely. If the trestles alone can absolutely not constitute
a “foundation on rigid inclusions”, on the other hand the whole of the foundation
of the track presented in the figure on the right is an ingenious example. Indeed,
the forces exerted on the track on either side of the center line load the vertical
piles by negative friction as a result of the settling of the ground caused by the
trestles. This operation is also similar to that taken up, as we will see a little later,
for certain constructions in Mexico City.
Modern times have technically and scientifically improved the possibilities of

these foundation systems. A justification was given with the study of negative
friction that Zeevaert (1957) undertook in Mexico. Mexico City
e
was indeed confronted since the Spanish conquest in the 16th century with
acute problems of behavior of its buildings. A very strong thickness of soft clay,
of volcanic origin (ash), saturated and compressible, is found to be under the
loads brought, the seat of settlements of several meters, favored and accentuated
from the beginning of the 20th century , by permanent pumping of water from
deep
aquifers. From the 1960s, the technical literature recounts many examples where
the phenomenon of negative friction and the group effect are taken advantage
of, showing that the external piles are put to greater use than those located
inside. . The few following examples are original and appear to have been little
renewed.
A technique, requiring more delicate justification, is that of "staggered" piles,
called overlapping piles in English and implemented in Mexico by Girault (1969)
and shown schematically in Figure 1.5. The construction rests on A piles that do
not reach the bedrock, but are stopped in deformable ground, in order to
40
limit the very significant differential settlements between the building and the
ground by adjusting which settlement. The settlements of the building
nevertheless require ensuring that there is a reduction in their evolution over
time after construction. Short type B inclusions, then called piles, are lowered
onto the resistant horizon and allow the recovery of a fraction of the forces by
arching effect and by mobilization of negative friction along their shaft. This
results in a significant drop in settlements and the appearance of significant
stresses in these type B inclusions.
Figure 1.5. Building founded on staggered piles (Mexico).
Correa (1961), as reported by Broms (1969) and Auvinet et al. (2006), designed
buildings on rafts, resting on compressible soils in the process of consolidation,
these soils being equipped with vertical piles resting on the substratum and
crossing at the top the base of the raft designed as a box. This slab can slide
along the piles (Fig. 1.6), which work in rigid inclusions. The uniform load
transmitted to the ground by the slab is partially transferred to the inclusions by
negative friction and group effect. The latter are dimensioned with respect to
the ground with a low safety factor and they can be secured without technical
difficulties to the slab if one wishes to permanently stop settlements.
41
Figure 1.6. Inclusions independent of the supported structure (Mexico).
But as early as 1904, an engineer had proposed founding the Legislative Palace in
Mexico City on battered metal inclusions not bonded to the structure.
In the Mexican capital, there are currently a good number of construction sites involving
several thousand inclusions in unreinforced concrete, the justifications being carried out
using a finite element calculation method, developed for this purpose.
In Japan, Okabe (1977) conducted a full-scale study, on behalf of the Japanese railways,
of groups of piles subjected to negative friction. The site, with 40 m of soft clay, showed
an annual settlement of 10 cm, due to pumping.
Isolated piles, made of metal and with a diameter of 60 cm, supported up to 6000 kN of
unwanted friction. Some heavy structures have been founded on groups of piles,
themselves surrounded by rigid inclusions independent of the connecting footing. The
measurements carried out confirmed the transfer of the majority of parasitic friction to
the inclusions, with an unloading of the piles linked to the structure.
At the European level, the first writings on structures based on rigid

inclusions concern road or railway embankments. We can cite Sweden, with
42
Broms (1979) who provided abacuses allowing the dimensioning of the

groups, the use of enlarged heads (pile cap) being recommended. Similarly
Finland in 1975, with Rathmayer (1975), produced recommendations of the
same kind, with applications for road embankments. Several access
embankments to engineering structures were built in a similar way in Scotland
in 1983 with the simultaneous use, above widened prefabricated heads, of geotextile beds.
Finally, mention should be made of the construction, for the railways of West
Germany, from 1976, of a 7 m embankment on rigid inclusions topped with
prefabricated footings, a device designed by Smoltczyk (1976).
All the findings and measurements made during the construction of these various
structures have shown the effectiveness of reinforcement by rigid inclusions.
In France, the first publication on reinforcement by rigid inclusions, presented in
figure 1.7, is due to Gigan (1975). The latter has also implemented them without
formalizing the mechanism, but the discussions with the specialized company,
mentioned by the author, reveal new ideas in terms of foundations. In the case
described, it was a question of improving the characteristics of old embankments, of
clay and then sandy silt, by beating molded pins in place and superficially placing
new structures there. The piling effectively led to a very significant increase in the
characteristics of the ground in place, made sufficient to allow a direct foundation.
But the designers wondered about the complementary role played by the spikes,
which, isolated from the soles by a sand-gravel mattress, obviously functioned as
foundations on rigid inclusions and not as traditional piles, as had been suggested.
Figure 1.7. Improvement of the characteristics of the foundation soil by spikes (France).
43
The foundations shown in Figure 1.8 were designed in 1982 in Indonesia for
Reinforced Earth® protective walls nearly 10 m high and 6.5 m wide for a set of
liquefied natural gas retention tanks. They are technically more elaborate and
rest on twenty to thirty meters of compressible clay. The walls are founded on
open metal tubes 0.40 m in diameter, each of them being covered with a metal
plate 0.50 m on a side. All the piles are backfilled with a granular mattress 1 m
thick. The latter is rigidly reinforced horizontally by a continuous structure of
metal reinforcement which joins and covers the heads of the driven piles.
If the denomination of rigid inclusions was not evoked at the time of the
realization, it is however indeed about the application of this technique, still badly
apprehended twenty years ago and of which Simon and Schlosser ( 2006)
reported at an international congress on foundation soil reinforcement in Mexico
City.
Figure 1.8. Reservoir foundation on rigid inclusions (Indonesia).
These are the two successive publications on the analytical design of groups of
rigid inclusions by Combarieu (1988, 1990), following two very detailed studies
(theoretical, experimental and bibliographic) of negative friction on piles, which
made it possible in France a boom in the technique of reinforcing foundations
using rigid inclusions.
The first study deals with the construction of embankments on poor soils. It
provides a complete supporting approach to the meshing of the group of rigid
inclusions, but also to the resistant form of the inclusions, as well as the
determination of the settlement of the compressible soil.
44
The second study concerns the calculation of inclusion groups for large flexible
structures or for rigid shallow foundations. For the latter, particular justification is
proposed, both of the bearing capacity and of the settlement of the footing, similar
to that developed for mixed footing-pile foundations.
These methods have been confronted with the few existing European regulations
and with the experimental results of embankments on soft soils based on rigid
inclusions, some of which have been cited above. For rigid footings, the loading
tests of a footing, based on sand reinforced by rigid inclusions, carried out by
Plumelle (1985) in a large tank at the CEBTP, provided results in good agreement
with the predictions.
The transition to practice took place in 1989 during a first project, that of the
Carrère interchange (Fig. 1.9), near the Lamentin aerodrome in Martinique
(Combarieu et al. 1994 ) . It was a technically modest and prudent operation, where
it was a question of building embankments for access to a bridge comprising
Reinforced Earth® abutments 6 to 7 meters high. The foundations of these
abutments were founded on HP piles crossing the TA walls and the soil in place.
Figure 1.9. Abutment of the Carrère interchange (Martinique).
The soils encountered were slightly sandy saturated clays at a depth of 6 to 7

meters. Without treatment, they led to a settlement of 40 cm.
The 124 inclusions were molded in place with salvaged metal tubing and lost tip.
Equipped with a central reinforcement, they were 8 to 9 meters long, 30 cm in
diameter, and were spaced 2.20 meters apart, then covered with prefabricated
square reinforced concrete slabs, 0.80 m on each side. . At the base of the
embankments, a concrete slab 10 cm thick, reinforced with a trellis, was
45
was cast 20 cm above the heads. Settlements noted at the end of the work were 5 cm with no
further development.
More difficult achievements followed, with significant thicknesses of very compressible soils even
including substantial peat levels. At the same time, the problems to be solved have become
more complicated, while the calculation methods have undergone various changes. A few
significant examples are cited below.
In 1990, Simon and D'Apolito (1991) studied the foundations and access embankments of an
overpass on the A 43 motorway, near Chambéry, in Savoie (Fig. 1.10). The purpose of this
structure was to double the existing structure based on piles that were already very stressed and
for which any additional effort had to be prevented. Without special precautions, the 7 meters of
new backfill would have dragged 80 cm of settlement and 11 cm of horizontal displacement of
the foundation soil consisting of 12 m of clay soil.
The proposed solution consisted of reinforcing the foundation soil with rigid soil-mixing inclusions
37 cm in diameter and 15 m in length, supporting both the new embankment and the superficial
foundation of the new structure.
Figure 1.10. Abutment and embankment on rigid inclusions on the A43 motorway, Chambéry
(France).
In the same year 1990, on the A8 motorway in Mandelieu (Bustamante and Gou venot, 1991)
deformations which reached a surface of 15 cm per year and affected the upper 15 m of the 30
m high embankments, made up of marl, could be stopped with rigid inclusions. This major
impediment to the operation of the motorway was due to the successive surfacing of the roadway.
46
Rigid inclusions drilled and injected under high pressure over approximately 18 m
in height and stopped in the lower part of the embankment, made of a good
material, made it possible to take up by negative friction most of the forces due to
the upper 15 m of embankment . The movements were practically stopped
because the residual deformation measured was only 3 mm in 6 months.
In 1999, the autonomous port of Nantes – Saint-Nazaire built a container wharf
on piles, in Montoir-de-Bretagne on the banks of the Loire (Combarieu and
Frossard, 2003). The transition between the slab on piles and the unstable bank
was ensured by floating rigid inclusions 30 m long (Fig. 1.11) and embedded in
the alluvial silt with a thickness of 40 m and average characteristics at these
depths. .
The inclusions, spaced 3.50 m apart and 54 cm in diameter, were made using a
continuous auger and fiber-reinforced concrete. They were capped with
prefabricated slabs, 1.40 m by 1.40 m, themselves covered with a layer of
welded mesh placed in the granular distribution mattress. The justification
provided, in the absence of treatment of the foundation soil, settlements of 1 m,
reduced to 20 cm with the rigid inclusions. The settlements measured were between 5 and 10 cm
Figure 1.11. Transition zone on inclusions between a quay on piles and the bank
(Montoir-de-Bretagne).
In 2000, it was proposed to base on rigid inclusions a closed frame in reinforced

concrete and its 6 m high access embankments, at the exit of the A15 motorway
in Rouen (Combarieu and Pioline, 2004). The use of this technique made it
possible to meet the requirements of an imperative deadline of four months for
the commissioning of the new track. With 10 m of highly compressible soil
including peat, rigid inclusions 15 m long and 40 cm in diameter, made by
47
hollow auger and surmounted by small slabs, made it possible to reduce the settling
of the structure and its accesses to 4 cm, in a homogeneous manner, which would not
have been possible with deep foundations laid solely under the concrete frame.
The ICEDA project (Installation for Conditioning and Storage of Activated Waste)
carried out in 2010 by Electricité de France on the Bugey site is a building intended
to temporarily house decommissioning waste from 1st generation nuclear reactors
and Super Phénix , and operating waste from PWR units. Its expected lifespan is
fifty years. Its dimensions are around 120 m by 60 to 70 m and the average loads
are between 140 kPa (under the waste package storage halls) and 240 kPa (under
the package workshop).
Before works, the stratigraphy in the ICEDA project area is as follows: – 5 m on

average of sandy-gravelly alluvium of good geotechnical quality; – 35 to 55 m of
silty clay; – a molasses
substratum located between ~ 40 to 60 meters deep (dip of the roof of the layer of
the order of 15%).
The settlements assessed in the APS phase, of the order of 25 cm, were judged
to be too great and a solution to reinforce the compressible clay layer by rigid
inclusions was adopted. This includes (Fig. 1.12): – 292 reinforced
concrete inclusions 1 meter in diameter, leveled at least 2 meters below the
underside of the riffles and lowered to the weathered molasse (i.e. between ~ 37
and ~ 57 m length) ; the spacing varies between 3 and 6 meters; – a
transfer mattress 2 to 2.75 meters thick made up of alluvium from the site,
homogenized and carefully compacted.
The calculation of the settlement of the building on reinforced soil led to values of gold
4 cm.
Figure 1.12. Reinforcement by inclusions under the ICEDA project (Bugey).
48
We will end this history with the paraseismic foundations of the exceptional
structure that is the Rion-Antirion bridge in the Strait of Corinth in Greece.
The structure, built in a site of high seismicity, potential tectonic movement and
particularly important maritime navigation, rests on a very thick soil of low to
medium resistance and very heterogeneous (sand, silt, gravel, clay).
This foundation soil, for three of the supports, was reinforced by rigid inclusions
consisting of open metal tubes of large diameter (2 m), beaten over 25 to 30 m,
filled with sand and covered with a backfill of gravel of 2 .80 m thick forming the
distribution mattress. The foundation, made up of a box 90 m in diameter,
prefabricated and brought by flotation, rests directly on the ground reinforced at
the bottom of the sea by 90 m of water. This foundation system, proposed
(Pecker, 2004) turned out, during studies, to be technically much better suited
than a traditional solution on piles, particularly with regard to earthquakes.
Indeed, the intercalation of a very thick distribution mattress created a "fuse"
capable of absorbing by shear a large part of the lateral forces caused by an
earthquake, the box being able to slide more than one meter on its base. without
noticeable impact on the structure.
Figures 1.13 and 1.14 provide an overview of these exceptional foundations.
Figure 1.13. Rion-Antirion bridge (Greece): principle of foundations on inclusions.
49
Figure 1.14. Rion-Antirion bridge: scratched foundations.
These examples illustrate a few varied geotechnical problems that the use of rigid
inclusions, a new technique, has made it possible to solve. If, until 2000, the
realizations of foundations by this process are limited, their number has grown
since then in a very important way. This concept is in fact proposed by most
companies specializing in foundation work and soil treatment and accepted by the
control offices, provided that these companies have validated specifications.
Clients and prime contractors find there an answer to deadline requirements. The
field of slabs and slabs finds an important outlet there.
Alongside these achievements, many calculation models have been developed in

France, by companies or geotechnical design offices, using either analytical
models based on the concept of negative friction, or numerical models with the
finite element method
8. THE NATIONAL ASIRI PROJECT

At the end of the 1990s, there were already many achievements in which rigid
inclusions constituted the foundation system. Their use has only increased since
then and the loss experience of the technique remains, to this day, comparable to
that of other soil reinforcement techniques or traditional foundations. This is a
reassuring observation but nevertheless insufficient.
However, as has been indicated, there is a great diversity in the techniques of

implementation, the constituent materials and the methods of justification. It
therefore seemed useful and necessary to the community of French geotechnicians
to carry out a reflection aimed at better understanding the mechanisms and the
50
behavior of reinforcement by rigid inclusions, as well as to develop reliable

dimensioning methods based on the results of many of its instruments.
It was at the end of 1999, within the Institute for applied research and
experimentation in civil engineering (IREX) with the "Soils competence center"
which collects the reflections of geotechnical engineers, that proposed, by B.
Simon of the Terrasol office, the idea of a national project on the subject. Three
successive stages preceded the official launch of the project. A feasibility stage
was initiated and officially ordered in August 2000 from IREX by the Department
of Research and Scientific and Technical Actions (DRAST) of the Ministry of
Equipment. The working group led by B. Simon (Terrasol) brought together
representatives of prime contractors, design offices, control offices and
specialized companies: SETRA (G. Haïun), LRPC of Rouen (O. Combarieu ),
Scétauroute (A. Morbois), Bureau Véritas (P. Berthelot), Ménard Sol Treatment
(P. Liausu), Botte foundations (D. Thiriat), Keller France (M. Naidji), Bouygues
offshore (now Saipem) (J .-P. Iorio) and Solétanche (T. Kretz).
The feasibility report (IREX, 2000) was presented in January 2001 and underlined
all the interest of soil reinforcement by rigid inclusions, by showing its
achievements and potentialities. The inventory of the points necessary for a
better understanding of the phenomena at stake guided the proposal for a
qualification process which would
be based on: – a state of practice in France and
abroad; – an assessment of the performance of the inclusions made using
different
techniques; – an evaluation, through experiments (full-scale, in a centrifuge and
in a calibration chamber) of the contribution of the different interaction
mechanisms used by the process and the comparison of these observations
with different
models; – the drafting of recommendations for the use of the process in the field
of foundations, covering all aspects: choice of techniques, sizing and control
methods.
A first outline of the program, over four years, was presented, as well as a
preliminary analysis of the bibliography.
On the basis of the feasibility study, in October 2001 DRAST entrusted IREX
with the task of establishing, as a preparatory action for a national project, a
state of the art on soil reinforcement by rigid inclusions in France and abroad,
action coordinated by R. Kastner (INSA Lyon) and B. Simon (Terrasol).
51
L. Briançon carried out this work from February to July 2002, which was monitored by
a committee of experts: S. Borel, O. Combarieu, J. Garnier, E. Haza, Ph. Liausu, A.
Mor bois and L.Thorel.
Work carried out at the same time in Lyon and relating to 3D modeling was the subject
of a DEA thesis defended in October 2002 (Laurent, 2002). The report on this work
was the subject of an IREX report published in November 2002 (Briançon, 2002). It
draws up the state of practice by highlighting exemplary achievements or experiments,
and is also based on the results of a survey carried out among specialized French
companies.
The general program of the national project was presented on February 4, 2005. This
research and development project was planned over a period of four years: the first
three years should be devoted to the development and implementation of experimental
protocols and numerical as well as the analysis of the first experimental data; a final
year should be taken up with the synthesis of all the data collected, the validation of the
design methods and the drafting of a document of recommendations.
The launch of this project coincides with the completion of the doctoral thesis defended
by Orianne Jenck, in November 2005 at INSA Lyon, and dealing with the physical and
numerical modeling of reinforcement by rigid inclusions.
During the first steering committee of March 29, 2005 at the FNTP, were appointed to
direct, under the aegis of the IREX, the national project called ASIRI (Improvement of
Soils by Rigid Inclusions): president F. Schlosser, vice - chairman O. Combarieu,
scientific director B. Simon.
Five working themes make up the framework of the
project: • Theme 1. Full-scale test plots, led by C. Plumelle and L. Brian çon (CNAM
chair of geotechnics). This theme covers full-scale, very complete experiments for the
sole purpose of research. • Theme 2. Experimental projects, led by E. Haza (CER
Rouen). This theme will focus on limited instrumentation carried out during real work
sites, in order to accumulate results. • Theme 3. Laboratory tests, led by L Thorel
(IFSSTAR Nantes). It concerns all tests
relating to the characterization of materials and the performance of tests in a centrifuge.
• Theme 4. Numerical modeling, led by D. Dias and R. Kastner (INSA Lyon) . • Theme
5. Recommendations,
moderated by O. Combarieu.
52
Bibliography
AUVINET G., RODRIGUEZ J.-F. – “Rigid inclusions in Mexico City soft soils: History and
perspectives”. Symposium Rigid inclusions in difficult subsoil conditions ISSMGE TC36, ,
Sociedad Mexicana de Mecanica de Suelos, UNAM, Mexico, 2006.
BRIANÇON L. – “Soil reinforcement by rigid inclusions. State of the art in France and abroad”. Irex,
operation of the Civil and Urban Engineering Network, 2002.
BROMS BB – “Design of batteries group with respect to negative skin friction; Specialty
session on negative skin friction and settlement of piled foundations”. 7th ICSMFE,
Mexico City, 1969.
BROMS BB – “Problems and solutions to construction in soft clay”. proc. 6th Asian regional
conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Singapore, vol. 2, 1979, p.
28-30.
BUSTAMANTE M., GOUVENOT D. – “Reinforcement of a high embankment by injection”.
10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Works, Florence, May
1991.
COLES J. – Sweet track to Glastonbury. Thames and Hudson, London, 1986.
COMBARIEU O. - “Soil improvement by rigid vertical inclusions. Application to the construction
of embankments on poor soils”. French Geotechnical Review No. 44, 1988, p. 57-79.
COMBARIEU O. – “Surface foundations on soil improved by rigid inclusions ver

ticals”. French Geotechnical Review No. 53, 1990, p. 33-44.
COMBARIEU O., FROSSARD A. – “Improvement of the soils of the banks of the Loire by
rigid inclusions to stabilize the access embankments of a berth”. 13th European Congress
of Soil and Foundation Mechanics, Prague, 2003.
COMBARIEU O., GESTIN F., PIOLINE M. - “Embankments on soils improved by rigid
inclusions. First projects”. Bulletin of the Ponts et Chaussées Laboratories No. 191, 1994,
p. 55-62.
COMBARIEU O., PIOLINE M. – “Construction of a PICF and its accesses on soil improved
by rigid inclusions”. International symposium on the improvement of existing soils, ASEP-
GI, September 9-10, 2004, Paris.
GIGAN J.-P. – “Consolidation of a foundation soil by piles”. Laboratories Bulletin
des ponts et chaussées no. 78, 1975, p. 12-16.
GIRAULT P. – “A new type of pile foundation”. proc. Conf. on deep foundations,
Mexican society of soil mechanics, Mexico, 1969, vol. 1.
IREX - Soils Competence Center. "Use of rigid inclusions for the reinforcement of the
foundation soils of structures and embankments. Feasibility study for a national project”,
2000.
JENCK O. - Soil reinforcement by vertical rigid inclusions. Physical modeling
sical and digital. INSA Lyon doctoral thesis, 2005.
KERISEL J. - “England: discovery of a Neolithic route”. Archeologia magazine n° 292, 1986,
p. 56-60.
53
LAURENT Y. – Reinforcement of foundation blocks by rigid vertical inclusions,

Bibliographic and digital study. DEA dissertation, INSA Lyon, 2002.
OKABE.T. – “Large negative skin friction and friction free pile methods”. 9th ICSFME,
Tokyo, vol. 1, 1977.
PECKER A. – “The Rion-Antirion bridge in Greece, the seismic challenge”. 550th lecture,
delivered at the University of All Knowledge, October 20, 2004.
PLUMELLE C. – “Reinforcement of loose soil by inclusion of micropiles”. french review
geotechnical board no. 30, 1985, p. 47-57.
RATHMAYER H. – “Piled embankment supported by single pile caps”. proc.
conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Istanbul, 1975, 8 p.
SIMON B. – “An integrated method for sizing rigid inclusion networks in deformation”.
XVth International Congress of Soil and Foundation Mechanics, Is tanbul, vol. 2,
2000, p. 1007-1010.
SIMON B., D'APOLITO P. – “Doublening of an overpass based on piles having
undergone significant parasitic forces”. International symposium on deep foundations,
ENPC, Paris, May 1991, p.285-292.
SIMON B., SCHLOSSER F. – “Soil reinforcement by vertical stiff inclusions in France”.
Symposium Rigid inclusions in difficult subsoil conditions, ISSMGE TC36, Sociedad
Mexicana de Mecanica de Suelos, UNAM, Mexico, 2006.
SMOLTCZYK – “Pfählgründung eines Eisenbahnsdamms”. 6th European Congress of
soil and foundation mechanics, Vienna, 1976, vol. 3.
ZEEVAERT L. – “Discussion on negative friction and reduction of point bearing
capacity”. proc. 4th.ICSMFE, 1957, vol. 3.
54
CHAPTER 2
Operating mechanisms
This chapter presents the operating mechanisms of a group of inclusions, an

essential preliminary to tackling the design and sizing aspects of the following
chapters. These mechanisms, which relate to load transfers and their impact on
settlements, are largely based on full-scale experiments, as well as on physical and
numerical models, carried out within the framework of the national ASIRI project, but
include also previous results in particular the negative friction model proposed by
Combarieu (1974). ,
By its principle, the technique of soil reinforcement by rigid inclusions brings into play
a series of complex interactions, from the supported structure to the substratum: –
interaction
between the structure and the transfer mattress, depending on the thickness the
mattress and the rigidity of the foundation;
– interaction between the transfer mattress and the reinforced soil mass made up of
the compressible soil layer and rigid inclusions; – interaction
at the interface between the compressible soil and the inclusions, where successively
negative then positive friction develops at depth; – and, finally, interaction
between the tip of the inclusions and the supporting soil.
After showing these interaction mechanisms, we endeavor to explain the negative
friction model, the charge transfer mechanisms, and the associated settlements and
deformations. In order not to overload chapters 3 and 5 dedicated to dimensioning
and justifications, the analytical formulations of negative friction and load transfer in
the mattress are developed in this chapter.
In conclusion of this chapter, we present the lessons of the experimental plots,

considered essential for a good design, as well as a reminder on the seismic stresses
as developed in the Guide on the improvement and reinforcement processes . of soil
under seismic actions, drafted under the patronage of the French Association of
paraseismic engineering (AFPS).
55
1. STRUCTURE INTERACTION – TRANSFER

PLATFORM – INCLUSION HEAD
1.1. Interaction between the reinforced floor and the interlayer mattress
With the notations adopted within the framework of the national ASIRI project, the
load transfer mechanism on the inclusions in the granular mattress can be quantified
by the following parameters (Fig. 2.1): – the
force transfer rate E, called also “efficiency in terms of efforts”1 and defined as the
ratio of the load Qp acting on the head of the rigid inclusion to the total vertical load
applied on the unit cell (W + Q), where W is the weight of the mattress and Q the
force due to the applied overload; – the marginal force transfer rate G,
representing the capacity of the granular mattress to transfer the overloads towards
the rigid inclusions, and defined as being the ratio between the load increment
applied ÿQP on the rigid inclusions and the increment applied vertical overload ÿQ.
Figure 2.1. Efforts considered for the calculation of efficiency.
These two parameters are written:

Qp ÿQp
= --------------- G and = ----------
E (2.1)
WQ + ÿQ
To describe the transfer mechanisms, it is necessary to distinguish the case of an
embankment from that of a slab or a foundation.
1. Etass “efficiency in terms of settlements” is also defined (see § 5).
56
Chapter 2 - Operating Mechanisms
1.1.1. Case of an embankment
The simplest case is when a mattress consisting of a granular material is placed at

the base of an embankment. This case has been studied in a simplified form by
considering a uniform load on the mattress. By using a three-dimensional modeling
by discrete elements for this mattress, the results show that, for a given configuration,
the efficiency E increases with the load up to a plateau value. This corresponds to
the progressive mobilization of the shear strength of the granular material, until its
saturation. Finally, the calculations show in the mattress frustoconical zones of low
displacement on the top of the heads of the inclusions and at the edge of which the
shears are concentrated (Fig. 2.2, Chevalier et al., 2010). It is through these shears
that the transfer of load from the peripheral zones to the inclusion heads takes
place, and very small relative displacements are sufficient to mobilize them. The
opening of the cones is linked to the angle of internal friction at the peak of the
granular material (or to the angle of internal friction at the plateau if the surrounding
soil is very compressible).
Figure 2.2. Displacement fields (top view and vertical section between
rigid inclusions) for different thicknesses of granular mattresses (hm = 0.5 m
on the left) and (hm = 1.0 m on the right).
57
The limit efficiencies in terms of efforts increase with the thickness of the mattress
hm until reaching a threshold which defines a critical thickness. This can be interpreted
as the height from which the cones meet. It also corresponds to the complete
development of stress links corresponding to the most stressed grains in the granular
medium, and which form like vaults inside the mattress (Fig. 2.3, Chevalier et al.,
2010 ) .
This critical thickness depends on the center distance between inclusions and the
mechanical characteristics (modulus of deformation and angle of internal friction) of
the mat. To assess it, we can refer to the results of the work of Baudouin (2010),
carried out in the context of experiments in centrifuges. As an indication, these tests,
under the conditions in which they were carried out, show that the critical thickness is
reached for a ratio hm/(s – a) close to 2/3, hm being the thickness of the mattress,
and ( s – a) the spacing between bare inclusions.
Figure 2.3. Networks of stress links in the granular mattress (hm = 1.0 m).
In the continuous numerical models, this phenomenon corresponds to the complete

rotation of the principal stresses at the top of the mattress at mid-distance from the
inclusions.
The two-dimensional model of Jenck (2005), giving access to the displacement field
in the mattress, highlighted the impact of the thickness of the mattress on the damping
of differential surface settlements. This impact is illustrated in figure 2.4 where the
evolution of settlements in the mattress is plotted, directly above the inclusions and
between them. In this two-dimensional model, a relative thickness of the mattress hm/
(s – a) equal to 1.3 does not allow the complete development of the vault, which
results in the persistence of a differential settlement at the surface. A relative
thickness hm/(s – a) equal to 2.0 allows the complete development of the arch, which
translates into rapid uniformity.
58
settlements within the mattress. Note that these values of 1.3 and 2.0 are only
indicative due to model limitations.
Figure 2.4. Vertical displacement of the two-dimensional model directly above an

inclusion and between the inclusions, during consolidation, for a coverage rate ÿ = 22%.
Generally speaking, Jenck's thesis (2005) and the physical models developed
within the framework of the national ASIRI project (Jenck et al., 2006) seem to show
that the compressibility of the surrounding soil has no influence noticeable on the
efficiency E, as long as the soil can provide the required confinement around the
inclusion heads. When this confinement tends to no longer be assured, discrete
models have shown the beneficial role of a geosynthetic reinforcement placed at the
base of the mattress.
The graphs below (Fig. 2.5), extracted from the thesis of Chevalier (2008), illustrate
this beneficial role of a geosynthetic reinforcement in the case where there is no
attachment between the compressible soil and the inclusions. They show the
evolution of the efficiency E as a function of the loading applied, for two values of
stiffness J of the geosynthetic and a surrounding soil of variable deformability. It is
observed that the essential contribution of the geosynthetic is made for the most
deformable support soils. In this case the geosynthetic, subject to having an
appropriate stiffness, then mobilizes sufficient traction to confine the base of the mattress.
59
Figure 2.5. Efficiency of the granular mattress E as a function of the overload

q0 for different reaction coefficients of the supporting soil; hm = 0.5 m without
paving (discrete 3D modelling).
1.1.2. Case of a paving or a foundation

A foundation, slab or footing, when it exists, plays an essential role in load
distribution when the thickness of the mattress is less than the critical thickness
defined above.
In the case of a slab, the slab by its rigidity tends to standardize settlements and
operates a significant transfer of loads directly above the inclusions, with the
development of bending stresses in the slab.
For a given thickness of mattress, lower than the critical height, the efficiency E
limit with paving is always higher than that without paving. Furthermore, the
efficiency E decreases when the thickness of the mattress increases, with a
positive counterpart which is the decrease in the bending stresses in the paving.
This suggests the existence of an optimal dimensioning of the mattress-slab complex.
The graphs below (Fig. 2.6), taken from Dinh's thesis (2009), show the changes in
efficiency E with overload (Fig. 2.6a), and in limit efficiency with thickness mattress
(Fig. 2.6b) in the “fill” or “paving” cases. It can be seen that the limit efficiencies
converge towards the same value (obtained for the critical height of the "backfill"
case). This explains why
60
the role of the paving as a load transfer element becomes negligible beyond a
certain thickness of mattress.
a) Efficiency b) Limiting efficiency
Figure 2.6. Evolution of the limit efficiencies with the thickness of the mattress in the "backfill" or
"paving" cases (physical modeling in a calibration chamber).
The diagrams below (Fig. 2.7) illustrate the load transfer mechanism under an
embankment and under a slab based on the results of continuous 3D modeling
with the Flac software (Laurent, 2002).
In the “embankment” case (Fig. 2.7a), the load transfer takes place by shear within
it, with a rotation of the main stresses reflecting the development of vaults.
In the “slab” case (Fig. 2.7b), the load transfer is governed by the stiffness of the
slab and leads to a concentration of stresses in the mattress columns overhanging
the inclusion. These columns are privileged areas for the development of stress
link networks. The stability of each colon is ensured by the existing confinement
within the mattress and by the reaction of the underlying soil. Insufficient
containment is detrimental to the proper functioning of the system. This point must
always be the subject of a specific verification in the case of a slab.
In both cases, it can be seen, at the level of the base of the mattress, that the
settlement gradient is localized in the immediate vicinity of the inclusion heads,
the settlement being relatively uniform between the inclusions.
61
a) Backfill b) Paving
Figure 2.7. Comparison of load transfer mechanisms under an embankment and
under a slab (continuous 3D modelling).
Unlike the “fill” case, the efficiency under a slab or a foundation is slightly improved
with more compressible soils (Chevalier, 2008).
1.1.3. Special case of a ground mattress treated with hydraulic binders

When the mechanical properties, in particular the shear strength, of the material
used to constitute the mattress are insufficient, this can be remedied by treating
the ground with hydraulic binders.
The specificity of materials treated with hydraulic binders (lime or cement) is that
they can achieve significant tensile strength, unlike granular materials. Depending
on the type or formula of soil treatment used, the associated behavior may be
“ductile” (case of lime treatment) or “brittle” (case of predominant cement
treatment). This determines a different evolution of the load transfer at the top of
the inclusions, as shown below by the results of the centrifuge tests where a
mobile plate simulated the settlement of the soil (Fig. 2.8), extracted from the
thesis of Okyay (2010 ).
62
Figure 2.8. Mobile plate device for centrifuge tests and principle of soil settlement
simulation.
1.1.3.1. Ductile behavior (lime treatment)

The typical case of ductile behavior is that of lime-treated silt. The material sets fairly
quickly and acquires its final strength after a fairly long hardening period.
When the load is applied, the maximum efficiency E is reached progressively with the
settlement of the compressible soil. Despite local fissuring of the ma telas, this
maximum efficiency is very important (Fig. 2.9a). We can say that the treated mattress
partly plays the role that would be played by a paving.
In the absence of slabs or large superficial foundations, the thickness of the mattress
plays a major role due to the risk of cracking associated with an insufficient thickness.
1.1.3.2. Brittle behavior (cement treatment)

Unlike lime treatment, cement treatment rapidly stiffens the ground irreversibly and
allows greater resistance to be achieved. The behavior is however fragile and brittle.
When the load is applied, the maximum efficiency E is reached with a very low
compaction of the compressible soil (Fig. 2.9b), lower than that observed when the
soil is treated with lime.
63
a) Test E31 - Lime-treated mattress b) Test E34 - Cement-treated mattress

Figure 2.9. Changes in the load on the inclusion with soil settlement
(comparison between lime treatment and cement treatment) (Okyay, 2010).
Almost all of the load is transmitted to the heads of the rigid inclusions.
For high loads, once the mattress is damaged, efficiency drops instantly. This
phenomenon is linked to the fragile behavior of the mattress.
Given the great rigidity of mattresses made of material treated with cement, the stresses
transmitted before rupture on the compressible ground can be very low or even non-
existent.
The distribution mattress behaves like a slab stressed in bending. If this mattress is itself
covered with a paving or a slab, the bending stresses will be distributed between this
structural element and the mattress in proportion to their respective rigidities and
according to the connection condition at the interface.
The behavior of the mattress can be influenced by the conditions of implementation.
Improper treatment during the recovery of successive layers can considerably affect the
homogeneity of the mattress due to insufficient adherence.
1.1.4. Side effect

At the edge of the structure, the interaction between the mattress and the heads of the
inclusions is modified compared to the conditions in the central part of the structure, due
to the following factors:
– the asymmetry between the loading zone and the unloaded outer zone, the latter
necessarily leading to significant variations in the stress field in the mattress; – the limited
extension of the mattress
around the inclusion; – the reduced lateral containment
capacity of the mattress; – the vertical containment of the
mattress limited to the footprint of the structure (paving or footing);
64
– the non-uniform distribution of the stresses on the underside of a rigid foundation

(stress peak at the edge of the foundation).
These factors can induce specific failure mechanisms with, as a consequence, a
reduction in the limit stress which can be taken up by the head of the inclusion.
The continuous 3D model which was used to justify the ICEDA project (described in
paragraph 7 of chapter 1) illustrates that the stress field at the head of the peripheral
row differs from that of the inner rows which appears independent of their position
(Fig. 2.10 ). In this project, the inclusions had a diameter of 1 m, a center distance
of 6 m and the mattress a thickness of 2 m. The calculation presented considers a
load of 200 kPa (including the weight of the slab).
Figure 2.10. Example of a stress field at the edge of a structure (ICEDA project).
1.2. Reinforced soil-slab

interaction 1.2.1. Definition
Unlike paving placed on a homogeneous ground which, subjected to a uniform
load, undergoes a uniform reaction in the current zone, paving on ground reinforced
by rigid inclusions undergoes a non-uniform reaction when the thickness of the ma
telas is less than the critical thickness: it is higher in line with each inclusion and
lower between them (Fig. 2.11). The stress on the slab depends on the distribution
of these reactions. A minimum thickness of mattress is recommended, knowing that
an increase in the relative thickness of the mattress tends to standardize these
reactions. On the other hand, a calculation carried out neglecting the
65
the reaction of the soil between the inclusions (similar to a calculation of a supported floor) would
turn out to be very conservative.
This reaction distribution is to be evaluated by an appropriate calculation model which takes into
account the following parameters: – the
deformation modulus of the inclusion; – the
deformation moduli of the mattress, of the compressible soil and of the anchoring layer of the
inclusions; – the shear and/or
punching interactions between the various elements; – the relative thickness of the mattress in
relation
to the center distance of the inclusions.
Figure 2.11 presents the total stress measurements taken on the experimental plot at Saint-
Ouen-l'Aumône (2006). These measurements call for the following observations, which clearly
illustrate the mechanisms of interaction between the reinforced soil and the paving: – in this case
corresponding to a thin
mattress, the same stresses are measured on the rigid inclusion and in underside of the slab on
the right of the inclusion: most of the load transfer is therefore done by the slab; – as a result,
under the slab, the stresses measured are markedly lower between the inclusions than at the
level of the inclusions: the distribution of the reactions is therefore not uniform, and this must be
taken into account when dimensioning the paving.
Figure 2.11. Saint-Ouen-l'Aumône experiment (2006).

Stresses measured for the 3D plot (paving and repressing inclusions).
Experimental and numerical studies have shown that a reduction in the thickness of the mattress
increases the efficiency of rigid inclusions in the case of paving, because the latter will participate
in the load transfer. Indeed, by comparison with a mattress of infinite thickness, in which the
deformation mechanisms
66
and rupture by shear cannot lead to the top of the mattress, the presence of a slab
on a thin mattress modifies the development of these mechanisms by stressing
the slab itself.
Thus, if we associate, for the mattress, a low thickness with high mechanical
characteristics (modulus of compressibility, angle of internal friction, cohesion), it
is possible to obtain an optimal efficiency leading to a maximum concentration at
the head of the inclusions and therefore to a maximum reduction of settlements.
On the other hand, the slab is more stressed in bending as shown in figures 2.12
and 2.13 (Okyay, 2010). The characteristics of the mattress as well as those of the
paving are therefore to be defined in such a way as to find an optimum between
the stresses in the paving and the settlements.
Figure 2.12. Influence of the modulus of elasticity of the mattress on the efficiency, the
settlements, and the stresses in a slab.
Paving: thickness 20 cm
Mattress: height 60 cm and angle of friction 31°, variable modulus of elasticity
Inclusions: diameter 35 cm and spacing 2 m
67
Figure 2.13. Influence of the angle of friction and the cohesion of the mattress
on the bending moment in the slab (Okyay, 2010; Okyay and Dias, 2010).
Paving: thickness 20 cm
Mattress: height 60 cm and modulus E = 70 MPa, variable angle of friction or cohesion Inclusions: diameter 35
cm and spacing 2 m
The definition and control of the material constituting the mattress, its level of
compaction and its suitability for possible treatment are essential elements for the
proper functioning of this load transfer platform on a group of rigid inclusions. It
seems essential to define a range of minimum and maximum values of the
mechanical characteristics of the mattress taking into account the conditions of
implementation and their possible evolution (example of a soil treated with lime
whose characteristics vary according to the water conditions) .
The high values generally correspond to an upper limit of the soil licitations of the
structural elements, and the low values to an upper limit of the settlements.
The soil study carried out in accordance with the sequence of geotechnical
engineering missions (standard NF P 94-500, December 2006) must establish the
succession of the different layers of soil, both natural and added, and the values of
the necessary parameters to the calculation model (chapters 4 and 6).
1.2.2. Design The
design and calculation of the paving come under DTU 13.3 (NF P 11-213 standard),
but will require integrating the specific nature of the non-uniform distribution of
reactions on the underside of the paving. As such, the simplified method for
evaluating deformations and stresses explained in Appendix C of DTU 13.3 can only
be applied to reinforcement by rigid inclusions if corrective terms are taken into
account. This process will be explained in Chapter 5.
These principles will be applied by distinguishing between inclusion meshes in the

current section of the slab (central area far from edges and joints), meshes at the
edge of the structure or joints and those placed in an angle (Fig. 2.14).
68
Figure 2.14. Distinct areas to consider for the design and calculation of a slab.
The point load cases will also be decisive with regard to the design of the slab. In practice,
the relative stiffness of the slab compared to the foundation course will imply a redistribution
of the point forces on each mesh. The behavior of the foundation course (reinforced soil +
mattress) will be controlled by the resultant of the reactions obtained (by analogy with the
regularization principle of Barré de Saint-Venant for the beams). In this way, the behavior of
the foundation course under the slab can be assimilated to that obtained under a uniform
loading of the same resultant on the mesh.
Under these conditions, the slab must be studied under the combination of the point loads on
the surface of the slab and the reactions calculated on the underside. These last are
estimated for an equivalent uniform loading applied to each mesh (see chapter 5:
Justifications).
1.3. Reinforced ground-sole interaction
1.3.1. Definition
When high inertia foundation elements (footing, apron) are subjected to stresses other than
centered vertical (moment, horizontal forces), the role of the interlayer goes beyond the role
of uniform vertical load distribution: it must ensure good distribution and transmission of both
vertical and transverse forces between the inclusion heads and the surrounding soil.
The intermediate mattress between the base of the foundation and the heads of inclusions
allows:
69
– to reduce at the head in the inclusions the normal stresses, the shearing forces,
the compressive and tensile stresses linked to bending; this can make it possible
to avoid the installation of frames or reinforcement elements (cage, section or
tube); – to better
distribute the non-centered vertical stresses of the sole on the inclusions; – to limit
the parasitic
forces linked to problems of eccentricity of inclusions under the footing; – to return
to a superficial
sole dimensioning, subject to checking that the thickness of the mattress is
sufficient and is not likely to induce bending stresses in the sole.
1.3.2. Design The

sizing of rigid inclusions is inseparable from the characteristics of the floor to be
reinforced and the mattress.
The justifications to be provided in the calculation note will relate in the general
case to the following two criteria:
– limit loads on the reinforced soil mass and justification of the different types of
foundations with regard to failure; –
absolute settlement of the various structural elements within the same structure,
justification of the differential settlements within the structure or between structure
and slab, according to the permissible tolerances specific to each structure and
the regulations in force.
The execution tolerance of the inclusion (as it will be defined in chapter 7) must
be taken into account in the dimensioning of the footing and the supported
structure. Beyond this value, it must be demonstrated that the behavior remains
compatible with the structure of the structure.
2. SURROUNDING SOIL INTERACTION – INCLUSION

2.1. Preamble
The interaction between the surrounding soil and the inclusion remains closely
linked to the load transfer mechanism via a mattress.
The role of the inclusions is to transmit the load due to the structure's own weight
and the service loads in soils that are more load-bearing at depth, in order to
increase the bearing capacity and reduce the settlement of the structure. To do
this, the rigid inclusion will have to seek a carrier horizon.
70
The inclusions are mobilized by the load directly applied to their head but also by
the friction of the surrounding soil, when the latter settles under the load applied
by the weight of the structure.
In the upper part of the reinforced soil, the soil compacts more than the inclusions,
while at its base the inclusions compact more than the soil. There is therefore a
depth where the ground and the columns settle as much: this is the neutral point.
In the upper part, this effect results in negative friction which loads the inclusion,
until reaching a maximum compressive load at the level of the neutral point (Fig. 2.15).
Figure 2.15. Schematization of positive and negative friction.
This load is taken up below the neutral point by positive friction and peak force.
Taking into account the action of the compressible soil on the inclusions is complex
since it involves the combination of the following behaviours: – transfer
of forces by friction from the inclusion to the soil and vice versa; – transfer of
forces at the peak of inclusion; – soil compaction
between inclusions; – settlement of
the inclusion by elastic shortening and insertion at a point.
The main parameters to be integrated into the operating mechanism to translate

the interaction of the soil with the inclusion are the following:
71
– the coverage rate; – the

state of soil consolidation; – the
deformability of the compressible soil; –
the deformability of the supporting
soil; – possible creep of the compressible soil (case of organic soils, peat, etc.); – the
modulus of elasticity of the inclusion; –
negative soil-inclusion lateral friction, as well as positive, and peak resistance.
All these parameters have an influence on the distribution of stresses and the differential
settlements between the soil and the rigid inclusions.
Comment. The evaluation of the lateral friction and peak resistance parameters must take
into account the type of inclusion and its installation technique, distinguishing between
inclusions made without pushing back the soil (example "drilled mud") and those made
with repression of the soil (example "steel beat").
2.2. Negative friction 2.2.1.
Principles
Negative friction occurs when the settlement of the soil along the shaft of the rigid
inclusion is greater than the vertical displacement of the rigid inclusion itself.
me.
Unlike the pile, the negative friction exerted on the rigid inclusion is not a parasitic force,
but on the contrary it makes it possible to relieve the com pressible horizon of the
residual stress which exists at the base of the distribution mattress. .
This transfer to the inclusions is done gradually with depth.
2.2.2. neutral point
The equality of the vertical displacement of the rigid inclusion and the vertical settlement
of the soil along the rigid inclusion defines the depth hc of the neutral point N. Above
this point N, the friction is negative, below it becomes positive (Fig. 2.15).
At the head, the rigid inclusion takes the load QP(0).
At point N, the rigid inclusion is subjected to the load QP(0) increased by the force
h.c.
of negative friction FN ( FN ÿ( )z ÿÿ ÿD.dz

= ) between the head of the inclusion rigi
0
from and point N.
72
The axial force in the rigid inclusion therefore increases between the head of the
inclusion and the neutral point. This total force [QP(0) + FN] must be balanced by the
positive friction force FP below point N and the peak force QP(L) (Fig. 2.15): QP(0) +
FN = FP + QP(L). Near the
shaft of the inclusion, the stress ÿ'v is therefore reduced at depth because part of the
weight of the earth is transmitted into the inclusion by the negative friction mobilized
above the point considered: this is the clinging effect.
2.2.3. Mobilization over time and in depth The maximum

negative friction depends on: – the
settlement of the soil (depending on its compressibility and the consolidation time); –
displacement of the inclusion (depending on its rigidity and the stiffness of its
anchorage); – overloads compared to the initial

conditions; – the conditions of the interface between the soil
and the inclusion; – boundary conditions of the system (isolated inclusion or inclusion
within a group).
The negative friction stress fn increases with the relative displacement ÿy soil
inclusion to reach its limit value qs for a relative displacement ÿyc of millimeter order,
therefore very low (Fig. 2.16). Taking into account the consolidation, this negative
friction fn is maximum in the long term and must be calculated from the effective
stresses.
Figure 2.16. Law of simplified mobilization of the unit lateral friction qs.
The methods usually used to evaluate the forces due to negative friction do not
explicitly introduce the law of mobilization of these forces according to the relative
displacement soil-foundation element, but are rather failure methods.
The relationship between the vertical and horizontal effective stresses is written:
ÿ'h = K.ÿ'v (z) (2.2)
K being the earth pressure coefficient at the soil-pile contact.
73
If we consider ÿ the angle of soil-pile friction which depends on the type of pile and
the nature of the soil, the shear stress due to negative friction is then written : fn(z)
= K.
ÿ'v (z). tanÿ (2.3)
In practice, the product K tanÿ is considered as a term whose two factors are
inseparable.
Negative friction can appear in other cases than that of an overload on compressible
soil: – natural or
artificial soils (recent embankments) settling under their own weight; – tablecloth
drawdown; – liquefiable
soils or loose soils which may be the seat of settlement by saturation or by
densification under seismic effects.
A detailed description of the mode of calculation of the negative friction around a
pile (or inclusion) isolated or in a group is given below (cf. § 3), with reference to
the model proposed by Combarieu (1974, 1985).
2.3. Mobilization of soil resistance

The resistant part of the inclusion located under the neutral point, also called
resistant plug, makes it possible to take up, by positive friction and peak force, the
maximum load in the inclusion at the level of the neutral point.
The mobilization of unit positive skin friction is a function of the relative displacement
between the inclusion and the surrounding soil, when the displacement of the
inclusion is greater than that of the soil.
The resistant sheet of the inclusion will be calculated according to the methods
specific to deep foundations. However, the safety factors will be voluntarily chosen
to be lower (without reduction applied to the creep load), because a higher inclusion
displacement is accepted than for a deep foundation.
2.4. Inclusion settlement

Loading tests have shown that, as for piles, the vertical settlement of an isolated
inclusion descended on a compact horizon is low under its service load. Frank and
Zhao (1982) provided a method for calculating these settlements from pressuremeter
characteristics.
The settlement of an inclusion results from its settlement at the tip and its elastic
shortening.
The elastic shortening of the different types of inclusion is generally low compared
to the settlement of the compressible soil. Examples of ca-values
74
characteristics of the deformation modulus of inclusions are presented in chapter 7

(§ 3.4).
As explained in paragraph 5 of this chapter, the settlement of a group of inclusions
will be calculated as the sum of two main components: the settlement of the
reinforced soil itself (including that of the mattress), to which will be added the
settlement unreinforced deep layers.
2.5. Actions other than centered vertical

2.5.1. Asymmetrical loading In
the case of large foundations, the preponderant vertical direction of
the loads to be taken up and the nature of the mechanisms of interaction
between the soil and the inclusions result in essentially compressive
forces in the inclusions. Only those placed on the periphery of a loaded
zone can be subjected to additional bending stresses (edge effect).
In the case of a limited group of inclusions, under isolated footings for example (Fig.
2.17), the edge effect which already exists under a vertical load becomes
preponderant under a force torque (transverse force and moment) . A special study
should define the geometry and the mechanical characteristics of the transfer
mattress allowing sufficient reduction of the stresses in the inclusions so as, if
necessary, not to arm them.
Under large-area foundations, edge effects have to be taken into account, leading
to the calculation of inclusions close to the edges differently from those of the central
zones, which are often subjected to uniform loading.
For example, under very high embankments, bending stresses may appear at the
top of the inclusions placed under the embankments, in addition to those of
compression developed in the axis of the embankment. This may justify the
incorporation of reinforcing layers (geosynthetics, geogrids) at the base of the
embankment to reduce its horizontal displacement and its influence on the heads of the inclusions.
The asymmetry of the backfill loads also leads to a non-uniform distribution of the
vertical forces in the inclusions.
75
Figure 2.17. Example of asymmetrical loading leading to a non-uniform distribution

of the forces in the inclusions.
2.5.2. Transversal actions

Unlike pile caps (where the transverse forces are distributed entirely at the top of
the piles), the granular mattress absorbs part of the deformations, which can
have the beneficial effect of reducing displacements at the top of the inclusions.
The transverse forces exerted on the foundation are distributed, via the granular
mattress, between the inclusions and the soil.
This reduction in the forces applied at the head of the inclusions, combined with
the fact that these are free at the head, explains why the stresses induced in the
inclusions are generally much lower than in the case of a footing on piles.
76
3. LOAD TRANSFER MECHANISMS

Load transfer mechanisms are largely based on the model that Combarieu (1974,
1985) proposed to describe the negative friction around an isolated pile or on a
group of piles.
In the case of reinforcement by rigid inclusions, this original model only applies to
the height of the compressible soil, around the inclusions.
Combarieu then proposed extending this model to the ground placed above the
heads of inclusions, to study the load transfers in the mattress, in the following
cases: –
embankment surmounting the inclusions in the case of embankments on piles
(1988,
2007); – distribution mattress in the case of flexible paving or rigid soles on soils
reinforced by inclusions (1990, 2007).
Other methods are proposed to study the charge transfer in the ma telas, in
particular the "diffusion cone" method.
3.1. Negative friction over the height of the compressible
soil 3.1.1. Isolated inclusion or
isolated pile The model was developed to calculate the negative friction
acting on the piles of structures.
Traditional methods consist of estimating the critical height hc, corresponding to
the inclusion length actually subjected to negative friction (Fig. 2.18), then
calculating its intensity from the relationship:
h.c.
=
ÿ ztan , (2.4)
FN 2ÿrp K ÿÿÿv rp ) dz (
0
assuming that the effective vertical stress ÿ'v (z, rp) in the soil, along the inclusion,
is not disturbed by the presence of the inclusion itself and is identified with ÿ'1 (z),
free effective vertical stress without inclusion.
77
Figure 2.18. Negative friction calculation diagram.
The height hc over which the negative friction develops is called the “critical height”.
K tanÿ is the term which links the shear stress and the vertical stress at the contact
of the inclusion. According to Combarieu's proposal, in agreement with that of many
other specialists, we do not seek to differentiate the two terms (K : earth pressure
coefficient; tanÿ: soil-pile friction coefficient), but we treat their product as a unique
parameter whose value depends on the type of pile (or inclusion) and the nature of
the compressible soil. These values have been established experimentally on piles.
When FN is calculated by this method, its value always remains overvalued due to
the overvalued value of ÿ'v (z, rp).
Combarieu (1974) proposed a more satisfactory approach to negative friction which
introduces a modification of the state of stress in contact with the inclusion due to
the presence of the latter by the attachment effect. This modification reflects the
fact that, the pile or the inclusion absorbing a negative friction force, the soil around
the inclusion is unloaded.
The effective vertical stress along the inclusion is therefore locally reduced and its
value is lower than that in the absence of inclusion. This transfer of force results in
a stress ÿ'v (z, r), which varies and increases with distance
78
r to the axis of inclusion. This variation describes a shear that develops along
the concentric surfaces at inclusion.
The approach is also extended to inclusion groups. It allows the determination
of the critical height hc.
This method imposes no other assumption than that according to which the
com pressibility of the soil is sufficient for the settlement to allow the limit value
of the negative friction to be developed.
Combarieu (1985) defined a law of radial variation of the vertical stress at
elevation z by introducing the notion of attachment of the compressible soil
around the inclusion (Fig. 2.19).
Figure 2.19. Distribution of stress ÿ' v (z, r).
For r > rp
–
ÿ r------------
rp – ÿ
+=– – rp
ÿÿv( ) z r, ÿ ÿ( )z
( ÿÿ
1ev(ÿ)zÿ ÿÿ 1( )z vÿÿ ) (2.5)
ÿÿÿ
where: ÿ'1 (z) is the free effective vertical stress in the ground in the final state,
calculated without taking into account the presence of
the inclusion; ÿ'v (z) = ÿ'v (z, rp) is the effective vertical stress at the contact of the
inclusion in the final state, taking into account the
bonding effect; ÿ'v (z, r) is the real effective vertical stress at the distance r from the
axis of the inclusion, taking into account the disturbance due to the presence of the inclusion;
79
ÿ is the so-called attachment coefficient characterizing the amplitude of the attachment around
the inclusion.
The attachment coefficient ÿ takes the following values, which have been established
experimentally (Fig. 2.20):
Figure 2.20. Abacus for determining ÿ (Standard NF P 94-262).
ÿ = ----------------------------------------
1 if ÿ ÿ Ktan 0, 15
0.5 +25 K tanÿ
ÿ = 0.385 – K tanÿ if 0 15
, ÿ ÿ Ktan
385 0
ÿ ,
ÿ=0 if ÿKtan
ÿ 0 385 ,
The case ÿ = 0, maximum attachment, corresponds to the simplifying hypothesis of non-

reduction of vertical stresses by the presence of inclusions.
The values of K tanÿ, which are related to the type of inclusion or pile as well as to the nature
and characteristics of the surrounding soil, result from full-scale experiments, carried out on
deep foundations subjected to generally high intensities of the final negative friction, necessary
for a good interpretation and obtained after often long consolidation times.
Table 2.I below shows the values of K tanÿ proposed in 1985 for piles, which can constitute
rigid inclusions, by comparing with those of piles the modes of execution of the current types of
inclusions of more modest dimensions. Table 2.II gives the values of K tanÿ proposed in
standard NF P 94-262 (Appendix H, Evaluation of negative friction on a foundation element).
80
The various types of include currently executed find their place in this table. In any case, it must be
pointed out that, in the justification of a group of inclusions, the majority of the efforts taken up by
them are taken up by the head; those taken up within the compressible soil by negative friction are
relatively low and the influence of the term K tanÿ therefore remains limited.
Table 2.I. Recommended values of the K parameter tanÿ.
Piles or inclusions carried out by displacement or under pressure, in fine

soils of liquid to soft consistency or organic soils *reduce to 0.15 0.20*
for open elements
Drilled piles or inclusions in fine soils of liquid to soft consistency or organic

soils *reduce to 0.10 if 0.15*
casing lost
Piles or inclusions executed by displacement or under pressure, in fine soils

of firm to very firm consistency *reduce to 0.30*
0.20 for open elements
Piles or inclusions drilled in fine soils of firm to very
firm 0.20*
*reduce to 0.15 if casing lost
0.35 to 1 (depending on
Displacement or drilled piles or inclusions, in sand and gravel
the degree of compactness)
Table 2.II. Values of the K tanÿ parameter (standard NF P 94-262).
cased bored piles Bored piles Driven piles
Peats organic soils 0.10 0.15 0.20

soft 0.10 0.15 0.20
Clays and silts
firm and hard 0.15 0.20 0.30
very loose 0.35
Sands and gravel cowards 0.45
compact 1.00
The conservation of the vertical forces in the model leads to the following differential equation
whose variable is the stress ÿ'v (z) (Combarieu, 1985): dÿÿv( )z ---------- -------- ÿ ÿ( )ÿÿv + ( )z
= dÿÿ1( )z
------------------
(2.6)
dz dz
with :
ÿ2 ---------------
= ------------Ktanÿ
ÿÿ( ) (2.7)
1+ÿ
rp
81
The solution of this equation gives the general expression of the effective vertical stress ÿ'v (z) at
the soil-pile interface, in the intervals where dÿ'1(z)/ dz can be assumed constant:
1 1 ------------------
v ( )z = -----------dÿÿ1( )z + e–ÿ -----------dÿÿ1( )z
ÿ
–
ÿÿv ------------------( ÿ( ) )z ÿÿv( ) 0 ÿ (2.8)
ÿ( ) dz ÿÿ( ) dz
In the particular case of a saturated compressible homogeneous mass, with a sheet of

dÿÿ( )z
---------------
surface and subjected to uniform overload q0, dÿ'1(z)/ dz is constant: = ÿÿ
dz
in the final state.
So ÿ'1(z) equals, after consolidation: ÿ'1(z) = ÿ'z + q0, where ÿ' is the unplaned unit weight of the
soil.
In this simple case, we have: ÿÿ
+= –-----------
-----------e–ÿ
q0ÿ( )z (2.9)
ÿÿv( )z
ÿ ÿ( ) ÿÿ ÿ ÿ( )
and the height hc on which the negative friction is exerted, i.e. from the head of the inclusion to the
neutral point determined by the condition ÿ'v (hc) = ÿ' hc, verifies the relation:
–
ÿ ÿ( )hc = ÿÿ( )hc – 1
--------------------------
e
----- –1
ÿÿ( )q0
ÿÿ
which can in particular be solved graphically.
If the calculated value of hc is less than H (thickness of the compressible soil), the
2ÿrpKtanÿ ÿ
resulting from the negative friction is written : FN ---------------------------q0 = , there is proportion
ÿ( )
ality between FN and q0.
If the calculated value of hc is greater than H, FN applies to the entire thickness

H of the compressible ground, and the resultant of the negative friction is written:
= 2ÿrpKtanÿ
FN [ ---------------------------
ÿ'v (hc) is given by: –+ ÿÿhc
( ) q0
ÿ ÿ(ÿÿ) vwhere
hc ]
–
ÿÿ ÿ ÿ( )hc
+= –-----------
-----------
e q0
ÿÿv hc ( )
ÿÿ( ) ÿÿ ÿ ÿ( )
82
We show that FN, which reaches its maximum value at the end of the consolidation, is
very simply related to the degree of consolidation when hc is less than the height H.
3.1.2. Inclusion in a group In the
presence of many inclusions, the group effect, all the more important as the mesh is
tight, is added to the snapping effect.
Consider a group of rigid inclusions regularly distributed in an unlimited number (Fig.
2.21).
Figure 2.21. Implantation of the group of rigid inclusions.
The following parameters are defined:

a and b : spacing between axes of the inclusions along two orthogonal directions; rp :
radius of an inclusion.
The calculation is comparable to that of the isolated inclusion, but by expressing the
conservation of the forces applied to the elementary mesh A = ab (area of influence).
This unit cell is assimilated to a cylindrical cell of radius R, called "radius of influence" (Fig.
2.22):
R = ab
-----
ÿ
83
Figure 2.22. Area of influence of a group stake unlimited.
Figure 2.23 provides a synthetic illustration of the negative friction model considered
and the associated notations.
Figure 2.23. Negative friction model according to Combarieu (1985).
This analysis leads to a differential equation identical to equation (2.6) making it

possible to determine ÿ'v (z, rp) (Combarieu, 1985): dÿÿv z
,
rp ( ) dÿÿ1( )z R ---- ---------------------- ÿ
ÿ( )ÿÿ , dz + ) , rz = ------------------
v ( rp (2.10)
dz
with :
84
ÿ2
ÿ ÿ( ) ,R = --------------------------------------------------
-----------Ktanÿ if --------------- ÿ ÿ 0rp rp – rp (2.11)
R
– --------------
ÿ
ÿR
1 ÿ 1 –+ ÿ ÿ + ------ e
ÿ ÿ rp
Or :
2
= ---------------------------
---------------
ÿ( ) 0, R if ÿ = 0 (2.12)
R
Ktanÿ
ÿ ÿ rp ÿ –ÿ 12 rp ----
These relations are also given in the form of an abacus (Fig. 2.24).
Figure 2.24. Abacus for the determination of (ÿ, R) (Standard NF P 94-262).
------------------
dÿÿ1( )z
The solution can be calculated in situations where the term (homogeneous
dz
at a specific weight) can be considered as constant: case where the profile ÿ'1 (z)
can be linearized by layer. The determination of the critical height and the calculation
of the total negative friction force are done in the same way as for an isolated
inclusion. There is software developed for this purpose.
The vertical stress profile between inclusions ÿ'v (z, r) is obtained by resolving equation (2.10), which
is a first order linear differential equation, knowing the vertical stress profile ÿ'1 (z ) which would be
obtained in the absence of inclusion and the values of the two coefficients K tanÿ and ÿ which
characterize the attachment effect around the inclusions (effect by which the vertical stress in contact
with the inclusion ÿ'v (z, rp) is reduced).
85
The negative friction along the inclusion is expressed as for the isolated inclusion, µ(ÿ)
being replaced by µ(ÿ, R/ rp), µ(ÿ) corresponding to the limit obtained for R/ rp = ÿ .
If we assume, as in the old traditional methods, that the vertical stress ÿ'1 (z) is
undisturbed by the presence of the rigid elements, this is equivalent to the maximum
attachment ÿ = 0, which does not prevent not the group effect to manifest. Integration of
equation (2.10) gives the solution provided by Zeevaert in 1957, which constitutes a
particular solution of the one proposed.
ÿ
The average vertical stress ÿv (z) between the inclusions is expressed as ma
following step, on the height where the negative friction applies:
–= ------------------------------------------- 2K ÿrp tan

[ ÿÿ
ÿv ÿ( )z ÿÿ 1( )z ÿÿ 1( )z ,
– ( ) ]v z rp (2.13)
R
R2 (ÿ )ÿ2–rpÿÿrp
ÿÿ,----
The critical height hc is often determined by making the assumption that the negative
friction acts only if the stress in contact with the inclusion ÿ'v (z, rp) is greater than the
initial stress ÿ'v0 (z ). The negative friction force acting on the inclusion can then be
calculated by expression (2.8) on the height hc or H.
Simon (2001) suggested the alternative that negative friction develops only to the depth
where the average vertical stress between inclusions ÿv Combarieu's approach is a
*
stress (z) remains greater than or equal to the initial stress ÿ'v0 (z).
approach, at the limit, where the inclusions are not very deformable, while the soil is
assumed to have sufficient compressibility for the shear stresses in contact with the
inclusions to reach their limit values ÿ (z ). These limit values are reached for relative
displacements between soil and inclusion (or pile) of the order of 0.01 D, where D is
the diameter of the element. These values come from experimental tests carried out on
negative friction.
One will thus be vigilant on the applicability of the method, which must imperatively
comprise the study of the deformations without inclusions.
The method provides:
– the shear stress at any point of the inclusion shaft: ÿ (z) = K tanÿ.ÿ'v
(z, rp) ; – the average
vertical stress between inclusions ÿv *(z), used to calculate settlements; – the depth hc
of the neutral
point.
86
3.1.3. Inclusion within a limited group of inclusions In the

case of a limited group of inclusions, the rules proposed are semi-empirical
rules, based on the results of centrifuge tests (Cartier, 1994).
To evaluate the negative friction on any element of a limited group of inclusions, one must
distinguish the case of a single row (Fig. 2.25) from that of several rows (Fig. 2.26), and
determine the following parameters : FN (ÿ): total negative friction force
on an isolated inclusion; FN (R) : total negative friction force on an inclusion in
an unlimited group.
The negative friction on each inclusion of the group (internal, external or in angle) is obtained by
a linear combination of the terms FN (ÿ) and FN (R), combination which is defined by
distinguishing the case of a single line or that of several rows.
3.1.3.1. single file
= 1 2
FNa --FN( --F) ÿ
) R + N(
3 3
FNe = 2 1
--F) ÿ
--FN(
3 ) R + N(
3 Figure 2.25. Disposition of an inclusion
in a single file.
3.1.3.2. Several queues
FNi FN = ( ) R (i) ÿ interior
= 7 5
FNa -----F
-----FN( ) R + N( (a) ÿ angle
12) ÿ 12
5 1
FNe = --F) ÿ (e) ÿ exterior Figure 2.26. Disposition of an
--FN(
6 ) R + N(
6 inclusion in several rows.
3.1.4. Model limitations
The following limitations must be taken into consideration: – the shape of

the field ÿ'v (z, r) adopted implies that the shear on the cylinder of radius R is not zero at the
edge of the cylinder equivalent to the cell. This point goes
87
against the fact that at the edge of the mesh, for reasons of symmetry, the shear must
be zero; – the
method only applies to the volume where negative friction develops; it does not make
it possible to analyze the distribution of forces below the neutral point; below the
horizontal plane passing at this level (“neutral plane of equal settlement”), the friction
is positive and contributes to increasing the load transmitted to the ground between
the inclusions by reducing the force supported by the inclusions. The resulting
settlement of the surrounding soil can therefore only be estimated approximately on
the basis of additional assumptions;
– the stiffness of the soil under the tip of the inclusions and the stiffness of the deep
layers are also important factors, since they are the ones that will determine the
amplitude of the differential settlement between the tip of the inclusion and the
surrounding soil, and justify the implicit hypothesis of Combarieu's method according
to which the relative displacements between the soil and the inclusion in the current
section are of sufficient magnitude for the negative friction to reach its limit values.
3.2. Transfer of load in the mattress Among

the various analytical methods for the evaluation of the transfer of load in the mattress,
the national ASIRI project proposes to retain the following two proven methods: – the
method of fictitious
inclusion (developed by Combarieu), which has the advantage of constituting a
homogeneous and consistent approach with the negative friction evaluation method
described above, being based on the same principles (effect of attachment to fictitious
columns within the embankment); – the diffusion cone method, which translates
an approach in line with the mechanisms highlighted by the various experiments and
modeling carried out within the framework of the ASIRI project (charge transfer by
diffusion above the inclusion), as explained in paragraph 1 of this chapter.
These two methods and their limitations are described below.
3.2.1. Fictitious inclusion method 3.2.1.1.
Description Combarieu
(1988) proposed to model the phenomena of charge transfer above the heads of
inclusions by assimilating them to the negative friction which would develop if these
inclusions were prolonged fictitiously on the same height hr as that on which exerts
this negative friction (Fig. 2.27). The parameter hr is therefore equal to the thickness
HR of the backfill or of the interlayer supporting a flexible structure subjected to a
uniform load of intensity q0.
88
In the particular case of frictional materials, it is proposed to retain the particular value K tanÿr = 1
(ÿr : backfill friction angle), from which results the value ÿ = 0 for the bonding coefficient.
The vertical stress in the soil between the inclusions is then uniform and is given
by: + ÿr ÿrhr
– (=) ----- 1 –e qs ÿr ÿrhr –
+ (2.14)
q0e
with :
= 2rpK ÿr tan
--------------------------
ÿr
R2 – 2
rp
Or :
rp : radius of the inclusion; R :

radius of the equivalent cell (or 2R : spacing between the inclusions).
In the particular case of embankments made of friction material, this expression is the same as that
given by Terzaghi in the study of the silo effect for sands.
Figure 2.27. Approach of Combarieu (1988).
In its general form, µr is also a function of ÿ (directly linked to K tanÿ), the attachment coefficient
introduced for the negative friction and taken equal to zero in the case of a good quality backfill
(granular material).
89
+
The expression giving geometric makes it possible to study the influence of the various elements
qs (rp/R, HR/R) on the efficiency of the system. In addition, in the calculation according to the
Combarieu method, it is verified that the load taken up by an inclusion is limited by that corresponding
to its area of influence.
By applying his model to the embankment with fictitious elements of the same cross-section as the
inclusions in the compressible soil, Combarieu proposes a global approach to the dimensioning of
the reinforcement by rigid inclusions, setting itself the objective of minimizing the stress applied to
the compressible soil. wheat.
+ on the ground between the inclusions,

In general, the aim is to limit the stress qs in order to limit
settlements. By setting an appropriate value for the stress reduction rate SRR = qs of the acceptable
+
mesh, for a fixed inclusion radius rp . / ÿrhr, it is possible to determine a geometry
Each inclusion is
then submitted at the head to the effort:
(FN + ÿ rp 2ÿrhr), where FN is the negative friction developed on the height hr.
3.2.1.2. Limitations and improvements made

The original method proposed by Combarieu in 1988 to deal with the fictitious inclusion had the
disadvantage of leading to a stress reduction rate SRR increasing with the height of the embankment
HR, which goes against the observations on reduced models, and theoretical results established by
Hewlett or Kempton, which show that this rate reaches a limit value under increasing heights of
embankment.
In reality, the method must be applied from the position of an upper plane of equal settlement within
the embankment, and not from the upper surface of the latter.
Also, on the occasion of the national ASIRI project, the method was modified (Combarieu, 2007,
2008) with regard to its extension to the calculation of the forces passing through the backfill above
the heads of the inclusions. He was introduced to this
effect an empirical formulation giving the active height ha between the heads of the inclusions and
the upper plane of equal settlement (Fig. 2.27), as a function of the radius R of the equivalent circular
cell, i.e.: ha
ÿ Rÿ2 R
----- 10 0 4 6 ,–= – ----
if ---- < 6
ÿ
rp ÿ rp rp
90
Ha R
----- 10 = if ---- > 6 rp
rp
Furthermore, it is proposed to evaluate the coefficient K tanÿ in the embankment by the empirical
relationship:
–E/
E0 K tanÿ = 1.1 – e (2.15) from the deformation modulus E of the layer of thickness
ha (with E0 = 50 MPa).
This modulus E is the modulus Ev2 measured at the 60 cm diameter plate, which can also be
estimated from correlations with other deformability measurements.
The residual stress between inclusions is written under these conditions:
ÿr ÿrha – ( ) ----- ÿrha

+ = 1 e –ÿr +
qs hr –
ha( ) – e ÿr (2.16)
If the calculated value of ha is greater than HR, then we agree to take ha = HR.
The SRR ratio of the residual stress qs+ to the applied stress ÿrhr tends
thus to the finite value ÿrha

e – , when hr increases indefinitely.
+ and in
The introduction of the equal settlement plane leads to an increase in qs as a consequence
of a reduction in the force at the head of the inclusion. Conversely, the friction and whose method
+
negative ment along the shaft, generated by qs gé, of calculation remains unchanged
is increased. Overall, for successful inclusion groups, compared to the 1988 proposals, this only
leads to a modest reduction in efficiency.
In the case of slabs, the upper plane of equal settlement can be assimilated to the underside of the
slab. 3.2.1.3. Assessment
The fictitious inclusion model is able to describe the transfer of load in the mattress, subject to
taking into account the specific points exposed in the previous paragraph (for example identification
of an upper plane of equal settlement). Chapter 3 details the resulting requirements for analytical-
type calculation models.
3.2.2. Diffusion cone method

It is also possible to model the charge transfer by diffusion above the inclusion, with reference to
the mechanisms highlighted by the various experiments and modeling carried out within the
framework of the national ASIRI project
91
(Chevalier et al., 2010 and 2011). As explained in paragraph 1 of this chapter, it

is important to remember that the load transfer mechanism depends on the type
of structure considered: –
case of an embankment: diffusion takes place according to the model of the
capital inclined at the friction angle of the
mattress material; – case of a slab or a foundation on a granular mattress: the
load transfer takes place via the structural element (slab or foundation) and the
vertical column of the mattress surmounting the inclusion and, to a lesser extent ,
the immediate neighborhood of this column.
In the case of an embankment on a granular mattress, the transfer of the loads is
done by shearing along a truncated cone coming from the head of the inclusion
and forming a solid angle ÿ equal to the angle of internal friction at the peak of
the mattress material. From the angle ÿ that the diffusion zone makes with the
vertical direction, we can evaluate the transfer of load towards the inclusions by
considering that the moving block transmits directly to the compressible soil its own
weight and the load that it receives. . This hypothesis, based on the results of the
numerical simulations, is compatible with the kinematic approach of the calculation
at rupture of the rigid block in displacement, if it is considered that the angle ÿ must
be equal to the angle of internal friction ÿ of the material to obtain a vertical
displacement of this rigid block, the only kinematically admissible direction (Fig. 2.28).
Figure 2.28. Kinematic approach of the design at failure applied to the determination of
the limit stress on the ground between the inclusions.
92
From the proposed geometry (Fig. 2.29), one can determine the part of the overload Qp and
the weight Wp of the granular layer redirected towards the inclusions via the load transfer zone.
From this we deduce the efficiency E and the capacity G of the granular mattress to transfer
the overloads towards the inclusions, in the case of inclusions or slabs of square section.
Figure 2.29. Proposed charge transfer mechanisms.
= her –
+ + --------------
(2.17)
Qp q a2 4ahmtanÿ ÿhm 2 tan2 = ( ÿ for
) hm ÿ hÿ 2tanÿ
ÿ her –
= + + 3 tan2 = --------------
-- For hm ÿ hÿ (2.18)
Wp ÿ a2hm 2ahm 2 tanÿ 3 hm ÿ 2tanÿ
+
Wp Qp + a2 4ahmtanÿ ÿhm 2+ tan2 ( ÿ )
E = ---------------------------- G = -------------------------------------------------- ----------------------
(2.19)
and ) + q
s2
s2 ÿhm (
For piles or slabs of circular section, of diameter a, we obtain:

ÿÿhm )
+
wp = [ ------------
(3
aÿ22 2 hm ) + tanÿ
(+aa ÿ 22hm
( a )ÿ + tanÿ ÿ 2 ] (2.20)
= = her –
--------------
+ tanÿ 2 ( (2.21)
Qp qÿ a ÿ 2 hm ) hm
hÿ ÿfor 2tanÿ
Wp Qp + ÿaÿ2+ tanÿ 2 )
= (----------------------------------------------
hm
E = ---------------------------- G and (2.22)
s2
s2 ÿhm ( ) + q
93
The angle ÿ is generally taken equal to the angle of friction at the peak ÿp of the granular
material to assess the maximum efficiency that can be mobilized for a given loading.
By comparison with numerical simulations with discrete elements carried out for a mattress
of thickness hm = 1.0 m and 0.5 m, it can be seen in figure 2.30 that the analytical
formulations proposed make it possible to approach in a satisfactory manner the mechanisms
of load transfer. For small displacements of the granular layer, the angle of friction to be
considered in the analytical formulations is indeed the angle of friction at the peak of the
granular materials in place. However, for larger deformations, one can think that the
disorganization of the particles requires considering lower angles of friction.
Figure 2.30. Comparison between effort transfer rates E and G obtained by

discrete numerical simulations and calculated analytically (Chevalier et al., 2010).
(Backfill case, square inclusions a = 0.37 m and 2.5 m mesh, coverage rate = 2.22%)
4. BASIC MECHANISMS
4.1. Overall mechanism of reinforcement by rigid inclusions It should be
remembered that, compared to foundations on piles or to reinforcement by flexible inclusions

of the stone column type, the main mechanism of reinforcing the foundation soil by rigid
inclusions is to distribute the loads between the inclusions and the surrounding compressible
soil while minimizing settlements.
This mechanism is also that of stone columns with the difference however
that with the latter there is equal settlement at the head of the columns and the ground which
surrounds them.
Rigid inclusions thus have the role of:
94
– channel the stresses due to embankments, loads on slabs or slabs, towards deep
compact soils; – reduce the
stresses in the compressible soil to reduce settlements; – possibly reduce the
consolidation times by reducing the stresses in the compressible soil, depending on
the level of overconsolidation.
4.2. Behavior of the isolated rigid inclusion The

isolated rigid inclusion works like a small pile. During the loading of the head of the
rigid inclusion, the lateral friction is quickly mobilized then the tip more slowly until the
ultimate resistance fixed conventionally at a displacement of the head equal to one
tenth of the diameter of the inclusion ( Fig. 2.31).
Figure 2.31. Mobilization of the total and peak forces of a rigid inclusion.
With regard to the embedding of the inclusion in the horizons located under the
compressible layers, it is necessary to differentiate between two very distinct cases.
Area no. 1 : inclusions are necessary for the stability and bearing capacity of the
structure. In this case, the requirements of standard NF P 94-262 "Deep foundations"
must be applied, generally with a minimum embedding of three diameters for piles
with a diameter of less than 0.50 m. This minimum anchorage can be reduced to the
minimum value of 0.50 m if the foundation company can guarantee the proper
execution of this embedding of the tips of the piles in the load-bearing layer either by
taking samples, or by use of a drill bit or, again, the use of a corer.
Area no. 2 : the main function of rigid inclusions is to reduce settlements and are not
necessary to justify the stability or the load-bearing capacity.
95
tance of the work. In general, we will limit ourselves to a minimum embedment of

one diameter in the carrier layer, subject to taking this into account for the
evaluation of the lift factor (with reference to standard NF P 94-262), and subject
to strict control of the quality of execution (such as the systematic recording of
installation parameters), making it possible to guarantee that this minimum
anchorage is obtained for all inclusions. In the absence of a real carrier layer, so-
called “floating” inclusions can be envisaged, subject to specific justifications.
4.3. Behavior of a rigid inclusion within a group Under the effect of

the settling of the compressible soil around the rigid inclusions of the group, a
negative friction develops on the upper part of each inclusion which increases with
the height of the embankment or the overload. In this part, the vertical
displacement of the surrounding soil is greater than that of the inclusion. On the
lower part, on the contrary, the friction is positive, and at each level the vertical
displacement of the rigid inclusion is greater than that of the surrounding soil.
There is therefore a level of the inclusion for which the displacements of the
inclusion and of the surrounding ground are identical; this level is called the
“neutral plane”. At this level, the shear stress due to lateral friction is zero, and
the normal force is maximum in the inclusion.
We also define two other neutral planes located respectively above the heads and
below the tips of the inclusions (Fig. 2.32).
Figure 2.32. Position of the three neutral planes determined from the shear stress profile
along the inclusion.
96
The upper neutral plane is the most interesting, since above it the settlements are uniform
and thus the upper surface of the embankment will not undergo “egg box” deformation
(Fig. 2.33).
The lower neutral plane is located under the inclusions in the surrounding soil, the level
where the soil settlement becomes uniform again.
Figure 2.33. Landfill on rigid inclusions revealing a deformed “egg box”

surface.
4.4. Behavior of the soil around the rigid inclusion in a group In a reinforcement by
rigid inclusions, the compressible soil, being relieved of part of the stresses brought by the
backfill or the paving, settles less than the unreinforced soil. At the top of the inclusion,
there is a sudden variation in settlement which quickly becomes uniform as one moves
away from the shaft of the rigid inclusion (Fig. 2.34).
97
Figure 2.34. Displacements of the ground at the level of the head of the inclusion.
It is therefore necessary to have a sufficiently thick transfer mattress to avoid

differential displacements at the top of an embankment or hard points under a slab.
If the thickness of the mattress is insufficient, we will obtain, in the case of an
embankment, a rupture of the soil mass above the head of the inclusion emerging
at the surface (compare figures 2.35 and 2.36) or, in the case of a paving, significant
constraints therein.
Figure 2.35. Overall ground failure under Figure 2.36. Ground breaking bulb
1 m of cover. confined under 7m cover.
98
4.5. Consolidation of saturated compressible soil into a

group of rigid inclusions
Consolidation of compressible soil reinforced with rigid inclusions can be much
faster than that of unreinforced soil. This is due to the decrease in vertical
stresses in the reinforced compressible soil, which cause it to work in its
overconsolidated domain, where settlements are faster than in the normally
consolidated domain.
The reduction in settlements is therefore generally accompanied by a reduction
in consolidation times (Fig. 2.37 and 2.38).
These results are a reminder, once again, of the importance of carrying out a
complete study of the mechanical and hydraulic characteristics of the compressible
soil prior to any reinforcement project.
Figure 2.37. Settlement curves for overconsolidated soil with and without reinforcement.
Figure 2.38. Dissipation of excess pore pressure for an overconsolidated soil

without and with reinforcement (U = 90%).
99
5. SETTLEMENT AND DEFORMATIONS

The decision to reinforce a foundation soil stems from the observation that the
settling of the structure on virgin soil is not compatible with its destination. The first
task to be performed will therefore be to calculate the settlement to be expected in
the absence of any reinforcement. If necessary, the group of inclusions will then be
sized to reduce this settlement value to an allowable value, by applying the
operating mechanisms described below.
In addition to the efficiency E in terms of loads (as defined in paragraph 1.1 of this
chapter), it is customary for engineers to consider an Etass efficiency in terms of
settlements, which concretely expresses the ability of the process to meet the
settlement criteria required for the structure. This efficiency is defined by the
expression: Etass
= 1 – yM / y0 (2.23)
with :
yM : soil settlement reinforced by rigid inclusions, evaluated or measured at the

surface of the
mattress; y0 : settlement of virgin soil (without inclusions), evaluated from site
reconnaissance data.
The settlement of the reinforced soil can
be: – either calculated using data from site surveying and the calculation methods
proposed in these recommendations (see chaps. 3, 4 and 5); – or measured
using appropriate instrumentation installed as part of the inspection tests.
The settlement of a surface foundation of the embankment, footing, slab or raft

type on soil reinforced by rigid inclusions is defined as being the sum of two
components: – the
settlement of the reinforced soil itself, including that of the mattress; – settling
of unreinforced deep layers.
5.1. Reinforced soil compaction
Reinforcement by rigid inclusions results, and this is the desired goal, in a reduction
that is usually very significant in settlements over the entire height of the reinforced
soil; this reduction depends on the mesh of the reinforcement and the
characteristics of the granular distribution mattress (thickness, deformability and
possible presence of a structural additive such as a geogrid).
This reduction in settlement is obtained by a substantial transfer to the inclusions
of the applied load, this load transfer occurring at two levels, as already described
in the preceding paragraphs:
100
– a load concentration at the inclusion head, resulting from the shearing

mechanisms in the mattress which can lead, due to the rotation of the stresses
they induce, to the creation of force vaults through which the forces can pass,
and supplemented, where appropriate, by the existence of a permanent cohesion
in the mattress, or the membrane effect of the geogrid(s) placed on the inclusion
heads; – a
negative friction effect of the compressible soil on the inclusion, following the
mechanisms analyzed by O. Combarieu, governed among other things by the
Ktand and ÿ parameters by combining the group and attachment effects.
This load transfer results in a significant reduction in the additional stress applied
at the head and within the compressible soil, and consequently a very significant
reduction in settlement, which is the desired goal.
Knowing that a large part of the loads is transferred to the inclusions, and that the
latter have a high rigidity, the reduction in settlement will be all the greater when
the tip of the inclusions rests on a resistant bearing horizon such as a substratum
of strong steepness or a layer of sand or gravel of sufficient strength.
In this respect, it will be necessary to clearly distinguish the case of inclusions

stopped within the compressible layer, then qualified as floating inclusions, and
that of inclusions resting on a resistant horizon.
In order to optimize the effectiveness of the reinforcement in terms of reduction
of settlement, it is strongly recommended, in common cases, to provide it over
the entire height of the compressible layer and to seat the inclusions on a
supporting level. , knowing that floating inclusions of short length would have
almost zero efficiency.
In the presence of evolving materials (peat, household waste, etc.), the residual
overload applied to the ground can cause creep settlements and limit the snagging
phenomenon.
5.2. Settlement of unreinforced deep layers According to

the mechanism described above, the inclusions play the role of load transfer
elements at depth. This overload, transferred to the level of the base of the
inclusions, has the effect of causing settlements in the underlying layers which
have remained in a virgin state since they are not reinforced, in a manner so
similar to the settlements likely to occur under a group of piles (although the
transfer mechanism is significantly different in the case of piles)
(Fig. 2.39).
101
Figure 2.39. Need to check the influence of load transfer under the
tip of the inclusions.
However, it should be noted that generally these deep layers are not very
compressible, and therefore that the settlements induced at the surface are low
and often uniform on the scale of the structures considered.
This examination of settlement at depth should not, however, be forgotten.
5.3. Soil recognition
At the level of reconnaissance, it will be necessary to provide for soundings

followed by appropriate tests in the laboratory or in situ to assess the characteristics
of soil compressibility to a sufficient depth with regard to the surface and the depth
of the reinforcement considered. , and in sufficient number to assess the potential
variations of these characteristics on the scale of the structure in order to assess
the total and differential settlements.
It is recommended to refer to chapter 6 for a detailed description of the appropriate
soundings and tests.
5.4. Determining Parameters
In addition to the compressibility characteristics of the soil in place, the following

main parameters, as the calculation methods described in Chapters 3, 4 and 5
will explain, are decisive for the assessment of settlements: – the characteristics
of the mattress granular (thickness, deformability, angle of internal friction, possible
cohesion), including, where appropriate, the characteristics of the additives used
in the reinforcing plies;
102
– the characteristics of the inclusions (diameter of the head and diameter of the current
part, modulus of deformation, length with respect to the thickness of the compressible
soil); – the
coverage rate, ratio of the section of the head to the surface of the elementary mesh.
The search for the best combination of these parameters leads to the optimum
dimensioning to satisfy the settlement criteria.
6. LESSONS LEARNED FROM EXPERIMENTAL PLOTS

In addition to the description of the fundamental mechanisms, it seems important to
highlight some observations or lessons from the two full-scale experiments (Saint-
Ouen-l'Aumône and Chelles) carried out as part of the national ASIRI project. These
lessons are considered particularly useful for good design, or for carrying out a
realistic pre-sizing of a reinforcement by rigid inclusions at the preliminary design
stage.
6.1. Include behavior

With regard to the loads and settlements at the top of the inclusions, the experiments
at Saint-Ouen-l'Aumône (Fig. 2.40) and Chelles (Fig. 2.41) show that the behavior of
an inclusion under the structure (backfill, paving) is the same as that of the tip of an
isolated rigid inclusion subjected to a loading test. This results in particular in that the
load which is exerted at the head of an inclusion is close to the load which is exerted
in the vicinity of its tip.
This expresses the fact that the resultants of positive and negative friction along the
shaft of the inclusion are roughly balanced, and that, therefore, the effectiveness of
the inclusion is essentially governed by its point bearing capacity. . These results
highlight the need to determine this capacity and to correctly model the behavior at
the tip of the inclusion, if one wants to obtain realistic results at the top of a structure
on soil reinforced by rigid inclusions.
This result must be considered as valid only for groups of inclusions resting on a
resistant substratum (it does not apply a priori to floating inclusions).
103
Figure 2.40. Saint-Ouen-l'Aumône experiment: paving (2006).

Load and settlement measurements at the head of the inclusions placed in the center of the 2D and
3D blocks (repressing inclusions).
Figure 2.41. Chelles experiment: embankments (2007).

Load and settlement measurements at the top of the inclusions placed in the center of the 2R,
3R and 4R studs.
6.2. Load transfer The

Chelles experiment (2007), which includes a granular mattress, shows a
reduction in the stress applied to the compressible soil, compared to that
provided by the embankment. This is not observed above the mattress, which puts
104
evidence that the load transfer mechanisms are indeed carried out within the granular
mattress.
If the backfill material is of good quality, load transfer mechanisms can also occur at
the base of the backfill, which thus acts as a mattress.
If the top layer of the reinforced soil is of good quality, it also participates in the load
transfer by friction. In this case, the slab solution covering the inclusions may not be
optimal, since it may limit this mechanism of transfer by friction.
Cutting back the inclusions at the base of the granular mattress can reduce load
transfer since the soil in line with the inclusion cannot be compacted like the rest of
the mattress. Appropriate provisions are required in this respect, in order to guarantee
the homogeneity of the compaction of the distribution mattress (see chapter 7:
Execution).
6.3. Reinforcement layers (geosynthetics)
The Chelles experiment (2007) shows that the state of stress above a granular
mattress reinforced by geosynthetic layers is different depending on the nature and
number of layers placed: – case of the mattress
reinforced by a layer of geotextile, or in a fairly deformable material: the geotextile
deforms during the construction of the embankment and the deformation is
concentrated around the heads of inclusions; – case
of the mattress reinforced by a sheet of geogrid, i.e. in less deformable material: the
geogrid deforms uniformly during the implementation of the granular ma telas, then
the deformation is also concentrated around the heads of inclusions during the
construction of the embankment. The geogrid tends to prestress the distribution
mattress before it is loaded by the backfill, which amounts to giving it a certain
cohesion. The interpretations made for the experimental plots of Chelles made it
possible to quantify this equivalent additional cohesion; – the number of layers
arranged is also an important factor insofar as it contributes to increasing the

stiffness of the mattress.
6.4. Effectiveness in terms of compaction
Reinforcement by rigid inclusions significantly reduces settlement at the level of the

natural ground and at depth.
In the instrumented embankment of Chelles, it is observed that settlement occurs
mainly during the construction of the structure. It is therefore necessary to im-
105
set settlement criteria by referring to the settlements to be expected after the

construction of the embankment and not before.
The efficiency calculated in stress at the level of the inclusion heads is not always
the most relevant parameter for the dimensioning, it is rather necessary to reason in
reduction of settlement. By way of illustration, in the case of the instrumented
embankment at Chelles, it can be noted that an efficiency of 20% in stress resulted in
a reduction in settlement of 60%!
7. SEISMIC LOADING The purpose of

reinforcement by rigid inclusions is to give the reinforced soil sufficient mechanical
characteristics to allow the construction of a superficial foundation (or even a slab or
slab) or an embankment, in acceptable stability and settlement conditions.
In the case where the reinforced soil is subjected to seismic stresses, it is necessary
to distinguish between two very distinct domains (technical guide AFPS Soil
improvement and reinforcement processes under seismic actions, 2011).
Domain no. 1 : inclusions are necessary for the stability (and bearing capacity) of the
structure (verification of GEO ultimate limit states). It is then necessary to guarantee
during the earthquake the resistance of the inclusions such as it is taken into account
in the calculations, and therefore to justify that these inclusions remain in the elastic
domain (justifications comparable to the rules in force for piles).
Domain no. 2 : the main function of rigid inclusions is to reduce settlements and are
not necessary to justify the stability or bearing capacity of the structure. We must
then justify the absence of ruin of the structure under the seismic actions by neglecting
in part or in whole the inclusions, so that the safety of the people is not called into
question in the event of damage to the structure. .
Comment. It may happen that the contracting authority imposes that the
structure operate after the earthquake, that is to say without the appearance of
disorders and operating limitations during and after the earthquake (EN 1998-1 §
2.1 (1) P); in this case, the inclusions fall into domain #1.
The granular mattress must assume the following functions: –

favor the dissipation of energy by sliding in the granular medium. The mattress thus
plays the role of a fuse promoting controllable sliding, rather than a rotation of the
sole by loss of lift. A hierarchy in the resistance of the various constituent elements
of the system is therefore introduced, and this obviously supposes that, apart from
the mattress, there is no plasticized zone.
This implies that the rigid inclusions do not plasticize, and therefore are correctly
sized or even oversized;
106
– reduce the stresses in the inclusions (reduction of the shear force at the head of
the inclusion and of the lateral displacement of the ground on the upper part of the
rigid inclusions);
– play a filter effect by avoiding an amplification of the seismic loading, or even in
certain cases by reducing the inertial forces. The phenomenon of reduction is
closely linked to the dissipation of energy in the mattress by friction. This
phenomenon will be all the more pronounced the thicker the mattress; – possibly
increase the bearing capacity of the ground. The mattress can be sized to go from
domain n° 1 to domain n° 2.
Shear stresses and normal stresses will develop in rigid inclusions under kinematic
and inertial effects. In area no. 1 where the inclusions are necessary for the stability
(and bearing capacity) of the structure, it will be necessary to check that all the
sections of the inclusion remain compressed under the induced stresses, and that
the normal and shear stresses remain acceptable (refer to chapter 5: Justifications).
The seismic calculation of foundation soils reinforced by rigid inclusions comes up

against the very complex study of the soil-inclusion-mattress-superstructure
foundation interaction under cyclic loading.
The incident waves induce deformations in the ground which transmits them to the
foundations and consequently to the structure. There is therefore a strong
interaction, which breaks down into a kinematic interaction and an
inertial interaction: – the ground deformed by the incident waves forces the
foundations, and consequently the superstructure, to follow its movement (kinematic
interaction). Even in the absence of the loads from the superstructure, the
foundations will have different displacements from those of the ground in free field
due to the difference in
stiffness between the foundation and the ground. – the superstructure mobilized by
the movement of the foundation will develop inertial forces which induce forces on
the soil-foundation system (inertial interaction).
Both mechanisms occur simultaneously; the response of the foundation-structure
soil system (soil-structure interaction) can be obtained by the combination of these
two mechanisms. The need to take into account the combination of these two
mechanisms depends on the type of soil, the seismic zone and the category of
structure with reference to paragraph 5.3 of the AFPS guide Soil improvement and
reinforcement processes under seismic actions (2011).
In liquefiable zones, the liquefaction potential can be reduced by rigid inclusions
under the possibly combined effect of the following actions:
107
– if the inclusions are used to increase the compactness of the surrounding soil, for
example by displacement and/or vibration, the increase in compactness must be
checked after treatment by in situ tests carried out between the inclusions; – if the
inclusions are used to reduce the shear stress in the soil, the dimensioning must be
carried out according to the homogenization method of Hashin (1983) as detailed in
the AFPS guide (op. cit. ) . Any method which would consist in increasing the
average shear strength of the treated mesh by taking into account the resistance of
the inclusion is not valid. This approach imposes a verification of the integrity of the
inclusion (the normal and shear stresses must remain acceptable). The practical
application of this dimensioning method generally allows only a limited increase, of
the order of 5 to 10%, of the safety factor with respect to liquefaction.
Please refer to the AFPS technical guide for: – a

review of the appropriate analysis methods; –
indications on the role of a group of inclusions with respect to potential soil
liquefaction.
108
Bibliography
Internal reports (National ASIRI Project)
BAUDOUIN G. – Soils reinforced by rigid inclusions: physical centrifugal modeling of

embankments and paving. Doctoral thesis, University of Nantes, 27/10/2010.
BRIANÇON L. – “Soil reinforcement by rigid inclusions. State of the art in France and abroad”. IREX,
operation of the Civil and Urban Engineering Network, 2002.
BRIANÇON L. – “Final report of the Saint-Ouen-l'Aumône experiment”. Report
1-07-1-02 and digital appendices, July 2007.
BRIANÇON L. - “Final report of the Chelles experiment”. Report 2-08-1-05,
July 2008.
BRIANÇON L. – “Slice 1 benchmark supplement”. Themes 1 and 4. Report 1-07-1 and
4-02, November 2007.
CHAKROUN S., SIMON B. – “Simulation of the Schneebeli material in Plaxis”. Report
1-06-4-02, December 2006.
CHEVALIER B. – Experimental and numerical studies of charge transfers in granular
materials. Application to soil reinforcements by rigid inclusions.
Doctoral thesis, Grenoble I Joseph-Fourier University, 09/5/2008.
CHEVALIER B., COMBE G., VILLARD P. – “Discrete modelling: study of load transfer”. Report
3-08-4-01, 2008.
CHEVALIER B., COMBE G., FANTINO R., GRANGE S., VILLARD P. – “Study of load transfer
mechanisms in granular embankment mattresses on compressible soil reinforced by rigid inclusions”.
Report 4-10-4-02, July 2010.
COMBARIEU O. - “Backfill on mediocre soil and rigid inclusions. New approach to
sizing”. Report 1-07-5-01, 2007.
DINH AQ – Study on physical model of load transfer mechanisms in soils reinforced by
rigid inclusions. Application to dimensioning. Doctoral thesis, ENPC, 2009.
IREX – “Soil Competence Center. Use of rigid inclusions for the reinforcement of the
foundation soils of structures and embankments. Feasibility study for a national
project”, 2000.
JENCK O. – Reinforcement of compressible soils by vertical rigid inclusions. Physical and
digital delusion. Doctoral thesis, INSA Lyon, 29/11/2005.
JENCK O., DIAS D., KASTNER R. – “Experiments on a two-dimensional scale model in the laboratory.
Physical modeling of the load transfer platform”. Report 1-06-3-01, October 2006.
JENCK O., DIAS D., KASTNER R. – “Two-dimensional numerical modeling of the laboratory model
developed at INSA and parametric studies”. Report 1-06-4-01, October 2006.
JENCK O., DIAS D. – Discrete numerical modeling of a two-dimensional scale model of a granular load
transfer mattress built on rigid inclusions. Report 2-08-4-03, October 2007.
109
KOSCIELNY M., BRIANÇON L., DIAS D. – “Summary benchmark slice 1. Topics 1 and
4”. Report 1-07-1 and 4-01, September 2007.
LAURENT Y. – Reinforcement of foundation blocks by vertical rigid inclusions. Bibliographic
and digital study. DEA dissertation, INSA Lyon, 09/17/2002.
LE HELLO B. – Geosynthetic reinforcement of embankments on rigid inclusions. Full-scale
experimental study and numerical analysis. Doctoral thesis, University of Grenoble I
Joseph-Fourier, 06/26/2007.
OKYAY US – Experimental and numerical study of load transfers in a solid mass reinforced
by rigid inclusions. Application to static and dynamic loading cases. Doctoral thesis,
INSA Lyon, 24/11/2010.
RAULT G., BAUDOUIN G., THOREL L. – “Centrifuge tests: behavior of an elementary
group (3*3 inclusions): design of assemblies (1)”. Report 2-07-3-05, December 2007.
RAULT G., BAUDOUIN G., THOREL L. – “Centrifugal tests: behavior of an elementary

group (3*3 inclusions): production of assemblies (2)”. Report 2-08-3-06, May 2008.
RAULT G., THOREL L. – “Study of load transfer by shear. Movable tray device.
Acceptance tests”. Report 3-09-3-14, October 2009.
THOREL L., RAULT G., BAUDOIN G. – “Behavior of an elementary group (3*3
inclusions): simulation in a centrifuge of the loading of an embankment”. Report
2-07-3-08 and annexes, November 2008).
External references (publications and standards)
AFPS – “Soil improvement and reinforcement processes under seismic actions”,

2011.
BERTHELOT P., BESSON C., BOUCHERIE M., CARPINTEIRO L., DERYCKERE N.,
FROSSARD A., GLANDY M., PEZOT B., POILPRE C., VOLCKE J.-P. –
“Recommendations on the design, the calculation, execution and control of stone columns
under buildings and structures sensitive to settlement”. French Geotechnical Review No.
111, 2004, p. 3- 16.
British Standard BS 8006 – “Code of practice for reinforced / reinforced soils and other fills”,
section 8: design of embankments with reinforced soil foundation on poor ground, 1995,
p. 98-121.
CARTIER G. – Group effect on negative friction (centrifuge tests). DEA memoir, LCPC
Nantes, 07/11/1994.
CHEVALIER B., VILLARD, P., COMBE G. – “Investigation of load transfer mechanisms
in geotechnical earth structures with thin fill platforms reinforced by rigid inclusions”.
International Journal of Geomechanics, doi:10.1061/(ASCE) GM.1943 – 5622, 0000083,
2011.
CLOUTERRE 1991 (+ Additive 2002) – Recommendations for the design, calculation,
execution and control of supports made by nailing the ground. Presses des Ponts, 1991,
2002.
110
COMBARIEU O. – “Attachment effect and negative friction evaluation method”.

Liaison bulletin of the bridges and roadways laboratories no. 71, May-June 1974, p.
93-107.
COMBARIEU O. – “Negative friction on the piles”. Labora research report
toires des ponts et chaussées no. 136, October 1985, 151 p.
COMBARIEU O. – “Soil improvement by rigid vertical inclusions. Application to the construction
of embankments on poor soils”. French Geotechnical Review No. 44, 1988, p. 57-79.
COMBARIEU O. – “Calculation of a mixed foundation”. Technical information note, minis

Equipment and Housing, LCPC, 1988.
ticals”. French Geotechnical Review No. 53, 1990, p. 33-44.
COMBARIEU O. – “Estimation of soil-pile lateral friction from the pressuremeter and shear
characteristics”. Liaison bulletin of the bridges and roadways laboratories no. 221, May-
June 1999, p. 37-54.
COMBARIEU O. – “Embankments on compressible soil and rigid inclusions. Improved sizing
approach”. French Geotechnical Review No. 122, 2008, p. 45-54.
DTU 13.2 – Deep foundations for the building. AFNOR P11-212 standard, 1992.
EBGEO – „Empfehlungen für den Entwurf und die Berechnung von Erdkörpern mit Be
wehrungen aus Geokunststoffen“. Bewehrte Erdkörper auf punkt oder linienförmigen
Traggliedern. Deutsche Gesellshaft für Geotechnik eV (German Geotechnical Society),
Ernst & Sohn, Kapitel 9, 2010.
Fascicule n° 62, Titre V – Technical rules for the design and calculation of the foundations of
civil engineering works. CCTG applicable to public works contracts. Ministry of Equipment,
1993.
FOREVER – Synthesis of the results and recommendations of the national project on micro
pious (1993-2001). Presses des Ponts, 2004.
FRANK R., ZHAO SR – “Estimation by pressuremeter parameters of the penetration under
axial load of bored piles in fine soils”. Bulletin de liaison des la boratoires des ponts et
chaussées n° 119, May-June 1982.
HASHIN Z. - “Analysis of Composite Materials. A Survey”. Journal of Applied Mecha
nicks, vol. 50, 1983, p. 481-505.
HEWLETT WJ, RANDOLPH MA – “Analysis of piled embankments”. Ground Engineering
ring, April 1988, p. 12-18.
KEMPTON G., JONES CJFP – “The use of high strength link geotextiles over piles and
voids”. Earth reinforced, Ochiai, Hayashi and Otani (eds), Balkema, Rotterdam, 1992, p.
613-618.
KEMPTON G., RUSSELL D., PIERPOINT N., JONES CJFP – “Two and three dimensional
numerical analysis of the performance of piled embankments”. 6th International
Conference on Geosynthetics, 1998, p. 767-772.
NF EN 1997-1, Eurocode 7 – Geotechnical calculation. Part 1: General rules. (classification
index P 94-251-1) with its national appendix (classification index P 94-251-2).
111
NF EN 1997-2, Eurocode 7 – Geotechnical calculation. Part 2: Recognition and testing

geotechnics.
NF EN 1998-1, Eurocode 8 – Design and calculation of structures for their resistance to
earthquakes. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings.
NF EN 1998-5, Eurocode 8 – Design and calculation of structures for their resistance to
earthquakes. Part 5: Foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects.
NF EN 1536 – Execution of special geotechnical works - Bored piles. (P94-310).
NF EN 12699 - Execution of special geotechnical works - Piles with ground displacement.
(P94-311).
NF EN 14199 – Execution of special geotechnical works - Micropiles. (P94-313).
NF P 94-262 – Justification of geotechnical structures. Eurocode 7 national application
standards - Deep foundations.
NF P 11-213, DTU 13.3 – Paving - Design, calculation and execution, 2007.
OKYAY US, DIAS D. – “Use of lime and cement treated soils as pile supported load trans
iron platform”. Engineering Geology, vol. 114 (1-2), 2010, p 34-44.
PLUMELLE C. – “Reinforcement of loose soil by inclusion of micropiles”. french review
Geotechnical Board No. 30, 1985, p.47-57.
SETRA – Soil treatment with lime and/ or hydraulic binders (GTS). Application to the
production of embankments and capping layers. Technical Guide, 2000.
SETRA-LCPC – Construction of embankments and capping layers (GTR). Technical guide
that, 1992.
SIMON B. – “An integrated method for sizing rigid inclusion networks in deformation”. XVth
International Congress of Soil and Foundation Mechanics, Is tanbul, vol. 2, 2000, p.
1007-1010.
SIMON B., SCHLOSSER F. – “Soil reinforcement by vertical stiff inclusions in France.
Symposium Rigid inclusions in difficult subsoil conditions”. ISSMGE TC36, Socie dad
Mexicana de Mecanica de Suelos, UNAM, Mexico, 2006.
Swedish Geotechnical Society (SGS) – “Lime and Lime Cement columns. Guide for sign,
construction and control”. SGF Report 4:95. Forsman J. 1997 (updated 1999).
ZEEVAERT L. – “Discussion on negative friction and reduction of point bearing capacity”.
proc. 4th ICSMFE, 1957, vol. 3.
112
CHAPTER 3
Calculation models
1. RATINGS
The forces and stresses considered in the calculation models are expressed in the
reference frame defined in Figure 3.1 where the depths are counted from the head of
the inclusions.
The force reduction elements in the section of an inclusion which are named
respectively Qp (normal force), Tp (shear force) and Mp (bending moment) can thus be
identified by their values: – Qp(z), Tp (z), Mp(z) in the section
of depth z under the head; – Qp(0), Tp(0), Mp(0) at the head of the
inclusion; – Qp(L), Tp(L), Mp(L) at the level of the base of the
inclusion (length L).
When the calculation model considers a fictitious column surmounting the inclusion on
the height hR of the distribution mattress (or that of the embankment), the forces
applied at the head of the fictitious column are designated Qp(– hR), Tp(– hR) , Mp(–hR ).
When considered, reduction elements applicable to a horizontal section of the volume
of reinforced soil excluding inclusions, are designated with the same convention by
substituting the index " s to "p » : Qs, Ts, Ms.
113
Figure 3.1. Referential adopted for the identification of the elements of reduction of the efforts
in the inclusion or the ground.
2. PRINCIPLES
The calculation models for a foundation on soil reinforced by rigid inclusions are of
three different types: –
analytical models (section 3); –
numerical models in a continuous medium using either finite elements or finite
differences (section 4); –
models by homogenization whose application remains delicate and is not yet
common (section 5).
Each model can be used for ULS and ELS checks on condition that it is able to
account for: friction and tip; – and, in
the case of a structure, its behavior in the absence of inclusions, in terms of
settlement and limit capacity, the predictions being based on the usual
methods: pressuremeter or penetrometer methods in the case of a footing,
oedometric method and calculation of punching stability in the case of an
embankment, a slab or a slab.
114
Chapter 3 - Calculation models
Whatever the method used (analytical or numerical), the first step consists in
evaluating the behavior of the structure without inclusions, which will make it possible
to determine the contribution of the inclusions vis-à-vis the problems of settlement
and punching.
3. ANALYTICAL METHODS
Three methods have been selected within the framework of the ASIRI project. They
constitute easy methods to implement to deal with some of the most current
situations: case of the meshs placed in the center of the reinforced zone and
subjected to uniform and vertical loadings. They mainly aim to establish the average
settlement obtained after reinforcement and to estimate the maximum load applied
to the inclusions.
An extension to the case of vertically and horizontally loaded footings has been
developed for each of the analytical methods retained.
They are not analytical methods stricto sensu in the sense that they do not generally
lead to results in the form of explicit analytical formulae. They indeed require a
simple numerical resolution using for example spreadsheets.
Nevertheless, these methods are able to estimate the distribution of forces between
the soil and inclusions, settlements and horizontal displacements.
They do not allow the consideration of geosynthetics.
3.1. Vertical loads

3.1.1. Elements common to the different methods
3.1.1.1. Behavior of the material of the inclusion
It is assumed that there is no plastification of the material.
This is characterized by a modulus of elasticity E and a design resistance.
3.1.1.2. Soil compressibility
The Young's modulus of the distribution mattress depends on the degree of
compaction and varies with the stress state and the stress path.
The apparent deformation modulus to be used for the compressible soil is an

oedometric type modulus Eoed, calculated as a secant modulus between the initial
stress level and the final stress level taking into account the forces applied. (Chapter
6, note 6).
115
Comment. When the pre-consolidation taken into account is linked to

earthworks, it must be justified based on the duration of the various phases
and the associated consolidation.
3.1.1.3. Soil/ inclusion force mobilization laws In general,

mobilization laws are adopted which are a function of the local relative displacement
between the soil and the inclusion, difference between the displacement of the
inclusion and the displacement of the soil: w(z) = yP(z) – ys(z).
This is valid for the mobilization of the force at the head or at the foot of the inclusion
and for the lateral friction forces along the inclusion. a)
Force at the foot of inclusion
We generally adopt the mobilization laws of Frank and Zhao (1982).
Figure 3.2. Semi-empirical peak term mobilization curve (Frank and

Zhao, 1982).
mqEM
kq = -------------- (3.1)
dp
Dp equivalent diameter of the tip of the inclusion.

The mq values , which depend on the type of soil and the mode of implementation
of the inclusions, are given in table 3.I (Frank and Zhao., 1982).
Table 3.I. Values of mq (Frank and Zhao, 1982).
pile type
Floor
beaten off beaten open Drilled
silt, clay 11 11 11
Sands, gravel 14 11 4.8

Chalk 4.8 11 11
Marl-limestone 4.8 11 11
Marl 4.8 11 11
116
b) Lateral friction forces The

mobilization of friction is described at the level of each layer by a transfer function, expressing
the dependence of shear on the relative displacement w(z).
The empirical curves established by Frank and Zhao (1982) for bored piles in fine or granular
soils, based on the interpretation of a large number of loading tests, prove to be well suited
to describe the interactions which develop on the height of the inclusion. They can be applied
in algebraic value, both for positive friction and for negative friction.
Figure 3.3. Semi-empirical skin friction transfer curve (Frank and

Zhao, 1982).
= mÿEM
--------------
kÿ (3.2)
ds
Ds equivalent diameter of the shaft of the inclusion
The mÿ values which depend on the type of soil and the mode of implementation of the
inclusions are given in table 3.II (Frank and Zhao, 1982).
Table 3.II. Values of mÿ (Frank and Zhao, 1982).
pile type
Floor
beaten off beaten open Drilled
silt, clay 2 2 2
Sands, gravel 3 2 0.8
Chalk 0.8 2 2
Marl-limestone 0.8 2 2
Marl 0.8 2 2
Other ÿ-w law expressions have been proposed by different authors.
117
Combarieu (1988) proposed an analytical expression of Frank and Zhao's laws.
Figure 3.4. Law of friction adjusted according to Combarieu (1988).
• Mobilization of the peak term:
dpqp ln ÿ 1q ÿ
w = --------------- – ----- ÿ
(3.3)
ÿ qp
mqEM
• Mobilization of lateral friction:
dsqs ÿ 1ÿ ln –ÿ
w = – --------------
(3.4)
---- ÿ ÿ
mÿEM qs
Comment. In the absence of pressuremeter values, the usual correlations should be
used with caution to determine the equivalent pressuremeter modulus (see chapter 6).
c) Force at the inclusion head
The force at the inclusion head is calculated by considering the development of negative friction
on a fictitious column extending the inclusion head as explained in chapter 2, paragraph 3.2.1.
The mobilization law to be considered for this friction can be likened to that described by Frank
and Zhao for a granular soil by adopting: – the value mÿ = 2; – and as step value qs = K tanÿ ÿv'
with K tanÿ = 1 and
ÿv' the effective vertical
stress in the mattress between the inclusions.
118
Figure 3.5. Development of the shear against the fictitious column

overcoming the inclusion.
3.1.2. Running mesh
3.1.2.1. Principles
One considers a mesh placed in the center of an extended reinforced zone and subjected
to vertical uniform loadings.
The unit cell is likened to a cylinder with an axis coincident with that of the inclusion
and of circular section, with an area equal to the section of the cell.
Comment. The model should generally be extended to the layers below the
base of the inclusions. Ideally the base of the model is chosen at a depth
where the vertical stresses can be considered uniform over the entire section
or alternatively at the depth below which the settlements become negligible.
It follows that the lateral deformation and the shear are zero at the periphery of the
cylinder and that the total force applied by the structure is found at all levels, in
each horizontal section, increased by the overlying weights of the earth and
inclusion.
It is considered that at a given level the settlement and the vertical stress of the soil
are uniform.
119
3.1.2.2. Differential equations The equilibrium
equations express the variation of forces with depth, as previously indicated, in any horizontal section of
the model, in the inclusion (equation 3.5) and in the soil (equation 3.6): = ( dQp( )z Pÿ ÿpAp ) dz dQs( )z
= ( – Pÿ ÿsAs ) dz ÿ represents the shear developed at the inclusion/soil
+ (3.5)
interface; ÿs the specific weightof
+
the soil at the level considered, (3.6)
possibly with a lift; ÿp the density of the inclusion at the level considered, possibly off-
plane P the perimeter of the inclusion ; Ap, As the respective sections of the inclusion and of the
ground at the level considered.
Figure 3.6. Model of the elementary cell around the inclusion.
The settlement of the inclusion and the average settlement of the soil satisfy the following complementary
equations:
Qp( )z
= --------------dz (3.7)
dyp( )z
ApEp
Qs( )z
dys( )z = -------------dz (3.8)
Has his
where :
Ep(z) is the Young's modulus of the material constituting the inclusion; Es(z), the
apparent deformation modulus of the soil for the level of applied loading, evaluated from an oedometric
type behavior (zero lateral deformation at the edges of the model and at the soil/inclusion interface)(cf §
2.1.1.2 and chapter 6, note 6).
120
The mobilization of friction is described at the level of each layer by a transfer

function (cf. § 2.1.1.3), expressing the dependence of the shearing on the relative
displacement w(z), difference between the displacement of the inclusion and the
die soil placement: yP(z) – ys(z) :
( ÿ( )zf=
( yp(
)s ) )z ys – (3.9)
3.1.2.3. Resolution
The nonlinear system constituted by the differential equations (3.5) to (3.9) requires
for its resolution to define the boundary conditions. These are partly of the “stiffness”
type, that is to say fixed values of the load/displacement ratios, at the head and at
the foot.
It follows that the resolution of the system can only be done by iterations.
The boundary conditions at the head of the model are as
follows: – total load applied at the head of the model
Q(– hR) ; – fraction of this load applied at the head of the model directly above the
EQP inclusion = Qp(–
hR)/ Q(–hR ). – in the case of an embankment subjected to a uniform head load,
the EQP factor is the ratio between the surface of the inclusion head and the
surface of the mesh,
– in the case of a slab or apron, the value of the EQP factor is established by
seeking the equality of surface settlements yp(– hR) and ys(– hR), which is
justified by the fact that the deformations of the surface structural element are
negligible compared to those of the ground.
Figure 3.7. Boundary conditions at the top of a slab or embankment model.
121
The calculation requires updating at each iteration the average soil settlement
profile ys(z) according to equations (3.5) to (3.9). It provides the distribution
according to the depth of the settlement of the inclusion, of the average settlement
of the soil, of the mobilized friction, of the normal force in the inclusion and of the
resultant of the vertical stresses in the soil.
Figures 3.8 and 3.9 illustrate the application of the method to a paving (or apron)
configuration and an embankment configuration, on the same soil profile. The
settlements calculated by the analytical method in the axis of the inclusion and in
the peripheral soil are compared with those obtained by an axisymmetric finite
element model. In the embankment case, it is noted that the settlements become
uniform in the upper part, from a certain thickness of this embankment.
Figure 3.8. Configurations studied.
122
Figure 3.9. Settlement profiles calculated in the two configurations: slab

(left) and embankment (right).
3.1.3. soles
3.1.3.1. Features and references
In the case of surface footings on rigid inclusions, the limited number of cells no longer
makes it possible to satisfy the hypothesis of a large number of identical cells
juxtaposed. The interaction of the reinforced soil mass under the footing with the
peripheral unreinforced soil must be taken into account.
Few experiments with soles on rigid inclusions are reported in the technical literature.
However, two experiments including vertical loading of the footings studied will be
mentioned: – those carried out in the
experimental tank of the CEBTP relating to a footing resting via a mattress of sand or
run-of-mine, on loose sand reinforced with micropiles (Plumelle 1985); – those carried
out in a centrifuge on footings of varied geometry
resting via a sandy mattress on sand improved by inclusions arranged in a very loose
mesh (Bigot et al., 1988 ).
123
It is possible to mention in addition to the lateral loading tests of melles operating in

a mixed foundation carried out in 1970 at the University of Bucknell
in the United States, reported by Borel (2001).
The experimental program of the ASIRI project focused exclusively on the behavior
of extended structures: slabs and embankments on rigid inclusions under vertical
loading. It did not include any full-scale or centrifuge experimentation relating to a sole
on rigid inclusions. The data from the ASIRI project relating to these structures are
provided by the 3D numerical modeling of the footings with the numerical models
validated by comparison of the simulations of the extended structures with the
experimental data collected on the same structures. These numerical models covered
vertical or inclined footing loading cases.
The simplified models proposed were evaluated by comparison with the results of 3D
digital modeling (report of the national ASIRI project, 2011).
They cover:
– simplified models MV1 to MV3 for purely vertical footing loading; – simplified models
MH1 to
MH3 taking into account a lateral loading of the footing (inclined force or moment).
The use of these simplified models requires consistency checks specific to each one,
which makes it possible to validate a posteriori, whether the model is applicable to
the situation studied.
Any model of the MV series or the MH series can be used either: – they provide an
increasing volume of information (soil settlement, inclusion settlement, stresses in the
soil, stresses in the inclusion); – they rely on an increasing number of
calculation steps; – they require the verification of a decreasing
number of consistency tests, making it possible to verify a posteriori that the
hypotheses inherent in the model are acceptable.
3.1.3.2. Simplified models for purely vertical loading

Analytical model MV1
This model was exposed by Combarieu (1990).
It makes it possible to estimate the limit load QL and the settlement y of the footing
on rigid inclusions, under centered vertical load, by interpolation between the case of
the footing alone and that of the footing operating in a mixed foundation.
Configurations (1), (2) and (3) and (1'), (2'), (3') of Figure 3.10 illustrate three possible
foundation solutions:
124
– shallow rigid foundation (1); – mixed

foundation where footing and piles contribute to the absorption of forces (3); – rigid
superficial foundation on inclusions (2).
In series (1), (2) and (3), the mattress was replaced by natural soil.
The soil of thickness (H + hR) is the natural soil in place; it covers a much more resistant
horizon on which the inclusions rest. The sole has a width of 2R.
Figure 3.10. Configurations of the three foundation solutions.
We know how to calculate from pressuremeter tests: –

for case (1) the limit load QL1 and the settlement under load, y1 ; – for
case (3), the limiting load QL3 and the settlement under load, y3 ; For case
(2), we can consider that if hR, distance between the base of the footing and the heads
of the inclusions, exceeds 2R, the inclusions do not improve the bearing capacity of the
footing.
It is proposed to calculate the bearing capacity as
2
follows: – if hr < 2R QL2 = QL1 + 1 /4 (2 - hR/R) – (QL3-QL1) (3.10)
if hr > 2R QL2 = QL1 (3.11)
Changing from series (1), (2), (3) to series (1'), (2'), (3') amounts to replacing the
thickness of the soil in place hR with a transfer mattress . In this approach, we
125
considers that the extension of this substitution is unlimited in plan, which obviously
constitutes an optimistic approximation.
This substitution improves each of the QL terms to QL' terms. However, the
improvement in the bearing capacity of the sole due to the mere presence of the
mattress remains low due to the limited lateral extension of the latter. We can
therefore most often neglect this improvement, to justify the bearing capacity.
The results obtained by this method of calculation agree with the experimental
results of Plumelle (1985), and Bigot and Canepa (1988).
With respect to settlements, we know how to calculate those corresponding to the
two cases (1) and (3) or (1') and (3') with mattress. Case (2) or (2') of the footing
on inclusions can be treated by introducing the notion of equivalent modulus over
the height H + hR, bringing the calculation of settlement to that of a surface footing
on an equivalent multi-layer . The estimated settlement y2 (or y2') is then lower
than that of the footing alone and higher than that of the composite foundation, both
of which can be calculated.
Figure 3.11. Principle of the equivalent module.
Combarieu's original method (1990) must be supplemented by two additional steps

intended to calculate the stresses in the inclusions. Step 1. It consists of
establishing the settlement profile ys(z) over the height of the inclusions, associated
with the head settlement value ys(– hR). The load applied under the footing (width
2R) makes it possible to establish the settlement of the soil under the footing ys(–
hR) by the pressuremeter theory, and at any point ys(z) by the sug method
managed by Combarieu (1988). The principle is to replace the pressuremeter
modulus EM of each elementary layer of thickness R which intervenes in the
calculation of settlement according to the pressuremeter theory by a very large value,
126
which establishes, by difference, the contribution of this layer to the overall settlement.
The composition of these elementary settlements establishes the profile ys(z)
sought. Step 2. The loading curve of an extended inclusion of the afferent mate las
prism, assumed to be isolated in a massif subjected to an imposed settlement ys(z),
as determined in step 1, makes it possible to establish the value of the load Qp(– hR)
to be applied at the top of this column to obtain a settlement equal to ys(– hr). In this
calculation, the friction at any point of the inclusion (respectively the stress under the
tip) is linked to the relative displacement w(z) = [yp(z) – ys(z)] by application of the
laws of Frank and Zhao for the mobilization of friction (respectively of the peak term).
This calculation also determines the distribution of axial forces Qp(z) in the inclusion.
Figure 3.12. Calculation of the loading of the inclusion in the soil mass
subjected to the imposed settlement profile ys(z).
To validate the consistency of the model, it is necessary to check that the stress
obtained at the inclusion head is compatible with (chap. 5, § 4.2): –
the shear characteristics of the mattress; – the limit
stress at the head of inclusion; – the
geometry of the mattress, taking into account any edge effects.
This consistency test is essential to validate the model: – when
this test is not satisfied, it is necessary to use a more detailed model;
127
– when this test is satisfied, the results obtained are used to carry out the STR and
GEO verifications detailed in chapter 5.
Noticed. The method neglects the settlement of the mattress due to the
concentration of stresses on the inclusion head. These settlements may not be negligible.
Analytical model MV2

This model was presented by Glandy and Frossard (2002).
Its purpose is to study the operation of a footing on inclusions subjected to vertical
loading. The problem is broken down into two domains: 1) pile domain ,
consisting of the inclusions and the volumes of soil that extend them vertically to
the lower or upper limits of the model. This domain is made up of n identical
elements whose behavior is assumed to be comparable; 2) ground domain,
complementary
to the previous domain.
Figure 3.13. Decomposition of the problem into two domains
The interaction between the pile domain and the soil domain is assumed to be
entirely described by the shear ÿ which develops at their common vertical boundary
and by the stress q at the base of the pile domain ; these interactions are supposed
to be described by the corresponding laws of Frank and Zhao applied by considering
the relative soil-inclusion displacement at any point (instead of the absolute
displacement as for a pile).
The method assumes that the settlement under the footing is the same for both
areas.
128
This method requires an iterative calculation to ensure the consistency of the calculations
carried out in each of the domains, from the point of view of settlements and interaction
forces. It allows an estimation of a complete profile of the settlement in the axis of the
inclusion ( pile domain) and in the soil domain under the footing from an initial hypothesis of
distribution of the total vertical load Q between the domain soil ( Qs fraction) and pile areas
( n Qp fractions).
Figure 3.14. Principle of the iterative calculation of the
MV2 model. From the load Qs(– hR) assumed to be transmitted to the soil under the
footing, the settlement profile ys(z) under the footing is determined by combining the pres
siometric method and the method suggested by Combarieu (1988) as described in previous
paragraph; this profile also establishes the settlement of the soil domain at the level of the
base of the ys(L) inclusion ; From an
assumed displacement of the inclusion with respect to this settlement ys(L)

we calculate:
– the stress mobilized at the peak; and
going up in successive sections over the entire height of the "pile" domain (inclusion and
volume of mattress that overcomes it): – the value of the
friction mobilized taking into account the relative displacement inclusion-soil (or soil-soil in
the mattress ); – the value of the normal
stress; – the elastic shortening of each
section and its cumulative settlement; – the load Qp(– hR) and the total settlement yp
(– hR) at the head of the pile domain .
129
One iterates on the supposed displacement at the peak to obtain the equality of the
settlements at the head of the two domains ys(– hR) = yp(– hR).
We iterate over the assumed load fraction applied to the soil domain so that this load
added to the n loads calculated at the head of the pile domains provided results in a value
equal to the total load applied to the foundation.
*
Q(– hR) = n Ap * Qp(– hR) + Qs(– hR) * (S – n * Ap) where: (3.12)
Ap area of the cross section at the head of the pile domain;

S area of the sole.
Figure 3.15 presents the application of the model to a simple case (Frossard, 2000), a
calculation which highlights the various points to be verified.
Figure 3.15. Example of results of the MV2 model (Glandy and Frossard, 2000).
To validate the consistency of the model, it is necessary to check that the stress obtained
at the inclusion head is compatible with the shear characteristics of the mattress and that
the mobilized friction ÿ above the neutral plane is compatible with the limit values
associated with negative friction (ÿ K tanÿ ÿv').
This requires that the distribution of vertical stresses in the ground domain be estimated:
– for
mattresses of low thickness compared to the width of the sole, it can be assumed that the
total load under the underside of the mattress is equal to that under the face of the sole.
With this condition, it is possible to evaluate the stress in the soil domain at the base of
the mattress from the value of the load in the pile domain, calculated at the same level.
These elements are used to verify that the stress obtained at the inclusion head is
compatible with the shear characteristics.
130
ment of the mattress (limit stress at the inclusion head) and the geometry of the
mattress (edge effect) - chap.
5, § 4.2; – verification of consistency with respect to negative friction is difficult
since it depends on the distribution of vertical stresses in the ground domain,
directly above the footing, which is not calculated in the model. Any check with
respect to negative friction therefore requires making an additional hypothesis
allowing the vertical stresses to be estimated at any point (for example diffusion
of the loads transmitted to the ground by the footing with a chosen angle ÿ).
Consistency tests are essential to validate the model: – when
these tests are not satisfied, it is necessary to use a more detailed model; –
when
this test is satisfied, the results obtained are used to carry out the STR and
GEO verifications detailed in chapter 5.
Comment. The friction mobilization laws must integrate the group effect between
neighboring inclusions: for the same load at the head of the model, the friction
mobilized along an isolated inclusion is greater than that developed on an inclusion
of the group. To take account of it, it is advisable in the model MV2 to correct the
curve of mobilization of friction by reducing for example the value of the coefficient
m of the curves of Frank andÿ
Zhao.
This group effect is naturally taken into account in the MV3 model, described
below, which uses an axisymmetric model of inclusion within a group. Also,
the settlement profile generated around the inclusions does not take into account
the influence of the forces retransmitted to the ground under the neutral plane, this
model may tend under certain conditions to underestimate the settlement of the
structure (Fig. 3.16) .
Figure 3.16. Loading of the solid mass under the action of positive friction mobilized
under the neutral plane.
131
Analytical model MV3 (monolith method)

This model was exposed by Simon (2010).
The modeling consists of assimilating the volume of soil reinforced by the inclusions
directly above the footing to an equivalent homogeneous monolith. We successively
analyse: – the
interaction between the inclusions within the reinforced volume to establish the
properties of the equivalent homogeneous
monolith; – then the interaction of this monolith with the exterior massif.
The monolith studied is the prism with a vertical axis circumscribed to the footing and
with the same cross section: it incorporates the distribution mattress, the soil layer
reinforced by the inclusions and the upper part of the rock mass where the inclusions
are anchored. It represents the juxtaposition of several reinforced elementary cells
(inclusion and associated soil domain).
The section of the cells is equal to the surface of influence of each inclusion under
the footing.
The approach comprises three successive steps (Fig. 3.17), which are carried out
with the usual tools for the design of deep foundations: – analytical tools
for the study of an isolated pile or in the center of an elementary reinforcement
mesh , under vertical loads, using transfer functions characterizing the mobilization
of friction and peak force around the inclusion; – or axisymmetric finite element
models.
Figure 3.17. Principle of stages 1 to 3 of the MV3 model.
132
Stage 1. The study of the behavior under distributed vertical load of an elementary cell
without interaction with the external environment (case of a cell placed in the center of
a multiple network of identical cells) establishes the position of the horizontal plane
under the tip of the inclusion where the soil settlement is uniform (lower neutral plane).
The average settlement between the upper face of the cell (under the face of the
footing) and this lower plane makes it possible to evaluate the modulus E* of apparent
deformation of the cell under vertical loading (Fig. 3.18).
a) Configuration b) Calculation step 1

Figure 3.18. (a) Configuration studied (b) Stage 1 of the calculation according to the MV3 model.
Step 2. The study of the vertical monolith of modulus E* assimilated to an isolated pile
in interaction with the external solid mass (unreinforced), subjected to the vertical force
Q establishes the profile ys(z) of the average settlement of the monolith taking into
account the mobilization of friction on the perimeter of the monolith. The settlement
obtained at the head ys(– hR) is lower than that of the cell studied in stage 1 due to
the diffusion caused by friction towards the surrounding rock mass (Fig. 3.19).
133
Figure 3.19. Step 2 of the calculation according to the MV3 model.
Comment. The friction to be considered at the edge of the monolith is the ground-ground
friction. It can be assimilated to the undrained cohesion cu in the clayey layers.
In the sandy layers, the value taken into account will be justified with reference to the pl
*
values . or c' and ÿ' of the layer concerned.
The relevance of the model depends on the limit friction value considered on the perimeter
of the monolith. It is recommended to calibrate the value of this limiting friction by applying
a monolith model comparable to the case of the loading of the sole on the ground assumed
to be unreinforced in order to verify that the settlement obtained is comparable to that
obtained by the pressuremeter theory for the load 1/2 kpl *.
In this case, the monolith has the same height as the one that will be used with the
inclusions and a module equal to that E of the ground and not the module E* determined in step 1.
Step 3. The loading curve of a supposedly isolated inclusion (including the mattress
prism of the same section which surmounts it) in a rock mass subjected to an
imposed settlement ys(z) makes it possible to establish the value of the load Qp(–
hR) to be applied at the top of this column to obtain a settlement equal to ys(– hR).
In this calculation the friction at any point of the inclusion is linked to the relative
displacement [yp(z) – ys(z)]. This value of the load Qp(– hR) determines the
distribution of the axial forces Qp(z) in the inclusion itself. The value at the top of
the inclusion ( hR depth under the base of the monolith studied in step 2) is in
particular Qp(0).
134
Figure 3.20. Step 3 of the calculation according to the MV3 model.
To validate the consistency of the model, it is necessary to check that the stress
obtained at the inclusion head is compatible with the shear characteristics of the
mattress and that the friction mobilized above the neutral plane is compatible with
the limit values associated with the negative friction K tanÿ ÿv'.
Knowledge at any depth of the normal resultant in the monolith (step 2) and of the
normal force in the pile domain (step 3) makes it possible to calculate the stress in
the soil domain at any point and to perform consistency checks (mattress and
negative friction).
Consistency tests are essential to validate the model. – when these
tests are not satisfied, it is necessary to use a more detailed model; – when this test
is
satisfied, the results obtained are used to carry out the STR and GEO verifications
detailed in chapter 5.
Comment. Group effects with respect to friction are automatically taken into account by using
the axisymmetric model of inclusion within a group during step 1.
3.2. Other expenses

3.2.1. Horizontal load and moment on footings
The interaction between soil and inclusion is determined using simplified
models defined below.
These models are then used by the three methods developed later.
135
3.2.1.1. Common features of simplified models taking into

account a horizontal loading and a
moment The loading scheme considered is presented in figure 3.21. It
includes a vertical force, a horizontal force and a moment.
The lateral forces on the foundation lead to the development of shears in the soil and
the inclusions: – the shears
generated in the soil involve horizontal displacements of the soil mass; – the inclusions
also subjected to
part of the forces transmitted by the footing are in interaction with the ground subjected
to this field of displacement.
The models must take into account these interactions and make it possible to evaluate
the distribution of the stresses in the inclusions.
The horizontal force at the head of an inclusion Tp(0) is limited by the following value
since it can only be transmitted by friction between the mattress and the head of the
inclusion:
ÿÿ
Qp( ) 0 ÿ
ÿ ÿ (3.13)
Tp( ) 0 min ------------------T
Qp (, )( –
hR ) 0 tanÿ ÿ
Q hR
ÿ ()–
where: ÿ is the mattress-inclusion friction angle;

Qp(0) the normal force transmitted at the inclusion
head; Q(– hR) the vertical force applied to the
footing; T(– hR) the horizontal force applied to the flange.
It should also be noted that the force transmitted to the head of the inclusion can never
induce a displacement of the inclusion head greater than that of the surrounding ground.
purring.
An acceptable way of obtaining an envelope of the stresses is therefore to apply a

shear force at the head of the inclusion which "reduces" the displacement of the head of
the inclusion to a value equal to that of the surrounding soil, provided that it remains
below the limit defined by equation (3.13).
Comment. The numerical calculations carried out within the framework of the
project showed that the shear force effectively mobilized at the inclusion head
depended on the degree of mobilization of the shear resistance of the mattress. As
the "punching" of the inclusion head in the mattress mobilizes, under the vertical
component of the load, part of this shear resistance, the shear force that can be
mobilized at the head depends on the balance of resistance that can be mobilized.
The mobilized shear force is low when the vertical force in the mattress on the inclusion head is close
136
its limit value (see chapter 5 paragraph 4.2.2: Calculation of the limit carryover at the head
of inclusion).
In all cases the boundary conditions at the bottom of the inclusion are:
T(L) = 0 and M(L) =
0 The stresses in the inclusions can be calculated by the reaction coefficient method
associated with the imposed lateral displacement field g(z) created in the soil by the
complementary shear forces.
The reaction coefficients are estimated as for an isolated pile (appendix I, standard
for deep foundations NF P 94-262).
The following analytical models are distinguished by the way in which one evaluates
the imposed field of displacement.
Comment. In the general case, the same rules are used as for shallow
foundations on unreinforced soil with regard to taking into account abutment
reactions and friction on the side faces of the footing.
When these reactions are neglected, the horizontal force on the underside of the footing is
equal to that applied at the head of the footing.
3.2.1.2. Simplified models for horizontal loading and moment

Analytical model MH1
We neglect the shears transmitted in the ground by supposing g(z) = 0 and we
choose the upper limit of the horizontal force that can be developed at the top of the
inclusion (cf. § 3.2.1.1):
ÿ ÿQp( ) 0 ÿ
= min ÿ
Tp( ) 0 Qp
hR ,( () )–0 tanÿ ÿ
------------------T (3.14)
ÿQ hR
()–
Inclusions are only taken into account if they are located strictly in the compressed
zone as defined in figure 3.21.
Comment. The distribution mattress allows a diffusion of the shearing forces
generated by T with the depth. It is safe to neglect this diffusion.
137
Figure 3.21. Inclusions taken into account with respect to lateral stresses.
It is advisable:
– to establish the distribution of the vertical reactions of the ground and of the inclusions
by a model of elementary cell under vertical load; – to
convert these reactions into equivalent surface stiffnesses for the soil and the inclusions;
– to establish
the distribution of the vertical reactions between the ground and the inclusions
level of the base of the mattress which balances the torsor [Q(– hR), M(– hR)].
Comment. Neglecting in this step both the group effect (which would imply
lower reaction coefficients) and the soil displacement g(z) generated by the
residual shear stress (T – ÿTi ) represents simplifications tions deemed
acceptable.
Analytical model MH2

The horizontal force applied to the footing is used to calculate the horizontal displacement
of the footing v(– hR) resting on an elastic foundation mass.
We can use the impedance formulas of a foundation on the surface of an elastic mass.
For example, for a circular foundation of radius R on the surface of an isotropic
homogeneous mass characterized by a shear modulus G and a Poisson's ratio ÿ, the
stiffness Kx = T/v with respect to a horizontal force has for expression (Pecker, 1984):
Kx = 8GR/(2 – ÿ)
(3.15)
Similar solutions for a two-layer massif are given by (Gazetas, 1990).
138
From the shear stress applied to the ground at the level of the inclusion head, we
calculate, from a diffusion angle ÿ, the distribution of the shear stresses ÿ(z) over
the height of the ground, up to to the mechanical substratum (in which it is
considered that the shearing deformations are negligible).
Starting from the mechanical substratum, the distortion is integrated to obtain the
deformation
profile: g(z) = ÿ ÿ(z)/ (3.16)
G(z) dz G(z) soil shear modulus at depth z.
The parameter ÿ is set to obtain a deformation at the head g(– hR) equal to the
value v(– hR) previously established.
The displacement profile obtained is the displacement field g(z) sought.
Comment. When the soil is homogeneous, we can also adopt the trilinear
profile proposed by Borel (2001) for mixed foundations.
Table 3.III. Trilinear approximation of the relative displacement in the axis of a rectangular
rigid footing L x B on the surface of a block of height H (valid for H/B > 3).
Relative depth z/B 0 0.41 3

Relative displacement g(z)/g(0) 1 0.5 0.25 0
Figure 3.22. Trilinear approximation of the profile g(z) (Borel, 2001).
The reaction coefficient calculation is done taking into account this displacement
field g(z) and the following boundary conditions: –
at the head of the inclusion:
MP(0) = 0 (3.17)
139
and Tp(0) evaluated in accordance with the recommendations of paragraph 3.2.1.1.

In particular, an envelope of the stresses is obtained by choosing as their value
Tp(0) that which "reduces" the displacement of the head of the inclusion to a value
g(0) equal to that of the surrounding soil provided that Tp (0) remains below the
bound defined by (3.13); – at
the bottom of the inclusion:
Mp(L) = 0 (3.18)
and Tp(L) = (3.19)
0 Analytical model MH3 (monolith method)
The MH3 model, which follows on from the MV3 model, is made up of two additional
successive stages (Simon, 2010) (Fig. 3.23).
Comment. The monolith considered corresponds to the only part compressed under
the footing.
The approach is similar to that used to study an isolated pile on elastic supports p =
p(v) < plim under transverse loading, represented by specific forces T, M applied at
the head and/or an imposed displacement of the surrounding soil g (z).
However, the low slenderness of the monolith and its orthotropic character make it
necessary to take into account the shear force deformations.
The simple model of a slender beam, widely used for piles, is generally inappropriate.
Figure 3.23. Principle of steps 4 and 5 of the MH3 model.
140
Stage 4. The monolith of equivalent modulus E* , possibly extended to the volume

me of the footing (module Eb) is assimilated to a pile loaded transversely in
interaction with the external solid mass by elastic supports p(v). The transverse
loading considered is characterized by the torque [T, M] applied to the footing.
The calculation establishes the lateral displacement profile g(z) of the monolith
under the action of the load. It also establishes the rotation ÿ(– hR) of the footing (Fig. 3.24).
Figure 3.24. Step 4 of the calculation according to the MH3 model for the example in Figure 3.15a.
Comment. The considered monolith being generally of weak slenderness, the

deformations of shearing force controlled by the factor G*ÿ1 (G* modulus of
equivalent shearing of the monolith and ÿ1 reduced section of shearing force) cannot
be neglected in front of the deformations of bending controlled by the factor E*I (E*
equivalent deformation modulus of the monolith and I inertia of the cross section of
the compressed zone of the homogenized soil).
The equivalent shear modulus G* can be assimilated to the shear modulus of the
soil alone (the contribution of the inclusions to the shear strength remains in fact
negligible compared to that of the soil). This value G* is therefore Esol /[2(1+)]
ÿ
which is clearly lower than the value E*/[2(1+)]

ÿ which would be obtained in a
monolith made of isotropic material. This explains why the deformations of shear
force cannot be neglected in front of those of bending. (Esol is the deformation
modulus of unreinforced soil).
Step 5. A model with reaction coefficients, limited to the inclusion alone assumed
to be subject to the preceding displacement field g(z), is carried out for the
relevant boundary conditions:
141
– at the head of the inclusion:
Mp(0) = 0 (3.20) and Tp(0) evaluated in accordance with the recommendations of paragraph
3.2.1.1. In particular, an envelope of the stresses is obtained by choosing as their value Tp(0) that
which "reduces" the displacement of the head of the inclusion to a value g(0) equal to that of the
surrounding soil provided that Tp (0) remains below the bound defined by (3.13); – at the foot of
the inclusion: Mp(L) = 0 and Tp(L) = 0 This calculation establishes the distribution of the shear
force Tp(z) and bending moment
Mp(z) in the inclusion resulting
from the (3.21)
loading [T, M] (3.22)
(Fig. 3.25).
Figure 3.25. Step 5 of the calculation according to the MH3 model for the example in Figure 3.15a.
The axial forces in the inclusions depend on the position of the cell with respect to the axis of
rotation. The rotation ÿ(– hR) of the footing (calculated in step 4) indeed determines, in the axis of
the cell placed at the distance d from the axis of rotation, the settlement: yp(– hR) = ÿ( – hR).d
The normal forces
associated in the inclusion (3.23)
placed in the center of this cell are estimated by assimilating them to those obtained under a
uniform vertical loading of the cell giving the same settlement yp(– hR) = ys ( – hR ). This is done
by a specific calculation linking steps 2 and 3.
142
The forces Qp(z), Tp(z) and Mp(z) obtained in the different load cases must be
combined to verify the stresses in the inclusions.
Comment. The various inclusions positioned under the sole undergo vertical forces that are
a priori different due to the rotation of the sole. The horizontal force applied at the head of
each inclusion must remain compatible with the associated vertical force (according to
formula 3.13).
3.2.2. Stresses under asymmetrical loading Inclusions can

be subjected to parasitic bending stresses in certain situations. These may be the
stresses undergone by the peripheral inclusions of the treatments carried out under
embankments (slope zone), or those placed under a massive abutment in reinforced
soil, but also stresses imposed by asymmetrical loads on an industrial slab or even
those imposed during an earthquake.
In the case of inclusions placed under embankment slopes, a g(z) type approach is
possible. The maximum displacement gmax of the profile is to be linked to the
maximum settlement ys(0) in the current part, after treatment. The proportionality
factor ÿ = gmax/ ys(0) as well as the shape of the g(z) curve can be chosen with
reference to observations made on instrumented embankments (deep foundations
application standard NF P 94 262).
The bending stresses in the inclusions can be calculated like those of piles placed in
a ground undergoing the displacement g(z).
Comment. As the inclusions generally represent only a small volume of the reinforced soil, it
is legitimate to consider that the free movement of the soil mass between the inclusions is
not modified by them.
In the case of earthquakes, the curve g(z) to be considered is that defined by the deformation
of the ground in a free field which depends on the profile of the speeds of the shear waves
Vs (AFPS, 2011).
4. DIGITAL MODELS IN ELEMENTS OR DIFFERENCES

FINISHED
The finite element method and the finite difference method are the methods most
commonly used to solve the equations of the mechanics of continuous media.
They are based on a discretization of the domain to be studied. Based on models of

the behavior of the soils and of the various materials constituting the domain studied,
they make it possible to simulate the behavior of the discretized medium in terms of
stresses and deformations under the effect of a load.
143
The accuracy of a simulation depends on the relevance of the soil behavior models
used and the discretization retained for the massif studied.
They thus allow verification of the lift and stability criteria of the modeled zone.
For the user, there is no noticeable difference between the two methods.
As examples, we present a 2D mesh model of finite elements (Fig. 3.26) and a 3D
model of a solid mass reinforced under a footing (Fig. 3.27).
Figure 3.26. 2D calculation model of an embankment on compressible soils.
Figure3.27. Example of a 3D mesh of a footing on rigid inclusions.
The result obtained using these methods is an approximate solution and the
precision of this solution depends
on: – the laws of behavior of the materials and the interfaces;
– discretization. Consequently, the mesh must be finer where the variations of the
field of deformations are the most important; – of the type of
elements adopted (number of nodes) and of the interpolation laws taken into
account in each element (linear or quadratic);
144
– the use of interfaces between structural elements and the ground to allow consideration
of ground/structure interaction phenomena; – boundary conditions.
4.1. Interest of these methods

These tools recently made available to the geotechnical engineer make it possible to
simulate complex structures (in terms of geometry and behavior). They make it possible
to deal comprehensively with problems that cannot be approached analytically.
Compared to simplified methods, numerical modeling in a continuous medium takes

into account the entire soil mass, rigid inclusions and interfaces between the different
constituents. It leads to the calculation of displacements, deformations and stresses
for each element. This type of modeling also makes it possible to consider a
hydromechanical coupling, when consolidation problems arise.
The history of the construction of the structure, for example the phasing of the
placement of embankments, the placement of geotextile, paving, the drawdown of the
water table, are taken into account and the impact of each phase of achievement can
thus be assessed.
Numerical modeling in a continuous environment makes it possible to process the

verification of structures with respect to displacements (ELS), but also with respect to
the risk of ruin (ULS).
Calculations in small displacements on the initial geometry (common case) are
generally implemented. In certain cases, when the second order effects can no longer
be neglected, it is advisable to carry out the simulations in large displacements. This
type of modeling makes it possible to update the geometry of the mesh adopted during
the loading. This is necessary in order to take into account correctly the influence of
reinforcement plies which develop tensile stresses, depending on the vertical
displacements they undergo.
These methods make it possible, from a good knowledge of the behavior of the soils
crossed, of the inclusions, of the interactions between the various constituents and of
the phasing of construction of the structure, to lead to relevant simulations of the mode
of behavior of the structure.
They have the advantage of allowing the realization of parametric studies to highlight
the sensitivity of such or such parameter.
145
4.2. Limits of two-dimensional modeling
Currently, 2D models are still essentially used for current structures, either in plane
strain or in axisymmetric configuration.
In an axisymmetric configuration, the central mesh in the axis of the embankment
is modeled by transforming the area of influence of the inclusion, rectangular or
square, into a disc (Fig. 3.28). This type of configuration can only be of interest in
an elementary mesh close to the axis of the embankment or in the center of a slab.
In plane strains, the complete response of the entire embankment or slab on soil
reinforced by rigid inclusions can be obtained by making major simplifications with
regard to the geometry of the rigid inclusions. If the 2D hypothesis is correct for the
embankment, it is no longer so with the rigid inclusions. The 3D point inclusion must
then be transformed into an “equivalent” 2D plate (Fig. 3.29).
For a tiling, we can also have a specific behavior of the tiling closer to 3D than to
2D. We are then very far from reality, the calculation space being 2D.
Figure 3.28. Axisymmetric modeling of the central mesh (on the right).
146
Figure 3.29. Modeling of the entire embankment and of the soil

reinforced by rigid inclusions in plane deformation.
4.2.1. Axisymmetric model

Strictly speaking, the axisymmetric model can only model the central mesh in the
axis of the embankment, which is itself assumed to be symmetrical (Fig. 3.30).
For a paving, one will be able to model only the current mesh not placed at the
edges, and provided that the loading is uniform with the right of the mesh.
.
Figure 3.30. Axisymmetric model representing a unit mesh of a distributed load,

resting on a ground reinforced by rigid inclusions.
147
4.2.2. Model in plane strain In this

type of configuration, the lines of inclusion are transformed into walls
perpendicular to the plane of the model.
To represent all of the embankment and the rigid inclusions in 2D, it is necessary to
model the rigid inclusions in the form of a veil of equivalent rigidities EA with respect
to the normal force and EI with respect to the rigidity at the bending by also checking
that the friction developed against this plate and the forces transmitted at the top
and bottom of the same plate are comparable to the real quantities applied to the
inclusions.
The width of the veil at the head and at the foot is adapted to maintain the overlap
rate and therefore the effort at the head and at the foot. The interface parameters
must be adapted to preserve the force mobilized by lateral friction.
The plane model therefore constitutes an acceptable approximation for calculations
of inclusions under embankments. On the other hand, it is ill-suited to check the
stresses in the mattress on the inclusion heads and the stresses in the slab.
Nevertheless, according to the quantities sought (stresses, displacements), one can
choose to respect only part of the preceding criteria. One will have to judge the
validity of the results of the model in plane strain by comparing those with the results
of an axisymmetric model.
4.3. Modelization
4.3.1. Geometric limits of the model The

limits of the model are chosen in such a way that they do not influence the
results of the calculation.
In the case of the model in axisymmetric configuration, the vertical geometric limits
are imposed by the model which has an oedometric behavior (Fig. 3.31).
In the case of a plane strain model, the vertical geometric limits of the model must
be located at a distance such that the displacements and the stresses introduced
by the loads are negligible on these limits. For a structure that is perfectly symmetrical
(geometrically and mechanically) and loads that are also symmetrical, only half of
the structure will be studied (Fig. 3.28 for example).
For both models, the horizontal geometric limits may be imposed by the geology in
the case of a rigid bedrock or a very compact soil layer at shallow depth. In typical
configurations, the rigid inclusions pass through a layer of compressible soil to
anchor themselves slightly in
148
a more compact layer; if this layer does not rest on a rigid substratum or on a very
compact layer of soil, it will be necessary to model under the point of the inclusions
a sufficient thickness of ground so that on the horizontal geometric limit the
deformations linked to the constraints brought by the structure and the peaks of the
inclusions become negligible. In particular, account will be taken of the raft effect
brought about by the groups of inclusions (Fig. 3.32).
The charge transmitted to the inclusions is transferred to the support layer. It is
therefore important to take into account the thickness and characteristics of the
underlying layers. Indeed, a compressibility of these can cause significant
settlements.
Figure 3.32. Radius effect

Figure 3.31. Conditions to the limits. and area of influence.
It may be useful to test the sensitivity of the results by examining how they are
affected by the choice of more distant limits.
4.3.2. Conditions to the limits
In the case of model in axisymmetric configuration, horizontal displacement is by
definition null with the axis and the external edge of the model.
In the case of model in plane strain, one generally imposes a zero horizontal
displacement on the vertical limits of the mesh. When there is a symmetry (Fig.
3.31), for example in plane strain, the horizontal displacement is by definition zero
on the vertical plane of symmetry.
For the two models one imposes a null vertical and horizontal displacement on the
lower horizontal limit.
149
4.3.3. Axisymmetric model of an elementary cell

4.3.3.1. Backfill
Far from the ends of the embankment (Fig. 3.33), we can consider an axisymmetric model (Fig.
3.34).
Figure 3.33. Schematic diagram of the reinforcement of the soil in place by rigid Figure 3.34.
inclusions (case of embankment). Elementary cell.
4.3.3.2. Paving
An axisymmetric model can represent only the central mesh of a network of rigid inclusions. It is
particularly suitable for uniform surface loads.
my.
The radius R of the equivalent model is fixed so as to represent the area of an elementary mesh
provided that it is close to a square (b < 1.25 a):
= ab
R -----
(3.24)
ÿ
150
Figure 3.35. Principle diagram of the reinforcement of Figure 3.36.

the ground in place by rigid inclusions (case of paving). Elementary cell.
4.3.4. Plane strain model The requirements

specific to these models are detailed in 4.2.2. Other geometrical requirements are to
be considered. As a preliminary, the
dimensions of the model are as follows: – width of the half-model such
that LM –LR > 2 H ; – depth of the model such that HM
> 3LR (Fig. 3.37).
On the other hand, with regard to the influence of the tips of the rigid inclusions, the
following maximum value will be retained under the
tips: – 10 times the diameter of the
tip; – 3 times the width of the apron equivalent to the group of inclusions.
In all cases, it should be checked that the results obtained are not influenced by the
dimensions of the model that have been retained.
Very often the structure is symmetrical from the geometric and hydromechanical point
of view; in these frequently encountered conditions, symmetry will be used to treat
only half of the structure (Fig. 3.31).
151
Figure 3.37. Geometric order criteria for the plane model of an embankment
on inclusions.
4.3.5. Solid or linear elements

Rigid inclusions can be represented by solid elements or
by beam elements (Fig. 3.38).
In soil reinforcement projects, it is preferable to model rigid inclusions by volume
elements to represent the interactions at the top, at the bottom and along the shaft.
Figure 3.38. Modeling of inclusions by voluminal elements or linear

elements.
When an inclusion is represented by voluminal elements in linear elasticity, the

exploitation can be facilitated by also introducing an element for
152
be of very low rigidity EA which will easily make it possible to go up by simple

proportionality to the efforts in the inclusion.
4.3.6. Behavior of the solid mass under the reinforced volume

The axisymmetric model of the elementary cell represents the case of a load with
very large lateral extension. No diffusion of the charges occurs outside the volume
considered. This model is representative on the height of the inclusions which tend
to channel the loads applied at the head of the model. A uniform stress distribution
must be found in a horizontal plane located between the base of the inclusions and
the base of the model: neutral plane of equal lower settlement (Fig. 3.39).
Figure 3.39. Planes of equal upper, intermediate and lower settlement

around an inclusion.
It is necessary to examine the settlements likely to be generated by this uniform

distribution of stress in the volume of the solid mass located under this plane of equal
settlement.
When these settlements are not negligible, their estimation may require a specific
model distinct from that of the elementary cell: – simply extending
the model of the elementary cell is in all certainty pessimistic since no lateral diffusion
is involved. The settlement calculated in this way is an upper limit of the total settlement
under the structure (Fig. 3.40); – a model consists in estimating the settlements
of a fictitious foundation of the same dimensions as the structure, placed at the level
of the neutral plane located under the tip of the inclusions and loaded with the average
stress on the structure. The surface settlement is the sum of the settlement of the
elementary cell (model stopped at the neutral plane under the base of the inclusions)
and the settlement of the fictitious foundation.
(Fig. 3.41);
153
– a global 2D model of the structure from the surface taking account of its dimensions
(plane or axisymmetric) where the reinforced zone is treated as a homogeneous
zone, making it possible to represent a less pessimistic diffusion. This model makes
it possible to introduce a lateral interaction between the unreinforced zone and the
surrounding massif. The settlement calculated by the model represents an estimate
of the settlement of the structure (Fig. 3.42).
Figure 3.40. Extension of the elementary cell model downwards to

estimate the settlements of the underlying massif.
Figure 3.41. Fictitious sole loaded at the tip of the inclusions

to estimate the settlements of the underlying massif.
154
Figure 3.42. Homogenized volume in interaction with unreinforced soil

to estimate the settlements of the underlying massif.
4.3.7. 3D modeling
The main advantage of three-dimensional modeling is that the problem can be

represented globally. Taking into account a reinforced slope, a footing loading under
complex loading or a non-uniformly loaded slab can lead to the development of this
type of simulation.
However, these models lead to high computation times.
4.4. Laws of behavior

4.4.1. Study of model parameters
Whatever the type of modeling and the calculation tool used, the modeling
parameters must allow the numerical models to represent as much as possible the
behavior of the project studied.
The parameter calibration phase consists of verifying that the behavior model
adopted, combined with the set of data selected, provides representative results
when applied to the simulation of the available tests. It is particularly important to
set, in the preliminary phases, the parameters detailed in the following paragraphs.
In the absence of experimental field data, it is advisable to choose the most
unfavorable hypotheses. In the absence of a direct comparison with
an on-site loading test, it is recommended to check the capacity of a model of
suitable dimensions, using the chosen laws and parameters, to provide a load curve
at the head of a
155
isolated inclusion comparable to that estimated by the semi-empirical approach

combining Frank and Zhao type mobilization laws with the ultimate values qs and
qp of the type of inclusion considered.
Similarly, under the footing, it is recommended to check the ability of a model of
suitable dimensions to provide a loading curve at the head of the unreinforced
insulated footing comparable to that estimated by a semi-empirical approach of the
pressuremeter or penetrometer type.
4.4.2. Mechanical characteristics of soils The
use of digital models makes it possible to use behavior laws that are "better" adapted
to each type of structure and soil. One is thus not obliged to use the only law known
as “of Mohr-Coulomb” (in fact law linear elastic-by plastic factment with criterion of
rupture of Mohr-Coulomb), although it is the best known and used by geotechnicians.
The parameters of the materials to enter into the calculation will therefore depend
on the law retained to model a soil mass, a structure, a support.
4.4.2.1. Perfectly plastic linear elastic law (Mohr-Coulomb)

This first-order law is the best known to geotechnicians; it can be used for fairly
compact soils for which there is no consolidation problem.
For a homogeneous and isotropic material this law requires the determination of
five parameters (Fig. 3.43).
Figure 3.43. Law of elastoplastic behavior.
156
To determine the five parameters (Table 3.IV), the most appropriate test is the
triaxial test.
Table 3.IV. Mohr-Coulomb parameters.
Setting unit Determination
E (Young's modulus) kPa, MPa Triaxial, pressuremeter (EM)
ÿ' (Poisson's ratio) without 0.2 < ÿ'< 0.4
ÿ' (friction angle) degree Triaxial, correlations?
it (cohesion) kPa Triaxial, correlations
ÿ (angle of dilatancy) degree ÿ ÿ ÿ' – 30°
This law, which describes with a limited number of parameters the behavior of soils
up to failure, may nevertheless prove to be too simplistic in certain cases: –
excavation for which the soil mass is unloading; the unloading modulus being equal
to the loading modulus in this law, which is not realistic, the calculated uplift of the
bottom of the excavation proves to be too great in relation to the observations; –
slightly
overconsolidated compressible soils whose apparent deformation modulus depends
on the stress increment.
The initial state of the soil, which depends on its geological and anthropogenic
history, must necessarily be clarified by oedometric tests at different levels to
determine the degree of overconsolidation ( ROC) depending on the depth.
The stresses brought by the structure, embankment, overloads on slabs, reservoirs,
etc. will make it possible to determine in which domain the different terrains will be
sheared: normally consolidated domain or overconsolidated domain (Fig. 3.44).
For sheared soils in the normally consolidated domain c' ÿ 0, the angle of friction
will be taken in the critical state ÿ'NC = ÿ'crit (on the load surface) and will not be
distinguished from the angle of friction at the peak.
For sheared soils in the overconsolidated domain, if the deformation is limited and
less than that of the elastic limit (under the load surface) the values will be taken at
the peak and we will have ÿ'SC = ÿ'peak and c'SC = it peak. In the over-consolidated
domain, the stress paths end on the “limit state ellipse”; the ends of the paths are
therefore not aligned, however generally the curve will be linearized to calculate
ÿ'peak and c'peak. We can see in figure 3.44 that the determination of ÿ'peak and
c'peak is delicate and less reliable than in the do
normally consolidated maine.
157
Figure 3.44. Determination of ÿ' and c' in the normally consolidated and
overconsolidated domains (from Josseaume and Azizi, 1991).
Indicative values of c' and ÿ', from correlations as a function of Ip are given in chapter
6.
4.4.2.2. Elastoplastic law with hardening ( modified Cam Clay )
This law is well suited for soil masses subject to primary consolidation phenomena.
The concepts of elastic limit state and critical state are introduced from: –
isotropic consolidation tests which define the elastic limit points (Fig. 3.45); – triaxial
tests which
define the critical states and the critical state line q = Mp' in the Cambridge axes {p',
q} (Fig. 3.46), with:
6sinÿÿ
q = ---------------------- (3.25)
pÿ 3 – sinÿÿ
158
CVI blank isotropic compression curve

LEC critical status line
CEC critical state curve
V specific volume = (1 + e)
Va initial specific volume p' and
q mean stress and deviatoric stress
Figure 3.45. Isotropic compression Figure 3.46. Stress and strain paths
curve. to the critical state.
To determine the five main parameters of the law, it is necessary to carry out oedometric
tests and triaxial tests (table 3.V).
The Soft Soil model derives from the modified Cam Clay model .
Table 3.V. Parameters of the Soft Soil Model.
Setting Unit Determination
*l (compression index) without Oedometer: Cc /2.3 (1 + e)
*k (decompression-recompression index) without Oedometer: 2Cs /2.3 (1 + e)
ÿ' (friction angle) degree Triaxial (or correlations?)
it (cohesion) kPa Triaxial, (or correlations?)
4.4.2.3. Elastoplastic law with work hardening (modified Cam Clay )

and creep
This law makes it possible to take into account the viscosity of soils (Fig. 3.47), it applies
above all to mud and peat for which creep (consolidation
159
condaire) is not negligible compared to the primary consolidation of Terzaghi.
Figure 3.47. Creep curves.
We define Cÿ, secondary consolidation rate:

ÿH
-------
= ÿÿ
---------- =
H0
----------
Cÿ (3.26)
ÿlgt ÿlgt
One defines, in addition, compared to the index of the voids, the index of creep Cÿe :
= ÿe
cÿe void) =+index
e0 (ÿlgt
Cÿ
----------
1 e0 initial
with : (3.27)
Compared to the Soft Soil model, one more parameter is therefore required. Short and long term
oedometric tests and triaxial tests must be carried out (table 3.VI).
160
Table 3.VI. Parameters of the Soft Soil Creep Model.

* without Oedometer: Cc /2.3 (1 + e)
l (compression index)
ÿ* (decompression-recompression index) without Oedometer: 2Cs /2.3 (1 + e)

Long-lasting oedometer
without
ÿ* (creep index) Cÿe /2.3 (1 + e)
ÿ' (angle of friction) degree Triaxial (or correlations?)
c' (cohesion) kPa Triaxial (or correlations?)
4.4.2.4. Hyperbolic model of the elastoplastic type with work hardening
Second-order models are currently the most advanced models for simulating the behavior of stiff
soils and soft soils. By way of example, one can cite the hyperbolic behavior model of the elastoplastic
type with work hardening (Hardening Soil model). It includes a first nonlinear part, a plastic bearing,
an unloading modulus greater than the first loading modulus, and compression and shear hardening
(Fig. 3.48). It also makes it possible to simulate the dilatancy before failure.
The deviator curves q-axial deformation ÿ1 of the triaxial tests are likened to hyperbolas:
ÿ1
= -----------------
q (3.28)
ÿ1
1
---- + -----
Hey qa
with :
Ei tangent modulus of the first loading; qa horizontal

asymptotic value of the deviator.
Figure 3.48. Relationship between stress q and strain ÿ1 in the hyperbolic

model.
161
The tangent modulus Ei increases with the stress ÿ'3.

ÿ ÿ mÿÿ3 ÿ
= -------
Ei kpa ÿ ÿ (3.29)
ÿ pa
where k and m are parameters determined from drained triaxial tests and pa is the
reference pressure, generally atmospheric pressure; k depends on the nature of
the ground and its compactness. For sand m is around 0.5, for clay m is close to 1.
The fracture plateau qf is determined by the Mohr-Coulomb criterion, it truncates

the deviator-hyperbolic strain curve (Fig. 3.48). Rf is the ratio qf / qa; generally it is
between 0.8 and 0.9; it is set by default to 0.9 in Plaxis.
To completely describe the law, it is necessary to determine 10 parameters. It is
necessary to carry out triaxial tests, in principle with an unloading stage, to measure
Eurref and oedometric tests (table 3.VII).
Table 3.VII. Hardening Soil Model Parameters.
E50ref kPa Triaxial CD with ÿV measurement
ref
Eoed kPa Oedometer
m without Triaxial, correlations?
Eurref kPa Triaxial unloading (3 E50ref )
ÿur without Triaxial unloading (0.2)
favorite
kPa (100kPa)
RF without Triaxial (0.9)
ÿ' (friction angle) degree Triaxial, correlations?
it (cohesion) kPa Triaxial, correlations?
ÿ (angle of dilatancy) degree ÿ ÿ' – 30°
The determination of soil parameters is the subject of Chapter 6, “Soil surveys”.
Comment. To calibrate the parameters of this law, it is necessary to have the

results of drained triaxial tests and/or oedometric tests.
162
4.4.3. Hydraulic characteristics of the soil The

permeability values of the soil (horizontal and vertical permeability) make it possible to
take consolidation into account. They require knowing the evolution of the permeability
values according to the stress introduced by the structure. We recall the relationship
between the vertical consolidation coefficient cv and kv : kvEoed
= ----------------
resume
(3.30)
ÿw
This can also be expressed as a function of Cc, in the normally consolidated domain
and by extension in the overconsolidated domain as a function of Cs, for a vertical
stress ÿ' as close as possible to the stress imposed on the soil by the structure to be
built: kv( 1 + e ) cv 2 3 ,= ---------------------
ÿÿ in the
“elastic”
domain: ÿ' < ÿ' p (3.31)
Csÿw
kv( 1 + e )
cv 2---------------------ÿÿ
3 ,= in the plastic domain: ÿ' > ÿ'p (3.32)
Ccÿw
This coefficient depends on the stress ÿ', the vertical permeability coefficient kv which is
expressed in m/s, but also on the compressibility of the soil Cc/(1 + e0).
The variation of the permeability kv is related to the variation of the void index e (Fig.
3.49) by the following relationship: ÿ ÿ
kv ÿ
------- = e e0 –
-------------
ÿ lg
kv0 ÿ ÿ ck (3.33)
ÿe ck = ÿlgk
163
Figure 3.49. Curve of variation of the permeability coefficient kv as a function of the

void index allowing the determination of the parameters ck and log kv0.
Benchmark values and correlations between these quantities are presented in

Chapter 6.
4.4.4. Characteristics of inclusion/ soil interfaces
Numerical calculation tools offer different types of interfaces to simulate the soil/
inclusion interaction. The constitutive laws which are generally used for the
interfaces are of the elastoplastic type.
The elastic part makes it possible to represent a progressive mobilization of the
shears with the deformation.
For the plastic part, two techniques are used: – either a
reduction on ÿ' and c' is applied; – either a
fictitious ground ÿ' = 0 with non-zero cohesion is introduced to simulate a constant
friction c' = qs with reference to French practices.
There are also other means of dealing with this phenomenon, for example, by
refining the mesh around the contact zone. In this approach, it is more difficult to
take into account the limiting friction values qs compatible with the execution
conditions.
In order to represent this interaction and to define the parameters of the model, the
data of the loading tests made on isolated inclusion can be used.
4.4.5. Characteristics of rigid inclusions
A linear elastic law is generally adopted for the inclusion.
164
The value of the long-term modulus is generally used for sizing calculations. The
value of the short-term modulus is only used for accidental situations of short
duration (shock or seismic actions).
The Poisson's ratio is generally taken equal to ÿ = 0.2.
The diameter taken into account is the nominal diameter defined in chapter 7 for
each execution technique. The length is the theoretical length.
4.4.6. Characteristics of the distribution mattress
The load transfer mattress is made of a granular material or treated with hydraulic
binders. The characteristics of this mattress can be determined from material
resistance tests. This mattress can sometimes be reinforced with geosynthetic sheets.
A linear elastic law with Mohr-Coulomb plasticity criterion can be adopted for materials
treated with binders.
For granular soils whose behavior depends on the state of the stresses, a more
advanced constitutive law may prove to be more relevant. The national ASIRI project
established the deformation and shear parameters of a few representative materials
(industrial gravel, treated silt) (Dupla et al., 2007 and Okyay et al., 2010).
4.4.7. Characteristics of geotextile sheets

These are generally characterized by a linear elastic law whose modulus depends
on the level of anticipated deformation and the duration of application of the loads
(according to the isochronous curves of the product). It is important to check that the
calculated tension is compatible with the characteristics of the material defined by
the regulations.
4.4.8. Characteristics of the slab or slab A linear

elastic law can be used. The Poisson's ratio is taken as equal to ÿ = 0.2 for slabs in
accordance with DTU 13.3.
To comply with the calculation of settlements which considers long-term deformations,
it is recommended to adopt the long-term value for the concrete modulus of the slab
or slab. This is in accordance with DTU 13.3 which specifies in its article 6.3 that
storage loads are to be considered as long-term loads.
The value of the short-term modulus is only used for short-duration loads (dynamic
actions) and for accidental situations (shocks or seismic actions).
165
4.5. Construction stages
Generally, the following phases are to be considered:

– initialization of the constraints: the initial state must define the overconsolidation
ratio of each layer of soil and the level of the water tables; –
building conditions:
– possible reprofiling of the
site, – execution of
inclusions, – installation of the transfer mattress and any geotextile layers
THE,
– placement of the embankment or structure;

– service situations (defined by the association of load systems and a possible
hypothesis as to the drained or undrained behavior of the soils): – consideration
of overloads, – calculation of
consolidation and possible creep of the different layers of
floor,
– different groundwater conditions.
4.6. Calculations
The constitutive laws chosen for each layer are activated with the hypothesis of a
drained or undrained behavior adapted to the different calculation phases. Attention
is drawn to the fact that, for soils, the perfectly plastic linear elastic model (Mohr-
Coulomb) is not suitable for simulating undrained behavior.
Computations are carried out either in small deformations (hypothesis of Euler) or

in large deformations (hypothesis of Lagrange). Calculation in large deformations
is essential with horizontal reinforcement plies which work like membranes (second
order effect).
4.7. Exploitation of the results The
exploitation of the results aims to validate the calculation model, check the various limit
states and establish the calculation note.
4.7.1. Validation of results
The validation of the results requires:

– systematically checking all the geotechnical hypotheses introduced into the
model; –
check the relevance of the choice of model limits and the adaptation of the mesh
to the most stressed areas;
166
– ensure that the constitutive laws adopted and the principles of the modeling
adopted are capable of suitably reproducing the behavior of an isolated inclusion
loaded at the top or that of a foundation representative of the structure; – check the
activation
of the interfaces and their properties; – check that the
convergence criteria have been met; – examine the results
phase by phase (overall deformation, displacement field, stress states, forces in
the structural elements – normal forces, shear force and moment, etc.) on
appropriate outputs (maps and graphs at appropriate scales, or tables) concerning
both the model as a whole and the areas particularly stressed; – check the
consistency of the results with respect to friction
(negative or positive) and the peak term as explained in paragraph 4.1 of chapter 5;
– check the consistency of the lateral and frontal reactions of the soil on
the foundation footing with respect to the hypothesis consisting in neglecting or not
these reactions.
Comment. Consistency with respect to the behavior of the mattress explained
in 4.2 of chapter 5 is automatically checked by the numerical models which
incorporate the criterion of resistance of the mattress and individually represent
the inclusions (this is only the case of the 2D model axisymmetric of the
elementary cell or of a 3D model).
4.7.2. Verification of the various limit states The

verifications to be carried out on the results are detailed in chapter 5.
They must be presented in the calculation note.
4.7.3. Content of the calculation note
The calculation note must explain the following elements:
– calculation values of the characteristics introduced in the constitutive laws adopted
for: – the soils
in place, – the
distribution mattress, – any
backfill, – the inclusions,
– the structural
elements (paving, footings, apron), – the horizontal
reinforcement layers;
– description of the digital model (software and version, types of elements); –
model and mesh geometry; – details of
the calculation phases; –
relevant results in the form of tables and/or graphs adapted to the confi guration of
the project; this may include:
167
– displacement and/or stresses according to sections of the model,

– position of the three neutral planes if they exist (Fig. 3.39), –
displacements on the surface of the model (case of an embankment) (Fig. 3.50),
Figure 3.50. Distorted of the whole work.
– normal stresses (or axial force) in representative inclusions, – bending moment

and shear force in the same inclusions represented
tatives (if relevant),
– stress field in the mattress above representative inclusions (Fig. 3.51 and 3.52), with
in particular representation of the plastic zones, – stresses in the structural elements
(bending moment, shear force
singing).
168
Figure 3.51. Extension of the plastic Figure 3.52. Extension of the plastic
zones under 1 m of backfill revealing zones under 7 m of backfill
above the inclusion head a failure revealing a confined fracture
mechanism emerging at the ground surface. bulb above the inclusion head.
5. HOMOGENIZATION METHODS
5.1. Simple homogenization method
A homogenization method applicable when the loads are only vertical consists in
studying beforehand the behavior of a unit cell representing an inclusion with the
volume of soil and associated mattress. This model of the elementary mesh is
generally assimilated to an axisymmetric plane model.
The results of this model are then compared with those obtained in a second model
of the same dimensions, where the soil and the inclusion are replaced by a single
supposedly homogeneous material whose characteristics one seeks to establish in
order to obtain results equivalent to the first model.
Equivalence is generally sought in terms of settlement, which makes it possible to
define the apparent modulus E* of the equivalent homogeneous material, making it
possible to find an average settlement comparable to the top of the model.
The properties obtained can then be used in a complete continuous medium model
covering several or all the elementary cells. This approach makes it possible to
reduce the complexity of the model capable of accounting for the com
169
bearing of the complete work. The approach described is valid only for the level of
loading studied.
It is necessary to underline the erroneous character of the homogenization which would
consist in writing as for the stone
columns: E* = (Ep Ap + (3.34)
Es As)/A Ep and Ap modulus of deformation and section of the
inclusion; Es and As deformation modulus and soil area.
Slippage at the soil/inclusion interface requires the introduction of a correction

coefficient ÿ: E* =
(Ep Ap/ÿ + Es As)/A The (3.35)
comparisons made have shown that this factor ÿ could be very much greater than 10.
5.2. Extended biphasic model 5.2.1.
Modeling principle Inspired by a

homogenization approach, while making it possible to remedy the shortcomings of the
latter (lack of consideration of the interactions between the soil and the rigid inclusions,
as well as the effects of bending and shearing in the latter), the biphasic modeling of a
soil reinforced by rigid inclusions takes advantage of three characteristics of this
reinforcement technique in the case of distributed loads (slabs or embankments): – the
regular (periodic) distribution of the inclusions within of the
soil block; – the characteristic scale of the reinforcement (spacing between two
inclusions) which can reasonably be considered to be small with regard to the overall
dimensions of the structure; – a reinforcing material (steel, concrete, etc.), having much
better mechanical properties
than the ground, but present on the other hand in a low volume proportion (a few
percent).
A detailed presentation of this modeling including its application to soils reinforced by

rigid inclusions can be found in (Sudret and de Buhan, 2001; Cartiaux et al., 2007 or
even Hassen et al., 2009). We will limit ourselves here to describing the principle,
illustrated in figure 3.53. The "soil-reinforced" composite is modeled at the macroscopic
scale, not as a single equivalent medium as in a classic approach by homogenization,
but by two continuous media, called "phases", in mutual interaction.
170
Figure 3.53. Principle of biphasic modeling of a soil reinforced by rigid

inclusions.
Such modeling results in a description of the stresses (internal forces) relating

to each of the phases taken separately (Fig. 3.54): conventional stresses for the
matrix phase representing the ground, densities of axial, cutting and bending
moment forces for the reinforcement phase which thus appears as a continuous
distribution of beams.
Figure 3.54. Constraints and forces of interaction relative to a biphasic modeling.
The interaction between phases is modeled by two types of

forces: – a volumetric density (denoted I) defined at any point of the reinforced
zone which represents, at the macroscopic scale of the model, the forces
exerted by the soil along the reinforcing inclusions ( longitudinal
interaction) ; – a surface density (denoted p) describing the actions exerted by
the ground on the ends (“points”) of the inclusions.
5.2.2. Model implementation
In the case of a soil layer reinforced by a regular distribution of vertical rigid

inclusions, subjected to a uniform vertical overload (Fig. 3.55), the biphasic
modeling is equivalent to the simplified approach developed in the calculation
tool Taspie+ (Cuira and Simon, 2009). In this configuration, in fact, the forces in
the inclusions are reduced to the sole solicitation of com-
171
pressure, while the interaction forces I and p are purely vertical. The interaction
laws can then be directly identified from the “ -w ” curves conventionally established
ÿ for piles.
Figure 3.55. Simplified biphasic model.
Far from being limited to this particular situation, the two-phase model can on the
other hand be easily integrated into a finite element calculation code, and the
resulting tool then makes it possible to deal with very diverse situations. The
decisive advantage of such modeling compared to a conventional calculation
method consisting in modeling the soil and the inclusions as geometrically distinct
elements is twofold. Referring for example to a numerical simulation of the
problem by the technique of finite elements or finite differences, the classic
approach consists in discretizing the inclusions and the soil separately, the size of
the mesh having to be significantly lower than that of the inclusions. The problem
being moreover three-dimensional, such a numerical procedure requires a very
long preparation time for the mesh and a considerable calculation time, which is
incompatible with rapid dimensioning of the structure. As an
example illustrating the performance of the biphasic model, figure 3.56 represents
the surface settlement profiles of a reinforced soil layer subjected to the weight of
an embankment, evaluated from a 2D biphasic simulation and from a complete 3D
numerical calculation, much heavier to implement (Hassen et al., 2009). The
biphasic model was incorporated into the CESAR LCPC software (Bourgeois et
al., 2006), the phase behavior laws, like the interaction laws, being of the
elastoplastic type.
172
Figure 3.56. Comparison between a two-phase calculation

(2D) and a 3D numerical simulation (from Hassen et al., 2009).
5.2.3. Shear and bending effects in inclusions

In the case where the soil reinforced by rigid inclusions is no longer only subjected to
a vertical load, but also to a horizontal load (for example of seismic origin), it is no
longer possible, taking into account the section of the inclusions, to neglect the
bending and shear components of the latter, which even come to play a preponderant
role in the stabilization of the structure. The complete biphasic model, ie taking into
account these bending and shear components, can then be implemented numerically
in a numerical computer code (Thai Son et al., 2009, 2010 ) . Figure 3.57 below gives
an example of the stability calculation of an embankment on soil reinforced with rigid
inclusions, which clearly highlights the major stabilizing role played by the resistance
to bending of these inclusions.
173
Figure 3.57. Calculation of the stability of a structure under seismic stress

using the two-phase approach (Thai Son et al., 2010).
Bibliography
AFPS – “Improvement and reinforcement of soils under seismic actions”. Working group
vail, 2011.
BIGOT G., CANEPA Y. – “Building foundations. Use of soil treatment and improvement
techniques”. LPC internal report, 1998, p. 37-41.
BOREL S. – Behavior and dimensioning of mixed foundations. Studies and research
LPC, GT 73, 2001.
BOURGEOIS E., ROSPARS C., HUMBERT P., BUHAN (DE) P. – “A multi-phase model
for fi nite element analysis of traction forces in bolts used in the reinforcement of
tunnel walls”. proc. Num. Meth. Geotech. Eng., Schweiger (ed.), Taylor & Francis
Group, London, 2006, p. 341-346.
BS8006 – “Code of Practice for Strengthened/reinforced soils and other fills, Section 8,
Design of embankments with reinforced soil foundations on poor ground”, 2010
CARTIAUX F.-B. , GELLEE A., BUHAN (DE) P., HASSEN G. – “Multiphase modeling
applied to the calculation of structures in soils reinforced by rigid inclusions”. French
Geotechnical Review, No. 118, 2007, p. 43-52.
COMBARIEU O. – “Calculation of a mixed pile foundation under vertical centered
load”. Technical information note LCPC, 1988, 15 p.
ticals”. French Geotechnical Review, No. 53, 1990, p. 33-44.
CUIRA F., SIMON B. – “Two simple tools for dealing with complex interactions of a solid
mass reinforced by rigid inclusions”. proc. 17th ICSMGE, Alexandria, M. Hamza et al.
(Eds.), IOS Press, 2009, p. 1163-1166.
DUPLA J.-C., CANOU J., DINH AQ – “Characterization of the bass used on the
experimental plots of Saint-Ouen-l'Aumône and Chelles”. ASIRI Report 1.07.3.02,
2007.
174
FRANK R., ZHAO SR – “Estimation by pressuremeter parameters of the penetration under

axial load of bored piles in fine soils”. Bulletin de liaison des la boratoires ponts et
chaussées, n° 119, May-June 1982, p. 17-24.
GAZETAS G. – Foundation vibration. Foundation Engineering Handbook, chap. 15, Hsai Yan
Fang Eds, 2nd Edition, 1990.
GLANDY M., FROSSARD A. – “Justification of a superficial foundation on soil reinforced with
inclusions”. Annals of the IBTP, n° 1, 2002, p. 45-53.
HASSEN G., DIAS D., BUHAN (DE) P. – “Multiphase constitutive model for the design of piled-
embankments: comparison with three-dimensional numerical simulations”. International
Journal of Geomechanics, vol. 9, no. 6, 2009, p. 258-266.
HEWLETT W., RANDOLPH MA – “Analysis of piled embankments”. Ground Engineering
ring, 21(3), 1988, p. 12-18.
JOSSEAUME H., AZIZI F. – “Law of behavior of stiff soils. Determination of the limit state curve of
Romainville green clay”. LPC studies and research, GT 33, 1988.
MONNET A., BERNHARDT V. – “Some proposals concerning foundations 90, 2000, p. 15-24.
°
deep”. French journal of geotechnics n
NF P 94-262 – Justification of geotechnical structures. National application standards
of Eurocode 7. Deep foundations (to be published).
OKYAY US, DIAS D., DAVID J.-P., AURIOL J.-C. – “Characterization tests of treated Goderville silt”.
ASIRI Report 3.09.03.10, 2009.
PECKER A. – Soil dynamics, Presses des Ponts, 1984.
PLUMELLE C. – “Reinforcement of loose soil by inclusion of micropiles”. Review
French geotechnics n° 30, 1985, p. 47-57.
SIMON B. – “An integrated method for sizing rigid inclusion networks in deformation”. XVth
ICSMGE, Istanbul, vol. 2, 2001, p. 1007-1010.
SIMON B. – “A simplified method for the calculation of footings on soil reinforced by rigid
inclusions”. JNGG 2010, Grenoble, volume 1, p. 529-536.
SUDRET B., BUHAN (DE) P. – “Multiphase model for inclusion-reinforced geostructures.
Applications to rock-bolted tunnels and piled raft foundations”. International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 155-182. , flight. 25, 2001, p.
THAI SON Q., HASSEN G., BUHAN (DE) P. – “Dimensioning under seismic stress of
foundation soils reinforced by rigid inclusions”. proc. 17th ICSMGE, Alexandria, M. Hamza
et al. (Eds.), IOS Press, 2009, p. 606-609.
THAI SON Q., HASSEN G., BUHAN (DE) P. – “Seismic stability analysis of piled embankments: a
multiphase approach”. International Journal for Analytical and Numerical Methods in Geomechanics,
vol. 34, 2010, p. 91-110.
175
CHAPTER 4
Design
1. CHOICE OF IMPROVEMENT METHOD

The object of this chapter is to draw up an inventory of the elements which justify
the choice of a solution by rigid inclusions.
The particularity of the reinforcement by vertical rigid inclusions is to make the soil
support, in due proportion to its own resistance, part of the loads coming from the
structure, the main part being transmitted by various mechanisms to the rigid
inclusions put in place. The process applies to foundations as well as earthworks.
The essential criterion is that of the relative displacement of the inclusion in relation
to the ground: for the system to operate optimally, the settlement at the top of the
soil must be significantly greater than the displacement of the inclusion, the granular
mattress being intended to absorb the differential thus created.
In general, the choice directing the project towards a soil improvement or
reinforcement solution most often results from an economic logic with regard to the
classic solutions of deep foundations associated with rigid and expensive work
structures ( for example a supported floor solution under a surface receiving a
distributed load).
This reasoning is particularly taken into consideration when it comes to designing
the base of a heavily loaded industrial paving on surfaces of several thousand
square meters.
Different soil improvement and reinforcement processes can be considered in order

to subsequently retain a paving project with the usual characteristics and/or a
superficial type foundation system satisfying the absolute and differential settlement
criteria.
The choice of method is mainly guided by the following criteria: – data

concerning the soil:
– nature and geomechanical characteristics of the compressible
soil, – thickness of the compressible layer,
177
– presence of an aquifer level;

– data concerning the structure: –
nature and geometry of the planned structure (type and load),
– operating constraints, –
permissible residual deformations and settlements;
– data concerning the context of the work:
– environmental context, –
interface with the various work packages (earthworks, paving, large
work…),
– time allocated to the work.
2. INPUT DATA
According to the criteria recalled previously, it is advisable to specify in particular
the following elements to judge the interest of a solution “rigid inclusions”.
2.1. Soil data
– one or more standard litho-stratigraphic sections; –
compressibility, possible overconsolidation profile; these data must make it possible
to make a range estimate of the final settlement without reinforcement; – position
of the
layer(s); – data relating to the speed
of consolidation and the permeability of the different layers; – soil resistance profile:
bearing
capacity depending on the level of the seat; – heterogeneity of the compressible
thickness; – side hug ability; – organic matter
content; – presence of a creep-
sensitive layer; – seismic
conditions of the site.
2.2. Data concerning the structure and its operation

– layout plan and footprint of the structure; –
loads applied: –
permanent or transient; –
distributed or ad hoc;
– possible zoning defining the extension of the extreme loaded zones and their
intensity (max or min); –
operating constraints; –
displacement and deformation criteria; –
nature of the supported structure;
178
Chapter 4 - Design
– technical reference to be used.

2.3. Data concerning the context of the work
- completion time ; –
possible aggressiveness of the medium vis-à-vis the
concrete; – presence of blocks making penetration
difficult; – position of the water table (substitution possible or not);
– groundwater variations (seasonal, long-term); –
nature of the cuttings extracted and conditions of reuse.
3. PROJECT CRITERIA
The design of the project requires that the deformation criteria to be taken into
account during the SLS verifications be defined and approved by the client:
absolute settlements and/or differential settlements.
Comment. The criteria to be taken into account for ULS checks are defined
by the regulations in force and these recommendations.
In the absence of requirements from the client, it is possible to refer to one of the
following documents: – Appendix
H (informative) of Eurocode 7-1 (NF EN 1997-1) which presents limit values of
structural deformations and foundation movements; – Standard NF P 11.213 (DTU
13.3) which
specifies the absolute and differential deformation limit values for slabs; –
Calculation of superficial and deep foundations
(Frank, 1999) which reviews the limit values applicable to buildings and structures;
– French Rail Network technical repository; – Specific technical
references for tanks; – References concerning
pavements (surface smoothness).
In addition, certain consequences of the deformations must also be considered

with regard to:
– maintaining the slopes of the
networks; – operating criteria specific to certain equipment (vibrating machines).
In all cases, a distinction should be made

between: – settlements suffered since the start of construction of the
structure; – the settlements undergone during any test tests;
– settlements suffered by the finishing work and the equipment;
– settlements on the structure and those generated on neighboring structures.
179
Experience shows that reinforcement by rigid inclusions can reduce settlements by

a factor of 2 to 10 compared to those of unreinforced soil.
4. LIMITS AND AREAS OF USE

Any foundation project on ground reinforced by rigid inclusions must consider all
the elements that will constitute it: inclusions, distribution mattresses and structural
elements. The design must therefore focus on all of these elements and cannot be
separated into several sections which would successively deal with each of them.
This is a strong characteristic of foundation projects on soil reinforced by rigid
inclusions. The project manager, who conducts and coordinates the design and
execution, therefore has a particularly important role in projects where a “rigid
inclusions” solution is chosen.
4.1. Favorable factors
Factors favorable to the choice of rigid inclusions are: –
projects for which the settlement criteria acceptable to the finished structure are
not exceptionally severe; – the
following objectives: –
reduce the overall compressibility of the foundation soil,
– increase the bearing capacity; –
reduce interaction with neighboring structures; – allow
the construction of slabs on the ground instead of por floors
your ;
– reduce the construction time (linked to the fact that a smaller part of the load
is transferred to the ground and activates a more effective consolidation
phenomenon: reduced compressibility if one remains in the overconsolidated
area but also a higher consolidation coefficient for lower stress states); –
optimize the overall cost of the
foundation obtained; – preserve the natural seal
between different layers.
– the existence of soil with low lateral compression capacity or likely to creep; –
the ductile character of the foundation obtained: this character proves to be
favorable with respect to vertical loads which can be supported with settlements
over a wider range since there is mobilization of the soil and inclusions and also
with respect to - against seismic stresses by controlling the most unfavorable
failure mode (translation) and by eliminating stresses at the connections between
the structure and the deep foundations.
180
Chapter 4 - Design
4.2. Unfavorable factors

The following factors may prove unfavorable: –
projects for which the criteria for acceptable settlement by the finished structure
are particularly severe;
– the qualification required to carry out the design of the structure: the foundation
system is a composite system which requires a global approach both at the
design and execution level (the importance of coordination between the players
for optimal sizing and to preserve the integrity of all components during
construction and until acceptance of the work); – more severe
execution constraints (interfaces between three separate companies to produce
the inclusions, the capping layer and the paving, etc.). Indeed many setbacks
result from the lack of coordination between these stakeholders.
The importance of the project manager for the design, choice of solutions
adopted, coordination, supervision and acceptance of these works must once
again be underlined; –
the sensitivity of the freshly made inclusions to parasitic and potentially
destructive asymmetrical stresses (simultaneous and successive execution of
the inclusions, their possible cutting back and adjustment of the layer forming a
mattress);
– significant horizontal forces and load differentials (deviators); – the requirement
for a high-quality friction material for the distribution mattress, which can prove
to be penalizing in situations where mineral resources are limited; – the need
for a work
platform ensuring good conditions of stability in the workshops.
5. OTHER SPECIFIC POINTS TO CONSIDER

5.1. Load transfer at depth
It is also important to verify the influence of the transfer of the loads from the
structure to greater depth, in particular with regard to the possible settlement of
deep compressible layers, noting that the inclusions concentrate the loads at
their base.
5.2. Side effects

Side effects should be carefully examined. This concerns inclusions placed
under the slopes of embankments on inclusions or those placed around the
periphery of slabs and slabs or at the edge of footings.
This may lead to adopting one or more of the following provisions:
181
– reinforce the inclusions on the

edge; – provide for an overhang of the reinforced zone in relation to the right-of-way of the
structure
to be founded; – place reinforcement sheets (metal mesh or geogrids) immediately above
the inclusion heads.
It is also sometimes necessary to design a zone of progressive connection between the

treated zone and the untreated zone (adaptation of the mesh and/or the length of the
inclusions between a reinforced embankment zone and an unreinforced zone, or between
the embankment approach to a bridge abutment and the current embankment).
Edge effects may lead under certain structures to deal with a larger footprint than the strict
footprint of the structure.
5.3. Special case of a significant thickness of backfill added on

soil being consolidated
Great vigilance must be paid to the initial state of consolidation of the soil. In particular
when the site has been backfilled (recent or old) and the consolidation of the lower layers
is not complete: the settlements undergone by the structure will not only depend on the
loads of the structure but also the continued dissipation of pore pressures. The
underconsolidated character of the layers can only be demonstrated by oedometric tests,
piezocone point tests or pore pressure cells.
The case where the soil profile contains layers liable to creep (peat or organic levels) is
similar to the previous one since the creep settlement does not directly depend on the loads
applied to the surface.
Another case is when the leveling of the project requires carrying out a significant prior
backfilling. In this circumstance, it is preferable to make the inclusions before backfilling
and to take this into account when designing the inclusions.
The placement of reinforcement layers at the base of the embankments can then
sometimes prove to be appropriate.
5.4. Choice between the different rigid inclusion processes

At the preliminary design study stage, the type of inclusion (with repression, without
repression, ramming) is generally not considered.
An estimate of the load transmitted to the inclusion provides the order of magnitude of the
resistance to be targeted for a given diameter.
182
Chapter 4 - Design
5.5. Consequences on pavement design

The functioning of a foundation on reinforced soil is a problem of complex interaction
between several localized elements, of different natures and behaviors (soil, concrete).
The parameters intervening in these interactions sometimes appear to act in opposite

ways on settlements or stresses in the structure: – thus a high rigidity of
the mattress favors low settlements but develops significant forces in the slab; –
conversely, low rigidity creates significant
settling but is accompanied by weaker forces.
The choice of the mechanical characteristics of the distribution mattress (modulus of

deformation, angle of friction, cohesion) must be made in such a way as to cover the
dispersion expected for these values, by favoring high or low values according to the
type of checks where they will be used. .
For mattresses in treated soil, it is necessary to take into account the possible evolution
of the mechanical characteristics according to the type of binder, its dosage and water
variations. For these materials, the influence of the type of stresses (for example their
cyclic nature) must also be taken into account.
6. STEPS IN DEVELOPING A CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT
The design of a structure on soil reinforced by rigid inclusions is an approach in
successive stages: pre-dimensioning with simple methods, then project study and
execution study. This design requires the sequence of the following geotechnical
engineering missions as defined in standard NF P 94 500: – preliminary geotechnical
site study (G11);
– pre-project geotechnical study (G12); – project
geotechnical study (G2); – geotechnical
execution study and monitoring (G3); –
geotechnical execution supervision (G4).
Comment. Two documents (Syntec Ingénierie, 2009 and 2010) clarify the link between
geotechnical engineering assignments according to standard NF P 94-500 and project
management assignments according to MOP law for the construction of buildings or
infrastructure .
Another document entitled "Geotechnics in the design and construction of concrete
slabs" of June 2011 drawn up by Syntec/Unesi/Coprec emphasizes the importance of
the interfaces between the different companies in relation to the NF P 94 standard. -500
183
6.1. Preliminary geotechnical site study (G11 mission)

This study is undertaken before the precise definition of the project. By
referring to the information mentioned on the geological map, the risk
prevention plans, the information obtained from the BRGM (in particular
underground cavities, clay shrinkage-swelling hazard, etc.) and from the
DRIRE (mining operations, underground quarries, etc.) ), the geotechnical
engineer must indicate the major risks identified. It defines a program of
geotechnical investigations which makes it possible to quantify these risks,
and, depending on their nature, it indicates
the various possible technical solutions. 6.2. Pre-project geotechnical study (G12 missi
Carried out at the preliminary design stage, it should make it possible to reduce the
major geotechnical risks identified in the previous study.
With regard to each of the risks encountered, the geotechnical
engineer: – defines one or more geotechnical models depending on the homogeneity
or otherwise of the site, specifying, if possible at this stage, the level of the bedrock
deemed to be non-deformable; these models are attached to the General Leveling of
France
(NGF); – uses these models to examine the possible solutions according to the loads
applied and estimates the settlements obtained from these; – indicates, when
the settlements obtained do not meet the service criteria, the types of soil improvement
that can be proposed, emphasizing the specificities of each of them (for example “hard
point” effect of rigid inclusions) ; – indicates the measure(s) to be taken or to be
considered, in particular in the case of soils sensitive to shrinkage-swelling phenomena;

– defines, if necessary, a program of geotechnical
investigations allowing, in particular, to determine a geotechnical model integrating
heterogeneity in plan or a more precise geotechnical model in the case of soils with
complex behavior.
6.3. Services carried out as part of the project management
6.3.1. Project geotechnical study (G2 mission)

The G2 geotechnical mission to be carried out as part of the project management
defines a basic solution encompassing the project of inclusions, the mattress and the
structure.
184
Chapter 4 - Design
This study, at the expense of the contracting authority, is essential to define the
design of the structure. It is carried out from the specifications of the contracting
authority specifying the load cases and the admissible deformations.
The geotechnical model(s) must be sufficiently well defined.
The deformation moduli attributed to each layer are specified according to: – the
duration of application of the loads; –

their intensity (level of ground deformation); – fluctuations
in water content leading to changes in compactness and/or suction.
The G2 geotechnical assignment

includes: – SLS and ULS dimensioning (GEO and STR checks) of the inclusions
and the distribution mattress; – from
the estimate of the settlement of the reinforced soil, the definition of the equivalent
homogenized soil profile; – the
way in which the industrial flooring company takes into account any additional
stresses due to the “hard point” effect of the inclusions.
Finally, it indicates the constructive provisions to be taken into account (in particular
in the case of soils sensitive to desiccation phenomena), and, in the case of
heterogeneities in plan, it must give the geotechnical model taking them into
consideration.
This study allows the development of the business consultation file.
6.3.2. Geotechnical execution supervision (G4 mission)

It is the responsibility of the project owner.
This mission comprises two phases: –
supervision of the execution studies carried out by the contractors for each part of
the structure:
– the opinion on the geotechnical execution studies (G3);
– the opinion on the product data sheets (example: GTR classification of subgrade
backfill); – the
opinion on the monitoring program (removal of inclusions, load tests on inclusions,
plate tests, monitoring of pre-loading settlements, etc.) and the associated
threshold values; – the supervision of the
execution monitoring carried out by the various contractors by the punctual
intervention on the site: – the opinion on
the geotechnical context actually observed and the need for study
additional executions (G3);
185
– the opinion on any adaptations proposed by the contractors; – the opinion on

the results of the monitoring program.
6.4. Services carried out within the framework of each

contractor's contract This
mission, which covers the execution studies and the monitoring of the works, is carried out
for each element of the structure (platform, possible ground reinforcement, paving,
foundation, etc.) .
It is the responsibility of the company concerned.
6.4.1. Execution geotechnical study (G3 mission)
In the execution phase, the G3 mission (geotechnical execution study) relating to the batch
of inclusions can be carried out either by the improvement company itself or an external
entity commissioned by it.
The G3 mission (inclusions) validates the geotechnical model established in the project
phase, establishes the dimensioning of the rigid inclusions and provides the elements
necessary for the project of the other batches (distribution mattress and paving).
The geotechnical model, established by homogeneous zone, is intended
to: – assess the deformations of the reinforced
soil; – carry out all the geotechnical justifications; – express
the specifications necessary for the mattress project; – provide useful
elements for the dimensioning of the project and the impact on other structures.
The earthmoving company must determine the means and procedures to achieve the
characteristics required for the mattress.
The industrial flooring company uses this data as part of its execution study. It establishes
the detail of the sizing of the slab taking into account the studies and follow-up of the
execution of the other works (substitution, drainage, earthworks, improvement or
reinforcement of the ground, capping layer) as validated by the project manager.
All of these studies are validated by the project manager assisted by a geotechnical
engineer under mission G4 “geotechnical execution supervision”.
6.4.2. Geotechnical monitoring of execution (G3 mission)

The soil improvement company carries out or has carried out internal and external control
operations.
The company in charge of the execution of the distribution mattress carries out or has
carried out the internal and external control operations and takes all measures
186
Chapter 4 - Design
to preserve the integrity of the inclusions made, in particular during the earthworks,
reprofiling and compacting operations carried out after the inclusions have been made.
As part of the paving work, any anomaly detectable by the industrial flooring company
in relation to the acceptance reports communicated to it is reported to the project
manager.
6.5. Service carried out within the framework of the technical inspection
contract During the design phase, the technical controller carries out a critical
examination of all the technical provisions of the project.
During the period of execution of the work, he ensures in particular that the technical
verifications which are the responsibility of each of the manufacturers listed in article
1792-1 of the civil code are carried out in a satisfactory manner.
Bibliography
FRANK R. – Calculation of shallow and deep foundations. Engineering Technique, Presses des Ponts,
1999.
MOP Law – Law No. 85-704 of July 12, 1985 amended relating to public project management and its
relationship with private project management, 1985.
NF P 11-213 DTU 13.3 – Paving - Design, calculation and execution, 2007.
NF P 94-500 – Geotechnical engineering assignments, Classification and specifications, 2006.
Syntec Ingénierie - Synchronization of geotechnical engineering and project management assignments
for the construction of buildings. Editions Syntec-Ingénierie, 2009.
Syntec Ingénierie – Synchronization of geotechnical engineering and project management assignments
for infrastructure construction. Editions Syntec-Ingénierie, 2010.
Syntec/Unesi/Coprec – Geotechnics in the design and construction of slabs
in concrete, 2011.
187
CHAPTER 5
Justifications
1. GENERAL FRAMEWORK OF JUSTIFICATIONS

The justifications of structures on soil reinforced by rigid inclusions are carried out in
accordance with Eurocode 7. This requires verification of the serviceability limit states
(SLS) and the ultimate limit states (ULS).
The works concerned must be distinguished according to whether they are
embankments or roadways on rigid inclusions or foundation works (slabs, slabs,
soles) on rigid inclusions. They have the characteristic of making the soil in place
support part of the loads of the structure, the main part being transmitted by various
mechanisms to the rigid inclusions. In the case of the foundations, this is obtained
by avoiding any direct contact between the structure and the inclusions thanks to the
implementation of a continuous distribution mattress.
These recommendations do not apply to footings resting directly on inclusions.
In the remainder of this document, a distinction will be made between "domain 1"
corresponding to the case of inclusions necessary for the stability of the structure
and "domain 2", corresponding to the case of inclusions not necessary for the
stability of the structure. structure, and whose objective is essentially to reduce
settlements. 1.1. Serviceability Limit States (ELS)

The limit states to be checked are related to vertical or horizontal movement.
1.1.1. Formulation
The operation of structures on soil reinforced by rigid inclusions cannot be understood
without a detailed study of the interaction between the soil and the various structural
elements (foundations, inclusions). This interaction requires consideration of the
shear mechanisms within the distribution mattress, along the shaft and under the tip
of the inclusions.
In practice, the justification of these structures requires the implementation of a
calculation model capable of taking into account these different mechanisms as well as the
189
PROJECT NATIONAL ASIRI
compatibility of the deformations necessary to mobilize each of them. This means that the
justification systematically includes a displacement calculation under service stresses.
Verification with respect to serviceability limit states which is therefore to be preferred is that
concerning deformations as described by Eurocode 7-1 in 2.4.8 (1): Ed < Cd Ed : design value of
the
effect of (5. 1)
shares; Cd : limit value for calculating the effect of an
action.
1.1.2. Relevant displacement or deformation criteria

The values of the effects of the actions to be considered can be, according to the requirements of
the contracting authority, one of the points from the following list: –
the absolute settlement (maximum and/or average); –
differential settlement; - the
rotation ; – the
inclination; –
deflection; –
relative deflection; – and the
relative rotation.
The definitions of certain terms relating to the movement and deformations of

foundations are given in Figure 5.1: – definitions of
settlement y, differential settlement ÿy, rotation ÿ and angular deformation ÿ; – definitions of deflection
ÿ and relative deflection ÿ/L ; –
definitions of inclination ÿ and relative rotation (angular distortion) ÿ.
Figure 5.1. Definitions of movements and deformations of foundations.

Note. The appearance and general functionality of the structure are likely to
be altered when the calculated deflection ymax of a beam, slab or cantilever
subjected to quasi-permanent loads is greater than L/250 where L represents
the range. In practice, the deformation after construction ymax is normally
limited to L/500 for quasi-permanent loads.
190
Chapter 5 - Rationale
The components of the movement that should mainly be considered are the surface
settlement values (average value ymoy or maximum value ymax) or relative
settlement (or differential: ymax – ymin), with or without paving, to compare them
with the values admissible.
The relevant settling criteria(s) are defined by the contracting authority with the
assistance of its project manager.
Comment. Depending on the structure implemented on the surface (absence or
not of paving, more or less significant inertia of this paving) and according to the
nature and sensitivity of the overload (road, storage), there may be large
differences in allowable values.
These checks are of course supplemented by checking that the forces in the
structural elements, in particular the inclusions, are compatible with the resistance
thresholds of the constituent material.
Also if the "mattress resistance" criterion is not included in the ELS calculation
model, it is necessary to check a posteriori the consistency of the stress
distributions obtained between the soil and the inclusion heads vis-à-vis of this
shear strength.
1.1.3. Alternative ELS lift verification

1.1.3.1. Inclusions used to reduce settlement (domain 2)
The alternative verification vis-à-vis the ground consists in verifying that a
sufficiently low fraction of the resistance of the ground is mobilized to maintain the
deformations within the admissible limits for the structure in service [EC7-1 § 2.4.8
(4)]. It is generally not necessary when the inclusions only serve to reduce
settlements, since the latter are calculated, unlike what is done for deep
foundations where the calculation of displacements is not the rule. This therefore
makes it unnecessary to check the ELS forces in the inclusions against creep
values. This is true provided that the calculation model
is able to correctly represent the progressive mobilization of the lateral friction and
of the along the inclusion, up to the vicinity of the rupture.
In the case of a numerical model in a continuous medium, this must include

interfaces between the soil and the inclusions whose interaction laws conform to
the experimental data collected (limit value qs of the soil-inclusion friction in
accordance with the type of the ground and the mode of execution chosen,
progressive mobilization of the friction with the settling of the element). A way of
checking this capacity of the model consists in applying it to the case of the direct
loading of an inclusion at the head and comparing the results obtained with the curve of loading at th
191
determined by the Ww law method of the Frank and Zhao or O. Combarieu type (parabolic
law).
In the case of a simplified model, the relevance of the model used must be checked with
respect to:
– the shear and deformation characteristics of the mattress;
– the stress transmitted to the soil between the inclusions.
The model, applied to the case of the loading of a rigid shallow foundation without inclusion,
must also provide results comparable to the settlement estimates obtained by the most
appropriate method of the following two methods: pressuremeter or oedometric method.
1.1.3.2. Inclusions necessary for lift (domain 1)

When inclusions are necessary to justify ULS stability, the provisions of the national
application standards “Deep foundations” and “Shallow foundations” apply. It should then
be checked at ELS that: – the maximum load in the inclusion does not exceed the design
value of the critical creep load in compression Rc, cr; d below the neutral plane (article 14.2.1
standard NF P 94 262, Deep foundations); – the stress applied to the ground at the level of
the inclusion heads does not exceed the ELS limit value
(chapter 13, standard NF P 94 261, Surface foundations). 1.2. Ultimate Limit States (ULS)
For structures on soil reinforced by rigid ion inclusions, only the ultimate limit states STR and
GEO generally need to be checked (EC7-1 § 2.4.7.3); they are linked: – to the internal
rupture or excessive deformation of the structural elements put in place (inclusions, slabs,
reinforcing layers, footings, pavings, slabs) in which the resistance of the materials (in compression,
in tension, in shear ) contributes significantly to resistance [STR]; – rupture or excessive deformation
of the ground, in which the resistance of the soil contributes signifi cantly to
the resistance [GEO] (interaction of inclusion with the ground in place, by friction and/or
punching, and mobilization of the intrinsic resistance of the ground).
Comment. The other limit states (EQU, UPL and HYD) are generally not
relevant with respect to the inclusions, these not being connected to the structure.
We must check that:

Ed < Rd (5. 2)
192
Ed : calculation value of the effect of the actions;

Rd : design value of resistance to action.
1.2.1. General case (approach 2)

According to the national annex to EC7-1, calculation approach 2 should be adopted in
the general case.
It uses the combination of the following partial factors for permanent and transient
situations:
A1 '+' M1 '+' R2
In this approach, the partial factors are applied to the actions or to the effects of the
actions and to the resistances of the ground, the partial factors M1 which apply to the soil
parameters (ÿ', c', cu and ÿ ) being all taken equal to 1.
According to game A1, permanent actions are weighted by ÿG = 1.35 or 1.0 and variable
actions by ÿQ = 1.5 or 0 to find the worst case.
The partial resistance factors R2 are defined by the EC7 only in the
cas :
– shallow foundations; = 1.4 –
capacity ÿR, v – slip = 1.1 bearing
ÿR, h – deep foundations;= – tip ÿb
1.1 – shaft (compression) = 1.1
cs
In the case of deep foundations, the national application standard NF P 94 262

(Appendixes C and E) also introduces the correlation factors ÿ1 and ÿ2 which depend on
the number of loading tests or the correlation factors ÿ3 and ÿ4 which depend on the
number of soil tests and geotechnical investigation surfaces.
When the inclusions are necessary to justify the stability of the structure (area
1): – taking
into account these coefficients ÿ1, ÿ2, ÿ3 and ÿ4 is necessary if the verification
of the bearing capacity is made according to the method of "
pious models”; – these coefficients do not apply when the verification is carried
out using the “terrain model” method.
These recommendations favor the “field model” method.
In domain 2, since the justification of the structure's stability is carried out without taking
inclusions into account, these coefficients do not come into play.
193
Finally, account must be taken of the model coefficients ÿR, d defined by the
national application standards piles (NF P 94 262) and shallow foundations (NF P
94 26) which make it possible to define the characteristic values of ground
resistance Rk at from pressuremeter or penetrometer tests.
Comment. In approach 2, the choice of partial resistance factors comes up
against the fact that the foundations examined fall neither into the category of
shallow foundations nor into that of deep foundations. Thus section 7 of EC7,
which deals with deep foundations, specifies that the provisions described
therein should not be applied directly to piles designed to reduce settlement;
this directly concerns the case of rigid inclusions placed under the foundations
of structures when they are used solely to reduce settlements. The distinction
proposed in this document between domain 1 (inclusions necessary for the
stability of the structure) and domain 2 (inclusions not necessary for the stability
of the structure) responds to this observation.
According to national annex EC7-1, calculation approach 3 can also be used
for numerical soil-structure interaction analyses.
1.2.2. Special case of embankments on rigid inclusions (approach 3)

In the particular case of embankments on rigid inclusions, approach 3 should be
adopted for the verification of general or mixed stability, consistent with the choice
made for structures in reinforced soils (national application standard NF P 94 270).
Verification of the mixed stability of a structure in reinforced soil must be carried

out by considering a sufficient number of potential failure lines by major landslide
which intercept and/or run along at least one of the reinforcement beds.
The calculation of the load transfer depends on the internal stability of the embankment and must
therefore be carried out according to approach 2.
Approach 3 uses the combination for permanent or transient situations:
(A1* or A2^) '+' M2 '+' R3 –

the symbol * denotes actions coming from the structure; – the
symbol ^ designates geotechnical actions.
In this approach, the partial factors are applied to the actions or effects of actions
and the ground resistance parameters.
The permanent actions (coming from the ground) are all weighted by a factor ÿG
= 1.0 and the unfavorable variable actions (transmitted by the ground) by the factor
ÿQ = 1.3.
The partial factors M2 are as follows: ÿÿ =
ÿc'= 1.25; ÿcu =1.4; ÿÿ = 1.0
The partial resistance factors R3 are all equal to 1.0.
194
2. MODELS FOR GEO LIMIT STATES VERIFICATIONS
Experience shows that for standard structures these verifications can be carried out
with the simplified models described in paragraph 2.1.
The detailed models set out in paragraph 2.2 are generally justified only for exceptional
structures.
2.1. Simplified models The

simplified “envelope” models are intended to replace the more elaborate models
described below to provide the demonstration that the fundamental relationship Ed <
Rd is indeed satisfied.
These are models that do not have the capacity to introduce advanced laws (for soil
and/or for interfaces) nor to establish the relevant failure modes for the load case
considered [example: difficulty in dealing with the failure of the footing under load (Q,
T, M)].
These models apply to both ELS and ULS under footings, raft foundations, slabs,
embankments or pavement
An entirely elastic model without interface is a priori insufficient; it is necessary to

introduce at least Frank and Zhao type interface laws.
2.1.1. Simplified models for ULS checks

Three approaches of increasing complexity are proposed to assess stability (Fig. 5.2).
It suffices to demonstrate that the stability criterion is satisfied with any one of the
approaches.
Comment. If the stability criterion is verified with approach (i), it is necessarily
so with the higher level approaches.
195
Figure 5.2. Envelope models of increasing complexity (1) to (3).

Q load applied to the footing
Rv, d design value of the ultimate soil resistance evaluated on the footing surface
Qp (0) normal effort at head of inclusion
Qp (I) axial force from inclusion to intersection with failure surface
196
2.1.1.1. Envelope model (1)

This approach consists in demonstrating that the fundamental relation Ed < Rd is satisfied even
without taking inclusions into account. These are all situations where inclusions have the essential
function of reducing settlements and are not necessary for the stability of the structure (area 2).
Paving most often falls into this category.
It therefore consists strictly of carrying out the ULS verifications (GEO and STR) of the structure
(shallow foundations or embankments) ignoring the presence of inclusions.
Comment. The envelope model (1) is essential to identify to which domain

the inclusions belong
– domain 1: inclusions necessary for stability; –
domain 2: inclusions used to reduce settlements and not necessary for stability.
For a shallow foundation (Fig. 5.3), these checks are carried out according to approach 2, following
the detailed conditions explained in the corresponding national application standard (NF P 94 261,
draft in January 2011): – the actions unfavorable permanent actions are weighted by ÿG = 1.35
and unfavorable variable actions by ÿQ = 1.5 (the alternative combination 1.0 G + 0.0 Q is generally
not relevant); – lift is checked using the partial resistance factor ÿR, v = 1.4; – the slip is checked
using the partial resistance factor ÿR, h = 1.1; – a
model factor ÿR, d is introduced in the calculation of each of these resistances
tances.
Figure 5.3. Envelope approach (1) applied to the case of a footing

(inclusions ignored in the calculation).
197
For an embankment, the stability checks are carried out according to approach 3.
They are identified with the check of the general stability of structures in reinforced
soils described by standard NF P 94 270. on the so-called "Bishop's" section method
or the "disturbance" method or on the kinematic approach to the calculation at failure:
– the permanent actions (coming from the ground)
are all weighted by a factor ÿG = 1.0 and the unfavorable variable actions (transmitted
by the ground) by the factor ÿQ = 1.3; – the characteristic values of soils are affected
by the
following partial factors:
ÿÿ' = ÿc' = 1.25; ÿcu =1.4; ÿÿ = 1.0 the

partial resistance factors are all equal to 1.0.
Verification is satisfied if the safety factor F established by the calculation model,
ignoring inclusions, is greater than or equal to 1 (Fig. 5.4).
Figure 5.4. Envelope approach (1) applied to the case of an embankment (with inclusions
deactivated for this calculation).

In this model, the contribution of the inclusions is taken into account by integrating the
resistant force at the top of each inclusion, resulting from the interaction calculation.
For a footing, this envelope approach (2) can be applied directly to loads whose
resultant is inclined at less than 10° with respect to the vertical wedge.
198
For greater inclinations, either an envelope model (3) or one of the detailed models described in 2.2
or 2.3 must be used.
The load-bearing check is carried out at the level of the head of the inclusions on an area equal to
that of the foundation. At this level, it is
necessary to have calculated, under the action of the ULS calculation torsor (Qd, Td, Md) applied to
the base of the footing, the distribution of the forces between the soil and each of the inclusions
mobilized, according to the models presented in chapter 3, and having checked: – the equilibrium
conditions
of the mattress (GEO, § 4.2) which define the range of acceptable values of the normal force at the
head of inclusion Qp(0) (Fig. 5.5); this domain is constructed by integrating the limits relating to the
bearing capacity of the inclusion (GEO) and to the limit stresses in the material of the inclusion (STR,
§ 3) explained in paragraph 4.2.2.2; – if the calculation model is a simplified model, that the forces
transmitted at the inclusion head satisfy the consistency
conditions explained in chapter 3, paragraph 2.2.4.2; – the other conditions of consistency of the
model if they were not considered in the verification above (for example negative friction).
The forces at the inclusion head Qp(0) and Tp(0) generate a global reaction torsor (QR, TR, MR) :
QR = ÿ Qp(0)
TR = ÿ Tp(0) (5.3)
MR = ÿ Qp(0) di di
is the lever arm of inclusion i with respect to the center of the footing.
Figure 5.5. Envelope approach (2) applied to the case of a footing

(inclusions taken into account in the evaluation of the load transmitted to the ground).
199
The verification in lift Ed < Rd is made: – by

adopting for Ed the torsor resulting from the combination of the torsors (Qd, Td, Md) and
(– QR, – TR, – MR)
(Qd – QR, Td – TR, Md + TR hR – MR) (5.4) – by adopting for Rd the design value of
the resistance of the ground under a superficial foundation of the same surface as the
sole assessed according to standard NF P 94,261.
The slip verification is performed on the underside of the foundation with (Qd, Td) and at
the top of the inclusions with (Qd – ÿQp(0), Td – ÿTp(0)).
Comment. Verification on the underside of the footing is carried out by adopting a
design friction angle equal to the critical friction angle ÿ'crit of the mattress material for
the foundations cast in place and equal to 2/3 ÿ'crit for smooth prefabricated foundations.
The effective and possible cohesion of the mattress should be neglected .
At the head of the inclusions, the critical angle of the mattress ÿ'crit is adopted if the
inclusion penetrates it, and otherwise a weighted value according to the load transfer at
the head of the inclusion between the value ÿ' of the mattress and that of the supporting floor.
For an embankment, the stability checks are carried out as described in 2.1.1.1 according
to approach 3 and by a method of slices or the kinematic approach of the calculation at
failure:
– the permanent actions (coming from the ground) are all weighted by a factor = 1.0 and
c G the unfavorable variable actions (transmitted by the ground) by the factor
c = 1,3 ;
Q – the characteristic values of soils are affected by the following partial factors:
ÿÿ' = ÿc' = 1.25; ÿcu =1.4; ÿÿ = 1.0 –

the partial resistance factors are all equal to 1.0; – for this
calculation, each inclusion is replaced by an upward vertical force Qp(0); – by analogy
with
the verification of the mixed stability of structures in reinforced soils (standard NF P 94
270) a partial model factor ÿR ; d in this calculation. This has a value must be introduced
of 1.1 when the structures are not very sensitive to deformation, without prejudging the
serviceability limit state justifications required elsewhere. Higher values should be
adopted for structures that are very sensitive to deformation.
Verification is satisfied if the safety factor established by the calculation model is greater
than or equal to 1 (Fig. 5.6).
200
Figure 5.6. Envelope approach (2) applied to the case of an embankment

(inclusions deactivated and replaced by an upward vertical force).

Principle
The verification of lift is identical to that of the envelope approach (2) by replacing the terms Qp(0) and
Tp(0) (calculated at the level of the head of the inclusions), the terms Qp(I) and Tp (I) Evaluated at the
intersection of each inclusion with the failure mechanism.
Comment. It is necessary to have calculated under the action of the ULS torque (Qd ,
Hd, Md) applied to the base of the footing the distribution of forces between the soil and
each of the mobilized inclusions, according to the models presented in chapter 3, and
to have verified : – the equilibrium conditions of the mattress (GEO, paragraph 4.2)
which define the range of acceptable values of the normal force at the head of inclusion Qp(0)
(Fig. 5.5); this domain is constructed by integrating the limits relating to the bearing
capacity of the inclusion (GEO) and to the limit stresses in the material of the inclusion
(STR, § 3) explained in paragraph 4.2.2.2; – if the
calculation model is a simplified model, that the forces transmitted at the inclusion head
satisfy the consistency conditions explained in chapter 5, paragraph 4.
The forces determined in the inclusions Qp(I) and Tp(I) represent a global reaction torque (QR, TR,
MR), evaluated at the same point as the torque (Qd, Hd,
Md) :
QR = ÿ Qp(0)
201
TR = ÿ Tp(0) (5.5)
MR = ÿ Qp(0) di + ÿ Tp(0) hi di and

hi are the vertical and horizontal distances between the point of intersection of the failure
mechanism with the inclusion i and the calculation point of the torsor (Qd, Hd , Md).
The verification in lift Ed < Rd is made: – by

adopting for Ed the combination of torsors (Qd, Td , Md) and (– QR, – TR, MR) ;
– by
adopting for Rd the design value of the resistance of the ground under a
superficial foundation of the same surface as the footing, evaluated according to
standard NF P 94 261.
This approach requires finding the most critical failure surface and the contribution of inclusions
at their intersection with this surface.
Comment. The sliding check is always carried out according to the methods of
the envelope model (2) (ie by retaining for QR and TR the values calculated at
the head of inclusion).
In the case of a footing subjected to a mainly vertical loading on a homogeneous
soil, it is acceptable to adopt the geometry of the Prandtl diagram as the critical
failure surface.
The failure calculation theory (Salençon, 1983) is the most general theoretical framework for
dealing with the safety of these structures. This is similar to that of structures in nailed soils.
For these structures, a restricted framework of the general theory is applied, considering only: –
its kinematic approach; –
the Mohr Coulomb failure criterion;
– the movement of rigid blocks delimited by
successions of logarithmic spiral arcs with the same pole and a parameter equal to the angle of
friction of each of the layers.
It is possible to consider or not the bending strength of the inclusions in addition to their
compressive strength. The stability can thus be evaluated by only considering the contribution of
the axial forces in the inclusions or the combination of the axial forces and the shear forces.
Practice shows that a significant gain in stability is generally obtained with the axial forces,
whereas the additional gain obtained by adding the shear forces is more limited: neglecting the
shear contribution is therefore without great impact and safe.
202
Multicriteria (Schlosser, 1983) establishes the range of possible values of efforts in each inclusion
[QP(I), Tp(I)] (Fig. 5.7).
a) Shear force taken into account b) Neglected shear force

Figure 5.7. Examples of the stability envelope domain [Qp(I), Tp(I)] of an inclusion depending
on whether the shear force is taken into account or neglected.
The contribution of each inclusion (Qp(I), Tp(I)) is determined by seeking the maximum participation
in the resisting moment according to the orientation of the velocity vector of displacement of the
rigid block (Fig. 5.8).
Figure 5.8. Determination of the maximum resistant contribution (V

velocity vector of the rigid block considered).
203
Application to shallow foundations

For footings, these calculations are carried out according to approach 2 of Eurocode 7 (see
§ 1.2.1).
Figure 5.9. Envelope 3 approach applied to the case of a footing

(inclusions taken into account in the evaluation of the load transmitted to the
ground and by their interaction with the failure surface).
Comment. This approach applies strictly only to 2D modeling. It is nevertheless
possible to introduce shape coefficients comparable to those introduced in the
formulation of the bearing capacity of square, rectangular or circular surface
footings to extend the results obtained to 3D situations.
A search for the fracture surface by association of two or more rigid blocks is also possible
as described in standard NF P 94 270 (nailed soils). of the foundation soil placed
downstream is assimilated to the abutment limit diagram on the vertical boundary of the
soil mass outside the footing (Fig. 5.10). The approach can be applied regardless of the
nature of the loading (Q, T, M) applied to the footing on the upstream rock mass.
It comprises two successive stages: – study

of the abutment limit equilibrium in the field of ground outside the footing; – study of the
thrust
limit equilibrium in the soil domain located under the footing under the action of the load
applied to the footing and of the limit abutment reaction on the border of the two domains,
evaluated in the previous step.
204
Figure 5.10. Breakdown of the limit balance of the sole into two juxtaposed limit balances
of abutment and thrust.
Application to embankments
For embankments, these calculations are carried out according to approach 3 (see § 1.2.2) by the
kinematic approach to the failure calculation: – the
permanent actions (coming from the ground) are all weighted by a factor ÿG = 1 .0 and the
unfavorable variable actions (transmitted by the ground) by the factor ÿQ = 1.3; – the characteristic
values of
soils are affected by the following partial factors:
ÿÿ' = ÿc' = 1.25; ÿcu =1.4; ÿÿ = 1.0 – by

analogy with the verification of the mixed stability of structures in reinforced soils (standard NF P
94 270) a partial model factor ÿR; d must be introduced in this calculation. This has a value of 1.1
when the structures are not very sensitive to deformation, without prejudging the serviceability limit
state justifications required elsewhere. Higher values should be adopted for structures that are very
sensitive to deformation.
The calculation values of the contribution of each inclusion (QP(I), TP(I)) are established according
to an approach which is based on the provisions of standard NF P 94 270 for nailed soils, works
also checked according to the approach 3: the partial safety factor of clearance M2 for the soil-
inclusion interaction resistance is thus fixed at ÿM, f = 1.1.
Compared to structures in nailed soil, structures on rigid inclusions also require taking into account
the ultimate stresses at the head and at the tip of the inclusion (these contributions are assumed to
be zero in the case of nailed soils due to the small diameter of the nails). ).
205
For inclusions, these contributions are added to the ultimate friction forces developed on the part
inside the block studied or on the part outside it. (Fig. 5.11).
The same partial coefficient ÿM, f of clearance M2 is adopted for these contributions at the head
and at the peak.
To ensure continuity with standard NF P 94 262 (deep foundations), we recommend calculating

according to the terrain model method with the application of the partial model factor ÿR, d
associated with the contribution of inclusions (friction, head and tip). The values of this factor
depend on the technique for implementing the inclusions, on the type and mode of exploitation of
the geotechnical data (with or without statistical analysis).
Comment. This therefore amounts to applying a reduction coefficient ÿM, f × ÿR, d

= 1.1 ÿR,d to the forces Qp(I), Tp(I), Mp(I).
The calculation of the forces mobilized in the inclusions must also take into account the limit
values specific to the material of the inclusion, explained in paragraph 3.1 (concrete inclusions)
or 3.2 (steel inclusions).
Figure 5.11. Application of the failure calculation to the case of an embankment on rigid
inclusions of which only the axial resistance is taken into account.
Comment. In the example of figure 5.11 where only the normal force of the
inclusions is taken into account, the inclusions placed to the left of the center of
rotation contribute by a normal force of compression whereas those placed to the
right can be stressed in tension . This maximum resistant contribution in
compression or in tension varies according to the failure surface considered, it
cannot therefore be fixed a priori. It must necessarily be established for each failure
surface by application of the principle of maximum plastic work. Only the kinematic
approach to the failure calculation allows an application of this principle devoid of
any approximation.
The limit forces considered in tension or compression in the calculation must be
compatible with the STR verifications of the material of the inclusions.
206
2.1.2. Simplified models for ELS checks

All the models described in chapter 3 can be used to carry out ELS checks.
If certain resistance criteria are not explicitly introduced into these models,
they are subject to an a posteriori consistency check. Depending on the
models used, this verification may concern, for example: –
punching of the inclusion head in the mattress; – the
vertical stress applied to the surface of the ground between the inclusions with
respect to its limit value for the situation considered;
– the negative friction mobilization rate (ÿ/ÿ'v) with respect to the limit value K
tanÿ associated with each of the layers; – the
values of the positive friction with respect to the limit value of friction qs
associated with the type of soil and the embodiment of the
inclusion; – the value of the stress under the tip of the inclusions with respect
to the limit value qp associated with the type of soil and the embodiment
of the inclusion; – the maximum stress values in the materials (inclusion,
paving, reinforcement, etc.) with respect to the admissible values ELS.
2.2. Detailed numerical models

The most complete calculation model is a 3D model of finite elements
or finite differences in a continuous medium, using evolved behavior
laws for the different horizons and taking into account the various soil/
structure interactions via of interface elements. These laws must be
able to describe the behavior in terms of stresses/strains until failure is
approached.
The use of interfaces between the inclusions and the ground is essential. Its
need is twofold: –
it allows the soil to slide against the inclusions; – it
makes it possible to define a limit value of the ground/inclusion friction to
reflect the influence of the conditions of execution of the inclusions which
would not be taken into account in the calculation model (for example: discharge).
The importance of the main stress rotations in the mattress and the need to
also describe a nonlinear behavior strongly dependent on the state of stress
lead for the granular materials generally used for the mattress to adopt an
evolved law (model of the 2nd order or nonlinear elasticity).
207
The 1st order model associating linear elasticity with the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion
may not be sufficient to address ULS situations, although generally it proves acceptable
to examine SLS situations.
The interface laws (soil-inclusion) must also necessarily introduce a failure criterion.
It is desirable to introduce a model of the Cam-Clay or Hardening Soil type (model

incorporating an isotropic hardening mechanism) for weakly overconsolidated
compressible soils. In fact, only these models can make it possible to reproduce the
oedometric type behavior of soils and to distinguish the deformations on either side of
the preconsolidation pressure.
In the other cases and in particular for the anchoring layer, the need or otherwise for
advanced laws must be examined on a case-by-case basis.
For the material constituting the inclusions, the law adopted must necessarily introduce
the failure criterion of the material (an elastic model without failure criterion is not
acceptable).
The ability of the model to provide representative results up to the vicinity of failure must
be assessed by examining: – the case of direct
loading of an isolated inclusion and by comparing this simulation:
– the results of a direct loading test if available (the breaking load being fixed there at
that giving a settlement at the head equal to one tenth of the diameter D/10), – or
failing that, the
forecast obtained by exploitation Frank and Zhao type transfer curves;
– the loading of a rigid sole on the surface of the model (not reinforced by the inclusions)
in order to compare:
– under the ELS load, the settlement calculated to that obtained by the most
appropriate method (pressuremeter method or oedometric method), – under
higher loads, the values reached at the limit values of lift or slip obtained by the
conventional methods.
Such models can of course also be used for ELS checks.
208
2.2.1. Detailed numerical models for ULS checks

2.2.1.1. Case of foundations on inclusions
Principle
If approach 2 is adopted, the model makes it possible to establish the load curve
(relationship applied load-displacement of a characteristic point of the foundation) over
an interval greatly exceeding the service load.
The shape of this theoretical loading curve is examined to see if it reveals a threshold Rc
beyond which an increase in the ratio between the displacements and the forces applied
is observed. If such a threshold is recognized, the design value of resistance Rd is: Rd =
Rc/ÿR
(5.6)
It is proposed to adopt for the partial resistance factor the value ÿR = 1.4.
If the failure mechanism brought to light is similar to a plane slip on the underside of the
foundation, the value ÿR. may be reduced to 1.1 in continuity with the provisions applicable
to shallow foundations.
Comment. Insofar as the detailed models are based on a greater number of
parameters, it should be remembered that the implementation of this method is
only acceptable if the representativeness tests described in 2.2 have all been carried out.
Example of application
An equivalent approach was adopted for the justification of the ICEDA project, which was
an exceptional work subject to very specific requirements. This project is described in the
history presented in chapter 1.
A static loading test pad with nine inclusions made it possible to calibrate the behavior
laws of a digital model representative of the test pad, using a 3D finite element model.
An elementary cell model (an inclusion in the middle of an infinity) using these constitutive
laws was established to study the general behavior of the foundation, in particular the
relation settlement/load applied.
A parametric study carried out on this model made it possible to judge the sensitivity of
settlement to successive variations of almost all the parameters, for increasing applied
loads.
Figure 5.12 illustrates one of the results obtained: it represents the settlement of the raft
as a function of the load, for a given mesh and for the reference case (blue curve), for
better (red curve) and degraded characteristics of the compressible layer. (green curve).
The settlement curve as a function
209
of the loading shows a change in behavior in the vicinity of 360 kPa of load
applied to the basemat.
To size the mesh of inclusions of the ICEDA project under static stresses, the
forces in the inclusions corresponding to a 360 kPa load on the foundation raft
were assigned coefficients ÿR = 1.0 at the ULS and 1.4 at the ELS, to define
the maximum admissible forces.
Figure 5.12. Loading curve established for the ICEDA project.
This maximum stress limit on the raft defined, the mesh of inclusions was also
dimensioned with respect to the SLS so that: – the
calculated settlements remain lower than the admissible settlements;
– the integrity of the mattress is verified: verification of the absence of zones
where the shear deformation (evaluated as the second invariant of the deviatoric
deformation tensor) would be greater than or equal to 5% and
which – would continuously connect the heads of raft inclusions,
– would continuously connect the heads of inclusions to the natural ground, in bor
duration of
buildings, – would continuously connect two contiguous inclusions.
– the structural integrity of the inclusions is verified: verification using the
classic methods described in the national application standard for EC7 “Deep
foundations” NF P 94 262.
Comment. The wedging of the resistance threshold must be the same as that of the
melle on unreinforced ground.
210
2.2.1.2. Case of embankments on rigid inclusions In this
case, the verification is carried out according to approach 3.

The ULS verification intervenes as a specific calculation step in which the
calculation values of the soil resistance parameters are "degraded" compared to
their characteristic values by applying the partial factors M2:
ÿÿ' = ÿc' = 1.25; ÿcu =1.4; ÿÿ = 1.0

The partial factors M2 must be supplemented by the factor applicable to the
lateral soil-inclusion interaction resistance ÿM, f .
As explained in the paragraph "Application to embankments", in order to
ensure continuity with standard NF P 94 262 (deep foundations), it is proposed
to adopt for the factor ÿM, f applicable to the lateral soil- inclusion of the
composite value (1.1 ÿR, d) where ÿR, d is the partial factor associated with
the “terrain model” method in standard NF P 94 262; the values of this factor
depend on the technique for implementing the inclusions, on the type and
mode of exploitation of the geotechnical data (with or without statistical
analysis). Unlike the soil-inclusion lateral interaction resistance, the interaction
at the top or at the bottom of the inclusion does not require the introduction of
a specific M2 coefficient in this calculation. This interaction is correctly
described thanks to the soil calculation parameters provided that the inclusions
are modeled as volume elements and not as "beam" elements (without thickness).
Comment. It is recalled that, for the inclusion, the law adopted must necessarily
introduce the failure criterion of the material of the inclusion (an elastic model
without failure criterion is not acceptable).
The ULS verification therefore requires a specific calculation step consisting in
ensuring that an equilibrium is indeed reached when all the M2 factors are applied
to the parameters of the soil, the material of the inclusions and the lateral interaction
resistance.
The fact that the calculation carried out with these new values of the parameters
leads to a solution constitutes the verification sought.
Comment. It will be noted that the displacements obtained have no physical
significance.
2.2.2. Detailed numerical models for SLS checks (settlements)
This involves verifying that Ed<

Cd : Ed and Cd are settlements (or deformations); Cd
is the acceptable settlement (or deformation) defined by the client.
211
This evolved model is used without weighting on the resistors. As the model takes into account
all the failure criteria of the materials, the existence of localized zones of soil plastification is
acceptable as long as the ELS settlement criterion is satisfied.
Comment. In the case of the exceptional ICEDA structure, the previous

criterion was supplemented by a criterion limiting the development of a zone
of free plastic flow: absence of a continuous shear band (defined by a shear1
greater than 5 %) linking either the inclusion heads to the apron, or the
inclusion heads to the natural ground, at the edge of the buildings, or two
contiguous inclusions.
2.3. Specific models of the rupture calculation type for ULS

checks
These are the models that apply the theory of failure calculation (Salençon, 1983) in its general
framework: – static and kinematic
approach; – field of displacements not
reduced to that of rigid blocks.
They are able to process any loading cases (Q, T, M) by determining the associated failure
diagram.
Comment. These are models to be used exceptionally, which must be aligned
with other approaches as illustrated in the following paragraph.
2.3.1. Application example

This approach was applied to the exceptional work that constitutes the foundations of the Rion
Antirion bridge, described in chapter 1 (Pecker, 1998).
An upper limit of the capacity of the foundation has been established by the kinematic approach
of the design at failure by introducing the resistant contribution of the inclusions in mechanisms
such as that presented in figure 5.13. Due to the dimensions of the caisson (diameter 90 m), the
approach was developed only in the form of a flat model.
These mechanisms can be defined by five geometric parameters (ÿ or ÿ, ÿ, ÿ', ÿ and ÿ'' identified
in Figure 5.13). These mechanisms juxtapose movements of rigid blocks and blocks subjected
to deformation fields compatible with the movements of neighboring blocks.
1. Second invariant of the deviatoric strain tensor.
212
Figure 5.13. Failure mechanisms considered (case of a cohesive soil).
The minimization over the space defined by these geometric parameters

(representing all the possible geometries of these failure mechanisms) establishes
the value of the weakest load leading to failure.
The theory establishes that this value constitutes an upper limit of the actual
breaking load: any load which is greater than or equal to it necessarily leads to
the breaking of the system.
The set of ultimate values obtained defines a surface in space (Q, T, M) including
all the loadings that the system can support. Any load represented by a point
located outside this surface leads to failure.
A section of this surface in a plane corresponding to a constant value of vertical

force Q reveals the shape of this boundary surface (Fig. 5.14). This example
illustrates the gain in capacity obtained by placing the inclusions compared to the
case of the same foundation on the unreinforced ground.
The inclusions increased the bearable Tmax and Mmax values for the given Q
value . The vertical part of the limit curve with inclusions represents the
configurations where failure occurs by sliding under the face of the foundation.
The results established by the fracture calculation proved to be consistent with

those of finite element numerical models as well as physical models tested in a
centrifuge. In this particular case, the general principle of validation of the
detailed models set out in paragraph 2.2 was therefore also followed.
213
Figure 5.14. Section of the boundary surface for the reinforced soil.
2.3.2. Principle of checks

The formal inequality Ed < Rd therefore consists in verifying that the point representing the
loading Ed is well inscribed in the volume Rd delimited by the limiting surface: – in this context,
approach 2 consists in establishing the limiting surface in space Q, T, M from the values of the
unweighted soil parameters, then positioning the point representative of the loading obtained by
applying the factors ÿG = 1.35 or 1.0 and ÿQ = 1.5 or 0 to the characteristic values Q , T, M ; –
approach 3 consists in establishing the limit surface in the space

Q, T, M from the calculation values of the soil parameters affected by the partial factors M2: ÿÿ' =
ÿc' = 1.25; ÿcu =1.4; ÿÿ = 1.0 then to position the point representative of the load (characteristic
values Q, T, M affected by the partial
factors A2: ÿG = 1.0 and ÿQ = 1.3 or 0).
The distance from the representative point of the load to the boundary of the domain
characterizes the safety “reserve”.
3. STR LIMIT STATES

The limit states in terms of material strength concern the structure (melle, paving, slab), the
geotextiles, the slabs and the inclusion itself.
Comment. Chapter 4 "Design" drew attention to the need to consider the sensitivity
of the calculated loads to the choice of design values
soil parameters. When necessary, this sensitivity study will be defined by examining
the dispersion observed on the measurement of the soil parameters involved in the
calculation model.
214
3.1. Concrete or mortar inclusions
For rigid inclusions, the following limit states must be checked: – resistance to compression;
– resistance to compound bending; – resistance to
shearing; – resistance to buckling.
These checks should be carried out taking into account: – the
vertical loads of all types brought by the structure; – the horizontal forces which
can in certain cases be transmitted to the head of the inclusions through the mattress (footings of industrial
or commercial buildings, braking forces on a paving, edge effects under an embankment or under a
reservoir or thrust behind an abutment ); – the stresses that may result from imposed displacements of the
soil around the inclusions (asymmetrical loading on the
grip of the reinforced zone, toe of embankment, lateral displacement of the soil under a vertically loaded
footing); – stresses induced under earthquakes; – possibly the forces undergone during construction (traffic
of machinery near the inclusion heads).
3.1.1. Compressive strength in simple compression or

compound bending
3.1.1.1. Definition of FCD
If using concrete or grout, the design value fcd of the simple compressive strength of the material is defined
according to the national application standard of Eurocode 7 (NFP 94 262 "Deep foundations" ) or specific
specifications:
Cmax ÿ
=
ÿ fÿck ÿ f ck( )t
Min ÿcck3 --------- ÿcc
------------
;;-------------
ÿ ÿC ÿC ÿ
f cd (5.7)
ÿcc ÿC ÿ
with :
ÿcc coefficient which depends on the presence or not of a reinforcement (reinforced = 1, unreinforced = 0.8);
ÿC partial
coefficient whose value is 1.5 at the fundamental ULS and 1.2 at the accidental ULS; f*ck characteristic
compressive
strength of concrete, grout or mortar of an inclusion determined from the following formula:
215
1
= ----------
( fÿck inf f ck( )t Cmax) f;; ck k1k2 (5.8)
fck characteristic compressive strength measured on cylinders after 28 days; fck(t) characteristic
compressive strength measured on cylinders at time t ; Cmax maximum value of the compressive
strength taking into account the consistency that it is necessary to give to the concrete, grout or
fresh mortar according to the technique used according to table 5.I; k1 is a function of the drilling
method and the slenderness according to Table
5.I.
Table 5.I. Values of Cmax and coefficient k1.
Cmax
Cas Execution mode k1
(MPa)
1 Drilled inclusions with soil extraction 35 1,3
2 Hollow auger drilled inclusions with soil extraction 30 1,4
3 Hollow auger drilled inclusions with discharge 35 1,3
4 Inclusions vibrated or molded in place 35 1,3
5 Incorporation of a binder with the soil (columns of treated soil, jet grouting) (*) (**)
(*) Value to be determined by on-site tests (**)

Columns of soil treated with a mechanical tool guaranteeing the geometry of the section: to be determined
on a case-by-case basis without being less than k1 = 1.3 .
For ground treated by jet-grouting or with a tool that does not guarantee the geometry of the
section, the value of k1 must be determined on a case-by-case basis without being less than k1
= 1.5: – k1
can be reduced by 0, 1, only for the inclusions drilled when the nature of the terrain crossed
guarantees the stability of the walls of the borehole or when the inclusion is cased and concreted
dry (the guarantee of the stability of the walls of the borehole must be demonstrated according to
the procedure provided for in the bored pile execution standard EN 1536). – k2 is a function of
the slenderness:
– k2 = 1.05 for inclusions whose ratio of the smallest dimension d to

the length is less than 1/20,
– k2 = 1.3 – d/2 for inclusions whose smallest dimension is lower
at 0.60 m,
– k2 = 1.35 – d/2 for inclusions meeting the two conditions above; – k3 depending on the type
of check carried out according to table 5.II.
216
Table 5.II. Values of k3.
With reflection
With reinforced
or impedance With quality With bearing
Values of k3 Without test (a) control tests
tests (a) tests tests
(b)
Domain 1
(inclusions * **
0,75 1,2 1,4
necessary for
stability)
Domain 2
(inclusions not
0,65 0,85 1,4 1,5 1,7
necessary for
stability)
* In domain 1, reflection or impedance tests are mandatory.

** In domain 1, the loading tests are necessarily, at the very least, bearing tests.
(a) Cases reserved for minor operations (see chapter 8, § 2.2 and 4.1). (b) This
situation implies that, in addition to the bearing capacity tests, reinforced inspection tests within
the meaning of standard NF P 94 262 with the associated frequencies be carried out.
The coefficients in Table 5.II do not combine. For example, in the case where
both lift tests and reflection or impedance tests are carried out, the coefficient
k3 to be applied is 1.2 for domain 1 and 1.5 for domain 1.
is 2.
The following definitions are recalled (see chapter 8 “Checks”):
– quality tests: static loading test at the maximum value defined in paragraph
2.2.1.2 of chapter 8; – bearing
capacity test: static loading test at the maximum value defined in paragraph
2.2.1.3 of chapter 8; – reinforced
inspection tests: within the meaning of the national application standard for
Eurocode 7 “Deep foundations” NF P 94 262, when applicable.
Example. Case of a structure of minor importance totaling 1,500 ml of inclusions,
none of which is subject to a loading test. Domain 1 inclusions are necessarily
checked by reflection or impedance tests and are assigned a coefficient k3 = 0.75.
Domain 2 inclusions are assigned a coefficient k3 = 0.65 if they are not the subject
of a reflection or impedance test and a coefficient k3 = 0.85 otherwise.
217
3.1.1.2. Work rate at ELU

At ULS, the maximum compressive stress is limited to the design value fcd and the
average compressive stress on the compressed section alone is limited to 7 MPa.
3.1.1.3. Work rate at ELS

At SLS, the maximum compressive stress of the concrete is limited to Min(0.6 k3 f*ck, 0.6 fck) and the average
compressive stress on the single compressed section of it is limited to ( 0.3 k3 f*ck).
The value of k3 is defined in Table 5.II.
3.1.1.4. Calculation of the modulus of deformation

1/3
– for concrete: long-term modulus E = 3,700 fck – for
1/3
mortar: long-term modulus E = 2,700 fck (sand concrete, 1994).
3.1.2. Resistance with respect to compound

bending In domain 1 (inclusions necessary for stability), the inclusions
must be reinforced over the height where they are not entirely compressed.
In area 2 (inclusions not necessary for stability), it is proposed not to reinforce the
inclusions provided that the maximum tensile stress in the concrete can be justified.
In all cases the maximum compressive stress must respect the criteria explained in
3.1.1.2 and 3.1.1.3.
3.1.3. Shear resistance

Shear stresses are checked according to Eurocode 2.
We must check: ÿcp < fcvd with:

ÿcp = 1.5 Ved/Ac
Ac compressed section of the inclusion
3.1.3.1. Case of armed inclusion

Verifications are carried out according to Eurocode 2 paragraph 6.2.3.
3.1.3.2. Case of a fully compressed non-reinforced inclusion Reminder of
Eurocode 2 requirements We must check:
ÿcp < fcvd with: ÿclim = fcd – 2

(fctd . (fctd + fcd))0.5 (EC2 §12.6)
218
ÿcp = Ned / Ac ;
fctm = 0.3 f*ck(2/3) ;
fctd = design tensile strength = 0.7 ÿct fctm/ ÿc ; ÿct = 0.8
(EC2 §12.3.1); fcd = design
compressive strength of the concrete; fcvd = design
concrete shear and compressive strength
0,5
– si ÿcp < ÿclim fcvd = (fctd² + ÿcp fctd)
– si ÿcp > ÿclim fcvd = (fctd² + ÿcp fctd - [(ÿcp – ÿclim)/2]²)0,5
Application to domain 1
In domain 1, shear is checked in accordance with section 12.6.3 of standard NF EN 1992-1-1.

However, in accordance with § 12.2.1(8) of standard NF P 94 262, when the stress normal to the
ULS NEd/Ac exceeds 0.3fck, it should be checked that the shear stress ÿcp does not exceed
fcvd / 10 as shown in Figure 5.15.
Figure 5.15. Evolution of the design shear resistance with the normal
compressive stress ULS.
In accordance with § 12.2.1(8) of standard NFP 94 262, in domain 1, no shear is admissible if the
diameter of the inclusion is less than 400 mm.
Subject to calculating the transmission of horizontal forces according to one of the three footing
calculation models described in chapter 3 (MH1, MH2 or MH3), this limit can be reduced to 300
mm.
219
Application to domain 2
In domain 2, there is normally no need to verify the shear, and thus the condition
linked to the diameter expressed in standard NFP 94 262 (§ 12.2.1(8)) does not
apply.
3.1.4. Resistance to buckling Buckling (or
amplification of bending stresses) should be checked, according to conventional
approaches, if the following two conditions are met: – pressuremeter
modulus EM < 3 MPa over a significant height ( greater than 5 diameters); –
inclusion
diameter D < 300 mm.
The value of EI to be introduced in this analysis for unreinforced inclusions must
be able to be guaranteed up to the critical load.
3.2. Steel inclusions

All the provisions described in standard NF P 94 262 “Deep foundations” for
metallic elements are applicable.
The maximum allowable stresses of the material are those of Eurocode 3.
3.3. Dallettes
In general, the slabs are considered to work in a cantilever on the inclusion head.
When slabs or their equivalent are installed, their sizing will comply with the
Eurocodes.
3.4. Slabs The

NF P11-213-1 and NF P11-213-2 standards require the heterogeneity introduced
by the improvement technique to be taken into account when checking the
serviceability limit states.
Comment. The NF P11-213-1 and NF P11-213-2 standards correspond
respectively to Part 1 of DTU 13.3 "Pavings for industrial or similar use" and to
Part 2 of DTU 13.3 "Pavings for use other than industrial or assimilated” of
March 2005 with amendment A1 of May 2007. In the rest of the document, the
term DTU 13.3 will be used to refer to these two documents.
3.4.1. Limit states to check

According to DTU 13.3, the limit states to be checked
concern: – the absolute and differential deformations of
the slab; – the compressive strength of the concrete in the case of reinforced
concrete slabs; – the tensile strength in the case of unreinforced paving.
220
3.4.1.1. Limit state of absolute and differential deformations of the slab

The absolute and differential vertical deformations must comply with the requirements of
DTU 13.3 (except for special specifications in the “DPM: Special market documents”): –
absolute settlement (20 + L1/2,000)
in mm, where L1 is the smallest side of the rectangle envelope of the structure (expressed
in mm); – differential settlement (10 + L2/2000) in
mm, between two points L2 apart (expressed in mm).
It will be noted that this second criterion, which must in particular be verified
between a charged area and an uncharged area, is most often
decisive. 3.4.1.2. Limit states of resistance
The arrangement of the rigid inclusions in relation to the applied loads and the joints is
taken into consideration in these checks. Compression limit
state of concrete in the case of reinforced concrete paving The compression
limit states of concrete are checked in the case of reinforced concrete paving according to
the calculation rules for reinforced concrete.
Reinforced paving is envisaged according to the conditions of DTU 13.3 when: –
the operating conditions defined in the DPM impose a limitation on the opening of the
cracks; – the joint spacing
does not satisfy paragraph 5.6.6. DTU 13.3; – the mechanical characteristics of the
support, the actions or the method of construction do not allow the design of an
unreinforced slab; – the paving is intended to receive a floor
covering that adheres directly to the paving or via a self-leveling product.
According to DTU 13.3, and in order to comply with the condition of non-brittleness in
tension, the minimum reinforcement section is 0.4% in each direction.
Flexural tensile limit state of unreinforced concrete
The tensile stress calculated in bending at the serviceability limit state under the most
unfavorable of the combinations of actions defined by DTU 13.3 must satisfy the following
condition for an unreinforced slab: ÿELS = 6 M / h²
0.21 fc28 ( M moment per (5.9)
ml)
For example, for a characteristic compressive strength fc28 = 25 MPa, the limit tensile
stress is ÿELS = 1.8 MPa.
221
It is also possible to refer to the characteristic value of the tensile strength by splitting ftsplitting28
at 28 days. In this case, the condition to be satisfied becomes:
ÿELS = 6 M/ h² 0.90.ft splitting28 For (5.10)
a given strength class (for example C25/30), depending on the formulation of the concrete and
the nature of the materials, the characteristic tensile strength by splitting can vary significantly: for
example from 2 to 3 MPa, i.e. a limit stress ÿELS varying from 1.8 to 2.7 MPa. Tensile tests by
splitting are to be carried out.
Note. The first approach which derives from the compressive strength is safer
because it takes into account the uncertainties linking the compressive and tensile
strength of a concrete. Indeed, there is no mathematical relationship between
these two quantities.
Tensile limit state by bending of concrete with the addition of metal fibers Concrete
slabs with the addition of metal fibers are assimilated to non-reinforced slabs for all the provisions
of DTU 13.3. The specifics of these processes are governed by CSTB technical advice. The main
derogations are the tensile limit stresses of the composite concrete, the characteristics of the
concrete, the distances between pour stops (in the case of “slabs without sawn joints” commonly
called “slabs without joints”) and the aspects of placement. in
work.
The orders of magnitude of the tensile limit stresses evaluated by the technical opinions, for fiber
dosages between 20 and 40 kg/m3, are currently: – near the joints (in the corner and at the
edge of the panel): between 1.8 and 3.5 MPa; – in the current part of the panel: between 2.5 and
5 MPa.
The specifier's attention should be drawn to the fact that all fiber technical advice is based on the
post-cracking behavior of the material. This behavior can go against a requirement of non-
cracking of the slab and therefore make it “unsuitable” for its intended purpose.
3.4.2. Type of joints In
accordance with DTU 13.3, the slab is divided and isolated from the other parts of the structure
by various types of joints.
Any project will be the subject, before execution, of a layout plan which will take into account: –
the
phasing of pouring; – the structure
of the building;
222
– singular points: re-entrant angles and direction of circulation, presence of
emergences, etc. – possibly the position of the static loads applied to the slab;
– possibly the mesh of inclusions.
There are four types of joints detailed below.
Comment. When the dimensioning explicitly takes into account the relative
position of the loads, joints and inclusions, these hypotheses must be
contracted in detail from the design phase.
All conjugate joints (flow stop, shrinkage, dilation) only transmit the shear
force and are to be modeled as joints.
3.4.2.1. The pour stop joint
It is used to delimit the daily pouring phases and concerns the entire thickness
of the slab. It must be designed in such a way as to prevent the vertical
movement called "striking", to allow free horizontal, transverse or longitudinal
movements and to protect the edge of the joint.
Frank joints are to be avoided, only mating joints are authorized (Fig. 5.16).
Figure 5.16. Types of pour stop joints.
3.4.2.2. The withdrawal seal
Its purpose is to control and position shrinkage cracking. It is usually made by

sawing to a depth corresponding to one third of the thickness of the paving. The
conjugation is ensured by the welded trellis.
For non-reinforced slabs with added fibres, the distances between shrinkage
joints do not exceed 6 m (except for special provisions).
223
For slabs with added fibers dosed at 40 kg/m3 called "seamless slabs" and
reinforced concrete slabs, sawn joints are not necessary, only pour stops are
to be installed according to the distance authorized by the process. and
taking shrinkage into account in the calculation.
3.4.2.3. The expansion joint (for the record, because
exceptional on a paving)
It is used to compensate for dimensional variations in the paving due to
temperature variations. It is not necessary inside buildings.
3.4.2.4. The uncoupling or isolation joint This allows
the paving to be uncoupled from any obstacle that may interfere with its free
movement. This is a frank joint.
3.4.3. Sizing
Each load has a greater or lesser influence on the stresses in the slab
depending on the zone studied (current zone, edge or corner, proximity to a
joint) and must be taken into account.
Especially for point loads it is necessary to find the most unfavorable
configurations and combinations (Fig. 5.17 and 5.18).
Comment :
– the edge zones are sensitive zones; – the
layout of the rack legs is never known with certainty; – this can lead
to the adoption of security measures.
224
Figure 5.17. Examples of situations to be modeled in the current

zone for point loads.
Figure 5.18. Examples of situations to be modeled in the edge zone

for point loads.
Paving on soil reinforced by inclusions is a structure that comes under DTU 13.3, but its design in
the main part requires integrating the specific nature of the non-uniform distribution of reactions on
the underside of the paving. As such, the simplified method for evaluating deformations
and stresses explained in Appendices C3.1 and C4.1.4 to C4.1.7 of DTU 13.3 proves to be
insufficient.
225
These recommendations propose two methods based on the interpretation of experimental plots
and the analysis of a significant number of detailed three-dimensional calculations (ASIRI, 2011):
– an envelope method based on the concept of
“additional moments » ; – an alternative method based on differentiated reaction coefficients.
Each of these methods makes it possible to estimate the stresses of mechanical origin (related to
the loads). The effects of shrinkage and thermal gradient will be added (with the appropriate
combination coefficients) to these stresses.
3.4.3.1. Envelope method of “additional moments”

The method consists of defining corrective terms linked to the presence of inclusions, which are
to be added, in the form of an envelope, to the paving stresses (bending moments) calculated
according to appendix C in the main part, at the edge and in the corner. of panels, on an equivalent
homogenized ground.
These corrective terms are two in number: – a term
representing the influence of rigid inclusions on a continuous slab; – a term representing the
interaction between rigid inclusions and joints
The determination of these corrective terms is explained below as well as the mode of definition
of the equivalent homogenized soil
Comment. For the whole of the calculation approach exposed below it is
advisable to choose a sign convention and to exploit all the values of bending
moment in algebraic values. The sign convention adopted will be specified by
identifying on which face the tension is developed when the calculated moment
is positive.
The method, when it uses the simplified method of DTU 13.3, assumes the
use of mating joints capable of transmitting shear forces from one panel to
another.
Decomposition of the problem posed
The result of the calculation of a tiling on Rigid Inclusions is decomposed as the sum of three
independent terms “ma”, “mb” and “mc” which respectively represent: – “ma”: result of the
calculation of a
paving on equivalent homogenized ground (appendix C of DTU 13.3); – “mb”: influence of rigid
inclusions on a
continuous slab; – “mc”: interaction between rigid inclusions and joints.
Each of these three terms can be evaluated separately.

Let us define the following notations:
226
– calculation result = bending moment distribution in any cross-section; – Soed(SJ) : result of the
calculation
of a continuous slab resting on an equivalent homogeneous ground; – Soed(JT) : result of the
calculation of a slab
with joints resting on an equivalent homogenized soil; – IR(SJ) : result of the calculation of a
continuous slab resting
on a network of rigid inclusions; – IR(JT) : result of the calculation of a slab with joints resting on
a network of
rigid inclusions.
Whatever the type of loading considered (for example: uniformly distributed overload, alternation
of loaded and unloaded strips, superposition of point loads), we can write:
JTSJTIR
) age SJSSJIR age JTIR S SJSSJIRJT
age age
and mb mc
(5.11)
Study of the terms “ma”, “mb” and “mc”
• Term “ma”: calculation of a slab on equivalent homogenized soil The reinforcement

of the soil is represented by a profile of homogenized soil, each layer of which is characterized
by an equivalent Young's modulus ES associated with a Poisson's ratio ÿ.
This is the case of the calculation of an industrial slab carried out according to the method
described in DTU 13.3 (part 1, appendix C) which makes it possible to take into account the
interaction between the applied loads and the joints, according to their respective positions.
In this particular case, during the dimensioning of the slab, it is advisable to make the analysis at
the edge of the panel and at the angle by systematically considering the "raised" case and the
case where this uplift is canceled following the attenuation of the shrinkage. differential (load Qs
equal to 0 in the calculation of appendix C), because this last case can become dimensioning. It
is therefore necessary to carry out the two calculations in parallel: separated without influence of
inclusions and not separated with influence of inclusions.
Comment. In the case of a uniformly distributed load, in accordance with

article 5.1.1.1 of part 1 of DTU 13.3, an isolated concentrated load of intensity
equivalent to the value of the distributed load imposed on a total surface of 1
m² ( with an impact surface corresponding to a pressure of 5 MPa) must be
taken into account to assess the stresses in the corner and edge zone.
227
The homogenized soil profile is deduced from the study of an elementary cell (inclusion and
volume of the tributary foundation soil, mattress and jointless paving) subjected to an equivalent
uniformly distributed load q0 . This elementary cell is studied with boundary conditions of zero
lateral displacement at the edge. All the methods described in Chapter 3 can be used.
The value of the load q0 adopted is representative of the average load noted for the situation
examined, on a surface (Fig. 5.19): – corresponding to several cells of
inclusions, such that the behavior of these cells is compatible with the condition zero lateral
displacement around the calculation model; – in relation to the height of the reinforced floor.
The settlement y on the surface of the model makes it possible to define the oedometric modulus
E*oedoequivalent on the total height H of the model: E*oedo =
q0 H/ y (5.12)
Figure 5.19. Examples of average load calculations.
228
This oedometric module is broken down into at least three terms relating to three layers resting
on a supposedly undeformable substrate: – mattress: height H1, Eoedo1
module – reinforced soil: height H2, Eoedo2
module – soil underlying the reinforced soil: height
H3, Eoedo3 module
The Eoedo1 and Eoedo3 values being known, the Eoedo2 value is deduced from the formula:
H/E*oedo = H1/Eoedo1 + H2/Eoedo2 +H3/Eoedo3 (5.13)
Comment :
– H1 is the height of the mattress (between the top of the inclusions and the
underside
of the slab); – H1 + H2 can be identified indiscriminately either at the total height
ma telas + inclusions or at the distance separating the underside of the slab and the
plane of equal lower settlement, located under the tip of the
inclusions (Fig. 5.21); – the fact of taking as height H2 the compressible height, the
height of the inclusions or that counted up to the plane of equal lower settlement
placed slightly lower proves to have no significant impact as long as the value of the
equivalent modulus E* oedo on the total height of the model is preserved. This
choice must nevertheless be kept for
all the calculations; – the calculation according to appendix C of DTU 13.3 implicitly
attributes an infinite thickness to the last layer of soil. For its part, the geotechnical
model generally considers a supposedly non-deformable mechanical bedrock
reached at a given depth. Care should be taken to ensure the consistency of the
two models, in particular by verifying that the two profiles considered provide
identical settlements. It is therefore appropriate to incorporate into the calculation
model according to DTU 13.3 a layer of very high modulus at the base which
simulates the incompressible bedrock taken into account by the geotechnical engineer (Fig. 5.20).
229
Figure 5.20. Non-deformable substrate to introduce into the “paving” model.
Figure 5.21. Example of determining the couple H2 and Eoed2.
230
For calculations according to appendix C of DTU 13.3 conducted conventionally with the value ÿ = 0.35
for the ground, the equivalent oedometric moduli E*oedo are converted into equivalent Young's moduli
E*: E* = E*oedo ( 1 + ÿ) (1 - 2ÿ)/(1-ÿ)
(5.14)
Comment. The E* module corresponds to the Es module in appendix C of the

DTU 13.3.
The equivalent moduli to be provided for the specific study of the slab must be evaluated on the basis
of the residual settlements suffered from the time the slab was laid. It is a question of defining them in
coherence with the calculation of the paving which considers only the loads which are directly applied
to it.
Example
Hypotheses
Let us consider the example of an industrial slab resting on an embankment with a
thickness h = 1.80 m and a specific weight ÿ = 20 kN/m3 which is built on a soil

previously reinforced by inclusions.
The average operating overload is 30 kPa (including the weight of the paving).
If the analysis of the consolidation speeds of the soils in place makes it possible to
estimate the percentage of settlement reached under the weight of the backfill and
before the creation of the slab, then the equivalent modulus to be provided for the
dimensioning of the slab can be evaluated from the next way.
231
Results of the calculation of the elementary cell
The calculation of the elementary cell with inclusions integrating all the loads leads to the
following results: 1) total settlement under the weight of the
embankment q1 = 1.8 × 20 = 36 kPa: ÿh1 = 1.4 cm; 2) total settlement under the operating
load q2 = 30 kPa:
ÿh2 = 1.2 cm.
If the analysis of the consolidation speeds of the soils in place makes it possible to
estimate that the percentage of the settlement reached under the weight of the backfill
before the construction of the slab is 40%, the residual settlement of the slab (from the
setting building service) therefore amounts to:
=
ÿhres ( )ÿ 1 40 – % h1 ÿh2 = 2cm
ÿ
+
Within the meaning of DTU 13.3, the dimensioning of the slab is carried out by considering only the
operating overload q2 (without taking into account the loading history: placement of the backfill and partial
consolidation under this constraint q1).
The homogeneous soil profile must therefore be adapted to lead to the total settlement previously calculated
ÿhres ; the equivalent oedometric module E*oedo over the total height of the model is thus:
q2H
=
Eÿoedo ------------
(5.15)
ÿhres
The deduction of Eoedo2 on the height of the reinforced soil remains consistent with what was defined
previously (see Fig. 5.21).
Comment :
– the modeling must be carried out in accordance with the phasing, to see in
particular whether the distribution mattress is an additional load or not applied to
the ground compared to the initial state before
the works; – the homogeneous soil profile must be defined for each reinforcement
geometry and by loading level.
232
• Term “mb”: influence of rigid inclusions on a continuous slab Whatever

the type of loading, the envelope of the corrective term “mb” (influence in terms
of bending moment of rigid inclusions on a continuous slab) can be evaluated
from the case of the elementary cell subjected to the uniform load q0 as defined
in figure 5.19.
Comment. The distribution of the radial moment Mr of the axisymmetric model is used to
evaluate the corrective term “mb”. This corrective term is applied to the moment distribution
Mx and the moment distribution My of the complete slab model.
This envelope is determined, in the analysis of a uniformly loaded elementary

cell, by: – the
moment Msup (which stresses the upper fiber in tension) equal to the radial
moment obtained at the level of the rigid inclusion
Mr(r = 0) ; – the Minf moment (which solicits the lower fiber in tension) equal to
the radial moment obtained at the edge of the axisymmetric model Mr (r = A/ÿ )
where A is the surface of the mesh).
In practice, the “ma” moments from the homogenized model are therefore
increased by Msup when they stress the upper fiber in tension and Minf when
they stress the lower fiber in tension.
Comments:
– if several average load levels “cohabit” on the same structure, it will be necessary to
carry out as many calculations of the elementary cell to determine the corresponding
additional moments; – for a limited interval of
the load q0, it is also possible to consider a proportionality of the values Msup and Minf
with the load, all the other parameters of being constant; – the corrective term “mb” does
not apply to the
stresses calculated according to points C4.2.3 and C4.2.4 of appendix C of DTU 13.3
when the edge (or the angle) is separated (Fig. 5.23); indeed the stresses thus calculated
only concern the raised part of the panel for which the inclusions have no influence. On
the other hand, it may be necessary to examine the influence of a possible load transfer
on the evaluation of the value q0 adopted as a reference for the calculation of the term
“mb”.
On the other hand, it is necessary to study the case where this uplift is canceled following
the attenuation of the differential shrinkage (load Qs equal to 0 within the meaning of
appendix C of DTU 13.3) and in this case to apply the corrective term "mb".
233
Figure 5.22. Identification of moments Msup and Minf calculated in a tessellation

on inclusions.
Figure 5.23. Influence of separation on the stress transmitted to the ground.
234
• Term “mc”: interaction between rigid inclusions and joints The presence of a joint
in the slab has the following effects: – to cancel the bending
moment at the joint; – to shift in amplitude the profile of the
bending moments near the joint.
In practice, all the studies carried out within the framework of the national project have made it
possible to conclude that, at a joint and whatever the type of loading, an upper limit of the corrective
term "mc" (interaction of rigid inclusions with the joints) can be evaluated as the opposite of the
term "mb", established from the results of the unit cell. The corrective term “mc” (maximum shift of
the moment) is thus included in the interval {– Minf, – Msup} (reminder: Msup and Minf are
algebraic values).
Between the joints, this interval is reduced depending only on the distance to the joints. It is zero at
a point of the slab sufficiently far from any joint. The general appearance is shown in Figure 5.24.
Figure 5.24. Example of a profile of the values of the corrective term "mc".
235
Figure 5.25. Field of "mc" values calculated from the moments Mx.
Figure 5.26. Field of "mc" values calculated from the moments My.
In practice, three levels of complexity can be considered: 1) We know

the relative position of the inclusions with respect to the joints: we can then construct the real
curve point by point (“mc”) by exploiting the moment distribution of the cell elementary (“real
curve mc” of figure 5.24).
2) We do not know the relative position of the inclusions in relation to the joints, but we do know
the position of the joints: it is advisable to use the majorante and minorante curves (continuous
blue and red curves in figure 5.24). These curves depend only on the position of the joints which
is considered known; they cover any position of the inclusions with respect to these joints.
236
3) The position of the joints is not known a priori : it is advisable to use the most unfavorable
values of the interval: upper limit (– Minf) and lower limit (– Msup) (parallel dashed lines of the
Figure 5.24). These curves depend neither on the position of the joints nor on that of the
inclusions; they therefore cover any position of inclusions and joints.
Comment. The corrective term “mc” does not apply to the stresses calculated
according to points C4.2.3 and C4.2.4 of appendix C of DTU 13.3 when the edge (or
the angle) is detached; indeed the stresses thus calculated only concern the raised part
of the panel for which the inclusions have no influence.
On the other hand, it is necessary to study the case where this uplift is canceled
following the attenuation of the differential shrinkage (load Qs equal to 0 in the
calculation of appendix C) and in this case to apply the term "mc" patch.
The edges of the paving (periphery of the work) have an effect analogous to the joints.
The corrective term "mc" must therefore also be taken into account in addition to the
term "mb".
• Special case of continuous slabs without sawn joint (commonly called “slab without joint”)
The calculations of slabs with joints (typical spacing of 5 to 6 m between joints) which involve the
combined use of the three terms “ma”, “mb” and “mc” result in envelope moment values in all
cases.
The particular case of reinforced concrete slabs or slabs supplemented with metal fibers, without
sawn joints (typical spacing of 25 to 35 m - commonly called "slabs without joints"), is treated
without taking into account the term "mc" except near pour stops and the periphery of the
structure.
In this case, it has been observed in certain particular configurations (back-to-back shelving and
alternation of loaded and unloaded strips) that the moment obtained by considering only the terms
“ma” and “mb” could not constitute an upper bound. strict moment calculated according to a
complete 3D model.
This is illustrated by figures 5.27 and 5.28 which compare for the geometry shown the “mb”
values deduced from the Flac 3D calculations with the Msup and Minf values deduced from the
calculation of the elementary cell: – in the case of
loaded and unloaded bands (Fig. 5.27) the “mb” values resulting from the Flac 3D calculations in
the direction of the bands exceed the Minf value at the singular points located at the intersection
of the axis of the charged zones and that of the inclusions; – in the case of loading by rack feet,
the “mb” values
resulting from the Flac 3D calculations in the direction of the racks exceed the Minf value at the
singular points found in the axis where the joined feet are also aligned with the inclusions.
237
Consequently, a model coefficient ÿRd = 1.75 should be applied to the corrective term “mb”
concerning the lower fiber in the current part of the paving [Msup ; 1.75 × Minf] under all load
cases (localized distributed loads, fixed or moving point loads, etc.) except for the uniformly
distributed load case.
Figure 5.27. Comparison of the mb values (along the Y direction) deduced from Flac 3D
calculations with the Msup and Minf values resulting from the calculation of an
elementary cell (alternation of charged and uncharged bands).
Figure 5.28. Comparison of the “mb” values (in the Y direction) deduced from Flac 3D
calculations with the Msup and Minf values resulting from the calculation of an
elementary cell (loading by rack feet).
238
Summary
The design of a slab resting on a network of rigid inclusions can be carried out by
summing the results: – “ma” of a model
with joints resting on an equivalent homogenized soil; – “mb” of the influence of
rigid inclusions on the bending moment of a seamless slab, influence limited by
[Msup ; Minf] (note Msup and Minf are algebraic values); – “mc” of the interaction
between rigid
inclusions and joints, bounded by [– Minf ; –Msup].
In the general case of a slab, the influence of rigid inclusions interacting with the
joints is always bounded by: [Msup –
Minf ; –(Msup – Minf)]
For a given load intensity, the terms "mb" and "mc" do not depend on the location of
the loads in relation to the joints, unlike the term
« and ».
The level of knowledge of the respective position of the inclusions and the joints
makes it possible to refine the above interval (cf. Fig. 5.24).
When the dimensioning explicitly takes into account the relative position of loads,
joints and inclusions, these hypotheses must be contracted in detail from the design
phase.
The calculations of slabs with joints (typical spacing of 5 to 6 m between joints)
which involve the combined use of the three terms "ma", "mb" and "mc" result in
envelope moment values in all cases.
In the particular case of slabs “without sawed joint” (commonly called “slab without
joint”) the term “mc” is null except near the edges of the work and the pour stops. A
coefficient of 1.75 should be applied to the corrective term “mb” concerning the lower
fiber in the current part of the paving [Msup; 1.75 × Minf] under all load cases except
the uniformly distributed load case.
3.4.3.2. Alternative method of reaction coefficients

In this method, the final objective is to define a calculation model limited to the slab
alone, the interaction of the latter with the support being represented by springs
whose values are estimated for a given level of loading.
In a first step, an elementary cell of the reinforcement is studied under a distributed
load equivalent to the loading level considered. In a second step, a distribution of
reaction coefficients is determined by calibration on the previous results. These are
integrated in a final step to
239
a plate model on elastic supports to estimate the stresses in the slab under the
project loads (point and/or distributed).
Study of the elementary cell
Figure 5.29. Configuration studied.
The method consists in studying an elementary cell subjected to an equivalent

uniformly distributed load q0 under the same conditions as described in (Fig. 5.29).
The axisymmetric model of this elementary cell has a radius R.

This study establishes the distribution of the vertical stresses on the underside of
the slab on the mesh studied (Fig. 5.30) and the curve of the moments in the slab.
240
Figure 5.30. Distribution of vertical stresses on the underside of the paving

on the mesh studied.
Determination of the reaction coefficients A simplified
distribution of reaction coefficients k(r) = ÿ(r)/y(r) is sought ,

allowing the moment distribution deduced from the
elementary cell to be found.
This simplified distribution is characterized by (Fig. 5.31): –

two values ki
and ks ; – a ray of diffusion
rk under the slab; such that: 0 < r < k(r) = ki rk k(r) =
ks rk < r < R
It is recommended to determine
accordingthe values ki , ks and rk
to the following procedure: ks is calculated by considering

the minimum value the stress applied to the
soil ÿs on the underside of the slab (Fig. 5.30) and the

settlement of the slab.
For a value of rk, chosen over the interval [rP, rP + HM], ki

is calculated with the stress ÿi taken from the equation for Figure 5.31. Simplified distribution
conservation of the total load Q applied to the mesh: + ÿs ÿ of reaction coefficients.
(R2 – rk 2) = Q
2 ÿi ÿ rk (5. 16)
and with the calculated settlement of the elementary cell.
241
One calculates under the load Q uniformly distributed, the curve of moment in the circular plate of
radius R resting on the springs ki in the interval [0, rk] and ks in the interval [rk, R];
The rk value to retain, following various calculations for variable rk values , is the one leading to
the best agreement with the moment curve established at
step 1, both with respect to the value Msup (on inclusion) and Minf (at the edge of the cell).
This is illustrated on the example of figures 5.32 and 5.33 where the procedure described was
applied to the case of a slab of thickness h = 0.17 m, resting via a mattress of thickness HM =
0.5 m on a network of inclusions (D = 0.42 m and mesh a = 2.5 m): – figure 5.32 shows the
distributions k(r) obtained
for different values rk compared to that which results d a 3D FLAC calculation; – figure 5.33 shows
that the maximum moment obtained in the plate at the level of
the inclusion decreases when the value rk adopted increases. In this particular case, the
distribution k(r), defined by rk =0.5 m, provides Msup and Minf values which are in good
agreement with the corresponding values of the 3D FLAC calculation; this rk value represents a
scattering cone with an approximate angle of 6h/10v resting on the head of each inclusion.
Figure 5.32. Distributions of reaction coefficients for different rk values
242
Figure 5.33. Evolution of the moments Msup and Minf with the choice of the parameter rk.
Comment. The stiffnesses ki or ks cannot be assimilated to the stiffnesses obtained by

interpretation of a plate test.
A method consisting in imposing rk and calculating the values ki and ks from the mean
values of the stresses ÿ(r) on each sector does not generally allow the moment curve of the
elementary cell to be readjusted and tends to underestimate the word
ment.
The calculations carried out show that the choice of a standard value of rk corresponding to a
diffusion of 1h/5v over the height of the mattress is acceptable (safe) provided that the calculation
model satisfies all the conditions explained in chapter 3 , paragraph 2.2.1. Study of the paving The
distribution of the reaction coefficients defined by ki , ks
and rk is extended to
a complete model of the paving (integrating the joints), by reproducing the pattern as many times as
there are inclusions.
For the validation of this complete model, it is necessary to verify, when it is subjected to the same
uniformly distributed load as that taken for the elementary cell, that it leads to substantially the same
stresses as those established in stage 1. Indeed, the results can be sensitive to the choice of both
calculation tools and the fineness of discretization of the models.
Comment. The three steps can be carried out with different calculation tools.
Such a complete model makes it possible to process all the cases of distributed and/or punctual
load as long as the resultant of the loads on a mesh is of the same order of magnitude as the
uniform load taken as reference to wedge the values ki and ks .
243
Comment. It is necessary to check that the springs are never mobilized in tension.
The modeling of the joints must represent a joint which only allows the transmission
of the shearing force (null moment imposed on the right of the joint).
The point loads can be modeled taking into account the impact surface (for
example support plate of a rack foot) diffused at 45° to the neutral plane of the
slab.
If the relative position of the fillers, joints and/or inclusions cannot be fixed, it is
necessary to explore the sensitivity of the results according to different
configurations (Fig.5.34).
Figure 5.34. Examples of unfavorable configurations for stresses in the slab.
3.4.3.3. Comparative evaluation of the two methods

The method envelops additional moments by superposition of corrective terms is, by its range
approach, relatively safe. It makes it possible to assess the stresses at any point, including on
the periphery of the structure.
Moreover, it adapts well: – to the
sequence of design stages; – the sequencing of the
execution studies of the different lots; – the design approach described by
DTU 13.3 for unreinforced floors; – the area of expertise of the various stakeholders (soil
reinforcement
company, earthmoving company, industrial flooring company).
244
The method of reaction coefficients only makes it possible to treat the current part of the structure,
far from the edges. It corresponds to an approach often adopted to make the link between the study
of soil-structure interaction and the detailed study. of structure. In this approach it is necessary to
study the most unfavorable configurations (Fig. 5.34).
The determination of the reaction coefficients is particularly sensitive to the nature and distribution
of the loads (point loads, distributed loads).
Comment. The reaction coefficients should ideally be calibrated for each load
configuration whereas they can only be calculated for practical reasons under
distributed load. It should be checked that the values of the reaction coefficients
determined under a distributed load remain relevant for the point load cases.
This verification can for example be made by iteration from the stresses
calculated on the underside of the slab for the most unfavorable load cases (in
intensity and in position). .
It does not make it possible to estimate in a simple way the stresses on the periphery of the
structure linked to the general basin of the settlements. These stresses, if specific values of ki and
ks to be applied at the edge of the structure are not defined , can be better assessed by the
method of additional moments.
A global calculation model integrating inclusions, foundation soil, mattress, paving, geometry of
joints and loads can constitute an alternative to these methods with a view to refining the estimation
of paving stresses. This model is necessarily carried out in 3D according to the finite element or
finite difference method; this makes it particularly complex to elaborate and interpret.
Comment. Reservoirs or structures on foundation rafts that do not fall under

DTU 13.3 can be treated in the same way with the envelope method of
additional moments by replacing the DTU 13.3 type calculations by raft type
calculations taking into account the possible existence of joints (Specific
models are then necessary: 3D on equivalent homogenized soil or complete
3D soil + inclusions or axisymmetric 2D with cylinders equivalent to crowns of
inclusions).
3.5. Footings and riffles
3.5.1. Rigid footings or slabs General
calculation models for footings are detailed in Chapter 3.

Attention is drawn to the fact that it is necessary to check the possible hard point effect depending
on the thickness of the mattress and the arrangement of the inclusions.
A calculation carried out considering that the footing rests on isolated fixed supports directly above
the inclusions constitutes an envelope of the forces to be taken up by the footing.
245
3.5.2. Flexible slabs
Flexible concrete slabs (reservoirs or basins for example) which work in bending and
shearing are subjected to a non-uniform reaction distribution like slabs. STR verifications
can be carried out by evaluating the stresses as in the case of slabs without joints (§
3.4.3).
The metal bottoms of the tanks work in tension (membrane effect) and can also lead to a different
distribution of reactions on the underside directly above the inclusions and between the
inclusions. STR verifications must be carried out using the calculated stresses with a relevant
model.
3.6. Roadways
The usual dimensioning of a pavement structure does not take into account the effects of hard
points that may be associated with the presence of inclusions. Under loading, there is a risk of
differential settlement between the inclusion and the center of the mesh (Fig. 5.35 and 5.36).
Figure 5.35. Example of an “egg box” type deformation under a roadway.
246
Figure 5.36. Deformation under a pavement.
It is therefore necessary to guarantee a sufficient height HM of the distribution layer between the
base of the pavement structure and the head of the inclusions to ensure that the settlements at
the base of the pavement structure remain acceptable. The following condition must be verified:
HM > 0.7 (s – a)
(5.17)
A horizontal reinforcement (geosynthetics, welded mesh or slab) placed in the distribution layer
can reduce this height (see § 3.7).
Figure 5.37. Layers constituting the pavement.
The point loads (loads due to traffic or storage) make it possible to dimension the body of the
pavement from the properties obtained at the top of the capping layer (determined by plate tests).
These characteristics depend on the compactness and thickness of the capping layer but are
generally slightly influenced by the presence of inclusions.
On the other hand, settlements on the surface of the road must be calculated with a model
incorporating the inclusions.
Lawson (2000) proposes curves for designing the stiffness of the synthetic geo as a function of
the differential settlements acceptable at the surface of the embankment (Fig. 5.38). These results
can be used for ELS situations,
247
but cannot replace settlement analysis using conventional methods.
Figure 5.38. Abacus for sizing geosynthetics according to allowable

differential settlement (Lawson, 2000).
3.7. Reinforcement of the distribution layer

3.7.1. Preamble
The national ASIRI project studied the specific case of embankments on inclusions whose
distribution layer is reinforced by geosynthetics: experimentation on the Chelles site (Briançon,
2008) and physical and numerical modeling (Jenck, 2005; Chevallier, 2008). Reinforcements by
welded mesh or by concrete slab have not been addressed.
The justifications relating to geosynthetic layers (geotextiles, geogrids and composite products)
can also be based on the experience acquired both through experiments and the construction of
numerous structures in France and abroad. Different national standards or recommendations deal
with this specific subject: BS8006 (2010), EBGEO (2010), Nordic handbook (2005) and CUR 159B
(2010).
The elements presented in these Recommendations relate solely to reinforcement by geosynthetic

sheets and are based on the works cited.
The use of welded mesh or slab will have to be the subject of specific studies.
For welded mesh, the resistance and bending rigidity of which will always be neglected, the
verification can be done in a way comparable to the justifications proposed for geosynthetics
(verification of the traction of the anchorage in the transverse and longitudinal direction and of non-
,
slip) but based on standard NF P 94 270 (reinforced floors).
248
For the slabs, the verifications must be in accordance with the justifications proposed
for the slabs in chapter 5, paragraph 3.4.
All the methods detailed in chapter 3 make it possible to establish the distribution of the
stresses in the horizontal plane placed at the head of the inclusions. They have the
particularity of encompassing both the transfer of force by shearing in the mattress
and by attachment to the inclusions in the compressible soils. They differ from the
assessment methods adopted by the standards and recommendations dealing with
the use of geosynthetics, such as the method initially proposed by Hewlett and
Randolph (1988), taken up in standard BS8006 (2010) and which will be explained, in
By way of example: this is limited to supplying the distribution of the stresses on the
geosynthetic sheet without taking into account settlements or the phenomena of
attachment against inclusions.
On the other hand, the method for calculating the tension in the aquifers which is
adopted by these Recommendations is based on that set out in standard BS8006 (2010).
3.7.2. Function of geosynthetics

Reinforcement by geosynthetics can have two different and complementary objectives:
on the optimal
thickness of the mattress; – resume the lateral pushing forces of the embankment.
These functions determine the limit states which are to be verified.
3.7.3. Calculation approach for ULS verifications In line with

the national application standard of Eurocode 7 NF P 94 270 (2009) dealing with
reinforced embankments: – verifications
concerning the reinforcement function of geosynthetics at the base of the distribution
mattress ( soil support between inclusions, lateral thrust, anchoring) are carried out
according to calculation approach 2 within the meaning of Eurocode 7; – for the study
of the general stability of an embankment on compressible soil carried out with failure
surfaces intercepting the geosynthetic reinforcement, calculation approach 3 must be
used.
3.7.4. Verification STR The
calculated tension Td in the geosynthetic horizontal reinforcements must be less than

the design value of the long-term resistance Rt, d.
This is obtained from the characteristic value of the short-term resistance Rt, k
(measured according to standard NF EN ISO 10319), isochrone curves
249
of creep (established in accordance with standard NF EN 13431) and appropriate partial coefficients
to take into account the long-term behavior of the product:
= Rt k
---------
Rt d;
ÿgeo
This verification must be carried out in an ULS situation and in an ELS situation, if necessary (see §
3.7.5.4).
The safety factor on the geosynthetic material ÿgeo is written: ÿgeo

= ÿM; t . ÿflu . ÿdeg . ÿend
270). partial material factor taken as equal to 1.25 (standard NF P 94
ÿM ; t The values of ÿflu , ÿdeg and ÿend are specific to each product and are
provided by the manufacturer. Default values are proposed in standard NF P
94
270: ÿflu partial coefficient linked to the behavior of geosynthetics as a function
of time. The application of this coefficient makes it possible, for the
duration of use of the structure, to consider the influence of creep on the
tensile strength of the geosynthetic reinforcements and to limit the
deformations
of the structure; ÿflu =1/ÿflu as defined in standard NF P 94270
appendix F.4.3; ÿdeg partial coefficient linked to the aging of geosynthetic
products, for example by hydrolysis or oxidation, depending on the
environmental
conditions of the product; ÿdeg =1/ ÿdeg as defined in standard NF
P 94270 appendix F.4.4; ÿend partial coefficient corresponding to the damage
to the geosynthetic reinforcements produced by their installation and the compaction o
ÿend =1/ ÿend as defined in standard NF P 94270 appendix F.4.2.
Comment. The NF P 94270 standard makes it possible to define the partial

coefficient ÿflu for the SLS and ULS limit states by taking into account both the
creep rupture criterion and the admissible creep deformation criterion.
The partial coefficient ÿend corresponding to the damage can vary according to
the deformation. At the SLS, the value corresponding to the service deformation
of the geosynthetic can be retained.
The other partial factors (ÿM ; t and ÿdeg) are identical to SLS and ULS.
250
3.7.5. Tensile forces under the action of vertical loads 3.7.5.1. Reminder
of ratings
Figure 5.39. Definition of geometry.

HM backfill height s
spacing between inclusion axes a inclusion
head dimension (square inclusion head)
In the case of a circular inclusion head of diameter D, we will take the side of the equivalent square
such that:
=
ÿD2
a ---------- 0 9,ÿ D (5.18)
4
Calculation of the load transfer between the ground and the inclusions
All the methods detailed in Chapter 3 make it possible to establish the stress distribution in the horizontal
plane placed at the top of the inclusions from which the traction in the geosynthetics can be evaluated.
They are used to calculate the average vertical stress ÿv,geo applied to the ground between the
inclusion heads.
As an example of other methods that can be used, that of Hewlett and Randolph (1988) is discussed.
This method considers hemispherical domes to calculate the load transfer efficiency, with consideration
of failure at the vaults or inclusion heads (Fig. 5.40). For thin embankments (relative to the spacing of
the inclusions), it is generally the stability at the keystone of the vaults that governs the mechanism,
whereas for thicker embankments, it is the stability at the level of the heads. inclusions which becomes
preponderant.
251
Figure 5.40. Schematic diagram of the Hewlett and Randolph method

(excerpt from BS8006, 2010).
The method calculates the average vertical stress applied to the geosynthetic by evaluating the
efficiency of load transfer to the inclusions, considering the failure of the system either at the top of
the vault (EV efficiency) or at the heads of inclusions ( ET efficiency). The retained efficiency is the
lower of the two, thus maximizing the load to be taken up by the geosynthetic reinforcement:
Sure = Min (EV, ET)
• EV Efficiency ÿ ÿ
2
1 -- aÿ
This =1 ––
(
A A– B + C ) (5.19)
ÿs
a 2 Kp ( ) – 1
A = 1
– --
(5.20)
s
252
s 2Kp - 2
=
B ----------- ------------------
(5.21)
2h 2Kp - 3
in – 2Kp - 2
=
C ----------- ------------------
(5.22)
2h 2Kp - 3
• Efficiency ET ÿ
= ------------
AND (5.23)
1+b
a ÿ Kp – a
= 2Kp
-------------------------------------- ÿ – -- – ÿ
+ -- ÿ
b 1
(5.24)
ÿ
sÿ 1 Kp ÿ s ÿ
ÿ a ÿ
Kp ( ) + 1 1 + -- ÿ s ÿ
The vertical load to be taken up by the geosynthetic between two adjacent inclusions is equal to:
2
ÿv ; geo 2 = s /(s - a2 ) ÿv (1 - Emin) (5.25)
with :
ÿv = ÿÿ ÿr H + ÿG g + ÿQ q (5.26)
HM height of backfill above geosynthetic; backfill density; permanent

ÿr vertical overload; variable vertical
g overload; partial factor on the specific
q weight of the soil ;
ÿÿ
ÿG partial factor on permanent actions ; ÿQ partial factor on variable
actions.
3.7.5.3. Tensile stress Td in the geosynthetic ; mesh

The calculation principle consists of assuming that the entire vertical load acting between two inclusions is taken up by
the "membrane effect", resulting in traction in the geosynthetic, and considering that no load is transmitted to the
ground. between inclusions.
The BS8006 (2010) standard defines the expression of the tension in the geosynthetic as a function of WT the vertical
load between two inclusions and the deformation of the geosynthetic ÿd :
253
( WT
) sa 1– ------------------------ ( sÿv,
) in –geo 1
= 1 + -------- 2a = ---------------------------------- 1 +
Td; with (effort par ml) 6ÿd
------ -- 2a
6th ed
(5.27)
with WT = sÿv ; geo (effort per ml)
This equation with two unknowns Td ; mesh and ÿd can be resolved with the geosynthetic force-deformation
law (introduction of geosynthetic tensile stiffness) or taking into account a maximum deformation criterion
(reference deformation).
3.7.5.4. Reference strain

The deformation of the geosynthetic must be taken into account for the calculation of the traction Td mobilized
in the situation considered. ; mesh
In an ULS situation, the reference deformation of the geosynthetic is that adopted by standard BS8006 (2010):
ÿd = 6%.
For a mattress with a thickness HM > 0.7 (s – a), the reference deformation must not exceed this maximum
value of 6% in the long term.
For thin embankments (for example when the condition HM > 0.7 (s – a) is not satisfied) and for which the load
transfer is not ensured, this reference deformation must be lowered to values below 3% to reduce the risk of
differential deformation on the surface of the mattress. In the latter case, a verification in an ELS situation is
necessary to verify that the differential deformation at the surface of the mattress is acceptable.
It is underlined that the value of the partial coefficient ÿflu also depends on the choice of the reference deformation.
The reference deformation of the geosynthetic must include the initial deformation and the creep deformation:
the initial deformation of the geosynthetic is necessary to mobilize the recovery of the forces, the long-term
deformation (due to creep) must be limited to ensure that the localized deformations delayed in time do not occur
on the surface of the embankment.
Post-construction creep deformation of the geosynthetic must be reduced to a minimum to prevent the
appearance of localized differential deformations on the surface of the embankment and must not exceed 2%
over the duration of use of the structure. It is determined according to the indications of the ISO/TR 20432 guide.
These two criteria must be checked on the isochrone curves of the product (Fig. 5.41).
254
Figure 5.41. Verification of the deformation criteria and the choice of the partial factor ÿflu
on the isochronous curves of the geosynthetic (according to standard NF P 94 270).
3.7.6. Tractive effort under the thrust forces on the slope

If the resumption of the horizontal forces caused by the pressure of the earth from an embankment is not
ensured, it is necessary to set up a horizontal reinforcement at the base of the embankment.
This reinforcement can also make it possible to limit the lateral displacements of the soil and therefore of the
inclusions.
The maximum tensile force Td mobilized incalculated

the geosynthetic
under by ; thrust; max thrust of the embankment is
the crest of the embankment (Fig. 5.42): Td ; thrust; max
= 0.5 . Ka (ÿÿ .ÿr HR + 2ÿG . g + 2ÿQ q) H R (5.28)

with :
HR the height of the backfill above the geosynthetic;
Ka the earth pressure coefficient of the embankment;
= ÿ Pi
-- – -------
ÿÿd
Ka tan2 ÿ (5.29)
4 2 ÿÿ
Ka is calculated with the design value ÿ'd (in approach 2 the value ÿÿ is equal to 1 and the design value ÿ'd is
equal to the characteristic value); the density of the backfill; permanent vertical
ÿr overload; variable overload;
255
the partial factor on the specific weight of the soil ;

ÿÿ ÿG the partial factor on permanent actions; ÿQ the
partial factor on the variable actions.
Under the embankment slopes, the tensile force Td mobilized in the geosyn ; thetic thrust by the
embankment thrust decreases away from the crest of the slope; it can be calculated at any point from
the slope and the thickness of the embankment above the point considered.
Figure 5.42. Configuration studied at the edge of the embankment.
Comment. The coefficient ÿflu necessary for determining the long-term design resistance
Rt ; d is obtained by adopting the same value of the reference deformation as that used for
the absorption of the vertical loads (§ 3.7.5.4).
It is important to note that this situation also induces lateral displacements of the
compressible soil liable to create bending stresses in the inclusions which also need to be
checked.
3.7.7. Determination of geosynthetic(s)

In the longitudinal direction of the backfill, the geosynthetic must have an allowable resistance RtL (5.30)
such that the following condition holds: ; d
Td mesh;
< RtL ;d tensile
ges force mobilized in the geosynthetic under the action of char Td ; mesh vertical
applied to a mesh (§ 3.7.5.3).
In the direction transverse to the backfill, the geosynthetic must have an admissible resistance RtT
such as: ; d
Td + Td thrust; max; d <
RtT ; mesh; (5.31)
256
Td tensile
slope (§force mobilized in the geosynthetic under the action of ; thrust; max the thrust on the
3.7.6).
3.7.7.1. Calculation of anchorage lengths This
verification most often concerns the transverse direction. It may sometimes be necessary in the
longitudinal direction at the limit of the treated zone.
The anchorage length of the geosynthetic is in all cases limited to the available footprint Lht which
depends on the geometry of the embankment (Fig. 5.42). If the length Lht does not allow sufficient
flat anchoring, a trench or overturning type anchoring device should be adopted (see chapter 7
“Execution”).
The length Lfr, counted from the crest of the slope, is the length necessary for the mobilization by
friction (on one face) of the resistance vis-à-vis the lateral forces (thrust of the block) (Fig. 5.42). It
is expressed as follows (BS8006, 2010): Td;thrust;max ------------------------------- - ÿR h; ÿR f; ( ÿrh ÿ
ÿÿ
Lfr ÿ ) tan d
(5.32)
with :
Td tensile stress in the geosynthetic due to the thrust on the ta ; thrust; max read
of backfill;
backfill density; ÿr
in h average height of the embankment
the anchorage zone (corresponding to Lfr) ;

ÿ reducing coefficient of soil-geosynthetic interface friction;
a = ÿgeo tan
------------------
(5.33)
fÿd tan
ÿ'd design value of the angle of friction of the ground resting on the water table (in approach 2 the
value ÿÿ is equal to 1 and the design value ÿ'd is equal to the characteristic value); ÿgeo design
value of the friction
angle of the soil-geosynthetic interface; partial slip resistance factor (equal to 1.1 in approach 2 se
ÿR, h according to Eurocode 7); ÿR ; f It is proposed to adopt the value ÿR ; f = 1.35 in
accordance with
partial factor of the reinforcement soil-bed interaction resistance.
standard NF P 94 270 (approach 2).
257
In the longitudinal direction of the embankment, the length LaL counted from the last inclusion
necessary for the mobilization by friction on the upper and lower faces of the geosynthetic of the
anchoring forces is such that (BS8006, 2010):
ÿ Td;maille
LaL (5.34)
so + so
--------------------------------------------------------------
(
------------------------ÿR
ÿÿd1 ÿ2 ÿÿd2 ) h; ÿR f; ÿrh ÿ1
ÿ'd1 soil friction angle above the geosynthetic reinforcement; soil friction angle below the
ÿ'd2 geosynthetic reinforcement; average height over length LaL.
h
In the transverse direction of the embankment, the length LaT counted from the last inclusion
(Fig. 5.42) necessary for mobilization by friction on the upper and lower faces of the anchoring
forces is such that (BS8006, 2010):
ÿ Td;mesh Td;push +
Years (5.35)
+ tan
------------------------------------------ ---------------------------
ÿR
ÿÿd1
stress
h; tan
ÿR
in the
f;
ÿ2( ÿÿd2
ÿrh
geosynthetic
ÿ1) meanlength
height
due ;totensile
along
the thrust
the LaT
of the
h
backfill, evaluated directly above the outer face of
Td ; thrust the last inclusion head.
Comment. In the absence of a detailed calculation of the value the effort Tdinitthe
is ; thrust,
safe to adopt the Td value ; thrust; max calculation of LaT (Fig. 5.42)
3.7.7.2. Special case of overlapping of layers The length of overlap is
justified with the previous formulas by: – using the force corresponding to the direction of
the overlap; – by replacing the term (ÿ2tanÿ'd2) by the geosynthetic-geosynthetic
friction tanÿgeo-geo.
Comment. The angle of friction ÿgeo-geo is given by the manufacturer.
4. DETAIL OF GEO LIMIT STATES CONSISTENCY

CHECKS
4.1. Include behavior
4.1.1. Peak behavior It must be checked
that the force mobilized does not exceed the limit value calculated according to the principles of
Eurocode 7 and the national application standard (NF P 94 262).
258
Peak force limit value: Rb = kp . pl A

(pressuremeter method); Rb = k c . qc A
(penetrometric method).
The values of kp or kc are those of the Eurocode or those of particular specifications.
Comment. The Rb values defined conventionally refer to a head settlement equal to

10% of the diameter.
In the case of inclusions under backfill and even when they contribute to the stability of
the structure, this threshold is not relevant since the point settlement is not necessarily
limited to 10%. To use values of Rb other than those calibrated on a settlement of 10%,
it is necessary to use the data from an instrumented loading test on an inclusion of the
same type as those implemented.
true
kp or kc depends on the depth of relative embedment according to the relation explained

in standard NF P 94 262.
4.1.2. Lateral behavior 4.1.2.1.
Positive friction under the neutral plane It must be checked
that the friction mobilized under the neutral plane does not exceed the limit value qs calculated
according to the principles of Eurocode 7 and the national application standard (NF P 94 262).
The limit value of the lateral friction qs is evaluated by the penetrometric method or the
pressuremeter method.
The values of qs are those of standard NF P 94 262 or those of the particular specifications,
specific to the technique used, in the absence of experimental values established on site.
Comment. It will be observed that the friction mobilized in the vicinity of the neutral
plane is generally low, independently of the limiting friction at this level (Fig. 5.43). In
some cases it may be desirable for the verification of the bearing capacity not to
consider the total height below the neutral plane, but a reduced height from the tip.
259
Figure 5.43. Mobilized friction in the vicinity of the neutral plane.
4.1.2.2. Negative friction above the neutral plane It must be checked
that the friction of the soil on the shaft of the inclusion above the neutral plane does not exceed
the limit value ÿv'. K tan ÿ (where ÿv' is the calculated vertical stress against inclusion). K tan ÿ
is the empirical factor defined in chapter 2.
Comment. The choice of the value K tan d reference should be done with discer
ment since this factor is a sensitive factor for the dimensioning and that it
influences in a different way the maximum force in the inclusion and the final settlement.
sultant.
This verification is mandatory in case of modeling by finite elements. It consists
in checking the values of the ratio ÿ/ÿv' at any point of the inclusion, above the
neutral plane.
4.2. Behavior of the distribution mattress

This verification consists in establishing, for the external loading applied, the stress limit value at
the inclusion head compatible with the characteristics of the material of the distribution mattress
and the geometry of the structure.
4.2.1. Justification of the method

4.2.1.1. Experimental results
• Load transfer mechanism on the inclusion head Tests of mobile
plates in a centrifuge have established, for various geometric configurations, the limit values
reached at the inclusion head (Okyay, 2010).
The results obtained with a granular mattress placed under a slab constitute a particularly
interesting set, since they relate to a material whose shear characteristics have been established
experimentally according to the placement density of the material. They cover different coverage
rates ÿ
260
and different mattress thicknesses HM (HM/ D = 1.4 to 2 with D diameter of the inclusion). Figure 5.44
presents an example of the development of load transfer on an inclusion head in the case of a slab.
Figure 5.44. Development of the load transfer on an inclusion head with

the relative settlement y/D during a centrifuge test with mobile plate.
• Characterization of the behavior of the mattress material

The mattress material, placed at 85% density index (DI), showed a friction
angle of 42°, associated with a peak phenomenon (Fig. 5.45) . For ID =60%
no peak phenomenon is observed. The friction angle obtained at the bearing
is 38°. This value is representative of the critical state.
261
Figure 5.45. Characteristic curves of the shear tests on the material constituting
the mattress of the mobile plate tests.
4.2.1.2. Evaluation of the method based on the Prandtl scheme

We propose to calculate the limit value of the force at the head of inclusion from the diagram
developed by Prandtl (Fig. 5.46).
Figure 5.46. Diagram of Prandtl rupture in the mattress.
262
The relations expressing the conservation of efforts: + (1- ÿ) qs

+ +
ÿqp = q0 (5.36)
and the local equilibrium according to the Prandtl scheme:
+ +
qp = Nq qs (5.37)
are a system of equations to calculate the limit stress value qp cient Nq is known.
+
at the head of inclusion for a given situation (ÿ, q0), when the coefficient
Comment. Equation (5.37) neglects the surface term 0.5 ÿ B Nÿ whose

contribution is negligible for common inclusion diameters and ignores the cohesion
term c'Nc, which is not applicable to a purely frictional material.
Equation (5.37) applies to the axisymmetric problem of the stresses around an
inclusion head of diameter B as well as to the plane problem of the stresses around
a continuous wall of width B. The form factor sq associated with the coefficient Nq
is indeed equal to 1 in both cases, according to Terzaghi.
The remark according to which the shape coefficient sq associated with the factor
Nq is equal to 1 shows that the axisymmetric problem can be treated as a plane
problem, without requiring any corrective term. This point will be used to take edge
effects into account.
The values of the factor Nq are respectively Nq =85.4 (for ÿ'=42°) and Nq
=48.9 (for ÿ'=38°).
Comment. As indicated in § 4.2.1.1 the value of ÿ' for a given material depends
on its density index ID.
The stress values at the inclusion head calculated by adopting the Nq values are compared with the
values deduced from the measurements for the experiment presented in paragraph 4.2.1.1 (Fig.
5.47). It appears that with Nq (42°) the calculated values overestimate the experimental values for
the lowest coverage rates (ÿ = 1.25%, purple triangles). The choice of the Nq value (38°) clearly
provides values that are globally closer to the experimental values.
The amplitude of the displacements of the mobile plate (representing the effect of a compaction of
+
the support soil) necessary to reach the limit values qp a significant increase in the represented
volume of the mattress and therefore a reduction in its compactness. The angle ÿ' = 38° representative
of the critical state (state in which the material is sheared at constant volume) is in fact better suited
to the final situation.
263
Figure 5.47. Comparison of the calculated and measured values of the limit stress
on the inclusion head.
4.2.1.3. Conclusion
The evaluation of the limit stress value at the head of the inclusions placed in the center of a
mesh can be made from equations (5.36) and (5.37) by adopting as the value of the coefficient
Nq that calculated with the angle of friction in the critical state (shear at constant volume). This
value is lower than the peak value for materials with a density index (DI) greater than 60%.
It is proposed to use the coefficient Nq in association with the value of the shape coefficient sq
which was proposed by Terzaghi and which is equal to 1, whatever the shape of the foundation.
This choice is the one adopted to compare the experimental values with the theoretical values.
The Nq value associated with the Prandtl mechanism is representative of situations where the
thickness of the mattress is greater than the height Hmax of the mechanism. The Hmax/D ratio
increases with the angle of friction as shown in Table 5.III.
For HM/D values lower than the indicated thresholds Hmax/D, the apparent lift coefficient Nq*
would be more favorable than that established by the Prandtl mechanism, and it is safe to neglect
this increase.
264
Figure 5.48. Geometric parameters describing the Prandtl scheme.
Table 5.III. Characteristic values of the parameters of the Prandtl scheme.
f' 30 35 38 40
Nq 18,4 33,3 48,9 64,2
Hmax/D 1,59 1,90 2,15 2,35
Lmax/D 4,29 5,77 7,00 8,01
L1/D 2,64 3,39 4,00 4,51
In a comparable way, it can be noted that for grid cells smaller than 2L1 (Fig. 5.48), there is
interference between the mechanisms associated with two neighboring inclusions. For meshes
below this threshold, the factor Nq* is therefore also higher. It is also safe to neglect this increase.
The width L1 is indeed the one to be considered to judge the possible interference between
inclusions as illustrated in figure 5.49 by the results of a finite element model of an elementary
mesh of the moving plate device (Okyay, 2010) ; the extension of the plastic points (in red) presents
in fact a great similarity with the L1 domain of the Prandtl mechanism.
265
Figure 5.49. Numerical simulation of a mobile plate test under a slab showing the
development of plastic zones.
4.2.2. Calculation of the limit transfer at the head of inclusion in the current section
4.2.2.1. Introduction
We consider a network of rigid inclusions of diameter D = 2 rp arranged in a square mesh of side

s, surmounted by a distribution mattress of thickness H, defined by its intrinsic parameters (c', ÿ',
ÿ) and subjected to a uniformly distributed load q0.
Figure 5.50. Assumptions and geometry of the problem.
Comment. A distinction is made between the loading resulting from the weight of the distribution
c HM and the loading q0 applied to the distribution mattress (eventually consisting of
mattress
between permanent charges and operating charges).
During the loading of the system, according to the geometrical conditions of this one, two types
of axisymmetric limit balances can be generated between
266
+
the applied stress q0, the stress at the head of inclusion qp plicate on the and the constraint ap
ground between the inclusions qs +.

• Prandtl diagram
The first limit equilibrium diagram within the distribution mattress can be assimilated to that of
Prandtl which associates a zone in equilibrium of Ran kine thrust (I) above the head of the
inclusion, a zone delimited by a arc of logarithmic spiral (II) and a zone in Rankine abutment
equilibrium outside the inclusion head (III).
Figure 5.51. Diagram of Prandtl rupture in the mattress.

• Shear cone The second
limit equilibrium diagram within the distribution mattress can be assimilated to a truncated cone
with a vertical axis emerging at the surface of the mattress, coming from the head of the inclusion
and forming an angle ÿ' by relative to the vertical equal to the angle of friction of the mattress
material.
Figure 5.52. Rupture diagram in the shear cone mattress.
267
For a given external load q0, these limit equilibria define the maximum load that can be concentrated at the
inclusion head qp +, ie the maximum efficiency of the system at the level of the inclusion head. It should be
noted that an increase in the load q0, allows an increase in the stress at the head
+
of inclusion qp and that the rupture of the system will only be achieved when it is not
more possible to increase the applied load q0.

Comment. The experiments carried out in a centrifuge and on discrete models
have made it possible to show
that: – the failure diagram of the Prandtl model is applicable by considering the
critical angle of the material (significant deformations in a compacted material)
(§ 4.2.1.2);
– the rupture diagram of the shear cone is associated with the peak angle of
the material (mobilized for small deformations).
4.2.2.2. Verification of GEO limit states at ULS This verification is carried out
according to approach 2 of EC7 with the following combination of sets of partial factors for permanent or
transient combinations:
A1 '+' M1 '+' R2
• For the Prandtl scheme
According to approach 2 of EC7, and following the Prandtl diagram, the limit stress at the head of inclusion qp
+
is then determined from the stress applied to
+
the ground support qs and from the intrinsic parameters of the mattress c', ÿ' and ÿ by
the following formula:
+
+ cÿ c
= qs
–ÿ
× ---- (5.38)
ÿ
qp sq Nq ÿ sC
sÿNc
Nÿ×rp+ ÿcÿ
×ÿ -----
c
c
Or :
sÿ, sc, sq are the shape coefficients of the inclusion

Pi head; ÿ
= ×
ÿ
tan( ÿÿ ÿÿÿ ) ÿ ;
Nq tan2 ÿ ÿ ÿ 4 ( + ( Nc Nq ( ) ) ) ÿ ÿ 2 e ÿÿÿ
=
– 1 × cot( ÿÿ ÿÿÿ ) ÿ ; × tan( Nÿ =
2 Nq
ÿÿ'
–1 =
()ÿÿc'
ÿÿ =
= ÿ
1
(ensemble M1 selon l 'EC7). ) ÿ ÿÿÿ ;
Comment. For low thicknesses of the distribution mattress, the weight of the latter is
generally neglected and therefore the term sÿ.Nÿ.rp.ÿ.
For granular mattresses, the value of the shape coefficient sq will be taken equal to 1
regardless of the shape of the foundation, in agreement with Terzaghi.
268
• For the shear cone
Figure 5.53. Development of shear cones.
According to approach 2 of EC7, and following the diagram of the shear cone, the con is determined from the external
+
limit drag at the head of inclusion qp higher applied stress
q0, of the thickness H of the distribution mattress and from its intrinsic parameters c', ÿ' and ÿ by the following formulas:
R
- and <= rp –
------------------
HM HC
tan( ) ÿÿ
2 2 2
+ HM ÿRC RC
ÿ RC 1 ÿRC ÿ cÿ
= ÿ
1 + + ------ tan(ÿ ) × -----
-------- ------------------
------ ----
× + ------
ÿ ÿ 1 – ÿÿ (5.39)
qp 3 2 ÿ × + ------ q0 ÿÿ
2
rp 2
ÿ ÿ
ÿ rp rp ÿ Rp
ÿcÿ
Or :
ÿÿ
+= × tan ------
RC r HM
GF'
R
- and >= rp –
------------------
HM HC
tan( ) ÿÿ ÿ ÿ
+ Hc ÿR2 R R2 R2
= ------ ------
1 + + ---- + ------
× + ÿ------ 2
----
(5.40)
qp 3 2
HM HC ( ) – 2
ÿ
ÿ rp rp ÿ rp gg Rp
1 ÿ R2 ÿ cÿ
× + q0 ------------------ ------
ÿ 1 – tan( ) × -----
2
ÿÿ ÿ rp ÿ ÿ ÿcÿ
Or :
s
R = -------
Pi
ÿc' = ÿÿ' = ÿÿ = 1 (ensemble M1 selon l'EC7).
269
Remarks. For HR > HC, the shear cones of neighboring inclusions re
intersect and the area of the zone of influence of each inclusion remains equal to s In the case of 2;
an embankment supported by rigid inclusions, the height HR and the load q0 to be taken into
account in these formulas are the total height corresponding to the embankment and to the
distribution mattress and the load applied at the head of the embankment; The limiting stress
+ defined by equations (5.39) or (5.40), corresponding to
qp a shear cone emerging
at the surface of the distribution mattress only exists and is dimensioning for thin distribution
mattresses and which are not surmounted by a rigid structural element such as a slab or slab. or
foundation. This is, for example, the case of a pavement support embankment on which an operating
load is applied.
In addition, the stress applied to the supporting soil + is limited to the ELU by the con
qs allowable strain ÿv ; d with reference to the standards in force (with set R2 according
to EC7), for example for the pressuremeter method: = kp.ple*/
+
qs ÿR ; d) where:
(ÿR ; v < ÿv ; d (5.41)
ÿR = 1.4 at ULS (set R2 according to EC7-1) combined with the coefficient of ÿR ; v

model ; d appropriate, defined by national application standard NF P 94 261 (shallow
foundations).
The ÿv value ; d is defined by geotechnical studies.

Comment. This value must be assessed realistically because a value that is
too conservative (eg zero) will make any dimensioning of the mattress
impossible.
Finally, the stress applied at the inclusion head is limited by the bearing capacity of the inclusion
and by the admissible stress in the material of the inclusion: ÿ ÿ ÿ (
+ÿ
+ Rb ÿR d; ÿb ÿ ) Rs ÿR d; ÿs
< qp;max = min -------------------------------------------------
ÿ ------------ f cd ; ÿ ÿ rp (5.42)
qp 2
Pi ×
where, with reference to the national application standard 94.262 and the “terrain model ”
approach : Rb is the
ultimate resistance of the soil at the point of the inclusion; Rs is the
ultimate resultant of the lateral friction under the neutral point; ÿb = ÿs = 1.1 at
ULS (set R2 according to EC7-1); = 1.25 (model coefficient);
ÿR, d fcd is defined in § 3.1.1.
+
Thus, in the plane (qs ; qp +), independently of the level of loading, the domain of
admissible stresses at ULS in the distribution mattress is de
270
terminated by equations (5.38), (5.41) and (5.42) corresponding respectively to curves (1a), (2) and (3)
represented in figure 5.54.
Under certain conditions, this domain can also be partly limited by curve (1b) associated with equations
(5.39) or (5.40) corresponding to a shear cone emerging at the surface of the distribution mattress. This
additional limit only exists and is sizing for thin distribution mattresses which are not surmounted by a
rigid structural element such as a slab, slab or foundation.
Figure 5.54. Permissible range of stresses at the base of the distribution mattress.
Comment. By way of example, in figure 5.54 above, the curves (1b) associated with equations
(5.39) or (5.40) which are represented correspond to cases of thin backfill not covered by rigid
structural elements , for which in addition: – the loading comes exclusively from the weight of
the variable
thickness distribution mattress (in red); – the distribution mattress has a given thickness and
an external load is applied
on the surface (in blue).
4.2.2.3. Principle of charge conservation

For a given loading level q (affected by the weighting coefficients of set A1 according to EC7), the
+ +
stresses q0, qs and are in balance and doi
qp must necessarily verify the charge conservation equation: ÿ
2 2
= + s2 × ( ) – qs + +×
ÿ s2 × c (5.43)
ÿ
ÿG ÿ----HM
ÿÿ + q 0 ÿrp qp ÿrp
271
+
Thus, the couple of constraints mobilized (qs ; qp +) must simultaneously satisfy the
charge conservation equation (5.43) and must belong to the admissible domain defined previously
by figure 5.54.
For a given level of loading q0, the admissible limit stress in the is then determined by the
+
resolution of the system
qp inclusion head mattress ; d
of equations associated with curves (1a), (1b), (2), (3) and (4) the principle of
which is illustrated in figure 5.55; for this load q0 the admissible range is reduced
to the intersection of segment (4) and the shaded surface (delimited by the curves
associated with equations (1a), (1b), (2) and (3)).
Figure 5.55. Determination of qp, d+ (case where qpmax < sq.Nq.qsmax + sc.Nc.c'/ÿc' ).
+
The design limit value qp, d of the thus depends on the loading level q0 of
structure does not depend on the deformability of the different soil layers: it only depends on the
applied load q0, the geometry of the system (thickness of the HM distribution mattress, mesh s
and diameter of inclusions D) and intrinsic parameters (c' ; ÿ'; ÿ) of the mattress material. ; qp +)
effectively mobilized at the base of the distribution mattress is inside the
+
On the other hand, the value of the torque (qs admissible domain, on segment (4) of the load
conservation line, at a position which depends on the deformability of the different layers of soil .
This value is in particular strongly dependent on the deformability of the soil layer located directly
under the distribution mattress; the more this layer is compressible, the closer the mobilized
value will be to the admissible limit value.
272
4.2.2.4. System efficiency and bearing capacity

The efficiency of the system at the base of the distribution mattress measures the proportion of the total load which
is taken up by the inclusion and is written:
+
× 2
= qp
--------------------------------------- ÿrp
AND (5.44)
+ s2 ×
q0 ÿHM ( )
The maximum efficiency that can be mobilized by the soil reinforcement at the level of the base of the distribution
mattress (corresponding to the straight line of equation (1), (3) or (1b) possibly) decreases with the applied load
while the efficiency effectively mobilized during loading tends to increase with the applied load.
Thus, a variation of the external load q0 moves the representative point by; qp +) on a curve which, for high loads,
+
the equilibrium in the plane (qs tends towards the limit lines of equation (1), (1b) or (3). In other words,
the increase in the applied external load q0 tends the efficiency of the system towards its maximum value but can
never lead to the internal failure of the mattress by intersection with the straight line of equation (1) ( Fig. 5.56).
+
Figure 5.56. Evolution of the equilibrium point (qp ; qs +) depending on the applied load.
The maximum permissible loading on the distribution mattress + reinforced soil system corresponds to the uniform
stress qmax applicable to the system before its collapse. This maximum load (bearing capacity of the system)
results from the addition of two terms:
= –
+ ÿr2
qmaxs2 ÿv d; s2 ÿr2 ( ) qp u; (5.45)
The stress that can be mobilized at the level of the head of the inclusion qp is determined ; a about
the following relationship:
273
= ÿ cÿ
+
qp u
×
Min sqNq ÿv d; sCNc × – Nÿrp ÿ ----- sÿ ÿcÿ c ×ÿ ;---- qpmax (5.46)
ÿ
cc
In the particular example illustrated in figure 5.57, the maximum loading

corresponding to a uniform stress qmax on the mesh is divided into a
stress ÿv : d applied to the soil outside the inclusion and the stress qp
max on the inclusion head.
Figure 5.57. Maximum stress qmax that can be applied to the distribution mattress + reinforced floor system.
Note. The illustrated case corresponds to the case where qp, u = qp max.
4.2.2.5. Geometric considerations In the plane
(O; x; y), the polar equation of the logarithmic spiral in the Prandtl method is of the form:
ÿ
Pi ÿÿ ÿ
–tan ( ) ÿÿ i
– -- – -----
ÿ 4 2ÿ
r( ) i =× (5.47)
r0 e
Depending on the intrinsic parameters of the distribution mattress, the characteristic dimensions
of this logarithmic spiral are as follows:
274
Figure 5.58. Characteristic dimensions of the logarithmic spiral.
with :
– the height of the zone in Rankine thrust equilibrium

D ÿ
ÿ2) (5.48)
h1 = --- × tan( ÿ ÿ ÿ 4 + 2
– the edge of the zone in Rankine abutment equilibrium

Pi
--
tan ( ) ÿÿ
2
=
The x
--------------------------------------------------------
r0 (5.49)
2 × cos( ÿ ÿ ÿ 4 + ( )ÿ ÿ 2 )
Pi
tan ( ) ÿÿ --
= cos( ÿ ÿ ÿÿ 4 – ÿ 2 ) 2
=
ÿ
× Pi ÿ ÿ 4 – ÿ2 ) ------------------------------------------D
× (5.50)
L 2 r0 × cos(
e cos( ÿ ÿ ÿÿ 4 + ÿ 2 )
ÿ
Pi ÿÿ ÿ
–tan – -- – -----
( ) ÿÿ ÿmax ÿ ÿ
4
=× 2 sin –
h2 r0 e ÿmax ( ) h1 (5.51)
ÿ
Pi ÿÿ ÿ
–tan ( ) – -- – -----
ÿÿ ÿmax ÿ ÿ
4
= × 2
d1 r0 e – the apex cos( ÿmax ) (5.52)
angle of the logarithmic spiral
= ÿ 1 ÿ ÿmax
tan–1 ------------- ÿ ÿ tanÿÿ (5.53)
• Application example: with the

following assumptions:
D = 0,30 m s =
1,75 m
275
q0 = 50 kPa
C = 0 kPa
ÿ' = 38°
on obtient :
+= 1 160 kPa
qp ; d
h1 = 0,31 m
h2 = 0,34 m
L = 2,10 m
d1 = 0,50 m
If we want to allow the logarithmic spiral to develop completely within the distribution cushion, the
latter must have the following minimum dimensions:
HM > h1 + h2 d
>L
Comments:
– in the case of thin embankments not covered by structural elements (such as
foundations, slabs, slabs, etc.), these criteria determine a minimum thickness
Hmin to be respected in order to “hope” to benefit from maximum efficiency for
the system . Otherwise, the load that can be mobilized at the inclusion head (the
efficiency) is reduced and the failure develops by shearing around a cone
emerging at the upper surface of the embankment. The limit load is controlled by
the weight of the cone increased by the effect of cohesion and the surface load.
Experiments have established that the angle of the cone is equal to the peak
angle of the material; – for
thin distribution mattresses (HM < h1 + h2) surmounted by a structural element
(foundation, slab, slab type), as the failure mechanism can only develop, in this
case, on a reduced height, the load that can be mobilized at the inclusion head
is greater than that obtained with the Prandtl diagram. Apart from a detailed study,
it is safe to keep the value obtained with Prandtl for mattress thicknesses less
than (h1 + h2).
4.2.3. Calculation of the limit transfer at the top of the inclusion at the edge of the structure
4.2.3.1. Case of zero flange overhang
Presentation
The configuration is that of figure 5.59. The outer bare of the inclusion coincides with the bare of
the sole. The load applied to the sole is practically entirely retransmitted to the inclusion head.
The vertical stress applied to the ground in the plane of the head of the inclusions is the stress
ÿHM related to the surrounding terrain.
276
Figure 5.59. Extreme case of an inclusion at the edge of the sole and an overflowing mattress.
This ÿHM value depends only on the geometry and does not depend on the load on the footing. It
controls the failure mechanism that can develop from the inclusion head. The limit value of the qp
+/ÿHM ratio defines the coefficient Nq* associated with this configuration.
Nq* evaluation method It is possible

to evaluate the Nq* coefficient in a simple way by breaking it down into two contiguous failure
mechanisms: a thrust mechanism (above the inclusion head) and an abutment mechanism
(outside), as shown in Figure 5.60.
According to the remark made in paragraph 4.2.1.2, the analysis can be carried out as if the
problem were planar.
Volume 1 Volume 2
Figure 5.60. Decomposition into two limit equilibriums of thrust and stop.
277
The equilibria considered being those of a non-heavy medium, the intermediate stress q in the
plane separating the two domains is uniform. The stress q represents respectively: – volume 1 (on
the left in the figure), the thrust
+
at the angle ÿ' due to the stress qp in the non-heavy medium:
+ (5.54)
q = qp Kq1
– volume 2 (on the right in the figure), the stop at the angle ÿ' due to the stress ÿHM in the non-
heavy medium: q = ÿHM Kq2
The coefficient (5.55)
Kq1 (respectively Kq2) is the coefficient transmission of overloads in a non-heavy medium in

thrust (respectively abutment). Its analytical expression was established by Caquot and Kerisel
(1966) in the most general case (Fig. 5.61). The expressions are simplified in the present case by
taking into account that: ÿ0 = ÿ = ÿ = 0.
It follows from equations (5.55) and (5.56) that the ratio qp +/ÿHM is equal to Kq2/ Kq1. This ratio
is therefore analogous to a lift factor Nq*.
Comment. The approach can be extended to the case of a material possessing
cohesion (theorem of corresponding states). Only natural soils (and not the
distribution mattress) could require taking into account an additional cohesion
term.
It is safe in this case to neglect the cohesion of the natural soil.
278
Figure 5.61. Transmission of an overload in a non-heavy medium

(Caquot and Kerisel, 1966).
279
Case of a nil overhang and an extended mattress
The fracture mechanism develops in a homogeneous medium. Prandtl's solution is therefore

directly applicable.
Figure 5.62. Configuration of zero overhang and extended mattress.
It is nevertheless interesting to compare the value Nq(Prandtl) with that obtained by the approach
consisting in breaking down the problem into two joined equilibria.
The inclination ÿ of the stress q in the vertical plane separating the two domains is taken as equal
to the friction angle ÿ' of the mattress (breakage situation).
Table 5.IV confirms that it is indeed acceptable to assimilate the term Nq* = Kq2/Kq1 obtained to
the Prandtl lift factor.
Table 5.IV. Comparison of Nq* values to Prandtl's Nq lift factor .
Kq1(ÿ1',
f1' Nq (Prandtl) Kq2(ÿ1', ÿ/ÿ'=–1) Nq*= Kq2/Kq1 Nq*/Nq
d/ÿ1'=1)
30 18,40 0,315 5,804 18,43 1,00
33 26,09 0,285 7,425 26,05 1,00
35 33,30 0,266 8.850 33,27 1,00
38 48,93 0,240 11.745 48,94 1,00
40 64,20 0,224 14.393 64,25 1,00
280
This observation shows that the decomposition of the lift problem into two
adjoining thrust-stop equilibria constitutes a valid approximation.
It is proposed to extend this approximation to the case where the two domains
consist of distinct materials.
Case of a nil overhang of the sole and a cushion limited to the
grip of the sole
Figure 5.63. Configuration of zero sole overhang and a cushion limited to

the influence of the sole.
In this situation, volume 1 is characterized by the angle of friction of the granular

ma telas (ÿ1') and volume 2 by that of the surrounding soil (ÿ2'). The inclination of
the stress q in the vertical plane separating the two volumes must be chosen equal
to the lowest angle of friction, a priori that of the surrounding soil.
This approach was applied by combining an interval of values ÿ1' = [30° – 40°] for
the mattress and an interval of values ÿ2' = [15° – 30°] for the floor by casing.
Table 5.V summarizes the Nq* values over the defined intervals.
Figure 5.64 presents the same results graphically and compares them to the Nq
values that would be obtained with a large lateral extension mattress.
For a mattress whose angle of friction is ÿ1' = 35°, the coefficient Nq applicable
to the central meshes which is equal to 33.3 is divided for the extreme case of an in-
281
clusion placed at the edge of the structure by a factor of 2 or 3 depending on whether the angle
of friction of the surrounding soil is only 25° or 20°.
Table 5.V. Values of the Nq* factor for a mattress of limited

extension (angle of friction ÿ1') in a ground (angle of friction ÿ2').
Mattress ÿ1'
Nq(ÿ1’) Sol ÿ2’ = 15° Sol ÿ2’ = 20°
Kq1(ÿ1', d/ Kq2(ÿ2, d/ Kq1(ÿ1', d/ ÿ2'= Kq2(ÿ2', d/

Nq* Nq*
ÿ2'= 1) ÿ2'= – 1) 1) ÿ2'= – 1)
30 18,4 0,305 2,129 6,98 0,304 2,872 9,45
33 26,1 0,271 2,129 7,86 0,270 2,872 10,64
35 33,3 0,250 2,129 8,52 0,249 2,872 11,53
38 48,9 0,220 2,129 9,68 0,220 2,872 13,05
40 64,2 0,202 2,129 10,54 0,201 2,872 14,29
Sol ÿ2’ = 25° Sol ÿ2’ = 30°
Kq1(ÿ1', d/ Kq2(ÿ2', d/ Kq1(ÿ1', d/ Kq2(ÿ2', d/

Nq* Nq*
ÿ2'= 1) ÿ2'= – 1) ÿ2'= 1) ÿ2'= – 1)
0,306 4,002 13,08 0,315 5,804 18,43
0,272 4,002 14,71 0,278 5,804 20,88
0,250 4,002 16,01 0,256 5,804 22,67
0,221 4,002 18,11 0,225 5,804 25,80
0,203 4,002 19,71 0,207 5,804 28,04
As a corollary, this means that under the same conditions of a mattress ÿ1' = 35° the limiting
stress on an inclusion placed at the edge of the structure and 1 m below the surface of the
surrounding soil does not exceed 160 kPa (soil ÿ2 ' = 25°) or even 115 kPa (soil ÿ2' = 20°).
282
Figure 5.64. Comparison of Nq* values (case of a mattress with zero

overhang) with Nq values for a mattress with large lateral extension.
4.2.3.2. Case of flange overhang greater than Lmax

If the sole extends far beyond the inclusion, the Prandtl mechanism can develop entirely in the
mattress but becomes controlled by the stress applied to the soil between the inclusions.
+
average qs
The coefficient Nq to be used in equation (5.39) is the Prandtl value for the mattress angle ÿ1' .
It can be considered that this condition is met when the overhang of the footing with respect to the face
of the inclusion is greater than or equal to Lmax (Fig. 5.48).
The limit value of the stress thus obtained at the inclusion head by the Prandtl mechanism will be
called qp +(P). In the specific case of a purely frictional granular mattress, equations (5.38) and (5.43)
make it possible to establish the following relationship with the coverage rate ÿ in a cell:
= Nq +
qp + ( ) P ( --------------------------------- q0 (5.56)
ÿMHM )ÿ Nq ( ) – 1 + 1
Or :
HM thickness of the mattress between the head of the inclusions and the sole; ÿ1'
friction angle of the mattress; ÿM density of the
mattress.
283
4.2.3.3. Case of an intermediate overhang between 0 and Lmax
This is the case illustrated in Figure 5.65. The failure mechanism in the domain
+
2 (stop balance) is controlled both by the constraint qs The factor Nq* to and the stress ÿH.
be considered then also depends on the L/D ratio (L overhang of the structure, D diameter of the
inclusion).
The overload transmission coefficient at the stop can no longer be expressed
analytically. Its direct calculation is possible by applying the kinematic approach
of the failure calculation. This makes it possible, for given values qs +, ÿH and
L, to establish the limit stop stress in the vertical plane separating domains 1 and 2.
These calculations were conducted using Talren 4 software for a number of configurations. We
successively considered the case where the mattress itself overflowed the sole (case of a
mattress with large lateral extension) and the case where the mattress stopped at the bare of the
sole. In the latter case, the abutment mechanism then develops both in the mattress and in the
surrounding soil.
Figure 5.65. Case of a foundation overhang less than Lmax.
284
+
Figure 5.66 presents, by way of example, the values of the limit stress qp established by this
approach for the two situations of a mattress with an extended or reduced footprint due to the
footing. This study shows that the limit stress on the inclusion head varies substantially linearly
between the two limit values
associated respectively with: –
zero overhang of the footing, i.e. the value qp +(L = 0) = Nq* ÿH ; – an overhang
L greater than Lmax for which the limiting value is that of the Prandtl mechanism qp+(P) which is
calculated by equation (5.56) for a load q 0
and a recovery rate ÿ fixed.
Figure 5.66. Variation of the limit stress on the inclusion head with the overhang of
the footing compared to the face of the inclusion.
Comment. The case studied is that of a mattress with a thickness HM = 30 cm, an

inclusion with a diameter D = 30 cm, a mattress with an angle of friction ÿ1' = 38° and
the surrounding soil ÿ2' = 25°. In this approach the influence of the HM/D ratio has not
been neglected.
The limit stress on the sole to be considered for a given overhang L can therefore be estimated by
linear interpolation between the two values qp + (L = 0) and qp + (P)

(Fig. 5.67) :
+ =
L
)L=0 + + (5.57)
q
p qp +( [ ]
----------- –( )L=0
qp +( ) Pqp
Lmax
285
Figure 5.67. Principle for determining the limit stress on the inclusion head by
interpolation between the extreme situations of an overhang greater than
Lmax and a zero overhang.
4.2.3.4. Combination of the edge effect In the
general case where there is more than one inclusion under the footing, the edge effect
which has just been analyzed only applies to a fraction of the perimeter of the inclusion .
This fraction obviously varies depending on whether the inclusion under consideration is
at an angle or on one side.
The limit stress which was evaluated qp +(L) only applies to the "external" fraction of
the perimeter, whereas the limit value calculated with the mechanism of
Prandtl qp +(P) applies to the "internal" fraction. It is therefore a weighted value of
these two terms that must be retained.
286
By analogy with the distribution of negative friction inside a group of piles as defined in appendix H of standard NF P 94-262
"Deep foundations", the following weighting relationships are proposed to establish the limit stress values on the inclusion head
qp locations: • Single line of inclusions

+
applicable to different
+ 1 2
= + + (5.58)
qp _ ()L
3 --qp +( ) P 3 --qp
+ 2 1
= + (5.59)
qp e +()L
3 --qp +( ) P 3 --qp
Figure 5.68
• Several queues of inclusions
(i) ÿ interior
+
+ (5.60)
qp i , = ( ) qp
P
(a) ÿ angle 7
+ 5
=
+ + (5.61)
qp _ ()L
12 -----qp +( ) P 12 -----qp
(e) exterior
5 1
+ = + (5.62)
qp e
6 --qp +( ) P
+()L
6 --qp
Figure 5.69
4.2.4. Summary The evaluation
of the limit stress value at the head of the inclusions placed in the center of a mesh can be made from equations (5.38) and
(5.43) by adopting as the value of the coefficient Nq that associated with the Prandtl mechanism ( table 5.III) and a shape
coefficient sq equal to 1. The value of the friction angle to be taken into account is that in the critical state (shear at constant
volume).
It is safe to neglect the increase in Nq when the mattress is of limited thickness with respect to the diameter of the inclusions.
In the case of peripheral inclusions, the limit stress at the top of the inclusion depends on the overhang L of the structure with
respect to the face of the inclusion. The results obtained show that it is acceptable to consider that it varies linearly
287
with L on the interval [L = 0, Lmax] (Lmax width of the Prandtl mechanism, (Fig.. 5.58 and table
5.III) between the extreme values corresponding respectively to:
– an overhang L greater than Lmax , ie the value qp +(P) associated with the Prandtl mechanism
and which is calculated by equation (5.56) in the configuration of an elementary mesh subjected to
a load representing a given uniform stress q0 . The coefficient Nq used depends only on the angle
of friction of the mattress (table 5.V); – a null overflow, i.e. the value qp +(L = 0) = Nq* ÿH ; this
value depends on the
vertical stress ÿH applied to the outside of the footing at the level of the head of the inclusions and
on the coefficient Nq* obtained from the friction angles of the mattress and the surrounding ground
(table 5.III).
+ (L) is obtained by interpolation between these values (equation 5.57).

The qp value
Different weightings between the qp +(L) and qp +(P) values make it possible to establish the limit
values applicable according to the position of the inclusions under the footing (relationships 5.58
to 5.62). • Application
example
Figure 5.70. Configuration of the studied example.
– Mattress thickness HM = 0.3 m and friction angle ÿ1' = 38°;

– Inclusions of diameter D = 0.4 m;
– Coverage rate in the central grid: ÿ = ÿ 0.22/1.22 = 8.7%;
– Surrounding soil: friction angle ÿ2' = 20° and specific weight ÿ = 18 kN/m3;
– Influence of the HM/D ratio neglected;
288
– Calculation load on the footing Qd = 2.2 MN (representing an equivalent uniform stress q0 ~

300 kPa). ÿ1' = 38° Nq (P) = 48.9
(table 5.III)
Lmax/B = 7,0 (tableau 5.III)
Lmax = 7.0 × 0.4 = 2.8 m •
Value qp +(P) applicable for an overhang L greater than 2.8 m: Nq = Nq(P)

= 48.9 ÿ = 0.087 q0 +
ÿMHM ~
300 kPa (mattress weight ÿMHM neglected)
+ (P) = 2839 kPa (equation 5.56)
qp
qs +(P) = 2,839/48.9 = 58 kPa •
Value qp +(L = 0) for zero overhang Nq*(ÿ1',

ÿ2') = 13.05 (table 5.V)
+
qp (L = 0) =Nq* ÿH = 13.05 × 0,8 × 18 = 188 kPa

from where qp + (L) = 188 + 0.3/2.8 (2 839 – 188) = 472 kPa and
the following limit values in mind for: – interior
+ = 2 839 kPa ;
inclusion qp, i
+ = 7/12 × 2839 + 5/12 × 472 = 1 850 kPa.
– inclusion d’angle qp, a
Note. The preceding calculation is carried out assuming that: – the
stress qs +(P) obtained in the inner cell remains lower than the value of the calculation of the limit
stress at the surface of the ground ÿv ; d ; – the maximum load in the

inclusion Qp, max satisfies the screw strength criteria
vis-à-vis the ground and vis-à-vis the constituent material of the inclusion.
Comment. In the case of a thin mattress surmounted by a rigid structural element (such as
foundations, slabs, rafts, etc.), at the edge of this structure and under certain geometric conditions
(distance of the inclusion from the edge of the structure, thickness of the distribution mattress, etc.),
two failure modes can coexist: that described with the Prandtl diagram and that of a plastic flow from
the head of the inclusion emerging on the surface at the edge of the structural element . The
constructive provisions adopted in this document generally make it possible to avoid the creation of
plastic flows emerging on the surface and thus to dispense with a particular verification other than
that presented above.
their.
289
Figure 5.71. Development of failure mechanisms according to the overhang of the foundation.
4.2.5. Special case of materials treated with hydraulic binders

Materials treated with hydraulic binders acquire a tensile strength which
can be significant. This is taken into account in the dimensioning of the
pavement layers.
The failure mechanism can be linked to the appearance of cracks (shear failure or tensile failure).
The recommendations in use in road works (SETRA-GTS, 2000, and road standards) provide
indications on the resistances to be expected for a given treatment and the calculation limit values
to be considered.
As it stands, it is proposed to adopt the same recommendations. Care should be taken to adopt
a rupture criterion compatible with this tensile strength.
290
Bibliography
BS8006 – Code of Practice for Strengthened/ reinforced soils and other fills. Section 8, Design
of embankments with reinforced soil foundations on poor ground, 2010.
Sand concrete. Characteristics and practices of use. Realized under the aegis of the project
National Sablocrete. Presses des Ponts, 1994.
BERTHELOT P., DURAND F., GLANDY M., FROSSARD A – “Taving and deformation
modules of soil layers; applications to soil reinforcements by inclusions and analysis of
the behavior of the distribution mattress”. XIV ECSMGE 2007, Madrid, Spain.
BRIANÇON L. – “Final report of the Chelles experiment”. Report 2-08-1-05,

July 2008.
CAQUOT A., KERISEL J. – Treatise on soil mechanics. Gautier-Villars, 1966.
CHEVALIER B. – Experimental and numerical studies of charge transfers in granular
materials. Application to soil reinforcements by rigid inclusions.
Doctoral thesis, Grenoble I Joseph-Fourier University, defended on September 5, 2008.
CUR – Design guidelines for piled embankments. CUR 226, 2010.

EBGEO – Recommendation for the design and calculation of soil structures with geosynthetic
reinforcement. In: Reinforced earth bodies on point or linear load-bearing elements.
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geotechnik eV, (German Geotechnical So ciety), Ernst &
Sohn, (Chapter 9), 2010.
GLANDY M., FROSSARD A. – “Justification of a superficial foundation on soil reinforced
with inclusions”. Annals of the IBTP, n° 1, 2002, p. 45-53.
HEWLETT W.J., RANDOLPH M.A. - “Analysis of piled embankments”. Ground Enginee
ring, April 1988, p. 12-18.
ISO/TR 20432 – Guidelines for determining long-term strength
geosynthetics for soil reinforcement, 2007.
JENCK O. – Reinforcement of compressible soils by vertical rigid inclusions. Physical and
digital delusion. Doctoral thesis, INSA Lyon, November 29, 2005.
LAWSON C.R. – “Serviceability limits for low-height reinforced piled embankments”.
Proceedings GeoEng 2000, Melbourne, Australia. Lancaster: Technomic Publishing Co.
NF EN 1997-1, Eurocode 7 – Geotechnical calculation. Part 1: General rules. (classification

index P 94-251-1) with its national appendix (classification index P 94-251-2).
NF P 11-213, DTU 13.3 – Paving - Design, calculation and execution, 2007.
NF P 94-262 - Justification of geotechnical structures - National application standards
of Eurocode 7 – Deep foundations.
NF P 94-270 – Geotechnical calculations Retaining structures, Reinforced and massive
embankments in nailed soil, 2009.
Nordic handbook. Guidelines for reinforced soils and fills. Nordic geosynthetic group,
rev. B, october 2005.
291
OKYAY US – Experimental and numerical study of load transfers in a solid mass reinforced
by rigid inclusions. Application to static and dynamic loading cases. Doctoral thesis,
INSA Lyon, November 24, 2010.
PECKER A. – Capacity design principles for shallow foundations in seismic areas. Keyno
te lecture, XIth European conference on earthquake engineering, Paris, 1998.
SALENÇON J. - Failure calculation and limit analysis. Presses des Ponts, 1983.
SCHLOSSER F. – “Analogues and differences in the behavior and calculation of retaining
structures in reinforced earth and by soil nailing”. ITBTP Annals No. 418, 1983.
SETRA – Soil treatment with lime and/ or hydraulic binders (GTS). Application to the
production of embankments and capping layers. Technical Guide, 2000.
SETRA-LCPC – Construction of embankments and capping layers (GTR). Technical Guide,
1992 (revised 2000).
292
CHAPTER 6
Soil recognition
1. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING MISSIONS

FOR THE REINFORCEMENT OF COMPRESSIBLE SOIL
THROUGH RIGID INCLUSIONS
This document defines, with reference to standard NF P94-500 on geotechnical engineering
assignments, the preliminary G1 and G2 project geotechnical studies for the reinforcement of
compressible soils by rigid inclusions. It details the geotechnical investigations necessary for the
different stages of the geotechnical studies.
Note. Throughout this chapter, the notations used for the geotechnical
parameters are defined in the table appended to the Recommendations.
1.1. Preliminary geotechnical site study G11

The purpose of this study is only to predefine the geological and
geotechnical site of the land, without generally requiring geotechnical
investigations. It generally only includes documentary studies, the non-
exhaustive list of
which is given
below: – geological
study; – hydrogeological study; – geotechnical databases: BET,
Infoterre, archives, publications… – site visit,
field and neighborhood survey; –
risk prevention plan
(PPR); – documentary studies; – environmental constraints.
The report of this first study defines a summary preliminary geological and geotechnical model
highlighting the compressibility of the foundation soils. It must present the various risks linked to the
foreseeable settling of the planned work in terms of difficulty of construction, costs and deadlines. It
must propose a set of possible technical solutions.
293
1.2. Preliminary project geotechnical study G12

The objective of the preliminary project geotechnical study is to allow the
development of the preliminary project of the structure by defining the geotechnical
hypotheses to be taken into account and by identifying the general principles of construction.
After a technical and economic study, it must provide a choice of solutions that takes into account
the constraints of the project imposed by the contracting authority and the project manager:
maximum settlements, differential settlements, construction schedule. At the end of this study,
the contracting authority and the project manager choose the technique that best meets their
technical and economic constraints.
The pre-project geotechnical study necessarily includes geotechnical investigations, making it

possible to define the geotechnical data as detailed in chapter 4, and which may include: –
geophysical surveys; – geological surveys with
sampling; – laboratory identification tests; –
tests to determine the mechanical parameters in the laboratory; – in situ
tests ; – hydrogeological investigations.
The preliminary design study report establishes the geological, hydrogeological and geotechnical
model. It provides dimensional sketches of the various solutions, in terms of settlement in
particular. In some cases, he may conclude that the structure does not require improvement or
reinforcement, and in particular if the settlements estimated for the structure are compatible with
the stability of the structure and its proper functioning.
It provides a program of additional investigations, depending on the various possible solutions,

to be carried out during the geotechnical study of the G2 project. 1.3. Geotechnical study of
the G 2 project as part of a reinforcement project using rigid inclusions In general,

this study provides an approach to the quantities/
deadlines/costs for carrying out the geotechnical works, and an identification of the consequences
of the residual geological risks , for the various possible techniques, in order to clarify the project
owner's decision.
The content of this study, as described in this paragraph, is specific to reinforcement projects
using rigid inclusions.
In the "Project" phase, it must allow, depending on the constraints imposed by the contracting
authority and the project manager, to define:
294
Chapter 6 - Soil recognition
– the type of
inclusion; – the mesh of
inclusions; – the length of
the inclusions; – the thickness and implementation criteria of the transfer platform.
Within this framework, a program of additional geotechnical investigations
is defined which must provide all the parameters necessary for the
calculations and dimensions of the reinforcement
by rigid inclusions: – static penetrometer tests, static penetrometer tests at
the piezocone point to complete the lithologies and determine
overconsolidated zones; – shear characteristics: cu, c', ÿ' determined

by the triaxial test; – determination
of cu using a vane; – compressibility characteristics: ÿ'p, ROC, e0, Cc and
Cs, Cv, kv under
different stresses, ck, Cÿe ; – hydrogeology: installation of piezometers and
monitoring to specify the amplitude of fluctuations in the water table over time.
2. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATION PROGRAM The scope of this
guide concerns geotechnical investigations of more or less compressible soils
intended to support loads from building surface foundations (slabs, slabs,
footings) , reservoirs, embankments and linear structures, and the anchoring
layer of the inclusions.
The first objective of the geotechnical investigations is to provide all the

calculation parameters allowing the evaluation of the displacements (vertical
and, possibly, horizontal) of the natural soils. The results of the calculations
must make it possible to propose, depending on the constraints of the project,
the most suitable reinforcement technique. In some cases the conclusion may
be that it is not necessary to reinforce the soils. The second objective is to
provide the parameters necessary for the dimensioning of the reinforcement
elements, in this case rigid inclusions.
The geotechnical investigation program must be established according to the
following three
elements: – the nature of the work to be carried out: the nature and
characteristics of the works as well as any project constraints (limit values of
settlements, construction deadlines, etc. ), must be defined in accordance with standard NF P
295
94-500, the elements are provided by the client and the project manager; –
the geological,
hydrogeological and geotechnical context. It must be the subject of a prior
investigation based on the available elements:
– visit to the site: virgin land, existing structures, buried pipes, accessibility of
construction machinery, – a
documentary survey (geological maps, databases of the
basement, theses, PPR, previous studies,
etc.), – a neighborhood
survey, – etc.
– the geotechnical influence zone, zone of interaction with the project, in plan
(existing works) and in depth (pipes, VRD, etc.).
The investigation programs are presented in tables 6.I, 6.II and 6.III according to
the provisions of the “Recommendations on the consistency of geotechnical
investigations for the construction of buildings” of the USG.
Table 6.I. ASIRI geotechnical investigation program.
Geology and stratigraphy
Project
Goals With Nature Depth
information
Litho-stratigraphic Buildings Geophysics

sections of the For an area < 2,500 m2 : Trailed or electric
compressible three surveys sounding
layers Seismic refraction
+ an additional survey
Geological surveys
per section of 2,500 m2
Core drillings (note 2)
Linear works (see note 1)
well suited to compressible
soils, basis for
stratigraphy and 3 m minimum below
identification of soils the base of the last
compressible layer
Plan mass Destructive surveys – influenced by the project,
shovel wells; – with certainty that the
continuous auger; characteristics of the
– destructive drilling ground improve beyond that.
with recordings of
drilling parameters.
Mechanical surveys:
static penetrometers as
a complement for
stratigraphy and
identification of soils
(note 2)
Note 1. The reconnaissance can be organized by dividing the layout or the zone to
be studied into elementary cells comprising the same soundings and tests. Figures 6.1
296
and 6.2 show an example of dividing a plot into meshes of length 4L. L should
be between 50 and 250 m depending on the sites and soil variability. For a
linear structure, the soundings must be set up on the axis of the route and on
two lines about thirty or fifty meters apart on either side of the axis. The
density of reconnaissance depends on the variability of the soils and must be
adapted to the consistency of the project.
Note 2. Any geotechnical investigation must include at least one reference

core drilling. From this reference we can complete the reconnaissance by
destructive soundings. The static penetration tests will make it possible to
identify the different soils by being calibrated on the cored sounding; if the
penetrometer includes a friction sleeve (CPT) and an pore pressure
measurement (piezocone or CPTU), the charts in Figures 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5
can be used.
Figure 6.1. Summary geotechnical survey (study and

construction of embankments on compressible soils,
SETRA-LCPC technical guide, 2000).
Figure 6.2. Detailed geotechnical reconnaissance

(study and construction of embankments on compressible
soils, SETRA-LCPC technical guide, 2000).
297
Figure 6.3. Soil identification chart according to the CPT

(Douglas and Olsen, 1981).
Figure 6.4. Soil identification charts according to the CPT and the CPTU
(Robertson et al., 1986).
298
Figure 6.5. Soil identification charts based on standardized CPT and CPTU parameters
(Douglas and Olsen, 1981).
Table 6.II. ASIRI geotechnical investigation program.
Hydrogeology
Project
Goals With Nature Depth
information
Low, high and exceptional 1 piezometer Closed Groundwater and

groundwater levels: per section of piezometers (CPI)deep aquifers if
EB, EH, EE 3,000 m2 for necessary
reconciliation The piezocone
History of the variation of with the historical can provide
the tablecloth (see note) study an estimate
of horizontal
Forecast of the variation of the kh
Plan mass tablecloth permeability .
Permeability During the

oedometric
Water analyzes if necessary test, the
(corrosion, aggressiveness/ vertical
concrete binder) permeability
kv can be
measured.
Note. The historical determination of the groundwater table is important

since it contributes to the overconsolidation of soils.
299
Table 6.III. ASIRI geotechnical investigation program.
Project information Goals With Nature Indicative depth
Exploitation charges Compressible layer For an area < 500 m2 : Field tests (note 1) For vanes (every 0.50 m):
identifications two sounds Static penetrometers over the entire thickness of
Fill heights and piezocones the compressible layers
Classification : Scissometers
Construction deadlines NFP 11-300 ; For an area of 500 m2 to Pressuremeters
GTR 92 For pressuremeters, CPT
10,000 m2 : – one
Commissioning times Essais d'identifica tion and core drillings: 7
sounding per 500 m2
Rate of dissipation (note 2) ÿd, ÿs¸, diameters and 3 m minimum
with a minimum of three under the base of the
of excess pore ÿ, wn, wl , wp, Ip,
soundings
Project constraints: – pressures VBS and MO (note 3) inclusions, or at the refusal
age; for CPT.
maximum admissible – minimum distance
Compression tests (note
settlement, – Precise knowledge between soundings
4)
maximum admissible of 40 m.
of compressible Oedometric tests (1 day)
differential settlements thicknesses and possibly for muds and
– residual peat creep tests (7 days).
settlements after ÿ'p
delivery of the work Break parameters
(note 5), OCR, e0, Cc
Compressibility
and Cs (notes 6, 7 and 8),
ZIG (Zone of Geotechnical settings
Cv (Note 9), kv (note
Influence)
9) under different
constraints, ck (Note
10), Cÿe (notes 10 and
11) .
Shear tests
UU triaxial tests,
CD or CU + u
excluding shear box tests
ment ÿ' and c' (note 12),
cu
(notes 13 and 14)
and ÿcu (note 15)
Note 1
The penetrometer and pressuremeter tests will make it possible to justify the bearing capacities
of the rigid inclusions. On the other hand, they cannot reliably estimate the consolidation and
creep settlements of compressible soils and even less the durations of settlements. The use of the
pressuremeter could be acceptable for unsaturated low compressible soils for which the
settlement times can be considered short.
Note 2
The first objective of the identification tests is to classify the soils and
qualify them (very plastic clay, loam peat, etc.). The second objective is to
correlate the identification parameters with the shear and compressibility
parameters to complete the project database (wn with Cc/(1 + e0), ÿ' with Ip…).
Note 3. Reference values of the physical parameters of compressible soils.
300
Table 6.IV. Benchmark values for compressible soils.
wL
Designation ÿs (Mg/m3) ÿd (Mg/m3) It is
In (%) Ip FOR (%)
Soft clays 2.6 to 2.7 0.9 to 1.8 1.2 to 2 30 to 100 20 to 80 15 to 50
Vases 2.4 to 2.7 0.7 to 1.5 1.5 to 3 60 to 150 80 to 180 2 to 10
Peats 1.4 to 2 0.1 to 0.5 3 to 10 200 to 1,000 10 to 100
Note 4
Oedometric tests are essential for estimating primary and secondary settlements
(creep) and their foreseeable durations.
Note 5. Preconsolidation pressure
The determination of the preconsolidation pressure ÿ'p is essential but delicate. An
indication of the degree of overconsolidation (ROC = ÿ'p /ÿ'v0) can be obtained from
soundings using the static penetrometer and the piezocone tip (Fig. 6.6).
One can plot for a normally consolidated clay the theoretical variation of qt as a
function of depth, knowing the relation between cu and ÿ'v0 or between cu and qt
(note 13) and compare it to the values of qt recorded by the penetrometer or the
piezocone. The comparison between the two indicates whether the soil is
overconsolidated or close to the normally consolidated state. Figure 6.6 gives an
example for a homogeneous mud mud clay, clearly overconsolidated at the head,
then very slightly overconsolidated at depth.
301
Figure 6.6. Indication of the degree of overconsolidation from qt as a

function of depth.
Note 6. Compressibility
–= e
– indice de recompression CS
---------------------
on the discharge-recharge cycle;
ÿlgÿÿv ( )
–= e
– compression index CC
---------------------
on the first load; ÿ lgÿÿv ( ) –
tangent
oedometric modulus for a stress ÿ'v, in the normally consolidated domain as a
function of Cc (or in the overconsolidated domain as a function of Cs) :
2 3ÿÿv ,
Age ÿÿv ( ) = ----------------------( ) 1 + e
Cc or Cs
( ) – secant oedometric modulus, Eoed , over a stress interval ÿ'v1 , ÿ'v2,: quotient of
the variation of ÿ'v by the volume variation over this interval:
=
ÿÿÿv
, )
( ÿÿv2
Eoed ÿÿv1 ( -----------
+ ÿe e11)
Note 7. Compressibility correlations – between the

compression index Cc and the liquid limit wL.
Table 6.V gives two correlations which vary with the sites where they were established.
302
Table 6.V. Determination of Cc from wL.

Site Correlation Reference
Clays of low or medium

Cc = 0,009 (wL – 10) Terzaghi and Peck (1948)
sensitivity
Rio marine clay

Cc = 0,013 (wL – 18) Ortigao (1975)
January
– between the compressibility factor Cc/(1 + e0) and the natural water content wn (Fig. 6.7).
Figure 6.7. Bundle of values of Cc/(1 + e0 ) as a function of wn for normally

consolidated inorganic clays (Lambe and
Whitman, 1969, soils of the western USA).
– between the compression index Cc and the natural water content wn (Fig. 6.8)
Figure 6.8. Correlations for Bordeaux clays; Cc and Cs = f (wn)

(A. Marache et al., 2009).
303
Note 8. Benchmark values for the compression index Cc and the compression factor
compressibility Cc/ (1 + e0)
Table 6.VI. Benchmark values of the compressibility parameters of compressible soils.
Type of soles e0 Cc Cc/(1 + e0)
Soft clays 1.2 to 2 0.3 to 1 0.15 to 0.3
Vases 1.5 to 3 0.7 to 1.6 0.25 to 0.4
Peats 3 to 10 2 to 10 0.4 to 0.8
Note 9. Consolidation coefficient In Terzaghi's
consolidation theory, the vertical consolidation coefficient depends on the vertical permeability kv and the
oedometric modulus Eoed according to the following expression:
= kvEoed
----------------
Cv
w
It can also be expressed as a function of Cc, in the normally consolidated domain and by extension in the
overconsolidated domain as a function of Cs for a stress ÿ' as close as possible to the stress to which the
soil will be subjected by the structure to be constructed: – in the overconsolidated domain: ÿ' < ÿ'p kv
(1+e)s' cv 2 3
,= -------------------------
Csÿw
– in the normally consolidated domain: ÿ' > ÿ'p kv (1+e)s' cv 2 3
,= -------------------------
Ccÿw
This coefficient depends on the effective vertical stress ÿ', on the vertical permeability coefficient kv which
is expressed in m/s, but also on the compressibility of the soil Cc/(1 + e).
The variation of the permeability kv is related to the variation of the void index e (Fig. 6.9) by the following
relationship:
304
ÿ ÿ e e0 –= kv ÿ ÿ lg
------- -------------
ÿ kv0 ÿ
ck
ÿ ck = ÿlgk
Figure 6.9. Curve of variation of the permeability coefficient

kv as a function of the void index e. Determination of ck and lg kv0.
Note 10. Characterization of vertical creep Cÿ

secondary consolidation rate:
ÿH
-------
=
Not
--------- = H0
----------
Cÿ
ÿlgt ÿlgt
Cÿe creep index:
=
ÿe
=
Cÿe 1( e0
----------
Benchmark
Cÿ ) + ÿlgt
values
Note
11.of
the
Cÿe /Cc ratio
Table 6.VII. Reference values of the creep parameters of compressible soils.
Type of soles Cÿe/Cc
Soft clays 0.03 to 0.05

Vases 0.03 to 0.05
Peats 0.05 to 0.10
305
ˆ
Note 12
We recall the principles of the triaxi tests described in the standards NF P 94-070 and NF P
94-074 of October 1994.
For sheared soils in the normally consolidated domain: c' | 0; the angle of friction will be
taken in the critical state M'NC = M' crit (on the load surface) and will not be distinguished
from the angle of friction at the peak (Fig. 6.11).
For sheared soils in the overconsolidated domain, if the deformation is limited and less
than that of the elastic limit (under the load surface) the values will be taken at the peak (Fig. 6.10
and 6.11) and will have M'SC= M ' peak and c'SC = c' pi.c. SC In the
picdo In the
SC over-consolidated
pic.
domain the constraint paths terminate on the "ellipse"; the ends of the paths are therefore
not aligned, however generally the curve is linearized to calculate M' and c' You can see
on the peak peak. Figure 6.10 that the determination of M' is tricky and less reliable than
and c' peak
peak in the normally consolidated domain.
Figure 6.10. Example of determination of M' and c' in the normally

consolidated and overconsolidated domains for the green clay of
Romainville (Josseaume and Azizi, 1991).
306
Figure 6.11. Curves representing the deflector and the excess pore pressure
as a function of the axial deformation during undrained tests carried out
on normally consolidated and overconsolidated saturated clays.
For a clay, the angle of friction ÿ' decreases with the plasticity index. There are several correlations, we can
cite that of Fahri (1972) corresponding to French clays:
8
tanÿÿ += -------------
0,21
Ip + 6
Note 13. Correlations relating to undrained cohesion cu
– from the resistance measured with the standardized static penetrometer qc or qt and cu (Eurocode EC7-2)
– penetrometer
cu = (qc – ÿv0)/Nk
Nk must be determined on the construction site.
Generally we have 15 < Nk < 17;
307
– piezocone
cu = (qt – ÿv0)/Nkt
Nkt must be determined on the construction site.
Generally we have 15 < Nkt < 20.
– from the plasticity index Ip For normally
consolidated clays , on a given site, Skempton proposed (Fig. 6.12): cu = (0.11 + 0.0037 Ip) ÿ'v0.
Figure 6.12. Values of the cu/ÿ' v0 ratio as a function of the IP plasticity index .
Note 14. Classifications and reference values of cu, qc, EM and

pl – according to Terzaghi
Table 6.VIII. Cu values depending on the consistency of the clay.
clay consistency with (kPa))
very soft < 12
Molle 12 to 25
Farm 25 to 50
Steep 50 to 100
– according to “Recommendations for stone columns”

Highly compressible soils, muds and soft clays: cu < 20 kPa or qc < 300 kPa.
– according to Houÿ, 1986.
308
Table 6.IX. Values of EM and pl .

pl (kPa)
Soil type EM (MPa)
(with very low inertia probe)
Vase 0.2 to 1.5 20 to 150
soft clay 0.5 to 3 50 to 300
Note 15. Gain in cohesion not drained by consolidation In structural

calculations, the parameters ÿcu and ccu must never be used , since they have no physical
significance; ÿcu only serves to express the increase in cu as a function of the consolidation stress,
in the normally consolidated domain.
ÿcu is the factor of increase of cu according to the increase in the consolidation stress. It is
obtained directly in the Lambe diagram (Fig. 6.13) or in the Mohr diagram (Fig. 6.14): ÿcu sin
= -------------------------
ÿcu tan 1
ÿcu – sin
Figure 6.13. Determination of Figure 6.14. Determination of

ÿcu in the Lambe diagram. ÿcu in the Mohr diagram.
For very recent soils, marine mud for example, for which generally one can consider that the whole
layer is normally consolidated, the short-term cohesion cu increases linearly with depth starting
from zero at the surface (Fig. 6.15).
For most soils, we have cu = 0.25 to 0.35 ÿ'v0 for clays and cu = 0.5 ÿ'v0 for peats.
For soils overconsolidated at the surface (for example following variations in the level of the water
table which overconsolidate by suction the slice of ground on which it fluctuates during cycles of
desiccation-rewetting), it can be assumed that
309
the cohesion has an almost constant value over the thickness of the overconsolidated soil, then
increases proportionally to z (Fig. 6.15).
Figure 6.15. Evolution of the value of cu as a function of depth.
Bibliography
Eurocode 7-1 – Geotechnical calculation. Part 1, General Rules, June 2005.

Eurocode 7-2 – Geotechnical calculation. Part 2, Terrain Reconnaissance and Trials, Sep
member 2007.
FAHRI M. – “Correlation between the deformation modulus taken from the triaxial test and the plasticity
index”. The behavior of soils before failure. LPC liaison bulletin, special issue, June 1972.
HOUŸ A. – Dimensioning of steel sheet pile structures, 1986.

LEROUEIL S., MAGNAN, J.-P., TAVENAS F. – Embankments on soft clays. Lavoisier,
1985.
LUNNE T., ROBERTSON P.K., POWELL J.M. – Cone penetration testing in geotechnical
practice. Blackie academic and professional, 1997.
MARACHE A. et al. – “Understanding subsurface geological and geotechnical complexity at various scales
in urban soils using a 3D model”. Université de Bordeaux, GHY MAC. Georisk 2009.
NF P 11-213-1 – DTU Paving 13.3: Design, calculation and execution, March 2005.
NF P 11-300 (or GTR 1992) – Technical guides, booklets 1 and 2. Creation of rem
blais and capping layers. SETRA, LCPC, September 1992.
NF P 94-500 – Geotechnical engineering assignments. Classification and specifications, de
December 2006.
“Recommendations on the consistency of geotechnical investigations for the construction of USG buildings”.
Le Moniteur (detached notebook n° 2 of 16-12-2005, n° 5325).
SETRA-LCPC – Studies and construction of embankments on compressible soils. Technical guide

that, November 2000.
SETRA-LCPC– Soil treatment with lime and/ or hydraulic binders, application to the construction of
embankments and capping layers. Technical Guide, January 2000.
310
CHAPTER 7
Execution
1. COORDINATION WITH GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEERING MISSIONS
For a good quality structure, the following steps are necessary and concern all
the parts of geotechnical structures constituting the foundation on rigid inclusions:
embankments, inclusions, capping layers or mattresses, reinforcement additive,
excavations, earthworks, foundations , etc. : – definition
by the principal of the objectives targeted: limit settlements, intensity of the loads,
deadlines, thickness of the slab, etc. ; – completion
by a qualified project manager of the project geotechnical study (type G2); –
execution
of the works by a company in charge of the study and the geotechnical monitoring
of execution (type G3); – carrying out
by a qualified execution project manager of a geotechnical execution supervision
mission (type G4) making it possible to manage the external controls and in
particular the technical interfaces of the work packages involved in the project; –
carrying out,
by a body approved by the competent administrative authority, of a technical
control mission aimed at contributing to the prevention of hazards.
Before the company's intervention, the project owner or the project manager took
care to have the preliminary requests for information concerning the
concessionaires (DR) carried out.
In addition, soil reinforcements, like any other technique related to geotechnical
works, require supervision of the execution of the works, monitoring and
maintenance in accordance with the prescriptions of Eurocode 7 section 4.
The purpose of this chapter is to define the methods of
execution: – of the work
platform; – rigid inclusions (implantation, execution,
coppicing); – slabs or enlargements;
311
– the distribution mattress (type, thickness, implementation); – any

geosynthetics included in the mattress.
It is emphasized that these different elements can be implemented by different companies, which
requires proper management of the interfaces.
It should also be recalled that the execution studies require: – validation of

the adequacy of the technique with the nature of the ground and the working environment; – to
verify the adequacy
of the means implemented with the results to be obtained in terms of performance, rates and
planning; – to refine the dimensioning of the solution of rigid
inclusions retained in the project geotechnical study phase, taking into account the execution
parameters such as the geometric and mechanical characteristics of the rigid inclusion, the
particular points involving a adaptation of the mesh of inclusions, the characteristics of the
distribution mattress (the study is conducted according to the principles defined in chapter 5); –
establish an execution plan based on the technical data validated by the project manager; – to
recalibrate the phasing of the works, in
particular vis-à-vis the various trades that must intervene; – to propose technical solutions to
manage
environmental constraints, geotechnical hazards and contingencies during execution (eg discovery
during the execution phase of
buried structures not recognized during previous studies); – to draft a procedure for the execution
of rigid inclusions describing the phasing of implementation and indicating the corresponding
control plan.
2. EXECUTION OF THE WORK PLATFORM

2.1. Role of the platform
A working platform is generally made before the start of the inclusion site to allow the circulation of
the equipment of the companies responsible for carrying out the inclusions. Its characteristics must
be adapted to the conditions of execution (type of material, trafficability, etc.). It may be subject to
acceptance in order to guarantee the safety of the movement of machinery.
It can then be fully or partially integrated into the distribution mattress subject to specific precautions
and controls, detailed in this chapter. In this case, it must be approved, before being covered, in
order to guarantee its mechanical performance vis-à-vis the operation of the system of rigid
inclusions.
312
Chapter 7 - Execution
In addition, once the rigid inclusions have been made, this work platform is
generally affected by subsequent worksite operations, which may affect the
integrity of the rigid inclusions already in place (reinforced or not).
2.2. Analysis of the risks of intervention on the

platform with regard to inclusions
During and after soil reinforcement work, precautions should be taken to avoid
damage to the inclusions (generally unreinforced) and decompacting of the
capping layer.
The risks of damage to the upper part of the rigid inclusion may appear in the
following cases: – movement of
heavy construction machinery directly above or near the heads of the rigid
inclusions; –
circulation of heavy construction machinery on a work platform which is boring;
–
installation of networks (water, gas, electricity, etc.) between or in line with the
mesh of rigid
inclusions; – earthworks of footing
excavations; – resumption of the work platform after the ground reinforcement
work in order to carry out localized purging of
materials; – resumption of the work platform by treatment machines with binders
(lime, cement);
– recompaction of the working platform and installation of the additional capping
layer up to the underside of the structure.
2.3. Construction principles

In general, any excavation or excavation below the finished level of the
unreinforced inclusion heads is not recommended. If such excavations are
necessary for the project, for example to carry out drains or trenches of
networks, it will then be necessary to define specific prescriptions, which will
aim to reconstitute the initial mechanical performances and to preserve the
integrity of the inclusions. .
When the rigid inclusions are stopped at the surface of the platform, a minimum
distance allowing sufficient strength to be obtained must be respected between
their construction and the earthworks. This duration must be validated by proof
tests, with reference to the setting and the rise in resistance of the material of
the inclusions.
Comment. This duration can reach one week for inclusions made
in situ.
313
When the work platform is integrated into the distribution mattress, it is necessary
to ensure that it has not been damaged or polluted.
Comment. Because of these constraints, it is preferable to stop the inclusions
slightly below the upper level of the working platform.
For the continuation of the operations, a minimum thickness of 25 cm must exist
between the heads of rigid inclusions and the level of recompacting. The following
two configurations are then possible: –
the head of the inclusions is at the level of the work platform, and in this case it is
necessary to add material over 25 cm which will isolate the heads of inclusion
before compaction; – the head
of the inclusions is located more than 25 cm below the stripped level of the working
platform and recompacting can take place from there.
When the rigid inclusions are not reinforced, the earthworks carried out between
the inclusions must be carried out with the following precautions: –
excavations stable in the short term without the contribution of the rigid inclusions;
– reminder: need to comply with the legislation in force when a worker must
descend into an excavation 1.30 m deep and of a width less than two-thirds of
the depth. The support of the walls is obligatory with suitable means when
these are vertical or substantially vertical,
– in the case of a slope, this must not intercept the inclusions; –

careful earthworks around each inclusion before cutting it back to the finished level
of the inclusion.
3. EXECUTION OF RIGID INCLUSIONS

3.1. Review of execution techniques Rigid
inclusions can be carried out with extraction from the ground or with discharge of
the ground; they are classified into five main categories: – rigid
inclusions drilled with soil extraction; – drilled rigid
inclusions with soil displacement; – rigid vibratory or
beaten inclusions molded in place; – prefabricated rigid vibratory or
rammed inclusions; – rigid inclusions by incorporating a binder
with the soil (columns of treated soil, jet grouting, etc.).
Rigid inclusions can also be distinguished according to their constituent material:

mortar, concrete, steel, even wood, etc.
314
In general, all the methods of execution of piles and micropiles can be used for the
realization of rigid inclusions (see appendix A standard NF P 94 262).
Inclusions by mixing a binder with the soil constitute a specific category of

inclusions manufactured in situ, particularly with regard to inspections.
For a detailed description of installation techniques, please refer to: – standard NF
EN 1536 for bored piles without soil displacement; – standard NF EN
12699 for piles with soil displacement; – standard NF EN 14199 for
micropiles; – appendix A of standard NF P94-262
for pile and micropile techniques; – standard NF EN 12 716 for soil-cement column
techniques produced by jet grouting ; – standard NF EN 14 679 for the execution

of treated soil
columns.
3.2. Requirements concerning the materials

The material constituting the rigid inclusion has a much higher modulus of
deformation than the soil, and a specific resistance independent of the confinement
which can be provided by the surrounding soil. In addition to the mechanical
characteristics taken into account in the calculation note, it is necessary to
check the requirements relating to: – execution: resistance to washing,
workability of these materials; – durability: corrosion, attacks by chemical and bacteriological agents.
3.3. Description of the execution methods

Among the aspects or criteria involved in the choice of an execution method, we
can cite, in a non-exhaustive manner and without hierarchy of priority: – the
stability of the drilling; –
the risk of false refusal; –
the stability of the column of fresh material; –
the creation or not of cuttings; –
vibrations and nuisances; –
the possibility of arming the inclusion;
– the recording of the execution parameters; -
the yield ; – the
maximum lengths and diameters; – the
strength of the anchor layer; – soil and
water aggressiveness; –
accessibility of execution equipment; – local
resources; – the phasing
constraints linked to the method (control plan).
315
3.3.1. Rigid inclusions drilled with soil extraction 3.3.1.1.
Simple drilled, cased-drilled or mud-drilled inclusions The simple drilled inclusion
process can only be used in soil that makes it possible to ensure the stability of the drilling,
i.e. in general a coherent soil and the most often off the table.
The drilled cased or drilled mud technique makes it possible to make an inclusion when the
stability of the drilling is not assured. Concreting must be done in the shelter of a casing or with a
dip tube; however, it should be checked that the grip of the ground is sufficient to contain the
weight of the column of fresh material after extraction of the temporary casing.
3.3.1.2. Continuous Hollow Auger Inclusions
The hollow auger technique allows the injection under pressure, through the axis of the tool, of a
material (mortar/concrete) continuously during the ascent of the tool. This process may be suitable
in “unstable” ground, including under the water table.
3.3.1.3. Inclusions made with the micropile technique Micropile execution
techniques can also be used to make rigid inclusions.
3.3.2. Rigid inclusions drilled with soil displacement These are
rigid inclusions made using drilling methods with displacement that require the use of
tools specially designed for this purpose, auger or screw with a reverse pitch in the
displacement part.
The inclusions are made practically without cuttings using a hollow tool allowing the concreting of
the inclusions by the point. The hydraulic compound (concrete or mortar), introduced through the
soul of the screw, is placed in the ground cavity during the ascent; it must be pumpable and is
often implemented with light pressure.
In certain types of soil (for example loose sands), the displacement can also cause soil compaction
between the inclusions and improve friction along the shaft.
316
3.3.3. Rigid vibratory or driven inclusions, molded in place 3.3.3.1.

Molded beaten or vibratory inclusions
The process consists of lowering a hollow metal tube into the ground, closed at
the point by a lost plate or a valve, by vibratory driving or by driving with the aid of
a hydraulic or diesel hammer.
The tube is lowered until it reaches a predetermined height or a predefined
rejection criterion. Concreting is done inside the tube. The tube is then extracted
from the ground. This is a process by repression of soil without cuttings.
3.3.3.2. Inclusions de type Vibro Concrete Column
Vibro Concrete Column (VCC) type inclusions constitute a specific execution
process. The implementation procedure consists of inserting a vibrating needle
of the type used for the construction of stone columns into the ground. The
inclusion is built by incorporating concrete or mortar when the tool is lifted.
In a cohesive soil, their characteristics differ little from those of inclusions drilled
with displacement.
In granular soils, the bearing capacity of the inclusion can be improved by
compacting the soil using the vibrator installed in the instrument that implements
the inclusion.
3.3.4. Vibro-Driven or Pre-Driven Rigid Inclusions Pre-

engineered inclusions can be driven into the ground by a vibrator or with the
help of a hammer by driving.
3.3.4.1. Wooden inclusions
Wood inclusion is probably the oldest method of reinforcing foundation soils. In
some countries and for specific cases, this method is still applied. Note a variation
in the quality of the inclusions in terms of geometry and resistance depending on
the quality of the wood. In the beating zones of the water table, it must be
ensured that the inclusions always remain completely submerged to prevent their
deterioration.
For low loads (less than 500 kN) and anchorage lengths not exceeding 12 m,
this method can be used under certain precautions. It is often used for temporary
reinforcement works.
The implementation of the inclusions is carried out by beating. To facilitate
penetration and avoid damaging the inclusions, special precautions must be taken.
317
be taken: steel point at the base of the inclusion, steel band around the head of
the inclusion, pre-drilling, etc.
3.3.4.2. Metal inclusions Precast
metal inclusions are usually H-sections or tubes that are not filled with concrete.
It is necessary to take into account the constraints of execution in their

implementation and the risks of corrosion in their dimensioning.
The metallic inclusions are not very fragile and can be put in place with machines
with a high driving capacity.
3.3.4.3. Concrete inclusions
Precast "concrete" inclusions can be used for a wide range of loads which
depends on the geometry, the compressive strength of the concrete and the
reinforcement. “Concrete” inclusions may or may not be reinforced and may be
either a single length or several joined and joined sections.
3.3.5. Inclusions by mixing a binder with the soil
Inclusions by mixing a binder with the soil make it possible to produce columns
of stabilized soil which, given the mechanical performance generally obtained,
can be similar to rigid inclusions.
This mixture can be obtained by different techniques, mechanical, hydraulic,
with or without air…. The main techniques used are as follows: – jet grouting ; –
soil mixing (dry
or wet); – Trench of treated soil.
The objective of soil treatment methods is to mix hydraulic binders into the soil in
order to improve its mechanical characteristics by producing rigid or semi-rigid
columns. The modulus of elasticity and the simple compressive strength strongly
depend on the nature of the ground and the binder contents; they are often 5 to
10 times lower than those of concrete. All soils can be treated; however, the
treatment of soils with a significant content of organic matter, sulphates, nitrates
must be the subject of a preliminary study (Ref. Soil Treatment Guide, cf. standard
NF P 94 100).
3.4. Summary of methods Table

7.I presents some characteristics of the main types of inclusions listed, whether
technical (vibrations, noise, cuttings) or mechanical.
318
Table 7.I. Some characteristics of the main types of listed inclusions.
Indicative long-term modulus

Types d’inclusion Vibration Noise Cuttings
(MPa)
drink Yes Yes non 10,000 to 15,000
Prefabs metal (steel) Yes Yes non 210 000
concrete Yes Yes non 10 000-20 000 (1)
Driven by
Yes Yes non
threshing
Vibrating Yes non weak
drilled
non non Yes
simple
Mortar: 5,000-10,000
Beaten,
C15 concrete: 9,000
rammed and Drilled
C25 concrete: 11,000 (2)
drilled cased or non non Yes
Manufactured drilled mud

in situ
drilled
auger non non Yes
continue
drilled with
non non weak
repression
Columns of Soil mixing non non weak Variable 250-9 000 (3)
treated
soil *
Jet grouting non non variable 500 to 1000 Rc
(1) Depending on the nature of the concrete and the reinforcement.

(2) Depending on the nature of the grout.
(3) Depending on the nature of the binder and the soil.
3.5. Description of the work

This description is produced by the project manager within the framework of the CCTP, then
specified by the company within the framework of its technical memorandum. These two
documents must define the following
elements: – the diameter of the rigid inclusions;
319
– the depth of the rigid inclusions or their anchoring in a bearing horizon in accordance with the
calculation note (the stopping criterion must subsequently be defined during the calibration of the
workshop at the start of the work); – the maximum working stress of the rigid
inclusions and the resistance fc28 of the material used in the case of a material comprising a
binder (concrete, mortar, grout, soil-binder mixture, etc.); – the mesh of the inclusions under paving
or under embankment, and the
thickness of the working platform and of the capping layer forming a distribution mattress; – the
arrangement of the inclusions under foundations and footings, and the measures taken at the
interface foundation-inclusion in the event of embedding moment or horizontal forces; – the
procedure for cutting out rigid inclusions under rock masses; – the dimensions of the slabs, if
applicable; –
the characteristics and performance of the reinforcement ply, if applicable.
3.6. Means in place, equipment The contractor
describes in a technical execution procedure the human and material means that he plans to
implement to meet the defined objectives: – site supervision: constitution of the supervision of site,
reference
of the site manager; – the construction team: constitution of the team which generally consists of
at least three people for small operations
(a site manager, a driller, a pump attendant); – the construction method, possibly described in the
chapter above, specifying the nature and volume of the cuttings to be evacuated; – the number
and type of production workshops, their
power (torque for an auger, frequency and amplitude for a vibro-drill, etc.), the maximum working
depth, making it possible to justify the rates in relation to the
production schedule the operation; – the means adopted for the manufacture and delivery of the
constituent material; – transportation to the site in the case of the use of ready-to-use materials;
– on-site production in the case of an on-site manufacturing plant ; – delivery to the site: concrete
pump or loader
in the case of the use of dry concrete.
320
The control plan appended to the execution procedure summarizes the acceptance
criteria for each phase of implementation, as well as the nature, frequency, means
and person responsible for the corresponding control.
3.7. Inclusion Execution Plans

When the studies and execution plans for inclusions are not part of the project
management mission, these are generally drawn up by the company in conjunction
with the execution studies of the other stakeholders, and validated by the project
manager and inspection bodies; they specify: – the
plan view of the mesh of inclusions with dimension marks; – the
distinctive signs of the different inclusions: reinforced or unreinforced inclusions,
inclusions under the structure, inclusions under the
paving; – the sectional view under the paving showing the work platform, the
leveling of the inclusions, the detail of the distribution
mattress; – a sectional view of principle under the foundations, showing the lower
level of the foundations and the dimensions of the distribution mattress.
3.8. Preparation of the

site Before intervention by the company responsible for carrying out the inclusions,
the contracting authority or the project manager took care to
have carried out: – access tracks and ramps compatible with the machines offered
by the
contractor plug ; – identification and possible decommissioning of aerial and
underground networks; – the
purging of any remains; – a work platform according to the company's instructions
with a 2 m overhang in relation to the influence
of the inclusions; – the installation of the main axes of the projected work using
offset chairs, the installation of each inclusion remaining the responsibility of the
company according to its execution plan.
3.9. Work execution

During the course of the work, the site foreman collates the following information:
– verification of
installation; - work progress ; –
the quality of the materials
delivered; – execution parameters.
This information is generally transmitted weekly at site meetings.
321
3.10. Construction provisions

3.10.1. Minimum diameter
For non-reinforced inclusions with mortar, grout or concrete executed in place
outside the micropile type technique, the usual minimum diameter is equal to 250
mm.
Unreinforced inclusions of smaller diameter are only possible after detailed
examination of the consequences linked to slenderness, eccentricity, defects of
verticality, parasitic bending stresses, risks of necking, and difficulties of integrity
checks.
3.10.2. Theoretical section and diameter
For inclusions drilled with or without upset, the nominal diameter is that of the drill
bit.
For dark inclusions with a lost plate, the nominal diameter is that of the tube, not
that of the plate.
For dark inclusions with valve, the section and the equivalent diameter must be
chosen to represent the imprint obtained after concreting without exceeding the
dimensions of the tube.
For other techniques (jet grouting, etc.), the section and the equivalent diameter
are checked after stripping or specific inspection.
The section of prefabricated inclusions is the one guaranteed by the supplier.
3.10.3. Mesh
3.10.3.1 Minimum mesh
The distance between inclusions must be defined in such a way as to avoid any
impact on the diameter and integrity of adjacent inclusions.
In an extended network, we recommend a minimum center distance of three
diameters (of the shaft) for inclusions carried out in place without displacement of
the ground, and of four diameters for inclusions carried out with displacement. In
these cases, there is generally no need to carry out specific checks on the integrity
of the inclusions.
For a localized group of inclusions, the same minimum spacings are recommended.
If this is not possible, the integrity of the inclusions already made in the vicinity and
the absence of significant movement of the ground and the fresh material of these
inclusions should be checked.
322
Other values can be adopted by adapting the phasing of execution of the

inclusions (example: waiting for the material to set before execution of the
neighboring inclusion) and/or by planning a specific program of checks (integrity,
monitoring of heaving platform or inclusion heads).
For certain applications, these minimum spacings can be ignored if non-repressing
techniques are used to produce, for example, veils of secant inclusions produced
by soil mixing, jet grouting or drilled inclusions, etc.
Comment. This minimum spacing criterion can have an impact on the size of the footings and
must be taken into account from the design stage.
3.10.3.2. Maximum mesh

The mesh parameters cannot exceed: – for a diameter
of the head of the inclusion or the slab of less than 0.5 m: center distance of 3 m
or an area of 9 m2 ; – for a larger
diameter: six times the diameter of the head of the inclusion.
For the specific case of inclusions under pavement support embankment, the
bare to bare space of the slabs or heads of inclusions, counted along the diagonal
in the case of square or rectangular meshes, must not exceed twice the height
of the embankment (Fig. 7.1).
Comment. This criterion can be extended in the case of soils that are not very compressible
(for example total settlement expected on virgin soil less than 5% of the height of the
embankment, etc.).
The use of reinforcements (geosynthetics, metal mesh) working in tension can

make it possible to increase this spacing or reduce the diameter of the slabs,
subject to justification of the differential settlements.
323
Figure 7.1. Mattress thickness criterion according to the type of mesh.
3.10.4. Number, minimum distances and siting distance

3.10.4.1. Inclusions under slab or apron
For inclusions placed under distributed loads, the inclusions are made at
their theoretical axis. The tolerated axis deviation is less than or equal to
20 cm and 2% in inclination.
At the edge of the structure, it is necessary to place a line of inclusions on the edge of the slab if it
is separated from the peripheral sill. The axis of this line must remain at a distance from the edge
of the paving less than or equal to a quarter of the dimension of the centre-to-centre distance.
324
3.10.4.2. Insoles
General principles
It is imposed as a general rule that there are inclusions on at least two parallel axes: –
on the x
axis as soon as Mx/Q > B/6; – on the
y axis as soon as My/Q > L/6.
Figure 7.2. Forces applied to the sole.
The minimum distance from the face of the inclusion (or from the slab when it exists) to
the edge of the footing is equal to 15 cm, taking into account the execution tolerance.
Remember that the dimensioning presented in chapter 5 paragraph 4.2.3 takes into
account the distance between the bare part of the inclusion and the edge of the footing.
In the case of soils with particularly low shear characteristics, it is generally wise to
adopt an overhang greater than the minimum value of 15 cm, in order to ensure better
containment of the mattress around the inclusion heads, and thus increase the
effectiveness of the inclusions.
The tolerance of execution in all directions should not exceed 10 cm.
The tilt tolerance is equal to 2% in all cases.
Inclusions under insulated footings
The number of inclusions under a footing is a function of both the allowable stress and settlement.
Comment. Within the same structure, it is perfectly conceivable that there are
footings on the reinforced soil, and others lightly loaded resting on the natural
soil. It is the respect of the homogeneity of settlements that can authorize this
situation (example: secondary framework supporting the cladding of industrial
halls, bollards, etc.).
325
The minimum width of the insulated footings is fixed at Min (60 cm; 15 cm + diameter of inclusions
+ thickness of the mattress).
For footings made on a single inclusion, the following additional conditions are imposed: – total
vertical load on the support limited to 150
kN at SLS and 200 kN at ULS; – verification that the load applied to the support can be fully taken
up by
the isolated inclusion assumed to be loaded directly at the head; – moments provided by the
structure below the criteria (see “General principles”); – an execution
tolerance reduced to 5 cm; – for an execution tolerance greater than 5 cm and less than 10 cm,
the
eccentricity of the reaction provided by the inclusion
in relation to the descent of the loads must be compensated by an inverse eccentricity of the
reaction of the ground under the footing . This involves checking that the stress exerted on the
ground due to this eccentricity is acceptable (Fig. 7.3).
Figure 7.3. Soil reaction compensating for the eccentricity of the inclusion.
Comment. For the massifs comprising a network of inclusions, the installation

tolerances can be proposed and justified by the company. They will be subject
to the agreement of the control office and the project manager.
Inclusions under strip footings The
minimum width of strip footings is set at Min (60 cm; 15 cm + diameter of inclusions + thickness
of the mattress).
Staggered installation is recommended in order to avoid the consequences of any eccentricity

linked to execution tolerances.
326
3.10.4.3. Inclusions crossing a significant thickness of

compressible soils
For all cases (paving, embankment, footings) a stricter verticality
tolerance than for piles (2% for piles according to the national application
standard NF P 94 262) may be imposed at the end of the design studies
in certain cases (small diameter inclusions, great length and soft soils) in
view of the parasitic bending likely to be generated even under vertical loading.
4. PREPARATION OF THE INCLUSION HEAD

4.1. General principles
4.1.1. Arase
Leveling designates the adjustment operation of the level of the head of the inclusion which is
carried out on the fresh material at a chosen level. This level can be located at the level of the work
platform; in the other cases, one speaks of low leveling.
Leveling can be carried out in several different ways, depending on different parameters (depths,
required tolerances, nature of the terrain, level of the water table, diameter of the inclusion, etc.): –
either by stopping the pour; – either by manual
or mechanical (valve) excavation
of the inclusion material before setting; – either by mechanical excavation of the soil and the
material of the
inclusion before setting up to the level of the leveling ground (dredging bucket); – or by re-drilling
up to the level of the leveling.
Whenever possible, it is recommended to level the inclusions at the level of the working platform.
Comment. Stopping the flow or excavating with a mechanical shovel below the
level of the water table is prohibited.
327
Figure 7.4. Manual leveling adjustment in fresh concrete.
4.1.2. Coppicing
Coppicing designates the operation of preparing the head of the inclusion made
on the hardened material so as to reach the sound material at the required level.
When coppicing is carried out, it must be carried out over at least 10 cm to check
the quality of the material at the head.
The digger must be vigilant during earthworks carried out near inclusions, before or
after coppicing.
Coppicing is generally done: – with
a jackhammer; – by sawing; –
using concrete
spacers; – by a chemical
cutting device: this process allowing after waiting at least 7 days of setting time, to
level in mass and to evacuate the pieces of surplus inclusions without fearing the
degradation of the inclusions in place.
328
Hydraulic breakers (BRH) are prohibited.
When the leveling technique used makes it possible to guarantee an acceptable quality of the
inclusion head and an accuracy of the level, cutting back is not necessary.
In the event of low leveling under the sole, the inclusion is systematically cut back over at least 10
cm to check the quality of the material at the head.
Figure 7.5. Chemical trimming of inclusions under raft.
Figure 7.6. Low level for a project with a basement level.
329
4.2. Altimetry tolerance
An execution tolerance must be defined in the project according to the type of work and the
construction constraints.
In the case where low levels are made with a view to integrating all or part of the work platform
into the distribution mattress, the following criteria must be respected (Fig. 7.7): – it is not
recommended to make
this level more than 30 cm deep to allow quality compaction of the material located above the level
of the level; – the level of leveling (including tolerance) must be located above the low level of the
work
platform; – there is an obligation to cut back the rigid inclusions if the altimetry of the head of the
inclusion exceeds by more than 5
cm the horizontal plane required by the design.
Figure 7.7. Execution tolerance to be taken into account on either side of the
level required by the dimensioning.
4.3. Execution of slabs or “enlarged heads”

If slabs or enlarged heads are used, their equivalent diameter should be limited to three times
the equivalent diameter of the inclusions.
These elements can be cast in place or prefabricated. Depending on their geometry and the loads
applied, they may or may not be reinforced.
When they are cast in place, the procedure for making the inclusions must incorporate this
implementation.
330
5. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MATTRESS

The term “distribution mattress” designates in this paragraph the layer of
backfill located between the head of the inclusion and the structure. The work
platform can be used as a mattress (see § 2.1).
The method of execution and control of the mattress are different depending
on whether the implementation is envisaged under large foundations (raft,
slab) or in a localized manner under isolated foundations of small dimensions.
It is also possible to integrate all or part of the work platform into the mattress
under certain conditions.
In all cases, construction measures must be taken so that: – the minimum
characteristics of paragraph 5.4 above the head of the inclusions are
achieved over its entire thickness; –
compactness checks are possible; – earthworks
below the level of the leveling of the inclusions are avoided (significant risk of
shearing of the inclusions).
Figure 7.8. Implementation of a granular mattress at the bottom of the earthwork.
331
5.1. Reconstruction of the work platform in the event of low leveling

5.1.1. Untreated granular platform integrated into the mattress
The working platform must be closed above the inclusion heads with a sandy
or sandy-gravelly material, easily compactable, in excess volume and with
shear characteristics equivalent to that of the granular platform. The platform
is then recompacted to form the base of the distribution mattress.
5.1.2. Platform treated with hydraulic binders

(cement or road binder)
Unless specific provisions are made, a working platform treated with hydraulic binders can hardly
be reworked after the inclusions have been made due to the short-term setting of the binder; in
this case, it is preferable not to integrate it into the mattress and to make the leveling at the upper
level of this platform.
5.1.3. Platform treated with lime

After completion of the inclusions, it remains possible to use a work platform treated with lime
because the rise in mechanical resistance of the soil thus treated can continue after the
reinforcement works. This platform can therefore be integrated into the distribution mattress if its
characteristics and its homogeneity are sufficient. In this case, it is imperative to ensure and check
the consistency of the execution tolerances of the various operations: leveling of inclusions and
thickness of retreatment.
5.2. Installation of a mattress under large foundations

(paving or slab)
The constructive provisions are similar to those of the implementation of the capping layer under
paving within the meaning of DTU 13.3.
We must ensure that the mattress is well compacted and not polluted by materials
from the drilling or by other contributions (circulation of machinery) over its entire
height, in particular at its base which is the most stressed above inclusion heads.
5.3. Installation of a mattress under a foundation of
small dimensions The
implementation of a mattress under a foundation of small dimensions is
possible only if the walls of the excavation are stable and that, at the time of
its installation , the water table is located below the bottom of the earthwork subgrade.
332
In the case of very deep excavations, special arrangements must be made to

ensure the stability of the excavations and the safety of any workers who have to
descend into the excavation.
This mattress can be made before or after making the inclusions.
In all cases, the implementation methods should make it possible to guarantee the
quality of the compaction of the mattress over its entire thickness.
The choice of a mattress in treated soil can make it possible under certain conditions
to overcome the difficulties of compaction.
Proper management of the interfaces between stakeholders requires that all
execution constraints be apprehended from the design stage by the prime
contractor.
Under certain conditions, it may be wise to provide preliminary test plots.
5.3.1. Realization of the mattress after execution of the inclusions

The inclusions can be made from a high platform with a low level at the level of the
theoretical base of the mattress, digging up to the head of the inclusions, setting up
and compacting the mattress, then pouring the sole (Fig. 7.9).
Figure 7.9. Mattress executed after installation of inclusions.
333
Figure 7.10. Mechanical pre- Figure 7.11. Manual final earthwork

earthwork. with possible coppicing.
It is sometimes necessary to excavate below the level of the inclusions (for example when the
dimensioning requires it, or when the quality of the supporting soil makes it difficult to compact
the mattress correctly) (Fig. 7.12). In this case, the inclusions must be reinforced over a sufficient
height with a minimum of 4 times the maximum diameter of the inclusion or the cleared height.
Figure 7.12. Need to arm the heads of inclusions to allow earthwork below the level of
leveling.
334
5.3.1. Realization of the mattress before execution of the inclusions

It is possible to carry out the excavation, to backfill it with the material of the
mattress and to compact the latter before the realization of the inclusions (Fig.
7.13). The inclusion screens are then made in the fresh concrete at the required level.
We then terrace up to 30 cm above level level. Indeed, it is not recommended to
make the leveling of the earthwork more than 30 cm above the leveling of the
inclusions to allow quality compaction of the material and the footprint.
The leveling of the earthwork is again recompacted before implementation of any

additional matting and concreting of the footing.
Figure 7.13. Installation of the mattress prior to the installation of the inclusions.
5.4. Minimum characteristics of the material used as a mattress

5.4.1. Untreated materials
Shear characteristics are essential in the presence of rigid inclusions. It is
desirable to implement a material whose angle of friction is high.
The shear characteristics are generally justified by tests specific to the project or
by test results constituting a database to which it is possible to refer in the product
sheet.
Comment. The shear characteristics to be taken into account are those
corresponding to the compactness that can be obtained on site.
335
5.4.1.1. Under paving, apron, embankments or

pavement The following materials can be used, in continuity with DTU 13.3
Paving (§ A.2.2.1.1).
Table 7.II. Materials usable in capping layer (DTU 13.3).
Classification symbol according to the technical guide for the
Soil designation according to the standard
realization of embankments and subgrades (GTR 92)
NF P 11-300
Sandy and gravelly soils with non-clayey fines

B11, B31
and large elements
Soils with non-clayey fines and large elements C1B1, C1B3, C2B1, C2B3, C2B1, C2B3, C1B4,
C2B4, after elimination of the fine fraction 0/d
Water resistant floors D1, D2, D3 (sauf D32)
Chalks R11
Miscellaneous limestone rocks R21, R22

siliceous rocks R41, R42
Magmatic and metamorphic rocks R61, R62
The shear characteristics are determined by tests. Failing this, reference is made to standard NF
P 94 270 (reinforced and massive embankments in nailed soil) in which the angle of friction varies
between 30 and 36° according to the granulometric criteria explained in standard NF EN 14475
(standard of "reinforced backfill" execution). In addition, higher shear strength values, identical to
those of mattresses under soles, may be taken into account subject to adopting a material and a
degree of compaction as defined in paragraph 6.4.1.2 for the soles.
The minimum characteristics and the means of control are those defined in table 7.III extracted
from the Guide for the realization of the earthworks of the platforms of buildings and industrial
areas in the case of soils sensitive to water (2009).
336
Table 7.III. Minimum characteristics and means of control.

Minimum thresholds required (they correspond to a level PF2 platform).
Trials Standards Values Reference
Static loading
Plaque NF P 94-117.1
EV2 ÿ 50 MPa GTR
Dynamic loading Dynaplaque NF P 94-117.2
Lift meter
Static loading
Westergaard NF P 94-117.3 Kw ÿ 50 MPa/m DTU 13.3
d ÿ 200/100 mm
(granular form layer)
Deflection under an Catalog of
Poutre Benkelman
axle NF P 98-200 structures
or deflectograph d ÿ 80/100 mm
13 tons of pavement
(processed capping
layer)
Comment. In the case of layers treated with hydraulic binders, the measurement
of the deflection is more relevant than the plate test.
5.4.1.2. Under soles

The materials that can be used to make up the mattress under the sole are
the same as for the paving, excluding chalk, B11 materials and fine materials
treated only with lime.
The shear characteristics are justified by tests specific to the project or by test
results constituting a database to which it is possible to refer in the product
sheet. In the absence of shear tests, a
friction angle of 40° for crushed materials and 38° for rolled materials may be
considered, provided that the distribution layer is made up of a thickness
adapted to the quality of the supporting soil. , with the following minimum
characteristics: – class D1, D2 or D3 or R (except chalk)
according to GTR92 (or NFP 11-300); – with LA < 35, MDE < 30, and
LA + MDE < 60;
Comment. LA: Los Angeles test, standard NF EN 1097 2;
MDE: Micro Deval test, standard NF EN 1097 1.
– compacted to at least 95% OPM.
In terms of compaction, a minimum of 95% OPM is recommended in all cases.
5.4.2. Materials treated

The resistance of the treated materials must be compatible with the stresses
transmitted in the mattress.
337
The evaluation of the suitability for treatment must be carried out according to standard NF P 94
100.
Comment. The durability of the cohesion taken into account in the design
must be ensured during the life of the structure.
5.5. Minimum thickness The
minimum thickness is equal to 40 cm under the apron and paving, 30 cm under the footing.
This thickness must be increased if it does not make it possible to achieve the desired compactness
criteria at the bottom of the layer.
5.6. Overhang of the mattress in the case of soles
A minimum overhang of the mattress in relation to the grip of the sole is necessary to ensure the
quality of the compaction of the mattress over its entire thickness under the sole.
This overhang is at least equal to half the thickness of the mattress, with a minimum of 30 cm.
5.7. Possible incorporation of a reinforcing ply

5.7.1. General
The distribution mattress can be reinforced by placing one or more layers of geosynthetics or metal
mesh.
The choice of reinforcement layers and their position must be made according to the type of product,
the constituent materials (type of polymers for geosynthetics), their mechanical or dimensional
characteristics, their evolution over time and the physico-chemical aggressiveness of the soil or
water in contact.
The specifications relating to the reinforcement layers are the same as those laid down in standard
NF P 94 270 "Retaining structures, reinforced embankments and rock masses in nailed soil",
supplemented by the following considerations: – the specifications of the geosynthetics and
those of the The interaction with the embankment must be established in accordance with standard
NF EN 13251 "Geotextiles and related products - Characteristics required for use in earthworks,
foundations and retaining structures"; – in the context of CE marking, in accordance with standard
NF EN 13251, the specified characteristics must be expressed by the producer in
the form of an average value and the tolerance value(s) corresponding to the confidence level of 95
%. Information on durability must be presented in accordance with the guidelines of Annex B
(normative) of standard NF EN 13251.
338
5.7.1.1. Types of geosynthetics

The geosynthetics used can be: –
reinforcement geotextiles, woven or knitted ideally placed at the base of the distribution
mattress or the backfill; – or reinforcement
geogrids, preferably placed in the thickness of the granular layer of the distribution
mattress.
A reinforcement geogrid can also be installed at the base of the distribution mattress,
at the interface with the supporting soil, but it will be necessary to associate it if
necessary with a geotextile of separation to avoid contamination of the granular layer
by the soil. END.
5.7.1.2. Component
The constituent polymer must be compatible in terms of durability with the fill material.
The polymers used to constitute backfill reinforcements are mainly polyester (or
polyethylene terephthalate, PET), polypropylene (PP), but also other polymers such
as polyaramid (pAR) and polyvinylalcohol (PVA).
They are chosen according to the chemical characteristics of the materials (pH, etc.)
in contact with the reinforcement, including water where applicable.
The minimum requirements are defined in standard NF EN 13251.
5.7.1.3. Required Features

The dimensioning characteristics of the geosynthetic for the reinforcement function
are: – its long-
term tensile strength which is defined from its short-term tensile strength in accordance
with standard NF EN ISO 10319 (Fig. 7.14) and isochrone curves creep in accordance
with standard NF EN 13431 (Fig. 7.15); – its stiffness which is most often expressed
from its
tensile strength at a given level of deformation (for example at 2%, 3%, 5% or 10%);
– its interaction coefficients at the interfaces with the materials in contact with
the water table.
339
Figure 7.14. Curves of a tensile test according to standard NF EN ISO 10319.
Figure 7.15. Isochronous creep curves.
340
5.7.2. Layout plans and installation direction

5.7.2.1. Installation and connection of tablecloths
The general principles, applicable to structures in soil reinforced by

geosynthetic layers, result in a number of practical implementation rules, the
main ones of which are set out below. These rules supplement those already
mentioned in standard NFG38060 “General recommendations for the
reception and implementation of geotextiles”.
The platforms receiving the layers must be compacted, leveled and cleared
of any angular or other element likely to damage the layers (by punching or
tearing) during their spreading, positioning and pre-tensioning.
Direct contact between the geosynthetics and the inclusion heads must be
avoided to minimize the risk of perforation and tearing at edges and angles.
Protection can be provided by a layer of a few centimeters of fine material
(sand or gravel) or a puncture-resistant geosynthetic.
The layers are spread on the platform, cut to length or possibly deployed by
prefabricated panels. The conformity of the mechanical anisotropy of the
reinforcement layer with the direction of the forces that it will have to take up
in the structure, is checked according to the indications given on the working
drawings.
Figure 7.16. Arrangement of geosynthetic aquifers

exhibiting mechanical anisotropy under an embankment.
The geosynthetic layers must be placed in such a way as to prevent folds

and promote initial pre-tensioning during the placement of the embankments.
341
The circulation of machinery directly on the geosynthetics must be prohibited.

A first layer of minimum protection of 20 cm of materials is necessary to allow
the circulation of vehicles or construction machinery.
5.7.2.2. Longitudinal overlap and at the end of the ply When
possible, junctions of the reinforcement in the direction of the forces to be
taken up must be avoided.
Otherwise, the provisions ensuring the continuity of the reinforcement between
adjacent layers are indicated on the plans according to the justifications
provided in the design note.
In the case of reinforcement provided by two beds crossed on the same level,
the longitudinal overlap between two adjacent layers must be at least 30 cm.
Figure 7.17. Transversal and longitudinal overlaps between geosynthetic layers under
an embankment.
5.7.2.3. Anchoring
To prevent geosynthetic sheets from sliding, in particular on the outer
perimeter of the inclusion zone, an anchoring device must be made to take up
the forces calculated during the design.
The anchoring can be carried out using one of the devices below:
342
– flat anchoring (Fig. 7.18): the reinforcement layer is laid flat and overflows the area of influence of
the inclusions by the length La calculated during the design. This length takes into account the
tensile force to be taken up, the characteristics of the materials in contact with the reinforcement layer
and the thickness of the backfill in the anchoring zone; – anchoring with trench and cover (Fig. 7.19):
a trench is made beyond the zone of inclusions allowing
the water table to be anchored with a cover; – anchoring with reversal of the geosynthetic (Fig. 7.20).
Figure 7.18. Flat anchoring of the geosynthetic layer.
Figure 7.19. Anchoring of the geosynthetic aquifer by trenching and covering.
343
Figure 7.20. Anchoring of the geosynthetic layer by reversal.
6. INTERACTION WITH OTHER LOTS (ROOTS,

STRUCTURAL WORK)
It is up to the project manager to develop a procedure and a specific phasing for managing the
interface between the earthworks batch and the rigid inclusions batch, so that the construction of
the distribution mattress covering the rigid inclusions is done without degrade the inclusion heads
and respecting the thickness and the characteristics defined in the sizing hypotheses of the rigid
inclusions.
In the event of treatment of the materials in situ, the thicknesses of the passes are defined in such
a way as to avoid the degradation of the heads of rigid inclusions during the passage of the
machines. In most cases, this coordination requires a waiting period between the realization of
the rigid inclusions of an area and the availability of the platform for the other lots.
In the event of low leveling of the inclusions under the working platform, the operation of leveling
the platform by occasional backfilling and overall recompacting of the platform must be a separate
operation from the realisation. of the mattress supplement.
Special provisions (cutting, shielding, holding the ground, checking the integrity of the inclusions)
must be taken into account, in the event of excavation work after the completion of the inclusions
(network passage, creation of pits, basements).
344
Bibliography
FNTP, FFB, EGF-BTP, SBTF, USG, Syntec Ingénierie – Guide for carrying out earthworks for building
platforms and industrial areas in the case of water-sensitive soils, December 2009.
NF EN 1097 2 – Tests to determine the mechanical and physical characteristics of aggregates. Part 2:
"Methods for the determination of resistance to fragmentation", June 2010.
NF EN 1097 1 – Tests to determine the mechanical and physical characteristics of aggregates. Part 1:
"Determination of wear resistance (micro-Deval)", August 2011.
NF EN 1536 – Execution of special geotechnical works. Bored piles, October 2010.

NF EN ISO 10319 – Geosynthetics. Wide belt tensile test, August 2008.
NF EN 12699 – Execution of special geotechnical works. Piles with discharge of
Sun, March 2001.
NF EN 12716 – Execution of special geotechnical works. Columns, panels and soil-cement structures
made by jet, October 2001.
NF EN 13251 – Geotextiles and related products. Characteristics required for use in earthworks,
foundations and retaining structures, September 2001.
NF EN 13431 – Geotextiles and related products. Determination of Tensile Creep Behavior and Tensile
Creep Failure, November 2000.
NF EN 14199 – Execution of special geotechnical works. Micropiles, September
2005.
NF EN 14475 – Execution of special geotechnical works. Reinforced embankments, Jan
four in 2007.
NF EN 14679 – Execution of special geotechnical works. Columns of treated soil.
Corrected version, September 2005.
NF G 38060 – Textiles. Items for industrial use. Recommendations for the use of geotextiles and
related products. Implementation. Specifications. Control of geotextiles and related products, June
1994.
NF P 11-300 – Execution of earthworks. Classification of materials usable in the construction of
embankments and capping layers for road infrastructures, September 1992.
NF P 94-100 – Soils: reconnaissance and tests. Materials treated with lime and/ or hydraulic binders.
Trial to assess the suitability of a soil for treatment, August 1999.
NF P 94-262 – Justification of geotechnical structures. National application standards

of Eurocode 7. Deep foundations, May 2011.
NF P 94-270 – Geotechnical calculation. Support works. Reinforced embankments and
clumps in nailed soil, July 2009.
345
CHAPTER 8
Controls and instruments
1. INTRODUCTION
In order to guarantee a good quality of work, the following steps, concerning
all geotechnical works (backfill, inclusions, subgrade or mattress, reinforcement
additives, excavations, earthworks, foundation works, etc.) should be
respected , with reference to standard NF P94-500 on geotechnical
assignments:
– definition by the principal of the project criteria: allowable settlements, load
intensity, deadlines, etc. –
implementation by a qualified project manager from the G2 project geotechnical
study and G4 geotechnical execution supervision;
– execution of the work by a qualified company, in charge of the study and
geotechnical monitoring of G3
execution; – carrying out by a body approved by the competent administrative
authority, of a technical control mission aimed at contributing to the prevention
of hazards.
In addition, soil reinforcements, like any other technique related to geotechnical
works, require supervision of the execution of the works, monitoring and
maintenance in accordance with the prescriptions of Eurocode 7 section 4.
The tests and inspections relating to soil reinforcement works by rigid
inclusions include all or part of the following tests:
deformation; – static loading tests on a group of inclusions; – information tests;
– drum integrity checks; – installation checks; – mattress checks; –
controls of the geotextile or geogrid.
347
2. STATIC LOAD TESTS IN COMPRESSION ON ISOLATED

INCLUSION
These tests are carried out according to standard NF P 94-150 supplemented by the methods
defined below.
2.1. Breaking load tests These tests

are not systematic. When they are achieved, their objectives and their
number are: –
either set by the project
manager; – or determined by the company.
The purpose of this type of test is:
– to validate the design parameters defining the breaking load; – and possibly to optimize the project
in relation to: – the actual characteristics of the ground, – and/or
the technique used.
Each of these tests is carried out on an inclusion that is not integrated into the structure: – the
number of tests is defined according to the different geotechnical zones identified on the project; –
the minimum load of the test
must be determined according to the presupposed geometry of the inclusion (diameter, length,
resistance of the material), its resistance and the geotechnical parameters; it is determined from the
,
peak Rb and side friction Rs terms evaluated according to usage; – the characteristic lift values
(Rb, k and Rs, k) are deduced from the coefficients ÿ1 and ÿ2 defined in Eurocode 7
according to the number of these tests; – the strength of the inclusion material taken into account
for determining the test load must be sufficient at the time of the test.
Comment. It is emphasized that, during the performance of these tests, there is

no negative friction mobilized.
Comment: In some cases, it may be interesting to distinguish the peak term Rb
from the lateral friction term Rs. It will then be necessary either to set up
instrumentation for the inclusion, or to make several inclusions of different lengths
( Fig. 8.1).
348
Chapter 8 - Controls and instrumentation
Figure 8.1. Results of loading tests carried out on inclusions of different

lengths (Chelles experiment).
2.2. Lift and deformation control tests

This test is carried out on an inclusion that can be integrated into the structure.
The test is conducted to determine the settlement and any creep of the inclusion as a function of
the load.
From a practical point of view, the machine making the inclusions can serve as a reaction mass.
For works lasting less than or equal to one week, it is advisable to use, for the inclusions planned
for the tests, a material with additives allowing the acceleration of its resistance.
2.2.1. Value of the test load The

maximum test load must be determined according to the destination of
the inclusion (backfill, paving, raft or footing).
2.2.1.1. Design load The design
load Qmax is the maximum load in the inclusion at the neutral point in an SLS situation. It is the
sum of the head load Q and the negative friction (FN) between the head of the inclusion and the
neutral plane (Fig. 8.2).
349
Figure 8.2. Distribution of the forces in the inclusion taking into account
the negative friction-position of the neutral plane.
2.2.1.2. Case where inclusions only serve to reduce settlement (domain 2)
Generally, these cases relate to slabs, raft foundations or embankments or

footings for which stability at ULS is ensured without inclusion.
The test load is equal to the design load Qmax increased by the negative
friction FN.
A test conducted with this maximum load is called a "quality test".
2.2.1.3. Case where the inclusions are used to ensure the stability of the
structure at ULS (area 1)
Generally these cases relate to footings for which the stability at ULS is not
ensured without inclusion.
350
The test load is equal to: ÿq × Q + 2 ÿFN FN, where ÿq =1.5 and ÿFN = 1.5 (Q being the
load at the inclusion head).
A test conducted with this maximum load is called a “lift test”.
2.2.1.4. FN value
FN is evaluated by the relation: qs perimeter of the inclusion × depth of the plane
neutral.
qs must be the greatest of the values, per layer, between: –

the maximum value of positive friction expected for this type of inclusion according to
the type and nature of the terrain crossed; – the
maximum negative friction value from the calculation model; – the value
resulting from the test defined in paragraph 2.2.2.
Comment. To disregard the value of FN, another solution is to neutralize the
skin friction above the neutral point during the test.
2.2.2. Estimation of friction in the compressible soil A

compression test on a “short” inclusion carried out in the height of the compressible
soils makes it possible to estimate the value of friction in this layer.
Comment. The length of the inclusion is generally equal to the depth of the
neutral point. In this configuration, the contribution of the peak effect is low,
which justifies the compression test, which is easier to perform.
2.2.3. Frequency of tests

Loading tests are mandatory.
However, it is accepted not to carry out a loading test for minor operations (for example
total linear inclusion less than 2000 ml).
In this case, the geotechnical checks (GEO) are carried out with an additional reducing
factor of 1.5. This coefficient applies to the values of their peak resistance and friction
characteristics below the neutral point. This concerns the checks described in chapter
5 (§ 1.1.3, § 1.2, § 4.1).
Comment. A reduction factor of 1.5 concerning the resistance of the material
is already integrated in the values of the coefficient k3 of table 5.II in the
situations where no load test is carried out.
The frequency of these tests is set in table 8.I, with a minimum of two tests per
independent structure and/or per geotechnical zone deemed homogeneous.
351
Table 8.I. Test frequency.
Test frequency on inclusions Frequency of tests on inclusions not

Number of inclusions necessary for bearing capacity necessary for bearing capacity at ULS.
at ULS Settlement Reduction Case
(domain 1) (domain 2)
From inclusion no. 1 to 600 1 per 75 1 per 150
1 per additional 150

From inclusion 601 to 2000 1 per additional 300
1 per additional 250

Beyond Inclusion 2001 1 per additional 500
Comment. Each section corresponds to a homogeneous geotechnical zone.
2.2.3.1. Example
Example of a structure comprising 1100 inclusions simply having a settlement reduction

function and 800 inclusions necessary for bearing capacity at ULS: – domain 2: settlement
reduction: 1100 inclusions, 6 tests 4 up to 600, 2 from 601 to 2000, i.e.

6 trials;
– domain 1: lift: 800 inclusions, 10 tests
8 up to 600, 2 from 601 to 800, i.e. 10 tries.
2.2.4. Test procedure
A first charging cycle is carried out at a load equal to 10% of the test load
maintained for a period of 15 minutes. After unloading, the maximum test load
is reached in increments of 20% of the test load, i.e. in five steps. The
settlements are measured by at least three measuring points, regularly
distributed on the plate placed at the top of the inclusion, at the times: t = 1, 2,
4, 8, 15, 30 and 60 min during the loading stages ; t = 1, 2,
3, 4, and 5 min during the final unloading stage.
During the loading stages, it is authorized to move on to the next stage if the
displacement is less than 0.02 mm/min over at least two consecutive
measurements with a minimum time of 15 min. Otherwise, the entire stage,
i.e. one hour, must be completed.
A forecast of the loading curve must be provided as part of the execution
study, with the same calculation models as those used for the dimensioning
of the project, but taking into account positive friction (estimated in § 2.2.2)
from the top of the inclusion and considering the case of an isolated inclusion.
The test results should be compared to this prediction:
352
– the test results are considered satisfactory if the settlements measured do not exceed the theoretical
settlement by more than 20%. Otherwise, the results must be examined in consultation with the
project manager; – if the settlements are significantly lower, the possible impact on the
design of the structures should be examined.
3. INFORMATIONAL TESTS
Information tests are carried out before “general construction site” production near the representative
boreholes of each zone considered “homogeneous” from a geomechanical point of view.
They are supplemented and compared with those obtained during the realization of the inclusions.
The purpose of these tests is to: – check

that the planned depths as well as the geometric characteristics can be obtained with the equipment
used; – adjust the length of the inclusions when it is possible to
identify the anchoring layer; – check the consistency of the material (concrete or mortar) delivered or
manufactured
on site.
The inclusions made during these tests are an integral part of the soil improvement of the project. In
agreement with the project manager, other information tests can be carried out in order to establish
correlations between the different areas of the project, if the size of the project so requires.
The purpose of these tests is to determine the execution and concrete parameters of the inclusion,
if necessary. The information tests are to be adapted to each mode of execution of the inclusions
which are detailed below.
Comment. It is strongly recommended that these tests be carried out in the presence of
a representative of the project manager and the soil study office.
If this is not the case and if an anomaly appears, during the performance of these
information tests (resistance of non-compliant soils, inclusion too short or too long in
relation to the surveys, significant losses of concrete, etc.) , the project owner, the
project manager, as well as the geotechnical engineer (soil study office) must be
immediately informed in order to decide on the adaptation or optimization of the
geotechnical work proposed by the 'entrepreneur.
Furthermore, these tests must be the subject of a report by the contractor, which is
submitted as soon as possible to the players concerned.
3.1. Threshing
This concerns directly driven metal or prefabricated concrete inclusions or those made of concrete
made inside a driven metal casing closed off at the point.
353
When inserting the inclusion, a driving test sheet is drawn up on site which
includes: – the
identification number and the type of inclusion; –
the date and time of the start and end of the
threshing; – the type of hammer used (single-acting, double-acting,
Diesel, etc.); – the weight of the striking mass and of the struck mass (rigid
inclusion, false pile, helmet, etc.), as well as
the impact energy; – the number of strokes required to drive the inclusion
over a given length, generally 10 cm. This reading is taken over the entire
length of penetration into the ground, specifying the height(s) of fall of the
hammer
or the threshing energy; – elastic
refusals at the end of threshing; – refusals under the last three
ends of 10 strokes; – incidents that may occur during driving (obstacles
preventing penetration, movement of neighboring inclusion heads,
interruptions
in driving, etc.); – the volumes of concrete possibly used (for inclusions cast
in place).
It is from this test sheet that the threshing chart is drawn (Fig. 8.3).
Figure 8.3. Example of a hype graph.
In the case of a beaten tube, it must be specified whether the latter has a base with a lost plate
or with a valve.
In the case of concrete inclusions made inside a casing, the driving curve
and the concreting curve must be provided for each test. Any loss of
concrete must be reported. The rate of ascent (extraction) of the tube must
be indicated.
354
3.2. Drilling with or without discharge

Drilling is monitored and is the subject of drilling sheets.
When the drilling technique allows it, the detailed soil section must be drawn up,
specifying if possible the color, nature, texture, smell, humidity of the soil, etc. to
check whether the soils encountered are those described by recognition campaign.
Otherwise, a continuous recording of the parameters is carried out, which can make it possible to
obtain a summary geotechnical cross-section of the terrain crossed and to ensure that the anchoring
of the inclusions has indeed been achieved. These parameters must be viewable in graphical form
in real time during the execution of the inclusion.
Furthermore, if the borehole is of the "simple borehole" type (see chap. 7, § 3.3.1), the stability of
the walls of the hole must be ensured before concreting.
During concreting, the injection pressure (when the technique permits), the volume of concrete
placed and the pumping rate must be specified.
Any over- or under-consumption and possible loss of concrete should be noted.
When drilling, an execution sheet (Fig. 8.4) is drawn up mentioning: – the identification number and
the type of
inclusion; – the date and time of the start and end of drilling; –
the characteristics of the various drilling tools used (bit,
valve, hammergrab, auger, etc.) and any casings; – drilling parameter recording curves if the
technique allows it. These curves are supplemented by any
observation useful for identifying the layers crossed (indexes collected during execution); – the
description of the characteristic samples of each layer of soil crossed when the technique allows it;
– any drilling incidents (rockslides, cavities, accidental loss of drilling fluid,
water inflow, etc.); – the concreting curve (Fig. 8.5) if the technique allows it, or the recordings of
concreting parameters.
355
Figure 8.4. Example of curve for recording drilling and concreting parameters.
Figure 8.5. Example of concreting curve (when the technique allows it).
356
3.3. Jacking
Jacking can be done either by jacking + rotation, or by jacking + vibration.
The driving parameters (speed of penetration, pressure on the tool, torque

or frequency of vibration, etc.) and concreting (tube extraction speed, volume
of concrete placed, pumping rate, calculated diameter) are provided. from
the incorporated volume…).
Any anomaly in concrete consumption must be specified.
During the realization of the inclusion, an execution sheet is established
mentioning: – the identification number and the
type of inclusion; – date and time of start and
end of sinking; – the characteristics of the various tools used
and the casings; – any drilling incidents (rockslides, cavities, accidental loss
of drilling fluid, water inflow, etc.);
– the volumes of concrete used.
3.4. Vibro-drilling
The vibro-driving parameters (speed of penetration, pressure on the tool,
frequency of vibration, etc.) and concreting (tube extraction speed, volume
of concrete placed, flow rate) should be provided. pumping, diameter
calculated from the incorporated volume, etc.).
Any anomaly in concrete consumption during execution must be specified,
as well as any incidents on the fresh concrete of neighboring inclusions.
During the realization of the inclusion, an execution sheet is established
mentioning: – the identification number and the
type of inclusion; – the date and time of the start and
end of vibro-sinking; – recording curves of vibro-piling parameters if the
technique allows it.
These curves are supplemented by any observation useful for identifying
the layers crossed (indexes collected during
execution): – the characteristics of the various tools used and
of the casings; – any incidents (cavities, water leaks, premature
rejection, etc.); – the volumes of concrete used.
357
4. BARREL CONTROL TESTS
4.1. Integrity
Verification of the integrity of a concrete inclusion consists of carrying out
tests by reflection or by impedance.
These tests are mandatory.
However, it is accepted not to carry out an integrity test for inclusions in "area 2" in
operations of low importance (for example, total linear inclusion of less than 2,000 ml).
These tests are carried out according to standards NF P 94-160-2 (method by

reflection) and NF P 94-160-4 (method by impedance).
The frequency of these tests is 1/150 for “domain 2” inclusions with a minimum of 3,
and 1/75 for “domain 1” inclusions with a minimum of 5.
Comment. These tests are not considered as "reinforced inspection" within the
meaning of the national application standard of Eurocode 7 (NFP 94-262: deep
foundations).
4.2. Diameter (single inclusion/group of inclusions)

Checking the diameter of an inclusion, when it is cast in situ, must be systematic at
each start of work at the rate of 1 for every 500 inclusions or 5000 m executed.
The inclusion is carried out in the immediate vicinity of the project footprint area.
After the concrete has set, the inclusion is cleared to the maximum possible height,
and possibly extracted to this height. Its diameter or its circumference is measured,
and any variation in the diameter or this circumference must be the subject of a special
analysis.
Comment. A variation in diameter or circumference may be due to: – the
method of execution which disturbs the ground too much; – the pumping
pressure which is too low/too high; – on the ground which is
too stiff/too soft; – hydrogeological
conditions...
Comment. Per level, these variations in diameter or circumference must be
taken into account in the sizing in the event of an increase of more than 30%, or
in the event of a reduction of any kind.
358
Figure 8.6. Taking into account the variations observed in the measured diameter.
4.2.1. Inclusions whose nominal diameter is that of the tool
If there is no check on the diameter of the inclusion, a reduction coefficient of 1.10 is applied to
the diameter of the tool.
4.2.2. Other cases
These include, for example, inclusions made from the imprint of an airlock vibrator (stone column
with grout injection, Vibro Concrete Columns type inclusion, etc.), rammed and/or jet grouting
inclusions . In the absence of diameter control, the nominal diameter will
be limited to that of the tool increased by no more than 10%, except in the case of jet grouting.
In the case of jet grouting, it is necessary to check the diameters obtained.
4.3. Mechanical characteristics of the constituent material

4.3.1. Crush tests
The mechanical characteristics of the material making up the inclusions are checked by crushing
tests at 7 and 28 days with a minimum of: – 1 sample (6 specimens) for every 100 m3
used ; – 1 sample (6 test specimens) every 3 days; – 2 samples (12
specimens) per site.
For certain techniques (jet grouting, soil mixing), samples can be taken from the top of the columns
at the end of execution.
359
4.3.2. Consistency tests
In the case of a supply of concrete by mixers, the contractor will carry out at least
two tests of the consistency of fresh concrete on each delivery truck (one test
before implementation, one test during Implementation).
In the case of a supply of concrete by a manufacturing center if killed on site, the

consistency tests will be carried out at the rate of one test for 10 m3 manufactured.
4.3.3. Quality of the embedding head

When the leveling technique used makes it possible to guarantee an acceptable
quality of the inclusion head and an accuracy of the level, coppicing is not
necessary and a visual check is sufficient.
5. CONTROL OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AND ALTIMETRY OF THE

INCLUSIONS (IN PROGRESS AND AFTER COMPLETION)
The controls in progress, carried out by the company as part of its internal control,
cover all inclusions.
These checks relate to the installation of the inclusions and are the subject of a
“plan of the inclusions carried out” sent to the project manager. This plan precisely
identifies the inclusions made voluntarily out of tolerance (encounters with
obstacles, additional or removed inclusions).
For inclusions under footings, a systematic acceptance of the number and position
of these inclusions is carried out by the following batch (earthworks, and/or
structural work) from the "plan of inclusions made"; this reception is the subject of
a report which must be sent to the project manager for validation.
As long as the execution deviations are less than the installation tolerances
defined in chapter 7, it is considered that they have no effect on the behavior of
the structure overcoming the inclusions.
When the execution deviations are greater than the installation tolerances, it must
be checked that the structure can withstand the additional induced forces.
5.1. Under sole

For inclusions made with coppicing, the upper level of the inclusions before
coppicing must be systematically marked so as not to break them during earthwork
and must at least reach the theoretical leveling level increased by 20 cm to
guarantee the quality of the material at the final level.
360
Comment. These upper leveling levels before coppicing are mentioned on the
as-built plan which is sent to the Project Manager for consideration in
subsequent earthworks.
The altimetry after coppicing and the location of the inclusions must be
systematically checked.
5.2. Under paving, apron and embankments
In the event of low leveling (see § 3.2.6.2), the altimetry after possible coppicing
and the establishment of inclusions must be systematically checked.
In this case, it must be checked that the leveling is not below the base of the work
platform.
6. QUALITY AND THICKNESS CONTROL OF THE

DISTRIBUTION MAT 6.1. Thickness
Each of the participants on the site must provide an altimetry check of their works
as part of their execution monitoring. The comparison between these levels and
the dimensioning parameters is made by the project manager as part of the
geotechnical execution supervision.
The control of the total thickness must be done at least by simple comparison
between the leveling of the working platform made after reprofiling (see chapter
7), and that made after the realization of the mattress. To control the thickness of
the mattress above the heads of inclusions, it is also necessary to take into account
the leveling of the heads of inclusions after possible coppicing.
The frequencies of leveling measurements are defined in the parts of the market.
Failing this, the following values are recommended: •
for extended structures (raft foundation, paving,
embankments, etc.): – a
minimum of 3 points; – a leveling point
at the rate of: – 1 every 400 m2 up to an area of ,
2,000 m2 – 1 every 1,000 m2 beyond;

• under sole:
– 1 leveling point to the right of each footing.
Comment. In the case of inclusions made by pushing into a saturated clay

soil, and with a tight mesh, it will be advisable to check the possible lifting of
the work platform before the execution of the mattress.
361
6.2. Quality
The quality control of the distribution mattress must be carried out at the level of the inclusion and
between inclusions.
The material of the mattress must be identified and checked for compactness.
6.2.1. Identification tests The
identification tests to be provided relate to the following parameters: – origin of the

material; – material
classification within the meaning of GTR92 (NFP 11-300); – particle size
curve; – hardness characteristics:
LA, MDE and LA+MDE; – shear resistance tests (c, ÿ).
Comment. For natural gravel types D1, D2, D3 and R, the shear tests can be
dispensed with and the values given in § 6.4.1 of chapter 7 can be adopted.
6.2.2. Compactness tests

“Road” type tests are recommended: density measurement (to be compared to
OPM), plate tests, CBR or IPI, etc.
Comment. The minimum values (EV2 and/or density) to be achieved are
those defined in the Execution chapter (chapter 7) or those defined in the
design if they are more stringent.
If the mattress is thicker than 80 cm, the pressuremeter or the static penetrometer can be used to
assess this compactness.
The nature of the tests and their number must be defined in the contract documents.
The elements of the following paragraphs constitute an aid tool for the drafting of these documents.
6.2.2.1. Under structures with distributed loads (paving, apron, embankment

or roadway)
LCPC-type plate tests are preferred to Standard NF P 94 117-1 to -3.
Their number is defined with reference to the rules applicable to the work in question (DTU 13.3,
GTR, etc.). Otherwise,
the following frequency is recommended: the minimum number is equal to 3 tests plus 1 test every
2,000 m2 .
362
6.2.2.2. Under sole
When the conditions of access to the upper part of the mattress make it difficult
to carry out plate tests, density tests are preferred (frequency: 1/10 soles, with
a minimum of 5 per site).
These density tests must be correlated with tests carried out at plate tests.
7. ADDITIVES SUCH AS GEOSYNTHETICS

The control of geosynthetics must be carried out in accordance with the NF G
38060 standard and the CEN/TR 15019 recommendation document
“Geotextiles and related products. On-site control”.
7.1. General
The checks must relate in particular to: – the

products delivered to the site; –
evaluation of the compliance of the mattress material with those taken in the
dimensioning of the reinforcement with regard to the risks of damage and the
durability of the geosynthetics; –
verification of handling and storage conditions, which must comply with the
supplier's recommendations; – verification of the
implementation of the reinforcement. The positioning of the product must
comply with the layout plan and the supplier's recommendations. In particular,
the orientation, the direction of laying and the overlaps or junctions must be
checked as well as the anchoring arrangements.
7.2. Control upon receipt of products delivered to the site The
purpose of this control is to verify the conformity of the characteristics of the
products delivered with those prescribed in the specifications. It includes
checking against the “product” sheet (checking the labeling, the marking on
the tablecloth) which concerns all the batches delivered.
Comment. The supplier must allow the identification of geotextiles or related
products by the user and comply with the requirements of EN ISO 10320
“Geotextiles and related products – On-site identifications”.
7.3. Control of the characteristics of the products after implementation
Checking the characteristics of the product after implementation can be done

in the form of a test board, the purpose of which is to determine its actual
damage after work (cf. standard NF P 94-270).
363
8. ADDITIVES SUCH AS METAL MESH The control of

metal mesh is carried out in accordance with the NFP 94-270 standard
concerning reinforced backfill.
9. INSTRUMENTATION
The results of monitoring measurements must always be evaluated and interpreted, and this
should normally be done in a quantitative way.
This chapter gives some basic rules for instrumenting a structure on a soil reinforced by rigid
inclusions. These rules are based on the experience acquired during the instrumentation of the
two full-scale experiments and the few real structures carried out within the framework of the
national ASIRI project (Fig. 8.7).
The control by instrumentation of a work on a ground reinforced by rigid inclusions can be made
before the realization of this one on a plot previously built or directly on the work. The
instrumentation must be adapted to the structure: for example embankment or reservoir. The
sensors must be positioned in representative zones: for example under the body and at the foot
of the slope for an embankment, under the center and under the periphery for a reservoir (Fig.
8.7).
364
Figure 8.7. Structures instrumented within the framework of the national project.
The nature of the sensors used must be adapted to the settlement to be measured, which is
generally low. Those used to monitor the settlement of embankments on compressible soils
(settlement balls, settlement plates, etc.) may prove to be unsuitable both in terms of their precision
and their size.
365
Figure 8.8. Example of sensor layout.
In the case of a preliminary test block, the number of rigid inclusions must be sufficient so that the
measurement is not affected by edge effects: – for example in the case of a rectangular
mesh, sixteen inclusions allow attempt a measurement of the central mesh in good conditions
(Fig. 8.9a); – for the knowledge of the charge transfer on an inclusion, a plot of 9 inclusions
is sufficient. (Fig. 8.9b).
Figure 8.9. Zone of installation of the sensors according to the desired result: a)
measurement of a mesh; b) charge transfer on an inclusion.
For the instrumentation to be effective and accepted by the various stakeholders, it must be
designed in such a way as to interfere as little as possible with the construction phase. For
example, settlement sensors embedded in the ground are preferred to settlement gauges which
cross the structure and risk slowing down its construction or being damaged (Fig. 8.10).
366
Figure 8.10. a) Flooded settlement sensor; b) Settlement gauges.
The size and measurement range of the sensors must be adapted to the structure.
The mode of acquisition (automatic or manual) and the frequency of acquisition (greater in the
construction phase than in service) must take into account the phasing of completion.
So that the load transfer mechanisms are not disturbed by the installation of the collectors, this
must be integrated within the framework of the "normal" phasing of the works.
Comment. The fact of installing the sensors a posteriori (within a trench or an

excavation for example) risks locally modifying the properties of the layer and
disturbing the measurements.
Particular attention must be paid to the implementation of the instrumentation and to the
earthworks near the sensors: – in the event of treatment with binder of the load
transfer platform (mixing); – when compacting the load transfer platform; – when carrying out
excavations or
trenches.
Instrumentation must at least enable the settlement of the structure to be measured. Other
measurements may prove to be relevant: – measurement of load
transfer to the rigid inclusions; – measurement of the pore pressure in
the compressible soil; – measurement of the settlement of the rigid inclusion;
– measurement of the deformation of the mattress
reinforcement plies: geosynthetics, mesh; – measurement of the deformation of the slab; –
measurement of
lateral displacements and inclinations of rigid
inclusions at the foot of the slope in the case of an embankment or at the edge of a structure, etc.
367
9.1. Settlement measurement
Settlement can be measured in vertical and/or horizontal profiles.
9.1.1. Measurement according to a vertical

profile In the case of an embankment on compressible soil, it may be interesting to
measure the vertical profile of the settlement from the substratum to the top of the embankment.
For this, a borehole magnetic settlement gauge can be used, although its use requires
precautions in the implementation of the embankment which must be taken into
account when carrying out the earthworks.
The compaction of compressible soil can also be measured using a single-fiber
multipoint extensometer. This device has the advantage of being buried and does not
interfere with the implementation of the structure.
For any device installed in vertical boreholes, it must be ensured that the sealing grout
has a sufficiently low rigidity not to disturb the measurements. We can refer to the
recommendations of Peignaud and Chaput (1983).
9.1.2. Measurement according to a horizontal
profile For the measurement of horizontal profiles, it is necessary to favor sensors with
suitable accuracy and measurement mode, and whose size does not modify the
behavior of the surrounding environment.
It may be interesting to measure the horizontal profiles at the level of the inclusion
heads and above the load transfer platform.
Horizontal profiles can be measured either by passing probes through a previously
installed casing (hydrostatic profilometer, horizontal inclinometer), or by measuring the
vertical displacement of isolated sensors placed on a line (water pressure gauges,
level measurement pressure sensor of liquid called "transmitter", the principle of which
is explained in § 9.1.3, pressure cells).
The main advantage of probe measurements is that only the casing is lost. On the
other hand, the dimensions of the probes require an imposed measurement pitch; the
installation of the casings requires the construction of trenches backfilled with sand in
the load transfer platform which can locally modify the settlement.
In the case of specific works (reservoirs for example), the device can be inserted
directly into the foundation raft of the work.
This type of measurement also requires the realization of two points serving as a
reference on either side of the profile which must also be followed in levelling. Finally,
the accuracy of the measurement and its positioning in the tube is not satisfactory.
368
when the expected settlements are low and when you want to clearly identify the differential
settlement between the rigid inclusions and the compressible soil.
Comment. Because of these difficulties, this method of measuring settlement
can be tricky.
9.1.3. Specific measures

Settlement gauges are inexpensive but their use entails difficulties in implementing the structure
and an intervention to carry out the measurements.
res.
Ball-type settlement cells are too bulky for accurate settlement measurement.
Experience shows that the use of “transmitters” for liquid level measurement (Fig. 8.11) is the
most suitable in terms of precision, size, installation and acquisition: – the "transmitters" are
connected in series by a hydraulic line to a tank filled
with antifreeze fixed on a support arranged outside the right-of-way of the structure, on the one
hand, and by an electric line to the measurement unit, on the other hand. 'somewhere else ; – the
tank keeps the system always saturated and at a constant charge; – each “transmitter” measures
the
pressure variation between its position and the tank level; – a reference “transmitter” is
fixed under the reservoir and is used to calculate the settlement of the other transmitters positioned
under the structure. Each
“transmitter” is compensated for atmospheric pressure by a capillary coupled to the electrical cable.
Figure 8.11. “Transmitter” type pressure cells.
369
This technique requires a great precaution on the localization of the reference frame
and on the installation of the sensors.
Figure 8.11 shows a basic setup for measuring horizontal profiles at the inclusion
heads and above the charge transfer platform with “transmitters”. We prefer a
solution with two references if the possibilities of the site allow it.
9.2. Control of load transfer Load transfer

can be measured using total pressure sensors installed on the head of the rigid
inclusion, in the rigid inclusion, on the compressible floor, above and below. interior
of the load transfer platform (Fig. 8.12).
However, implementation on the head of the rigid inclusion is preferred rather than on
the compressible ground, the pressure measurement being more reliable when the
sensor is positioned on a rigid surface; in this case, circular sensors of the same
diameter as the rigid inclusion are preferably used.
The measurement range of the sensors positioned on the rigid inclusions must be
chosen with the assumption that the entire load of a cell rests on the inclusion.
Figure 8.12. Position of the pressure sensors making it possible to highlight the load
transfer.
In the case of inclusions provided with reinforcement cages, it is common practice to

determine the load applied to the inclusion indirectly by measuring the deformation in
the inclusion by extensometers secured to these cages.
In the case of the instrumentation of unreinforced rigid inclusions, this measurement
is difficult in the absence of reinforcements for the installation of the sensors. In this
case, the determination of the stress in the inclusion requires knowledge of the
modulus reached by the material of the inclusion at each measurement date.
Comment. This can turn out to be complex when the planned measurement
period is long (large number of specimens to be tested over time and mode of
preservation of the specimens).
370
9.3. Measurement of pore pressure in compressible soil

When this measurement is considered relevant, the monitoring of the evolution
of the pore pressure during the construction and the life of the structure can
be done by the intermediary of pore pressure sensors placed in the
compressible soil, under the water table, before making the rigid inclusions.
Comment. When the sensors are placed before making the inclusions, precise
implantation of the inclusions and the sensors is necessary so as not to
damage the latter.
The groundwater level can be monitored outside the structure's footprint either
by pore pressure sensors or by one or more piezometers.
Comment. Groundwater level monitoring is recommended when settlement

measurements are taken.
9.4. Deformation of horizontal reinforcements

9.4.1. Geosynthetic aquifers
When the load transfer platform is reinforced by one or more geosynthetic
layers, measuring the deformation of the latter can provide useful information
on their contribution to the load transfer mechanisms. Traditional methods
(strain gauges, extensometers) are difficult to use for reasons of bulkiness of
the sensors or of connection between the sensor and the geosynthetic layer.
Fiber optic sensors inserted in the geosynthetic sheets can measure the
deformations punctually or along the optical fiber. The use of optical fibers
gives very good results in terms of precision, reliability and ease of
implementation, subject to following a few precautions during their installation
(ASIRI report 2.07.1.01, 2007) (Fig. 8.13 ).
Figure 8.13. Geosynthetic layers equipped with optical fibers (Geodetect ®).
371
9.4.2. Metallic trellises In

the case of metallic trellises, deformation measurements with traditional sensors
of the strain gauge or extensometer type remain well suited but nevertheless
require precautions when they are put in place.
9.5. Lateral displacements and inclination of inclusions

Lateral displacements can be measured by vertical inclinometric drillings drilled
in the ground, or by inclinometers positioned directly in the inclusions. Inclinometric
sensors can indicate any variation in inclination of the rigid inclusions located at
the foot of the embankment or at the edge of the structure.
Figure 8.14. Inclinometer tube positioned at the foot of the slope.
9.6. Measurement acquisition systems The

measurement acquisition system, whatever it is, can be either automatic or
manual depending on the duration and frequency of the measurements, the
types of sensors used, the personnel resources and the conditions. of access.
To ensure the durability of the measurement acquisition system, it is essential to take special
precautions (protection against vandalism, for example).
372
Bibliography
ASIRI – “Chelles Progress Report”, 2.07.1.03, 2007.

G 38060 – Textiles. Items for industrial use. Recommendations for the use of geotextiles and
related products. Implementation. Specifications. Control of geotextiles and related
products, June 1994.
NF P 94-500 – Geotechnical engineering assignments. Classification and specifications.
NF EN 1997-1 (P 94-251-1) - Eurocode 7 Geotechnical calculation. Part 1: “General rules
rales ».
NF EN 1997-1/NA (P94-251-1/NA) – Eurocode 7 Geotechnical calculation. Part 1: “General
rules”. National annex to NF EN 1997-1, 2005.
NF EN 1997-2 (P94-252) - Eurocode 7 Geotechnical calculation. Part 2: “Recognition
fields and trials.
NF P 94-150-1 – Soils: reconnaissance and tests. Static pile test under axial force.
Part 1: “In compression”.
NF P 94-150-2 – Soils: reconnaissance and tests. Static pile test under stress
axial. Part 2: “In traction”.
NF P 94-160-2 – Soils: reconnaissance and tests. Auscultation of a foundation element.
Part 2: “Reflection method”.
NF P 94-160-4 – Soils: reconnaissance and tests. Auscultation of a foundation element.
Part 4: “Impedanc method”e.
NF P94-262 (P94-262) – Geotechnical calculation. Deep foundations.
NF P 11-300 – Execution of earthworks: classification of materials that can be used in the
construction of embankments and capping layers for road infrastructures.
NF P 94 117-1 – Soils: reconnaissance and tests. Deformability of platforms.
Part 1: "Modulus of static deformation at the plate".
NF P 94 117-2 – Soils: reconnaissance and tests. Platform lift. Part 2: “Module under dynamic
loading”.
NF P 94 117-3 – Soils: reconnaissance and tests. Platform lift. Part 3: “Westergaard reaction
coefficient under static loading of a plate”.
NF P 94-078 – Soils: reconnaissance and tests. CBR index after immersion; Immediate CBR
index; Immediate Bearing Index. Measurement on sample compacted in the CBR mould.
NF P 94-093 – Soils: reconnaissance and tests. Determination of compac references

layer of a material. Normal Proctor test; Modified Proctor test.
NF P 11-213-1 (DTU 13.3) – Pavings. Design, calculation and execution. Part 1: "Ca hier of
the technical clauses of slabs for industrial use or similar". Approved March 2005.
NF P11-213-1/A1 (DTU 13.3) - Pavings. Design, calculation and execution. Part 1: "Book of
technical clauses for slabs for industrial or similar use". Amendment approved in May
2007.
NF P 11-213-2 (DTU 13.3) – Pavings. Design, calculation and execution. Part 2: "Ca hier of
the technical clauses of slabs for use other than industrial or similar". Ho mologated
March 2005.
373
NF P 11-213-2/A1 (DTU 13.3) – Flooring. Design, calculation and execution. Part 2:

“Book of technical clauses for slabs for use other than industrial or similar”.
Amendment approved May 2007.
NF P 11-213-3 (DTU 13.3) – Pavings. Design, calculation and execution. Part 3: "That
yesterday of the technical clauses of the floors of individual houses". Approved March
2005.
NF P 11-213-3/A1 (DTU 13.3) – Flooring. Design, calculation and execution. Part 3:
“Book of technical clauses for slabs of individual houses”. Amendment approved May
2007.
NF P 11-213-4 (DTU 13.3) – Pavings. Design, calculation and execution. Part 4: “That
yesterday special clauses”. Approved March 2005.
NF P94-270 (P94-270) – Geotechnical calculation. Support works. embankments ren
forced and massive in nailed ground.
Peignaud M. and Chaput D. – “Grout for sealing measuring devices in soils”.
Liaison bulletin of the Ponts et Chaussées Laboratories No. 126, 1983, p. 15-20.
374
Contents
Foreword............................................... ...............................................3
Partners of the ASIRI national project.................................................. .............5
Contents ....................................... .................................................. ...........7
Ratings ..................................... .................................................. .............9
Chapter 1
DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT UP
TO THE NATIONAL PROJECT 1.
Rigid inclusions and types of foundation............................... ...............29 2.
Definition of a rigid inclusion ..................... ...............................31 3. The
inclusion heads........... .................................................. ..............33
4. The load transfer platform ............................................... ...........33 5.
The soils concerned.................................. ..............................................34
6. Areas of application ............................................ ..................35 7. History
of rigid inclusions ............................... ........................................39 8. The
National ASIRI Project .. .................................................. .................50
Chapter 2
OPERATING MECHANISMS
1. Structure – transfer platform – inclusion head interaction.........56 1.1.
Interaction between the reinforced floor and the interlayer pad .............56
1.1.1. Case of an embankment ............................... .........................57
1.1.2. Case of a slab or a foundation............................................... 60
1.1.3. Special case of a ground mattress treated with
hydraulic binders ............................................... ..................................................62
1.1 .4. Side effect............................................... ..............................64
1.2. Reinforced soil-slab interaction .................................................. .........65
1.2.1. Definition ................................................. ................................65
1.2.2. Design ................................................. ..............................68 1.3.
Reinforced soil-sole interaction .............................................. ........69
1.3.1. Definition ................................................. .................................69
1.3.2. Design ................................................. ..............................70
375
2. Interaction Surrounding Soil – Inclusion............................................... ......

70 2.1. Preamble................................................. .....................................
70 2.2. Negative friction ................................................ .........................
72 2.2.1. Principles ................................................. .................................
72 2.2.2. Neutral point................................................ ..............................
72 2.2.3. Mobilization over time and in depth ........................... 73 2.3.
Mobilization of soil resistance ............................................ .. 74 2.4.
Settlement of the inclusion ............................................ .................. 74
2.5. Actions other than centered vertical ............................................ 75
2.5 .1. Asymmetrical loading ................................................ ...... 75
2.5.2. Transversal actions ................................................ ............... 76
3. Load transfer mechanisms .................................. ........................... 77
3.1. Negative friction over the height of the compressible soil..................
77 3.1.1. Isolated inclusion or isolated pile .............................................. ......
77 3.1.2. Inclusion in a group ............................................... ........... 83
3.1.3. Inclusion within a limited group of inclusions..............................
87 3.1.4. Limitations of the model............................................... ..............
87 3.2. Load transfer in the mattress ............................................ .. 88
3.2.1. Method of fictitious inclusion ............................................ ..... 88
3.2.2. Diffusion cone method ................................................ .. 91 4.
Elementary mechanisms .................................. ........................... 94 4.1.
Global mechanism of a reinforcement by rigid inclusions......... 94 4.2.
Behavior of the isolated rigid inclusion ................................... 95 4.3.
Behavior of a rigid inclusion within a group ............... 96 4.4. Behavior
of the ground around the rigid inclusion in a
group............................................... .................................................. 97
4.5 . Consolidation of saturated compressible soil in a group
of rigid inclusions............................................... ........................................
99 5. Settlements and deformations .... ..................................................100 .........
5.1. Reinforced soil compaction ...................................... ............. 100
5.2. Settlement of unreinforced deep layers ........................... 101 5.3.
Soil recognition .................................................. ............... 102 5.4.
Determining parameters................................................ .............. 102 6.
Lessons learned from the experimental plots ............................... ..............
103 6.1. Behavior of includes ............................................................ ......
103 6.2. Load transfer .............................................. ....................... 104
6.3. Reinforcing layers (geosynthetics) ................................................. 105
376
Contents
6.4. Effectiveness in terms of compaction .............................................. .....105

7. Seismic stresses .................................. ..............................106 Chapter
3
CALCULATION MODELS
1. Ratings ............................................... ...........................................113
2. Principles. .................................................. ...........................................114
3. Analytical methods... .................................................. ...................115
3.1. Vertical loads ................................................ ........................115
3.1.1. Elements common to the different methods .......................115
3.1.2. Running mesh................................................ ...............119
3.1.3. Insoles ................................................ .................................123
3.2. Other expenses................................................ ..............................135
3.2.1. Horizontal load and moment on footings..............................135
3.2.2. Solicitations under dissymmetrical loading....................143 4.
Numerical models in finite elements or differences .............. ...........143
4.1. Advantages of these methods ............................................... ..................145
4.2. Limits of two-dimensional modelling..............................146 4.2.1.
Axisymmetric model ................................................ ............147 4.2.2.
Plane-strain model ............................................................ ...148 4.3.
Modelization................................................. .................................148
4.3.1. Geometric limits of the model ............................................148
4.3. 2. Conditions to the limits............................................... .............149
4.3.3. Axisymmetric model of an elementary cell..........................150
4.3.4. Plane-strain model ............................................................ ...151
4.3.5. Volumic or linear elements...............................................152
4.3.6 . Behavior of the foundation under the reinforced
volume .............153 4.3.7. 3D
modeling .................................................. .................155 4.4. Laws of
behavior .................................................. ...................155 4.4.1. Study
of the parameters of the model...............................155 4.4.2.
Mechanical characteristics of soils..................................156 4.4.3.
Hydraulic characteristics of soils................................................163
4.4.4. Characteristics of the inclusion/soil interfaces ..............164
4.4.5. Characteristics of rigid inclusions................................................164
4.4.6. Characteristics of the distribution mattress ............................165
4.4.7. Characteristics of layers of geotextiles...............................165
4.4.8. Characteristics of the slab or slab ...............................165 4.5. Stages of constru
377
4.6. Calculations.................................................. ........................................ 166 4.7.

Exploitation of results............................................... .............. 166 4.7.1. Validation of
results ............................................... ........... 166 4.7.2. Verification of the different limit
states ............................ 167 4.7.3. Content of the calculation
note ........................................... ...... 167 5. Methods by
homogenization ............................................... ................... 169 5.1. Simple homogenization
method ............................................ 169 5.2 . Extended biphasic
model ............................................ ............ 170 5.2.1. Modeling
principle.................................................... ...... 170 5.2.2. Implementation of the
model ................................................ ......... 171 5.2.3. Shear and Bending Effects in
Inclusions.......................... 173
Chapter 4
CONCEPTION
1. Choice of the method of improvement ...................................... ........ 177 2. Input
data .................................. ............................................ 178 2.1. Soil
data ............................................................... ............. 178 2.2. Data concerning the
structure and its operation .............. 178 2.3. Data concerning the context in which the
work was carried out ..... 179 3. Project
criteria .................................. .................................................. 179 4 . Limits and fields of
use ........................................... ................ 180 4.1. Favorable
factors................................................ ...................... 180 4.2. Unfavorable
factors ................................................ .................. 181 5. Other specific points to
consider .................. ...................... 181 5.1. Transfer of loads at
depth .............................................. .. 181 5.2. Side
effects ............................................... ............................... 181 5.3. Special case of a
significant thickness of backfill added to the ground being
consolidated .................................. ...... 182 5.4. Choice between the different methods
of rigid inclusions............... 182 5.5. Consequences on the design of
slabs .................................. 183 6. Stages in the development of a construction
project .. ............................ 183 6.1. Preliminary geotechnical site study (mission
G11) ............. 6.2. Pre-project geotechnical study (mission G12) ..................... 184 184
6.3. Services carried out within the framework of the project management............... 184
6.3.1. Project geotechnical study (mission G2) ............................ 184
6.3.2. Execution geotechnical supervision (G4 mission)................... 185 6.4. Services
carried out within the framework of the contract of each
contractor.................................... ............................... 186
378
Contents
6.4.1. Execution geotechnical study (G3 assignment) ..................186

6.4.2. Geotechnical monitoring of execution (G3 mission) ..............186
6.5. Service carried out within the framework of
the technical inspection contract ...................................... ..................................187
Chapter 5
RATIONALE
1. General framework of justifications .................................. .............189
1.1. Serviceability limit states (SLS) ............................................ ...........189
1.1.1. Formulation ................................................ ...........................189
1.1.2. Relevant displacement or deformation criteria ..............190 1.1.3.
Alternative verification of ELS lift ..................................191 1.2. Ultimate
Limit States (ULS) .............................................. ..............192 1.2.1.
General case (approach 2)................................................. ............193
1.2.2. Special case of embankments on rigid inclusions
(approach 3) ............................................... ...............................................194
2. Models for GEO limit state verifications....................................195 2.1.
Simplified models ................................................ ...............195 2.1.1.
Simplified models for ULS checks ...........................................195 2.1.2.
Simplified models for ELS checks....................................207 2.2.
Detailed numerical models ............................................... .......207 2.2.1.
Detailed numerical models for ULS checks ..............209 2.2.2. Detailed
numerical models for SLS checks
(settlements).............................................. ..............................................211
2.3. Specific models of the rupture calculation type
for ULS checks ........................................... .................................212 2.3.1.
Application example................................................ ..............212 2.3.2.
Principle of checks .................................................. ........214 3. Limit
states STR .................................. ...........................................214 3.1.
Concrete or mortar inclusions .............................................. ........215
3.1.1. Compressive strength in simple
compression or compound bending.............................................. 215
3.1.2. Resistance with respect to compound bending ............................218
3.1.3. Resistance to shearing................................................218 3.1. 4.
Resistance against buckling................................................220 3.2. Steel
inclusions.................................................. .........................220 3.3.
Slabs.................................................. ...........................................220 3.4.
Pavings.................................................. .......................................220
379
3.4.1. Limit states to be checked ............................................... ..............

220 3.4.2. Type of seals .............................................. ........................
222
3.4.3. Dimensioning.................................................. ................. 224
3.5. Footings and slabs ............................................... ........................
245 3.5.1. Rigid footings or inverts ........................................... ......
245 3.5.2. Flexible slabs................................................ ......................
246 3.6. Pavements ................................................ ...................................
246
3.7. Reinforcement of the distribution layer..........................................
248 3.7.1. Preamble ................................................. ..............................
248
3.7.3. Calculation approach for ULS checks.................................... 249
3.7.4. STR verification................................................ ................... 249
3.7.5. Tensile forces under the action of vertical loads............... 251
3.7.6. Tractive effort under the thrust forces on the slope............... 255
3.7.7. Determination of the geosynthetic(s).......................... 256 4.
Detail of the consistency checks of the GEO limit states.... ........ 258 4.1.
Behavior of inclusion ................................................ ........ 258 4.1.1.
Behavior at peak .............................................. ........ 258 4.1.2. Lateral
behavior ................................................ ............ 259 4.2. Behavior of
the distribution mattress ................................... 260 4.2.1. Justificationof
the method ................................................ ...... 260 4.2.2. Calculation
of the limit carryover at the head of inclusion in
the current section .................................. ................................... 266
4.2.3. Calculation of the limit transfer at the top
of the inclusion at the edge of the
structure .............................. ........................................ 276 4.2.4.
Summary.................................................. ........................... 287 4.2.5.
Special
case of materials treated with hydraulic binders 290 Chapter 6 SOI
1. Geotechnical engineering missions for the reinforcement of
compressible soils by rigid inclusions.................................. ... 293 1.1.
Preliminary geotechnical study of the G11 site.............................. 293
1.2. Pre-project geotechnical study G12...............................................
294 1.3. Geotechnical study of G 2 project within the framework
of a reinforcement project by rigid inclusions.................................. ...............
294 2. General recommendations for the establishment of the
geotechnical investigation program .................... ........................................ 295
380
Contents
Chapter 7
EXECUTION
1. Coordination with geotechnical engineering assignments ...............311
2. Execution of the work platform .............. .................................312 2.1.
Role of the platform .................................................. ...............312 2.2.
Analysis of the risks of intervention on the platform with
regard to inclusions .............................. ...........................................313
2.3. Construction principles .................................................. ...................313
3. Execution of rigid inclusions............................... .................................314
3.1. Execution techniques review .................................................. ...314
3.2. Material requirements ............................................................315
3.3 . Description of the execution methods ............................................315
3.3.1. Rigid inclusions drilled with soil extraction ............................316
3.3.2. Drilled Rigid Inclusions with Ground Displacement..................316
3.3.3. Vibro-drilled or beaten rigid inclusions,
molded in place ........................................... .....................................317
3.3.4. Prefabricated rigid vibratory or driven inclusions....317 3.3.5.
Inclusions by mixing a binder with the soil ..................318 3.4.
Summary of methods ............................................................ ...........318
3.5. Description of work .............................................. ...................319
3.6. Means put in place, equipment ...................................... .........320
3.7. Execution plans of inclusions.................................................. ......321
3.8. Preparing the site .................................................. .........................321
3.9. Work execution ............................................... ...................321 3.10.
Building provisions .............................................. ..........322 3.10.1.
Minimum diameter................................................ .................322
3.10.2. Theoretical section and diameter ............................................322
3.10.3. Mesh .................................................. ..............................322
4. Preparation of the embedding head............... .............................................327
4.1. General principles ................................................ ...............327
4.1.1. Leveling.................................................. ...........................................327
4.1.2. Coppicing ................................................ ...............................328
4.2. Altimetry tolerance .................................................. ...................330
4.3. Execution of the slabs or “enlarged heads”..........................330 5.
Installation of the mattress....... .................................................. .........331
5.1. Reconstitution of the work platform in the
event of low leveling.................................... ........................................332
381
5.1.1. Untreated granular platform integrated into the mattress..........

332 5.1.2. Platform treated with hydraulic binders
(cement or road binder).......................................... ..............................
332 5.1.3. Lime-treated platform ................................................ ..... 332
5.2. Installation of a mattress under large foundations
(slab or slab) .............................. ......... 332 5.3. Implementation of a
mattress under a foundation of small
dimensions.................................... ..................................... 332 5.3.1.
Realization of the mattress after execution of the inclusions ......... 333
5.3.1. Making the mattress before making the inclusions ............... 335
5.4. Minimum characteristics of the material used as a mattress. 335
5.4.1. Untreated materials .............................................. .............. 335
5.4.2. Materials processed................................................ ....................
5.5. Minimum thickness ................................................ ..................... 337 338
5.6. Overhang of the mattress in the case of soles ..............................338
5.7. Possible incorporation of a reinforcing ply .............................. 338
5.7.1. General.................................................. ............................ 338
5.7.2. Layout plans and direction of laying.................................... 341
6. Interaction with the other lots (roads, carcass) .................................. 344
Chapter 8
CONTROLS AND INSTRUMENTATION
1.Introduction ............................................... ........................................ 347
2. Static loading tests in compression on isolated
inclusion................................................ ................................ 348 2.1.
Loading tests at failure ............................................... ... 348 2.2. Lift and
deformation control tests ...................................... 349 2.2.1. Value of
the test load ............................................ ......... 349 2.2.2. Estimation
of friction in compressible soil ............... 351 2.2.3. Frequency of
tests ............................................... ............... 351 2.2.4. Test
procedure.................................................. ..................... 352 3.
Informational essays .................. .................................................. .. 353
3.1. Threshing................................................. ........................................
353 3.2. Drilling with or without discharge .............................................. 355
...
3.3. Sinking ................................................ ........................................
357 3.4. Vibro-sinking.................................................... ..................................
357 4. Drum inspection tests .................. .................................................. .......
358 4.1. Integrity ................................................. ........................................
358
382
Contents
4.2. Diameter (single inclusion/group of inclusions) ............................358

4.2.1. Inclusions whose nominal diameter is that of the tool..............359
4.2.2. Other cases ................................................ ...............................359
4.3. Mechanical characteristics of the material constituting 359 4.3.1.
Crush tests .................................................. ..................359 4.3.2.
Consistency tests .................................................. ...............360 4.3.3.
Quality of the embedding head ............................................ .......360
5. Control of the implantation and the altimetry of the
inclusions (in progress and after
completion) .............................. ..................................360 5.1. Under
sole................................................ .................................360 5.2. Under
slab, slab and embankments .................................. .......361 6. Checking
the quality and thickness of the distribution mattress .....361 6.1.
Thickness ................................................. .....................................361
6.2. Quality................................................. ........................................362
6.2.1. Identification tests .................................................. ..............362
6.2.2. Compactness tests .................................................. ..................362
7. Additives such as geosynthetics ..................... ............................363
7.1. General.................................................. ...................................363
7.2. Checking upon receipt of products delivered to the site ..............363
7.3. Control of the characteristics of the products after implementation
.363 8. Additives such as metal mesh .................................. ....................364
9. Instrumentation ........................... .................................................. ......364
9.1. Settlement measurement .............................................. .....................368
9.1.1. Measurement along a vertical profile ............................................ ..368
9.1.2. Measurement along a horizontal profile ............................................368
9.1. 3. Specific measures ................................................ ...............369
9.2. Control of load transfer .............................................. .......370 9.3.
Measurement of pore pressure in compressible soil....371 9.4.
Deformation of horizontal reinforcements ............................371 9.4.1.
Geosynthetic aquifers ................................................ .........371 9.4.2.
Metal trellises................................................ .................372 9.5. Lateral
displacements and inclination of inclusions ..............372 9.6. Measurement acquisition s
Contents............................................... ...................................375
383

ASIRI Recommandations 2012 Translated

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

ASIRI Recommandations 2012 Translated

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Machine Translated by Google

ASIRI national project

It is available from the Presses des Ponts, in its printed version:

contact@irex.asso.fr - +33 (0)1 44 13 32 79

ASIRI national project

© 2012 ISBN: 978-2-85978-462-1

Presses of the Bridges 15, rue de la Fontaine-au-Roi

These "Recommendations on the improvement of foundation soils by rigid inclusions" constitute

Another specificity of these recommendations is to include the proposed design

Partners of the National ASIRI Project

Also contributing to this project and are thanked: the General

Working group The

P. BERTHELOT (Veritas), T. BRET (Keller Special Foundations), L. BRIANÇON (Cnam), S. BRULÉ

ASIRI NATIONAL PROJECT

(Pinto), B. PEZOT (Ménard), C. PLOMTEUX (Ménard), J. RACINAIS (Ménard), C. SIMON

President F. SCHLOSSER (Professor Emeritus)

Figures : Mr. ANIC ANTIC (Terrasol)

English translation : R. SACHS

Partners of the National ASIRI Project 5

Chapter 1. Description and development up to the national project 29

Chapter 2. Mechanisms and operation 55

Chapter 3. Calculation models 113

Chapter 4. Design 177

Chapter 5. Rationale 189

Chapter 6. Soil recognition 293

Chapter 7. Execution 311

Chapter 8. Controls and Instrumentation 347

Area of a cell (one inclusion + Surface area of a mesh

Area of the compressed section Surface area of the compressed

AS Compressible soil area Surface area of the soft soil L2 (m²)

Area of the inclusion head Surface area

Characteristic length of the I

Spacing of inclusions in a Spacing between inclusions I

CC Compression index index compression (–)

Maximum resistance value

cs Recompression Index index recompression (–)

cÿe Creep index creep index (–)

Cohesion (in terms Cohesion (in terms

ASIRI NATIONAL PROJECT

Coefficient of variation of Coefficient of variation of the log

cu Undrained cohesion Undrained shear strength ML–1T–2 (Pa)

Apparent cohesion Apparent cohesion

Vertical consolidation Coefficient of consolidation

D Diameter of an inclusion Inclusion diameter I (m)

Equivalent shaft diameter Equivalent diameter of the shaft

Nominal diameter of the largest I

Dimension at n% (n% of the n percent dimension (n% of par

Efficiency by model Efficiency according to the

Efficiency by model Efficiency according to the

Fraction of the total load to Proportion of total load to

Young's modulus, Modulus of

Modulus of deformation Apparent deformation modulus of the

Conventional modulus determined

Eoed Oedometric module Oedometric modulus ML–1T–2 (Pa)

Reference value of the tangent Reference value of the tangent

Oedometric modulus equivalent to Equivalent oedometric modulus of the

Apparent modulus of soil Apparent deformation modulus of the

Modulus of deformation of Deformation modulus of

Reference value of the secant modulus

Reference value of the recompression Reference value of the unloa ding-

Eurref modulus in the reloading modulus in the ML–1T–2 (Pa)

e Void index Void ratio (–)

e0 Initial void index Initial void ratio (–)

FN Resultant of negative friction Resultant of negative friction MLT–2 (NOT)