Innov. Infrastruct. Solut.
(2017) 2:32
DOI 10.1007/s41062-017-0085-4
TECHNICAL PAPER
Some aspects of research and practice for pile design in France
Roger Frank1
Received: 3 May 2017 / Accepted: 2 June 2017
 Springer International Publishing AG 2017
Abstract This paper summarises some aspects of the meth-
ods used in France for designing pile foundations under axial
and transverse loadings. These methods mostly use the results
of Ménard pressuremeter (MPM) tests and concern the
determination of the bearing capacity, as well as the prediction
of axial and transverse displacements. The prediction of the
bearing capacity from CPT results is also given. After men-
tioning the general context of foundation design in France, the
details of these methods are described and some of their
experimental background is explained. These methods are
now included in the French standard for pile design (published
by AFNOR, Justification of geotechnical work—National
application standards for the implementation of Eurocode 7—
Deep foundations, 206, 2012), fully compatible with Euro-
code 7 on ‘Geotechnical design’.
Keywords Pile  Axial loads  Transverse loads  Bearing
capacity  Settlement  Transverse displacement 
t–z curves  p–y curves  Pressuremeter test  Cone
penetration test
Introduction
The Ménard pressuremeter is a specific form of prebored
pressuremeters (note that sometimes it can be driven inside
a slotted tube). It was invented and developed by Ménard
This paper was selected from GeoMEast 2017—Sustainable Civil
Infrastructures: Innovative Infrastructure Geotechnology.
& Roger Frank
roger.frank@enpc.fr
1
Ecole nationale des ponts et chaussées, Laboratoire Navier-
CERMES, Marne-la-Vallée, France
[27] who also established the first corresponding rules for
the design of foundations: settlement of foundations [31],
behaviour of deep foundations under transverse loading
[28], and axial bearing capacity of foundations—whether
shallow or deep [29]. The evolution of the rules for the
design of shallow and deep foundations was included in a
general document published by Ménard [30].
It is clear that the immense advantage of the Ménard
pressuremeter test (MPM) is that it provides the geotech-
nical engineer with both a failure parameter (the limit
pressure pl) and a deformation parameter (the pres-
suremeter modulus EM). It enables him/her to tackle with
the same test the problems of bearing capacity of founda-
tions (using pl), as well as the problems of displacements of
foundations (using EM), i.e. the problems of deformation of
the structures to be carried.
The development of the use of MPM for foundation
design was, nevertheless, very often limited by the fact that
it needed a new approach, outside the conventional and
classical framework of soil mechanics (which had been
developed mainly with the use of laboratory tests, like the
triaxial test and the oedometer test)—see, for instance, the
paper by Gambin and Frank [24].
Indeed, the rules for the design of foundations from
MPM are essentially of ‘direct’ type, i.e. they use direct
correlations between the measured parameter (pl or EM)
and the ‘design’ parameter (bearing capacity, settlement or
transverse displacement). They do not require to determine
first a ‘basic’ soil parameter (parameters of shearing
resistance or oedometer modulus) to enter, subsequently,
into the classical bearing capacity formulae or oedometer
or elastic formulae for the settlement.
One of the other advantages of MPM is that it can be
performed in all kinds of grounds, from soft soils, to very
stiff or very dense soils and soft rocks, thanks to the
123
32 Page 2 of 15
preborehole. In the French geological context, this has also
turned out to be a great advantage.
The Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussées (LPCs, High-
ways Authority Laboratories) were very soon interested by
the pressuremeter tests and their application to the design
of foundations (see, for instance, among their early publi-
cations, [25]). As a matter of fact, the design rules proposed
by Ménard constituted the basis for the first document of
recommendations called ‘‘FOND 72’’, published in 1972
by the Ministry in charge of public works of France.
Starting from the early 1970s, the urgent need for
updated specifications for the foundation design in France
was at the origin of an intensive research work. This
activity was carried out mainly by the Laboratoires des
Ponts et Chaussées (LPCs); it consisted essentially of full-
scale testing and, after 1985, of geotechnical centrifuge
testing performed with the LCPC Nantes centrifuge facil-
ities. Interest was focused on:
– the assessment of design rules for foundations valid for
civil engineering public works contracts, expanding
those already existing for buildings;
– extending to the field of foundations design the limit
state approach elaborated since 1979 for the design of
structures;
– making these foundation design rules compatible with
the latest limit state design specifications used by the
Eurocodes for steel, reinforced concrete or pre-stressed
concrete structures.
Thus, after more than 20 years of research effort, cor-
responding to the construction of important infrastructures
in France, such as the motorway network and the TGV
(very fast train) lines, the Code of Practice, replacing the
‘‘FOND 72’’ recommendations, called ‘Fascicule 62—Titre
V’, was completed [26]. The method for designing axially
loaded piles with MPM results, both for bearing capacity
and settlement (axial displacements), given in ‘Fascicule
62—Titre V’ Code are detailed, in particular, in Busta-
mante and Frank [10] and Frank [20].
Recently, the need to implement the Eurocode 7 on
‘Geotechnical design’ [16, 17] into French practice led to
the publication of the new French standard for the appli-
cation of Eurocode 7 to deep foundations (standard NF
P 94-262, [2]). Most of the practical aspects of pile design
described below have been introduced into the new
standard.
This new French standard, like ‘Fascicule 62—Titre V’,
deals with all the usual pile foundation problems onshore,
such as foundations of bridges, that is to say foundations
subjected to axial loads, transverse loads, moments, nega-
tive skin friction and lateral thrusts due to soil movements.
The recent paper by Burlon et al. [9] gives a comprehen-
sive summary of the document.
123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:32
The basic principles of the method for design from the
MPM test results originally set up by Ménard in the 1960s
are still used. However, the design charts and other quan-
titative material have been continuously changed and
updated following the experimental research work carried
out mainly by the LPCs. This method leads to a complete
set of rules, providing the foundation engineer with all the
means for designing foundations. It contains precise
equations or formulae for calculating bearing capacities
and displacements of pile foundations. Furthermore, the
method has been adapted to the limit state approach.
Bearing capacity of piles
The work by Bustamante and Gianeselli [13] interpreting
the results of the full-scale tests of piles carried out at that
time by the LPCs was a milestone, because it formed the
basis for the revised MPM rules and CPT rules for the
bearing capacity of piles, both for the code for buildings
[18] and for the code for civil engineering works ‘Fascicule
62—Titre V’ [26].
These MPM rules have been continuously updated, as
the results of more full-scale tests became available. At the
occasion of the drafting of the new French standard on pile
foundations (for buildings and civil engineering works),
compatible with Eurocode 7, Bustamante and Gianeselli
[15] and Bustamante et al. [12] re-analysed the data of the
full-scale tests available in the LCPC database (LCPC, now
called IFSTTAR, is the Central Laboratory of the High-
ways Authority). Their work forms the basis of the new
rules ‘PMT 2012’ finally adopted in the French standard of
AFNOR [2]—see Baguelin et al. [3] and Burlon et al. [8].
The LCPC pile database and the new pressuremeter
model (‘PMT 2012’)
Pile data
The results of 174 full-scale static load tests taken from the
database have been used for the calibration of the model.
Out of 174 piles, 114 piles were instrumented along their
shaft. The 174 piles can be distributed into 8 classes and 20
categories (Table 1). Each class is split into one to four pile
categories. The geometrical properties are the following:
the diameters vary between 0.16 and 1.92 m (with a mean
equal to 0.59 m) and lengths between 3.5 and 80 m (with a
mean equal to 15 m). These classes and categories include
the latest piles technologies commonly used. Classes 1 and
2 are devoted to bored piles, class 3 corresponds to screw
piles, classes 4–7 to driven piles and class 8 to micropiles.
For the micropiles, different categories have been defined
according to the type of grouting process: gravity pressure
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:32 Page 3 of 15 32

Table 1 Classes and categories

Pile class Pile category
of piles [8]
C1: Bored piles 1: No support
2: With slurry
3: Permanent casing
4: Recoverable casing
5: Dry bored pile/or slurry
Bored pile with grooved
sockets
C2: CFA piles 6: CFA pile
C3: Screw piles 7: Screw cast-in-place pile
8: Screw piles with casing
C4: Closed-ended driven piles 9: Pre-cast or pre-stressed concrete-driven pile
10: Coated driven steel pile (coating: concrete, mortar, grout)
11: Driven cast-in-place pile
12: Driven steel pile, closed ended
C5: Open-ended driven piles 13: Driven steel pile, open ended
C6: Driven H piles 14: Driven H pile
15: Driven grouted H pile
C7: Driven sheet pile walls 16: Driven sheet pile
C8: Micropiles 17: Micropile I (gravity pressure)
18: Micropile II (low pressure)
19: Micropile III (high pressure)
20: Micropile IV (high pressure with TAM)

(category 17), low pressure (category 18) or high pressure
without or with the use of ‘‘tubes à manchettes’’ (TAM)
(category 19 and 20, respectively). For driven piles,
methods such as hammering or vibrating are included in
the database.
Soil data
For all the pile locations, as a minimum, a sampling by
drilling, as well as a pressuremeter test profile, and
sometimes a cone penetration test profile were performed.
Five ground types have been identified: clay and silt (soil
1), sand and gravel (soil 2), chalk (soil 3), marl and
calcareous marl (soil 4) and weathered rock (soil 5)—see
Tables 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. The soil identification is carried
out from the soil cuttings when the hole created specifi-
cally for the pressuremeter test is drilled. These five types
of soils are sufficient to take into account nearly all
ground natures encountered in France. Table 2 presents
the number of piles in each class for the five types of
soils in the database. The type of soil is the one prevailing
at the base of the pile.
About the feasibility of MPM tests compared to other
tests, it is worthwhile to note the figures given by Bus-
tamante et al. [12], obtained on 204 sites where pile loads
tests have been performed in France and abroad. These
figures are given in Table 3. They show that the MPM
tests were or could have been performed on the 204 sites

Table 2 Piles distribution by

Soil type Pile class Total
class and soil type [8]
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8

Silt and clay 10 13 8 18 9 4 8 0 70

% CaCO3 \30%
Sand and gravel 4 8 14 14 5 1 4 3 53
Chalk 4 0 4 9 1 2 4 0 24
Marl and calcareous marl 8 1 3 0 0 1 3 4 20
Weathered rock 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7
Total 30 22 29 41 15 8 19 10 174

123
32 Page 4 of 15
Table 3 Field and laboratory test feasibility [12]
Test Carried out to full design lengtha
MPM (pl) 155
CPT (qc) 60
Laboratory tests (cu, c0 , u0 ) 21
SPT (N) 26
a
Including the full length of pile ? additional metres below the pile tip
b
Due to premature refusal for CPT; sampling not possible for laboratory tests; soil strength too high for SPT
c
Feasible but not planned when the investigation campaign was decided
d
Considered from the beginning as inadequate with respect to soil nature or strength
(for 3 sites, there were simply not enough measurements
taken).
Principles of the pressuremeter method
The design of foundations with MPM results consists in
correlating the base resistance qb and the shaft resistance qs to
the limit pressure pl. It does not use fundamental soil
parameters as do many other capacity calculation methods.
The correlation between pl and qb is supported by the
analogy between the expansion of a cylindrical cavity
and the mobilisation of the base resistance. Nicholson
et al. [32], for instance, give an excellent example
showing that the Ménard limit pressure is the appropriate
parameter to capture the variation of the base resistance
of piles in London Thanet Sand. The relationship
between pl and qs is much more empirical and merely
reflects the fact that the shaft friction increases with the
density for sandy soils or with the consistency for clayey
soils, and thus with the ground resistance, for a given
pile technology.
The new pressuremeter model ‘PMT 2012’ [8]
The unit base resistance qb is given by Eq. (1):
qb ¼ kp ðple  po Þ;
where po is the total initial horizontal stress at the level of
the pile base, ple is the equivalent limit pressure from the
MPM results at the base and kp is the bearing factor. kp is a
function of soil type and pile class (Table 4). It varies
between 1.0 and 3.2.
The unit shaft resistance qs is given by Eq. (2):
qs ¼ a  fsol with the condition qs  qsmax :
The function fsol depends only on the type of soil
(Fig. 1). a is a sort of installation factor; it varies according
to soil type and pile category (Table 5). It varies between
0.4 and 3.8, as can be seen from Table 5. qsmax also
depends on the soil type and pile category (Table 6).
123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:32
Incomplete testb Not carried outc Not applicabled
3 46 0
79 23 42
67 69 47
54 72 52
The new penetrometer ‘CPT 2012’ model
The first model for the bearing capacity of piles from CPT
results from the database of the LPCs was established by
Bustamante and Gianeselli [13, 14]. At the occasion of the
drafting of the new French standard for pile design
according to Eurocode 7, a revised ‘CPT 2012’ model was
implemented [2, 9]. There are far less full-scale load tests
available with CPT results than with MPM tests results.
The results of 42 full-scale static load tests in the database
have been used for the establishment of the ‘CPT 2012’
model. Note that only the cone resistance qc is used; the
sleeve friction fs is not used for assessing the bearing
capacity of piles in French practice.
The unit base resistance qb is given by Eq. (3):
qb ¼ kc qce ; ð3Þ
where qce is the equivalent cone resistance from the CPT
results at the base and kc the bearing factor. kc is a function
of soil type and pile class (Table 7). It varies between 0.15
and 0.5.
The unit shaft resistance qs is given by Eq. (4)—iden-
tical to Eq. (2):
qs ¼ a  fsol with the condition qs  qsmax : ð4Þ
The function fsol depends only on the type of soil
ð1Þ (Fig. 2). a varies between 0.13 and 2.9 according to soil
type and pile category (Table 8). qsmax is the same as for
the ‘PMT 2012’ model; it depends on the soil type and pile
category (Table 6).
Model factors and calculated value of the pile
resistance [2]
ð2Þ
From the ‘PMT 2012’ and ‘CPT 2012’ models described
above, the total pile resistance in compression (bearing
capacity) is then derived in the usual manner:
Rc ¼ qb Ab þ Rqsi Asi ; ð5Þ
and the total pile resistance in tension is:
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:32 Page 5 of 15 32

Table 4 Bearing resistance

Pile class Soil type
factor kp for the ‘PMT 2012’
model [8] Silt and clay Sand and gravel Chalk Marl and calcareous marl Weathered rock
% CaCO3 \30%

1 1.15 1.1 1.45 1.45 1.45

2 1.3 1.65 1.6 1.6 2
3 1.55 3.2 2.35 2.1 2.1
4 1.35 3.1 2.3 2.3 2.3
5 1 1.9 1.4 1.4 1.2
6 1.2 3.1 1.7 2.2 1.5
7 1 1 1 1 1.2
8 1.15 1.1 1.45 1.45 1.45

200 embedded in chalk (134 piles). This figure shows that the
Clay and Silt
175
Sand and Gravel selected value cRd = 1.15 gives the same confidence level
Chalk
Marl and Calcareous Marl
(88%) as in the case of the former Code of Practice for
150 Weathered Rock bridges ‘Fascicule 65–V’ for which the model factor was
125 implicitly taken equal to 1.27.
fsol [kPa]

100
75
50
25
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
pl* [MPa]
Fig. 1 Functions fsol for the ‘PMT 2012’ model [8]
Rt ¼ Rqsi Asi ;
where Ab is the area of the base of the pile and Asi is the
area of the pile in layer ‘i’ for which the unit shaft friction
is qsi. Note that in the French pile design practice, the unit
shaft friction for piles in tension is the same as for piles in
compression.
When designing piles from ground test results, Eurocode
7 advocates the introduction of an explicit ‘model factor’
cRd (applied to the calculation model), to derive a value of
the calculated total resistance Rcal (in compression or in
tension) with a given confidence level (in other words, it
requires to have a knowledge of the scatter of the calcu-
lation model)—Eq. 7:
Rcal ¼ Rc =cRd or Rcal ¼ Rt =cRd :
Respectively, for the ‘PMT 2012’ model and for the
‘CPT 2012’ model, the factors cRd proposed by the new
French standard are given in Tables 9 and 10 [2]. The
establishment of the model factor cRd for the ‘PMT 2012’
model is the subject of the paper by Burlon et al. [8].
Figure 3 gives the distribution function Rcal/Rmeasured for all
the piles in the database, except injected piles and piles
Design value of the pile resistance
For obtaining the so-called ‘characteristic value’ of the
total pile resistance Rk (in compression or in tension) from
the calculated values, Eurocode 7 offers two alternative
procedures (see [21]):
6 7
– The ‘model pile’ procedure, which consists in calcu-
lating the values of the pile resistance Rcal for each
profile of ground test results and applying correlations
factors n to the mean and minimum values of Rcal:
ð6Þ
Rk ¼ min fRcal;mean =n3 ; Rcal;min =n4 Þ: ð8Þ
Table 11 gives the values of n3 and n4 proposed by
Eurocode 7, where N is the number of ground test profiles.
In the French standard [2], the values of n3 and n4 also
depend on the size of the investigation area, as well as on
the distance to the piles of the project. The values of
Table 11 are thus the maximum possible values for the
AFNOR standard (see [9], for more details).
– The ‘alternative’ procedure or ‘ground model’ proce-
dure where the ground is divided into different layers
with representative values of their properties. Then,
the values of the base resistance qb and of the shaft
ð7Þ friction qsi in each layer ‘i’ are obtained from the
calculation model. Note that in this procedure, the
determination of the representative values is left to
engineering judgment, which can be another source of
dispersion. When using this procedure, the French
standard introduces a second model factor cgm equal
to 1.1 to be applied to the total calculated resistance
(Eq. 9):

123
32 Page 6 of 15 Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:32

Table 5 Values of installation factor a for the ‘PMT 2012’ model [8]
Pile category Soil type
Silt and clay Sand and gravel Chalk Marl and calcareous marl Weathered rock
% CaCO3 \30%

1 1.1 1 1.8 1.5 1.6

2 1.25 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.6
3 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.9
4 1.25 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.6
5 1.3 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.6
6 1.5 1.8 2.1 1.6 1.6
7 1.9 2.1 1.7 1.7 1.7
8 0.6 0.6 1 0.7 0.7
9 1.1 1.4 1 0.9 0.9
10 2 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.6
11 1.2 1.4 2.1 1 1
12 0.8 1.2 0.4 0.9 0.9
13 1.2 0.7 0.5 1 1
14 1.1 1 0.4 1 0.9
15 2.7 2.9 2.4 2.4 2.4
16 0.9 0.8 0.4 1.2 1.2
17 1.25 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.6
18 1.25 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.6
19 2.7 2.9 2.4 2.4 2.4
20 3.4 3.8 3.1 3.1 3.1
For categories 9–16, the above values are multiplied by 0.75 when the piles are vibro-driven instead of being driven

Rk ¼ Rc =cRd cgm or Rk ¼ Rt =cRd cgm with cgm ¼ 1:1:
ð9Þ
According to Eurocode 7, the design value of the pile
resistance Rd is then obtained by applying a resistance
factor ct to the total characteristic resistance Rk, or resis-
tances factors cb and cs to the total characteristic base and
shaft resistances, Rbk and Rsk, respectively (Eqs. 10, 11):
Rd ¼ Rk =ct ð10Þ
or
Rd ¼ Rbk =cb þ Rsk =cs for piles in compression
ð11Þ
ðand Rd ¼ Rsk =cs in tensionÞ:
In French practice, for the verification of the ultimate
limit states (ULS) in persistent and transient situations,
design approach 2 of Eurocode 7 is used. In this
approach, one set of combination of the actions coming
from the structure is checked against the design value of
the resistance of the pile foundation, obtained with the
resistance factor ct on the total characteristic resistance Rk
(Eq. 12):
Fd  Rd ¼ Rk =ct ; ð12Þ
where ct = 1.1 for piles in compression and ct = 1.15 for
piles in tension (values recommended by Eurocode 7) for
persistent and transient design situations.
Combining the equations above shows that the design
value of the total resistance Rd is finally obtained from the
resistances Rc (or Rt) calculated with the ‘PMT 2012’
model or the ‘CPT 2012’ model in the following manner
(Eqs. 13, 14):
– for the ‘model pile’ procedure:
Rd ¼ Rk =ct ¼ Rcal =nct
¼ Rc =cRd nct ðcompressionÞ or Rt =cRd nct ðtensionÞ;
ð13Þ
– for the ‘ground model’ procedure:
Rd ¼ Rk =ct ¼ Rcal =cgm ct
¼ Rc =cRd cgm ct ðcompressionÞ or Rt =cRd cgm ct ðtensionÞ:
ð14Þ
For serviceability limit states (SLS), the AFNOR code
requires to apply resistance factors cSLS to the charac-
teristic values of the creep or critical resistances Rcr,k,
derived from the characteristic values Rk introduced

123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:32 Page 7 of 15 32

Table 6 Values of qsmax for design from MPM tests results and from CPT results [2, 9]
Pile category qsmax in kPa
Silt and clay Intermediate soil Sand and gravel Chalk Marl and calcareous marl Weathered rock
% CaCO3 \30%

1 90 90 90 200 170 200

2 90 90 90 200 170 200
3 50 50 50 50 90 –
4 90 90 90 170 170 –
5 90 90 – – – –
6 90 90 170 200 200 200
7 130 130 200 170 170 –
8 50 50 90 90 90 –
9 130 130 130 90 90 –
10 170 170 260 200 200 –
11 90 90 130 260 200 –
12 90 90 90 50 90 –
13 90 90 50 50 90 90
14 90 90 130 50 90 90
15 200 200 380 320 320 320
16 90 90 50 50 90 90
17 – – – – – –
18 – – – – – –
19 200 200 380 320 320 320
20 200 200 440 440 440 500

Table 7 Bearing resistance factor kc for the ‘CPT 2012’ model [2, 9]
Pile class Soil type
Silt and clay Intermediate soil Sand and gravel Chalk Marl and calcareous marl Weathered rock
% CaCO3 \30%

1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3

2 0.45 0.3 0.25 0.3 0.3 0.3
3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.35 0.35
4 0.45 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
5 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.15
6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.35 0.2 0.2
7 0.35 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
8 0.45 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.25

above (see [9]). The values of the cSLS factors are, of
course, relevant to the various combinations of loads
used for checking the serviceability of the structure. It
should be noted that the way serviceability limit states
are thus treated in the AFNOR code is different from
Eurocode 7. It introduces an additional capacity check
(in terms of loads), as Eurocode 7 relies essentially on
checking the axial displacements (settlements) of the pile
foundation.
Axial displacements
The determination of the load–settlement curve of a single
pile under axial loading is based on the concept of shaft
friction mobilisation curves, also known as t–z curves.
In case a settlement estimate must be made, the use the
s–z curves (unit shaft friction-local displacement curves)
and q–zp curve (base load-base settlement curve) proposed
by Frank and Zhao [23], as shown on Fig. 4, are widely

123
32 Page 8 of 15 Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:32

method(s) described above for the calculation of the

Fig. 2 Functions fsol for the ‘CPT 2012’ model [2, 9]
used in France. The great interest of this method lays in the
fact that the parameters ks and kq can be derived easily
from the pressuremeter modulus EM (Eqs. 15, 16):
ks ¼ 2:0 EM =B and kq ¼ 11:0 EM =B for fine soils,
ks ¼ 0:8 EM =B and kq ¼ 4:8 EM =B for granular soils,
where B is the diameter of the pile. Note that the limit
stresses qs and qb are, respectively, the unit shaft friction
and base resistances derived from the MPM (or CPT)
bearing capacity of piles.
Equations 15 and 16 mainly come from empirical corre-
lations, but some theoretical background is also proposed by
Frank [19]. Examples of the use of this MPM method for
predicting load–settlement curves of piles are given in Frank
[19] and Bustamante and Frank [10, 11]. Figures 5 and 6 are
such examples of the use of the Frank and Zhao [23] MPM
method for the analysis of full-scale static load tests.
The Koekelare pile of Fig. 5 is a cased screw pile /
350 mm/650 mm embedded in a Ypresian clay. It can be
seen that the prediction of the load–settlement curve is
excellent.
Figure 6 shows all the results of the prediction exercise
of class A which was organised for the International
Symposium ISP5-PRESSIO 2005, taking place at the
occasion of the ‘50 years of pressuremeters’ [33, 34]. The
pile is a CFA (continuous flight auger bored pile) with a
diameter B = 0.5 m and a length D = 12 m. The pile is
embedded in a 9.6 m-thick clay layer, below a 2.4 m-thick
ð15Þ silt layer. The water table is located 1.8 m below ground
level. It is interesting to note that the predictions made by
Robas and Kuder [35] and by Said et al. [36]—which are
ð16Þ
the closest predictions to the whole initial part of the
measured load–settlement curve—both used the Frank–
Zhao MPM method and were established entirely inde-
pendently from the raw MPM readings.

Table 8 Values of installation factor a for the ‘CPT 2012’ model [2, 9]
Pile category Soil type
Silt and clay Intermediate soil Sand and gravel Chalk Marl and calcareous marl Weathered rock
% CaCO3 \30%

1 0.55 0.65 0.70 0.80 1.40 1.50

2 0.65 0.80 1.00 0.80 1.40 1.50
3 0.35 0.40 0.40 0.25 0.85 –
4 0.65 0.80 1.00 0.75 0.13 –
5 0.70 0.85 – – – –
6 0.75 0.90 1.25 0.95 1.50 1.50
7 0.95 1.15 1.45 0.75 1.60 –
8 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.65 –
9 0.55 0.65 1.00 0.45 0.85 –
10 1.00 1.20 1.45 0.85 1.50 –
11 0.60 0.70 1.00 0.95 0.95 –
12 0.40 0.50 0.85 0.20 0.85 –
13 0.60 0.70 0.50 0.25 0.95 0.95
14 0.55 0.65 0.70 0.20 0.95 0.85
15 1.35 1.60 2.00 1.10 2.25 2.25
16 0.45 0.55 0.55 0.20 1.25 1.15
17 – – – – – –
18 – – – – – –
19 1.35 1.60 2.00 1.10 2.25 2.25
20 1.70 2.05 2.65 1.40 2.90 2.90

For categories 9–16, the above values are multiplied by 0.75 when the piles are vibro-driven instead of being driven

123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:32 Page 9 of 15 32

Table 9 Values of the model

cRd compression cRd tension
factor cRd for the ‘PMT 2012’
model [2] All piles, except coated and injected piles and piles embedded in chalk 1.15 1.4
Piles embedded in chalk, except coated and injected piles 1.4 1.7
Coated and injected piles 2.0 2.0

Table 10 Values of the model

cRd compression cRd tension
factor cRd for the ‘CPT 2012’
model [2] All piles, except coated and injected piles and piles embedded in chalk 1.18 1.45
Piles embedded in chalk, except coated and injected piles 1.45 1.75
Coated and injected piles 2.0 2.0

Fig. 3 Distribution function of

Rcal/Rmeasured for 134 piles (no
injected piles; no chalk), ‘PMT
2012’ model [8]

Table 11 Values of correlation factors n3 and n4 according to as a beam on linear or non-linear elastic springs, are very
Eurocode 7 much used in France, precisely because of the development
N 1 2 3 4 5 7 10
of the MPM test which provides the soil engineer with both
strength and deformation information about the soil,
n3 1.4 1.35 1.33 1.31 1.29 1.27 1.25 respectively, through the limit pressure pl and the pres-
n4 1.40 1.27 1.23 1.20 1.15 1.12 1.08 suremeter modulus EM.
N: number of ground test profiles [16]
Experimental background
Research on the use of t–z curves for the assessment of
the settlements of piles using the full-scale results of the The research carried out by the LPCs have concerned
LCPC pile database has been developed further by Abchir not only overturning loads at the head, but also trans-
et al. [1] and Bohn et al. [7]. verse thrusts due to lateral soil movements along the pile
shaft (at the toe of an embankment, for instance). In this
latter case, the pile soil lateral displacement y is replaced
Transverse displacements by the ‘relative’ displacement Dy = y-g, where g is the
horizontal displacement of the soil in the absence of the
The methods using the subgrade reaction modulus (or p– pile.
y reaction curves, p—reaction pressure, y—transverse It must be admitted that there are not as many cases of
displacement) are now well known for the design of piles comparison of the prediction of the MPM method with full-
under lateral loads. These methods, which consider the pile scale test results for piles under transverse loadings, as in

123
32 Page 10 of 15 Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:32

qs
τ qb
q Charge en tête / vertical load (kN)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
kτ kq 0
qs 5 qb 5
2 2 5
kτ kq
z zb 10

déplacement / settlement (mm)

Fig. 4 Model for t–z curves from MPM test results [23] 15

20
Load Qo (kN)
Pieu test/pile tested
0 500 1000 1500 25 (Bustamante M. et Gianeselli L.)
0
Antoinet et al.
30 Bahar et al.
(mm)

-10
35 Robas et Kuder

Said et al.
So

-20
40
Mecsi
settlement

measured

45 Monnet
-30 calculated

-40
Fig. 5 Comparison of measured and calculated load–settlement
relationship for the Koekelare pile [10]
the case of the bearing capacity of piles under axial load-
ing. However, a certain number of such comparisons are
available, in particular some experiments carried out by the
LPCs in the 1970s (see [5]).
As for those with determination of the reaction curves
along the shaft, the experiment on Provins site (which will
be briefly reported below) and different research projects
on Plancoët site on isolated piles, as well as on a group of
two piles and on a group of six piles (see e.g. [4]) must be
mentioned. Also, the measurements taken during 16 years
on a steel pipe driven through an unstable slope at Sallèdes
(Puy-de-Dôme) are very valuable [22]. For the group of
two piles at Plancoët, it is interesting to note that the
reaction measured on the trailing pile is found to be
reduced by a factor of 0.4–0.5 relatively to the leading
(front) pile, with the distance between the two axes being
three times the frontal width.
The basic method from MPM tests [28] is detailed in the
book by Baguelin et al. [5]. It shows how the subgrade
reaction modulus ks = p/y was originally derived by
Ménard from his formula for the settlement of shallow
foundations using the pressuremeter modulus EM. Some
theoretical background for the use of EM from the MPM
test is also proposed by Frank [19].
The original Ménard method is still in use in the current
French practice with some adaptation [2]. Indeed, from the
various experimental evaluations, Baguelin et al. [5]
50
Fig. 6 Comparison of the experimental curve with the participants’
predictions [33]
conclude that the subgrade reaction modulus ks proposed
by Ménard is, in general, pessimistic for quick monotonic
loadings. It tends to overestimate the head displacements
and the maximum bending moment of piles submitted to
loads at their head, and thus is conservative. In reality,
foundations must often sustain cyclic and/or long duration
loads and the soil can be severely damaged by the instal-
lation of the piles, all being parameters very difficult to
quantify in everyday practice. These different facts allow
thinking that the original subgrade reaction modulus pro-
posed by Ménard is quite acceptable for long duration and/
or cyclic loads.
p–y method from MPM test results
From the results of the MPM test at the considered depth
(EM, pressuremeter modulus; pc, creep pressure and pl,
limit pressure), the reaction curve (p, y) of a single pile at a
given depth is established as shown in Fig. 7 (where P is
the total reaction P = pB, with B being the diameter or
frontal width of the pile).
In the present state of practice, Ménard’s subgrade
modulus is used for the initial stiffness Es = ksB for long
duration loads on the pile (cases a and b of Fig. 7). In
the case of short duration or accidental loads, the initial
stiffness is 2Es (cases c and d of Fig. 7). For seismic
loads, the initial stiffness can even reach much larger
values [2].

123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:32
Fig. 7 Soil reaction P = pB
against lateral displacement
y ([20], after [26]).
a Predominant permanent
actions at the pile head.
b Predominant lateral soil
thrusts along the shaft.
c Predominant short time
actions at the pile head.
d Predominant accidental
actions at the pile head
Above the creep pressure pf measured with the MPM
(pf & pl/2 can be used as an estimate), the non-linear
effect is taken into account either by reducing the tangent
reaction modulus by one-half (case b and d of Fig. 7) or by
limiting the reaction pressure p to the creep pressure pf (or
the total reaction to Pf = pfB) (cases a and c of Fig. 7).
Finally, the ultimate pressure pu on the pile is taken as
being the limit pressure pl measured with the MPM for
lateral soil thrusts along the shaft of for accidental loads
(case b and d of Fig. 7).
The p–y curve is, in principle, modified for depth values
z lower than a critical depth zc, due to surface effect. For
z = 0, the pressures are divided by 2 for the same dis-
placement y (or y-g) and are then linearly interpolated
until z = zc. For cohesive soils zc is taken equal to 2B (B is
the diameter of the pile) and for granular soils it is taken
equal to 4B.
Design of piles subjected to lateral soil thrusts
along their shaft
The design of piles subjected to lateral soil thrusts along
the shaft of the pile, created by nearby slopes for instance,
is based on the ‘free soil displacement’ concept (Fig. 8). It
is assumed that the lateral reaction p–y curve now links the
lateral reaction pressure p to the ‘relative’ displacement
Dy = y-g, where y is the equilibrium soil-pile lateral
displacement sought, and g is the free lateral soil dis-
placement (or displacement in absence of the pile)—see
e.g. Bigot et al. [6] and Frank [19, 20]. For predicting g(z),
Page 11 of 15 32
the AFNOR standard (2012) reproduces the method
already existing at the time of the ‘Fascicule 62—Titre V’
(1993) [26]. The displacement g(z) function of depth z de-
pends on the geometry of the slope, the parameters of the
underlying soft soil and the position of the pile.
Results of the full-scale experiment of Provins [6]
The experiment on the site of Provins is interesting
because the behaviour of a full-scale instrumented pile
was examined under head loading, and also when being
submitted to lateral thrusts along its shaft due to the
construction of an embankment. The pile is a steel
instrumented pipe, of OD = B = 0.926 m and thickness
e = 0.015 m. The four stages of the experiment (initial
head loading to 120 kN, then embankment construction to
a height of 3.80 m, to a height of 6.80 m and after
3 months of consolidation under this final height) have
been analysed in detail by using the different pres-
suremeter prediction methods [6]. Here, only the main
results concerning the Ménard MPM method described
above are discussed for conciseness.
Figure 9 compares the measured values M of bending
moments (left) and displacements (right) (M) for the last
level of applied load at the head (120 kN shear load at
0.20 m from ground level) to the results of three prediction
methods:
– curve A, with the original Ménard reaction curve
(Fig. 7, case b)
123
32 Page 12 of 15 Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:32

It is clear from Fig. 9 that the MPM method (curve A) is

Fig. 8 Pile subjected to lateral soil thrusts along the shaft ([20], after
[26])
– curves B and C, with p–y reaction curves constructed
on the basis of self-boring pressuremeter tests results
(not discussed here).
In the surface layer (silt and clay), the predominant one
for head loading, the use of the MPM method of Fig. 8
yields a mean soil reaction modulus:
Es ¼ ks  B ¼ 2900 kPa ðcurve AÞ:
on the safe side for short duration head loadings: the
maximum bending moment is slightly overestimated and
the displacements are overestimated by a factor of 2. This
is consistent with the conclusions of Baguelin et al. [5]. It
also shows that for long duration loadings at the head, the
original Ménard reaction modulus is quite acceptable,
given all the uncertainties.
Figure 10 compares the measured values M of bending
moments (left) and displacements (right) (M) after
3 months of consolidation under the final height of the
embankment to the results of the same three prediction
methods (curves A, B and C). Here, the difficulty is the
prediction of the bending moments, as it is a ‘displace-
ment-imposed’ problem. The measured bending moment
(curve M) in the upper part is well predicted by the
present MPM method for long duration lateral thrusts
along the pile shaft (curve A, case b of Fig. 7). In the
lower part, the method overestimates the bending moment
by a factor of around 1.8, which is largely on the safe
side.
The full-scale experiment of Sallèdes (steel pipe pile
installed through an unstable slope), where the measure-
ments were taken during 16 years, confirmed the great
difficulty in predicting the long duration behaviour of piles
undergoing lateral thrusts along their shafts from a moving
ground; it is clear that the MPM method overestimates the
bending moments of such piles (see [22], for the extensive
analysis of this unique experiment).

Fig. 9 Provins pile. Comparison of measured and calculated bending moments and displacements for head loading [6]

123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:32
Fig. 10 Provins pile. Comparison of measured and calculated bending moments and displacements after 3 months of consolidation under a final
height of embankment [6]
Conclusions
This paper has explained some key aspects of the present
rules used in France for designing pile foundations.
Attention has been focused on the use of Ménard pres-
suremeter (MPM) as an efficient tool for designing foun-
dations. The Ménard pressuremeter by providing both a
failure parameter (the limit pressure) and a deformation
parameter (the pressuremeter modulus EM) allows to tackle
not only bearing capacity problems, but also all the prob-
lems linked to the displacements of foundations, which are
recommended by Eurocode 7.
In particular, the new French standard for the design of
deep foundations of buildings and civil engineering works
has been mentioned [2]. This new standard includes the
revised pressuremeter method for the bearing capacity of
piles [8, 12]. It is fully compatible with the requirements of
Eurocode 7 [16].
The MPM rules are not only flexible, in the sense that
they can incorporate easily the new experimental findings,
but also because they are a tool for checking all limit states,
whether the ultimate ones or the serviceability ones.
Eurocode 7 is a code which advocates explicitly the ‘dis-
placement design’ of foundations (compared to the ‘ca-
pacity’ or traditional design), especially for serviceability
checks. The MPM-based design models are obviously able
to face this challenge.
Page 13 of 15 32
In accordance with Eurocode 7, the calculation models
for the bearing capacity of piles, included in the new
French standard, are based on the results of full-scale load
tests on piles.
The new MPM rules for piles (‘PMT 2012’ model) have
been fully calibrated against the database of more than 170
full-scale static load tests on piles. The corresponding CPT
rules have also been calibrated against the results in the
database (‘CPT 2012 model’).
The important role of displacements of foundations of
structures is fully recognised in Eurocode 7 and in the
French standard. A displacement design approach might
prove to be more important than the traditional design
based on the determination of the bearing capacity and
application of a ‘large’ factor of safety.
Are we ready to base our SLS verifications solely on
displacement assessments? … and is the structural engineer
also ready?
References
1. Abchir Z, Burlon S, Frank R, Habert J, Legrand S (2016) t–z
curves for piles from pressuremeter test results. Géotechnique
66(2):137–148. doi:10.1680/jgeot.15.P.097
2. AFNOR (2012) Justification des ouvrages géotechniques—
Normes d’application nationale de l’Eurocode 7—Fondations
profondes’’ (Justification of geotechnical work—National appli-
cation standards for the implementation of Eurocode 7—Deep
123
32 Page 14 of 15
foundations—in French), French standard NF P 94-262, AFNOR,
Saint-Denis, p 206
3. Baguelin F, Burlon S, Bustamante M, Frank R, Gianeselli L,
Habert J, Legrand S (2012) Justification de la portance des pieux
avec la norme ‘‘Fondations profondes’’ NF P 94-262 et le pres-
siomètre. In: Proceedings Journées Nationales de Géotechnique
et de Géologie de l’Ingénieur JNGG2012, Bordeaux, 4-6 juillet
2012, pp 577–584
4. Baguelin F, Jézéquel JF, Meimon Y (1985) Chargements latéraux
sur un groupe de pieux. In: Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Soil Mechs Fdn
Engng, San Francisco, Paper 4002
5. Baguelin F, Jézéquel JF, Shields DH (1978) The pressuremeter
and foundation engineering. Trans Tech Publications, Clausthal
6. Bigot G, Bourges F, Frank R (1982) Etude expérimentale d’un
pieu soumis aux poussées latérales du sol. Revue Française de
Géotechnique 18:29–47
7. Bohn C, Lopes dos Santos A, Frank R (2017) Development of
axial pile load transfer curves based on instrumented load tests.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE. 143(1):04016081-
1–04016081-15. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001579
8. Burlon S, Frank R, Baguelin F, Habert J, Legrand S (2014)
Model factor for the bearing capacity of piles from pres-
suremeter test results – Eurocode 7 approach. Géotechnique
64(7):513–525
9. Burlon S, Szymkiewicz F, Le Kouby A, Volcke JP (2016) Design
of piles—French Practice. In: ISSMGE—ETC 3 International
Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe, Brussels, 28 and 29
April 2016
10. Bustamante M, Frank R (1999) Current French design practice
for axially loaded piles. Ground Eng 38–44
11. Bustamante M, Frank R, Gianeselli L (1989) Prévision de la
courbe de chargement des fondations profondes isolées. Comptes
rendus 12ème Cong. Int. Méca. Sols et Tr. Fond., Rio de Janeiro,
13–18 août, vol 2, 15/6, pp 1125–1126
12. Bustamante M, Gambin M, Gianeselli L (2009) Pile design at
failure using the ménard pressuremeter: an update. In: Iskander
M, Debra F, Laefer DF, Hussein MH (eds) Contemporary topics
in in situ testing, analysis, and reliability of foundations, proc int
foundation congress and equipment Expo’09 (IFCEE’09),
Orlando, Florida, 15–19 March, ASCE, Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 186, pp 127–134
13. Bustamante M, Gianeselli L (1981) Prévision de la capacité
portante des pieux isolés sous charge verticale. Règles pres-
siométriques et pénétrométriques (Prediction of the bearing
capacity of single piles under vertical load. Pressuremeter and
penetrometer rules). Bull. Liaison Labo. P. et Ch., no. 113, May–
June, Réf. 2536, pp 83–108 (in French)
14. Bustamante M, Gianeselli L (1982) Pile bearing capacity pre-
diction by means of static penetrometer CPT. In: 2nd Europ.
Symp. Penetration testing (ESOPT II), Amsterdam, vol 2. Balk-
ema, Rotterdam, pp. 493–500
15. Bustamante M, Gianeselli L (2006) Règles de calcul de la por-
tance des pieux aux ELU. Méthode pressiométrique. In: Marne-
la-Vallée D, Magnan, Mestat (eds) Proceedings Int Symp on ULS
of Geotechnical Structures (ELU-ULS 2006). Editions du LCPC,
Paris
16 CEN (2004) Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design—Part 1: General
rules, EN 1997-1:2004 (E), (F) and (G). European Committee for
Standardization (CEN), Brussels
17 CEN (2007) Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design—Part 2: Ground
investigation and testing, EN 1997-2:2007 (E). European Com-
mittee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels
18 DTU 13.2 (1983) Fondations profondes pour le bâtiment, Chap
11: Calcul des fondations profondes soumise à charge axiale.
CSTB, Paris, pp 1–8
123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:32
19 Frank R (1984) Etudes théoriques de fondations profondes et
d’essais en place par autoforage dans les LPC et résultats pra-
tiques (1972–1983). Rapport de recherche LPC No. 128, Lab.
Central P. et Ch
20 Frank R (1999) Calcul des fondations superficielles et profondes,
Presses de l’Ecole nationale des ponts et chaussées et Techniques
de l’Ingénieur, Paris
21 Frank R, Bauduin C, Driscoll R, Kavvadas M, Krebs Ovesen N,
Orr T, Schuppener B (2004) Designers’ guide to EN 1997-1
Eurocode 7. Thomas Telford, p 216
22 Frank R, Pouget P (2008) Experimental pile subjected to long
duration thrusts due to a moving slope. Géotechnique
58(8):645–658. doi:10.1680/geot.2008.58.8.645
23 Frank R, Zhao SR (1982) Estimation par les paramètres pres-
siométriques de l’enfoncement sous charge axiale de pieux forés
dans des sols fins (in French: Assessment of the settlement under
axial load of bored piles in fine-grained soils by means of pres-
suremeter parameters). Bull. Liaison Labo. P. et Ch., no. 119,
May–June, Réf. 2712, pp 17–24 (in French)
24 Gambin M, Frank R (2009) Direct design rules for piles using
ménard pressuremeter test. In: Iskander M, Debra F, Laefer DF,
Hussein MH (eds) Contemporary topics in in situ testing, analysis,
and reliability of foundations, proc int foundation congress and
equipment Expo’09 (IFCEE’09), Orlando, Florida, 15–19 March,
ASCE, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 186, pp 111–118
25 Jézéquel JF, Goulet G (1965) Essais in situ et fondation sur pieux.
Bull. Liaison Labo. Routiers P. et Ch., no. 12, Réf. 250, pp 3-1–3-
16
26 MELT-Ministère de l’Equipement, du logement et des transports
(1993) Règles Techniques de Conception et de Calcul des Fon-
dations des Ouvrages de Génie Civil (in French: Technical Rules
for the Design of Foundations of Civil Engineering Structures).
Cahier des clauses techniques générales applicables aux marchés
publics de travaux, FASCICULE No 62-Titre V, Textes Officiels
No 93-3 T.O., p 182
27 Ménard L (1955) Travail personnel sur le pressiomètre. Ecole
nationale des ponts et chaussées, Paris
28 Ménard L (1962–1969) Comportement d’une fondation profonde
soumise à des efforts de renversement. Sols Soils, no 3, 1962,
pp 9–27, Paris and Règles d’Utilisation des Techniques Pres-
siométriques, Notice Spéciale No. 2, Document Interne D/62/69,
Centre d’Etudes Géotechniques de Paris, 1969. English version:
Gambin M (1979). Calculations of foundations subjected to hor-
izontal forces using pressuremeter data. Sols Soils, no 30–31,
pp. 17–59, Paris
29 Ménard L (1963) Calcul de la force portante des fondations sur la
base des résultats des essais pressiométriques. Sols Soils, nos. 5
and 6 (reprint with extended English summary)
30 Ménard L (1975) Interpretation and application of pressuremeter
tests results to foundations design (D60). Sols Soils, no 26, Paris
31 Ménard L, Rousseau J (1962) L’évaluation des tassements. Ten-
dances nouvelles. Sols Soils, no 1, Paris, pp 13–20
32 Nicholson D, Chapman T, Morrison P (2002) Pressuremeter
proves its worth in London Docklands. Ground Eng 31–34
33 Reiffsteck P (2006) Portance et tassements d’une fondation pro-
fonde—Présentation des résultats du concours de prévision.
Comptes rendus Symposium international 50 ans de pressiomètres
(ISP 5-Pressio 2005), Marne-la-Vallée, 22–24 août 2005, vol 2,
pp 521–535
34 Reiffsteck P (2009) ISP5 Pile prediction revisited. In: Iskander M,
Debra F, Laefer DF, Hussein MH (eds) Contemporary topics in
in situ testing, analysis, and reliability of foundations, Proc Int
Foundation Congress and Equipment Expo’09 (IFCEE’09),
Orlando, Florida, 15–19 March, ASCE, Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 186, pp 50–57
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:32 Page 15 of 15 32

35 Robas A, Kuder S (2006) Bearing capacity and settlement, pre- ISP–Pressio 5). Comptes rendus Symposium international 50 ans
diction of a bored pile. In: Proceedings International Symposium de pressiomètres (ISP 5-Pressio 2005), Marne-la-Vallée, 22–24
50 years of pressure meters (ISP 5-Pressio 2005), Marne-la-Val- août 2005, vol 2, pp 613–617
lée, 22–24 August 2005, vol 2, pp 609–611
36 Said I, Frank R, De Gennaro V (2006) Capacité portante et
tassements d’un pieu foré à la tarière continue (prévision pour

123