Bustamante, Gambin - PIle Design at Failure Using The Menard Pressuremeter An Update-2009

IN SITU TESTING, ANALYSIS, AND RELIABILITY OF FOUNDATIONS 127
Pile Design at Failure Using the Ménard Pressuremeter :

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 11/07/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
an Up-Date
Michel Bustamante1, Michel (Mike) Gambin2, Fellow ASCE

& Luigi Gianeselli3
1
CEO, MB Fondations, Saint Cloud, France,mb.fondations@wanadoo.fr
2
Scientific Adviser, Apageo, 21 quai d’Anjou, 75004 Paris, France, mgambin@magic.fr
3
Senior Engineer : MB Fondations, Saint Cloud, France, luigi.gianeselli@free.fr
ABSTRACT : The paper summarises the results of 30 years of pile loading tests on
prototype piles installed by more than 26 different techniques and in which the soil
was previously characterised using the Ménard pressuremeter. The present paper is
based on the analysis of 561 load tests on more than 400 piles instrumented to record
the limit unit skin friction of each separate soil layer and the limit end bearing. These
are then compared with the PMT direct design rules initiated by Louis Ménard in the
1960’s. These rules are based both on the theory of cavity expansion in soils and on
his own experiments. In a companion paper to this conference this method is applied
to pile settlement prediction and to the design of piles subjected to lateral loading.
1. INTRODUCTION
Since the early 1990’s, when the new French Code of Practice for Foundations
(M.E.L.T. 1993), known as “Fascicule 62-V”, was published (Bustamante & Frank
1999), additional experimental data have been gathered by the LCPC, the French
Highways Agency. These data include comprehensive site investigations with PMT,
CPT and SPT. The plan was to test instrumented piles up to 2 m in diameter and :
1) to include the most recent installation techniques which are now common
practice,
2) to refine the values in the analysis of the limit unit skin friction qs and the pile tip
bearing factor kp.
The aim was greater simplification whilst preserving the essentials of the method.
2. THE DIRECT DESIGN MÉNARD PMT METHOD
The principles of this method are given in another paper to this Conference
(Gambin & Frank 2009). During most pile load tests, the end of the test occurs when
the pile head begins rapid subsidence. The load at this threshold is called the limit
load QL. QL is defined as being the load at which the head settlement sL is given by
sL ≥ B/10 + Δe, where B is the diameter of the pile, and Δe is the pile elastic
shortening.
127 page 1
Copyright ASCE 2009 2009 International Foundation Congress and Equipment Expo
Contemporary Topics in In Situ Testing, Analysis, and Reliability of Foundations
128 IN SITU TESTING, ANALYSIS, AND RELIABILITY OF FOUNDATIONS
Since the bearing capacity of a pile is expressed by
Q = A kp [(pLM – po)e] + P Σ (qsi . zi ) (1)

where A is the pile tip area

kp the tip bearing factor
[(pLM – po)e] the net equivalent Ménard limit pressure under the pile tip
P the perimeter of the pile cross section
zi the thickness of the soil layer ‘I’ exhibiting a uniform skin
friction, qsi
parameters kp and qs, which are essential to this equation, are measured on prototype
piles instrumented with removable extensometers (Fig.1) and load tested to failure
(Bustamante & Gianeselli 1981).
FIG. 1. Assembling a removable extensometer before insertion into a bored pile.
By recording the strain gauge readings during the pile load test, it is possible to
obtain the values of both qs for each soil layer along the shaft and kp for the pile tip
(Bustamante & Doix, 1985), as shown by Reiffsteck (2009) in his Fig.4.
3. THE EXPERIMENTAL SUPPORT FOR THE UP-DATED RULES
The Geotechnical Calibration
In the previous papers the data were obtained from a total of 204 sites at which site
investigations involved PMT’s, CPT’s, sometimes SPT’s and also lab tests on cored
samples. It is interesting to analyze the chance of success of the various investigation
techniques at depth to provide the required data (pLM, qc, N, or c’ and φ’). The main
soil categories investigated are clay, silt, sand, gravel, chalk, marl, marly limestone
and weathered or fragmented rock.
Although pile load tests were also carried out in other types of soil such as coral,
volcanic and collapsible soils, swelling soils, etc., results are not yet sufficiently
complete to derive specific design rules for them.
128
page 2
Table 1 shows that for a large number of soil types in which piles are embedded
(weathered or fragmented rocks, hardened or very fine cohesionless formations), the
Ménard pressuremeter remains the most versatile site investigation tool.
Table 1. Feasibility of in situ tests or coring at 204 sites.
Number of sites as a function of test feasibility 1

Tests
Type of test Tests Insufficient Tests
2 3 Possible but
Completed No. of Tests Inadequate 4
Curtailed
PMT 155 Sites 3 Sites 46 Sites 0 Sites
(pLM) (76%) (1.5%) (22.5%) (0%)
CPT 60 Sites 79 Sites 23 Sites 42 Sites
(qc) (29.4%) (38.7%) (11.3%) (20.6%)
SPT 26 Sites 54 Sites 72 Sites 52 Sites
(N) (12.7%) (26.5%) (35.3%) (25.5%)
Coring for
21 Sites 67 Sites 69 Sites 47 Sites
Laboratory
(10.3%) (32.8%) (33.8%) (23.1%)
(c’ and φ’)
1
It is assumed that a PMT or an SPT log includes a test every meter. 2 Throughout
the whole pile depth at least. 3 Insufficient No. of tests (PMT), premature refusal
(CPT), excessive blow count (SPT) or sample badly recovered. 4 Tests deemed
inadequate beforehand due either to soil type or to soil resistance.
The Various Piles Analyzed
Our up-dated analysis identified 26 basic pile installation techniques as opposed to

17 types for the French “Fascicule 62-V” (MELT 1993). These techniques are set out
in Table 2. Techniques with common factors are now grouped under the same code
number. This helps to choose the tip bearing factor kp.
Among the 408 pile and anchor loading tests recently analyzed, 180 tests (or 44%)
are related to piles which do not appear in Fascicule 62-V. They were described in
five important papers (Bustamante & Gianeselli 1993 and 2005; Bustamante et al.,
1991, 1998 and 2002). Out of a total of 561 tests to date, 276 tests (or 49%) could be
taken to the limit load. For the remainder, the load was extrapolated up to this value
by one of the usual analytical methods (Borel et al. 2004). Finally, 13% of the piles
were subjected to tensile tests.
4. CHOOSING kp AND qs
The use of the tables for kp and qs, need some explanations.
The Tip Bearing Factor kp
Parameter kp value can be chosen from Table 3 once the pile group code number is
known. Since we now have more pile types in Table 2 we can select a single value of
Contemporary Topics in In Situ Testing, Analysis, and Reliability of Foundationspage 3
kp per pile type in Table 3. Furthermore there is no need now to apply a reducing
factor for steel piles (Pile codes Nos. 5-7).
Table 2 – Description and Characteristics of 418 Analyzed Piles.
Group Type Pile2 B3 D4

Pile Description
Code No. Qty (mm) (m)
500- Pile or Barrette Bored in the dry
1 8 11.5-23
2,000
270- Pile and Barrette Bored with
2 64 6-78
1,800 Slurry
1 270- Bored and Cased Pile
3 2 20-56
1,200 (permanent casing)
420- Bored and Cased Pile
4 28 5.5-29
1,100 (recoverable casing)
Dry Bored Piles / or Slurry
51 4 520-880 19-27 Bored Piles with Grooved
Sockets / or Piers (3 Types)
1 Bored Pile with a single or a
2 6 50 410-980 4.5-30
double-rotation CFA (2 types)
7 38 310-710 5-19.5 Screwed Cast-in-Place
3
8 1 650 13.5 Screwed Pile with Casing
1 6.5- Pre-cast or Pre-stressed
9 30 280-520
72.5 Concrete Driven Pile (2 types)
Coated Driven Pile
4 10 15 250-600 8.9-20
(concrete, mortar, grout)
11 19 330-610 4-29.5 Driven Cast-in-Place Pile
12 27 170-810 4.5-45 Driven Steel Pile, Closed End
5 13 27 190-1,22 8-70 Driven Steel Pile, Open End
14 23 260-600 6-64 Driven H Pile
6
15 4 260-430 9-15.5 Driven Grouted 5 or 6 H Pile
7 16 15 - 3.5-2.5 Driven Sheet Pile
17 2 80-140 4-12 Micropile Type I
1
18 8 120-810 8.5-37 Micropile Type II
100- SGP 5 Micropile (Type III) /
19 23 8.5-67
1,220 or SGP Pile
8
MRP 6 Micropile (Type IV) /
20 20 130-660 7-39
or MRP Pile
1
Some types may include several sub-types 2 Some piles subjected to several tests.
3
Minimum and maximum nominal diameter B. 4 Minimum and maximum full
embedment depth D. 5 involving a Single Global Post grouting. 6 with Multiple
Repeatable Post grouting.
The Ultimate Unit Skin Friction qs
Parameter qs is from Tables 2 and 4:

- (i) select the pile type from Table 2 and (ii) find the Qi applicable as a function
of soil type in Table 4,
Table 3. Values for the Tip Bearing Factor kp

Group Clay Sand, Marl and Weathered

Chalk
Code & Silt Gravel Limestone Rock
1 1.25 1.2 1.6 1.6 * 1.6
2 1.3 1.65 2.0 2.0 2.0
3 1.7 3.9 2.6 2.3 2.3
4 1.4 3.1 2.4 2.4 * 2.4 *
5 1.1 2.0 1.1 1.1 * 1.1 *
6 1.4 3.1 2.4 1.4 * 1.4 *
7 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 * 1.1 *
8 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.5*
* A higher kp value can be used but must be proven by a load test
Table 4. Selecting the Qi line to obtain the limit unit skin friction values qs
Marl,
Clay, Sand, Weathered
Pile Type No. Chalk
Loam Gravel Rock
Limestone
1 Q2 Q2* Q5 Q4 Q6**
2 Q2 Q2 Q5 Q4 Q6**
3 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q2 Q1**
4 Q1 Q2 Q4 Q4 Q4**
5 Q3 Q3* Q5 Q4 Q6
6 Q2 Q4 Q3 Q5 Q5**
7 Q3 Q5 Q4 Q4 Q4**
8 Q1 Q2 Q2 Q2 Q2**
9 Q3 Q3** Q2 Q2** (a)
10 Q6 Q8 Q7 Q7 (a)
11 Q2 Q3 Q6** Q5** (a)
12 Q2 Q2** Q1 Q2** (a)
13*** Q2 Q1 Q1 Q2 (a)
14*** Q2 Q2 Q1 Q2** (a)
15*** Q6 Q8 Q7 Q7 (a)
16*** Q2 Q2 Q1 Q2** (a)
17 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q2 Q6**
18 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q2 Q6**
19 Q6 Q8 Q7 Q7 Q9**
20 Q9 Q9 Q9 Q9 Q10**
* If ground properties permit. ** Use of a higher value must be proven by a load
test. *** Cross section and perimeter estimated according to Fig.3.
(a) For pile groups No.9 – 16 and if rock condition permits penetration, choose
the qs value proposed for marl and limestone or a higher one if this can be proven
either by a load test or by reference to an existing example in the same local area.
- (iii) use Figure 2 to obtain on the selected Qi curve the qs for the Ménard limit
pressure pLM measured at the same depth.
The graph in Fascicule 62-V for the upper lines (then Q6 – Q7) shows a set of
discontinuous straight lines. In Fig.2, the same qs lines (now Q6 – Q10) are
continuous, which avoids any ambiguity when choosing this parameter.
0,70
qs
Q10
0,65
(MPa)
0,60 Q9
0,55
0,50
Q8
0,45
Q7
0,40
Q6
0,35
0,30
0,25
Q5
0,20 Q4
0,15 Q3
0,10 Q2
Q1
pLM (MPa)
0,05
0,00
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0
FIG. 2. Direct Design using PMT Data. Chart for unit skin friction qs
Additional recommendations
Most of the recommendations given in the current Code of Practice (MELT 1993)
are valid for the use of Tables 2, 3 and 4 and the Chart in Figure 2. For driven piles
areas and perimeters must be calculated according to Figure 3. For vibrated piles kP
and qs must be reduced by a factor of 0.5 and 0.3 respectively (Borel et al. 2002). For
more information about grouted piles and micropiles, the reader can consult the
paper by Bustamante & Doix (1985).
Finally, to design piles in hard soils PMT data should be obtained from high
pressure equipment (Massonnet 2005).
132
Copyright ASCE 2009 2009 International Foundation Congress and page
Equipment
6 Expo
FIG. 3. Areas A and Perimeters P to be used for open-end steel piles & sheet
piles
5. VALIDITY OF THE UP-DATE
All the previous factors were checked by using them in reverse to calculate the
ratio ‘QL measured / QL calculated’. Some results are given in Table 5.
Table 5. Measured QL / Calculated QL Ratios.
All Types of Piles 1 Bored Piles 2

No. of piles 204 No. of piles 37
Mean 1.020 Mean 1.047
Standard error 0.009 Standard error 0.020
Median 1.018 Median 1.052
Standard deviation 0.124 Standard deviation 0.119
Variance 0.015 Variance 0.014
Screwed Cast in Place Piles Grouted Piles and Micropiles3

No. of piles 38 No. of piles 19
Mean 1.029 Mean 0.980
Standard error 0.016 Standard error 0.029
Median 1.026 Median 1.011
Standard deviation 0.099 Standard deviation 0.127
Variance 0.009 Variance 0.016
1
Only loading tests strictly carried out to QL and excluding tension tests
2
Sub-set of the previous group
3
Involving either a Single Global Post grouting or Multiple Repeatable Post
grouting.
133
6. CONCLUSION
Up-dating the Direct Design Ménard Pressuremeter Method for calculating the
limit pile load QL led to :

1) an adjustment of the parameters qs and kp for a total of 26 different pile types
2) a simplification in the number of tip bearing factors kp for each soil category
and pile technique;
3) the proposal of a chart involving 10 continuous qs curves incorporating the
most recent pile techniques.
8. REFERENCES
Borel, S., Bustamante, M., Gianeselli, L. (2004). “An appraisal of the Chin method
based on 50 instrumented pile tests”, Ground Engineering, January, Vol.37, No.1,
pp.22-26.
Bustamante, M., Borel, S., Gianeselli, L., (2002). “Two comparative field studies of
the bearing capacity of vibratory and impact driven sheet piles”, Proc.
TRANSVIB, 19-21 March, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, Balkema.
Bustamante, M., Doix, B. (1985). “Design Method for Ground Anchors and Grouted
Micropiles” (In French) Bull. Liaison Labo. P. et Ch. No.140, pp.75-92.
Bustamante, M., Frank, R. (1999) “Current French Design Practice for Axially
Loaded Piles” Ground Engineering March, London, pp.38 – 44.
Bustamante, M. & Gianeselli, L. (1981) “Observed and Predicted Bearing Capacity
of Isolated Piles Using the Pressuremeter Method” (in French) Revue Française
de Géotechnique, No.16, Presses des Ponts, Paris
Bustamante, M., Gianeselli, L., (1993). “Design of auger displacement piles from in
situ tests", 2nd Intern. Geotech. Seminar: Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger
Piles, Balkema.
Bustamante, M., Gianeselli, L. (2005). “Design of Screwed Piles with Ménard
Pressuremeter” (in French). Proc. ISP5, 22-24 August, Presses des Ponts, Paris,
Vol. 1, pp.447-456.
Bustamante M., Gianeselli L., Koch G. (1991). “Vertical Bearing Capacity of Sheet-
Piles” (in French), Proc. Col. Inter. Fondations Profondes, Presses des Ponts,
Paris, pp.145-152.
Bustamante, M., Gianeselli, L., Weber, L., (1998).“The bearing capacity of driven
steel piles in weathered chalks”, Proc. 7th Int. Conf. and Ex. on Piling and Deep
Foundations, DFI 98.
Gambin, M. (1963). “The Ménard Pressuremeter and the Design of Foundations”(in
French) Actes Journées des Fondations, Laboratoire Central des Ponts et
Chaussées, Paris.
Gambin, M. and Frank, R. (2009), "Direct Design Rules for Piles Using
Ménard Pressuremeter, Proc. IFCEE ‘09, ASCE.
Massonnet, R., (2005). “High Pressure Ménard Pressuremeter” Proc. ISP5, Presses
des Ponts Paris, pp. 81-90.
M.E.L.T. (1993) Design Rules for Foundations, Tender Documents for Public
Works, Fasc. No.62, Titre V (in French), Imprimerie Nationale Paris.182 pages.
Reiffsteck, P. (2009) ISP5 Pile prediction revisited, Proc. IFCEE 09.
134
Copyright ASCE 2009 2009 International Foundation Congress and page
Equipment
8 Expo

Bustamante, Gambin - PIle Design at Failure Using The Menard Pressuremeter An Update-2009

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Bustamante, Gambin - PIle Design at Failure Using The Menard Pressuremeter An Update-2009

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN SITU TESTING, ANALYSIS, AND RELIABILITY OF FOUNDATIONS 127

Pile Design at Failure Using the Ménard Pressuremeter :

Michel Bustamante1, Michel (Mike) Gambin2, Fellow ASCE

2. THE DIRECT DESIGN MÉNARD PMT METHOD

Since the bearing capacity of a pile is expressed by

Q = A kp [(pLM – po)e] + P Σ (qsi . zi ) (1)

where A is the pile tip area

FIG. 1. Assembling a removable extensometer before insertion into a bored pile.

3. THE EXPERIMENTAL SUPPORT FOR THE UP-DATED RULES

The Geotechnical Calibration

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

Number of sites as a function of test feasibility 1

The Various Piles Analyzed

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

The Tip Bearing Factor kp

Table 2 – Description and Characteristics of 418 Analyzed Piles.

Group Type Pile2 B3 D4

The Ultimate Unit Skin Friction qs

Parameter qs is from Tables 2 and 4:

of soil type in Table 4,

Table 3. Values for the Tip Bearing Factor kp

Group Clay Sand, Marl and Weathered

5. VALIDITY OF THE UP-DATE

Table 5. Measured QL / Calculated QL Ratios.

All Types of Piles 1 Bored Piles 2

Screwed Cast in Place Piles Grouted Piles and Micropiles3

limit pile load QL led to :

You might also like