Asiri National Project PDF

ASIRI National Project
Recommendations
for the design,
construction and control
of rigid inclusion
ground improvements
Summary Close
ForeWord
These Recommendations on the improvement of foundation soils by inserting vertical rigid in-
clusions embody the achievement of the ASIRI National Project, whose research activities and
studies were conducted between 2005 and 2011 with a total budget allocation of €2.7 million.
This collective effort has relied on input from 39 partner firms and organizations; it has received
the financial support of the French Government and steady backing from IREX for all project
management aspects.
This project arose from a personal initiative coordinated through IREX’s Soil Specialist Clus-
ter, in conjunction with public works contractors and engineering companies within France, for
the purpose of accompanying the development of a new ground improvement technique. This
technique first appeared in France during the 1990’s and consists of associating a network of
vertical rigid inclusions with a granular layer in order to compose the foundation platform for
civil engineering works (rafts, reservoirs, ground slabs, embankments) and construction works
(ground slabs). Though previous uses were already familiar and this technique beneath em-
bankments had already been practiced in other European countries, the increasing application
of such procedures for civil engineering structures and buildings had become something of a
French national specificity, owing to the dynamic role of actors within the sector (construction
companies and consulting engineers). Yet in the absence of regulatory references, a set of dedi-
cated and adapted guidelines needed to be developed and implemented.
The ASIRI National Project has focused on designing, conducting and interpreting a series of
physical experiments and numerical models as a fundamental step to understanding the mecha-
nisms acting in this innovative foundation system. The applied research program presented
herein has been facilitated by project participants’ broad range of competences, stemming from
both academia and the professional world; the program has also greatly benefited from the
physical and human resources each partner organization made available.
A project database with an exceptional collection of experimental recordings and numerical

results has provided a valuable support tool for nine doctoral theses performed within the scope
of this very Project. A full slate of observations and model output could thus be compared for
a number of varied structures. New orientations were introduced, revealing the extent to which
associating such distinct elements (soil, inclusions, load transfer platform) produces an efficient
and highly economical composite foundation system. These Recommendations are derived
from the project’s layout, which has yielded a set of practical rules for the design, construction
and control of these structures, intended for all industry actors interested in further developing
this technique.
Another specificity of these Project Recommendations lies in the proposed design strategy,
which conforms to the general Limit State design framework set forth in the Eurocodes, espe-
cially Eurocode 7-1 relative to geotechnical design. This application of general principles to
devise a method for ground improvement design constitutes an original and forward-looking
Foreword
approach, given that it was necessary to adopt specific rules for structures not easily identified
from the foundation categories established in Eurocode 7-1. The novelty of this technique has
been well substantiated, and the field of applications foreseen thanks to this breakthrough is
now wide open.
This valuable contribution was made possible thanks to the support of all partner organizations,
as well as to the tremendous motivation on the part of all who drove this work program so en-
thusiastically. Gratitude is extended to each and every one of them.
B. Simon
Director of the Scientific and Technical Committee
Summary
Summary
Foreword......................................................................................................................................3
Partners........................................................................................................................................5
Notations......................................................................................................................................7
Chapter 1. Description, history, initial developments and launching.
of the national project.............................................................................................19
Chapter 2. Operating mechanisms............................................................................................41
Chapter 3. Design methods......................................................................................................91
Chapter 4. Design considerations...........................................................................................145
Chapter 5. Justifications.........................................................................................................155
Chapter 6. Geotechnical investigations..................................................................................245
Chapter 7. Execution conditions............................................................................................263
Chapter 8. Controls and instrumentation................................................................................293
Cover Close
ASIRI National Project partners
ANTEA Group, BALINEAU, BOTTE Fondations, BOTTE Sondages, BOUYGUES TP,

CNAM (Conservatoire national des arts et métiers), DURMEYER, EDF SEPTEN, EGIS, EIF-
FAGE CONSTRUCTION, École des Ponts-ParisTech (formerly ENPC), ESTP (École spéciale
des travaux publics), FFB (Fédération française du bâtiment), FNTP (Fédération nationale des
travaux publics), FONDASOL, FRANKI Fondations (groupe FAYAT), GTM (groupe VINCI),
GTS, ICE, IFSTTAR (formerly LCPC), INCLUSOL, INERIS, INSA Lyon, KELLER Fonda-
tions Spéciales, 3SR formerly LIRIGM (Université Joseph-Fourier), MÉNARD, NAVIER La-
boratory (formerly CERMES), PIEUX OUEST, PINTO, GRAND Port Maritime du HAVRE,
QUILLE, RFF (Réseau Ferré de France), RINCENT BTP, SAIPEM, SNCF (Société Nationale
des Chemins de Fer français), SOLETANCHE BACHY, SPIE Fondations, TENCATE (for-
merly BIDIM Géosynthétiques), TERRASOL.
This National Project also featured an Executive Committee, presided by François SCHLOSS-
ER assisted by his Vice President Olivier COMBARIEU, along with a Scientific and Technical
Committee headed by Bruno SIMON.
The research activities involved in this project, organized around 5 major topic areas, were co-
ordinated by: Laurent BRIANÇON (full-scale testing), Elisabeth HAZA-ROSIER (field tests),
Luc THOREL (physical models), Daniel DIAS (numerical modeling) and Olivier COMBARI-
EU (Project recommendations).
Valuable contributions to this project were also appreciated from:

Conseil général de Seine-et-Marne (77), Ports de PARIS, SOCOTEC, SOREDAL and AXSOL
France.
The Recommendations comprise 8 chapters; they were crafted by five working groups, over-
seen by the Scientific Committee and validated by a Review Panel.
The following individuals helped assemble and draft the recommendations set forth herein:
Scientific and Technical Committee Director: B. SIMON
Working groups
Coordinators
O. COMBARIEU (Expert), Cl. PLUMELLE (Expert), J.-P. IORIO (Saipem), C. POILPRE (X-
Amsol), L. CARPINTEIRO (Socotec) and S. LAMBERT (Keller Fondations Spéciales)
Member
P. BERTHELOT (Veritas), T. BRET (Keller Fondations Spéciales), L. BRIANÇON (Cnam),
S. BRULÉ (Ménard), C. COPAL (Keller Fondations Spéciales), 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. LAVEDER
(Axsol France), B. LEGER (Quille), F. MASSÉ (Ménard), A. NANCEY (Tencate), U. OKYAY
(Pinto), C. PLOMTEUX (Ménard), J. RACINAIS (Ménard), C. SIMON (EDF), and S. TURLE
(Inclusol).
Partners
Review Panel
President: F. SCHLOSSER (Professor Emeritus)
R. KASTNER (Professor Emeritus), A. GUILLOUX (Terrasol), P. LIAUSU (Ménard),
P. AGUADO (Apave) and F. BAGUELIN (Fondasol).
Figures: Mr. ANIC ANTIC (Terrasol)
English translation: R. SACHS
Summary
Notations
Unités/
Notation Descriptif Description Dimension
Units
Aire d’une maille (une inclusion Surface area of a mesh

A
+ sol alentour) (inclusion + surrounding soil) L2 (m²)
Aire de la section comprimée Surface area of the compressed

Ac L2 (m²)
d’une inclusion cross-section of an inclusion
AS Aire du sol compressible Surface area of the soft soil L2 (m²)
Aire de la tête d’inclusion Surface area

AP L2 (m²)
(dallette) of the inclusion head
Longueur caractéristique de la
a Inclusion cap width L (m)
dallette (tête d’inclusion)
Espacement des inclusions Spacing between inclusions

a, b L (m)
dans une maille rectangulaire within a rectangular mesh
Dimension de référence d’une Reference dimension

B L (m)
fondation superficielle of a shallow foundation
Cc Indice de compression Compression index (–)
Valeur limite de calcul Limiting design value

Cd
de l’effet d’une action of the effect of an action
Valeur maximale de la résis-

Maximum value of the compres-
tance à la compression d’une
sive strength of an inclusion, in
inclusion tenant compte de la
recognition of the consistency
Cmax consistance qu’il est nécessaire ML–1T–2 (Pa)
that must be applied to the fresh
de donner au béton, coulis ou
concrete, grout or mortar depen-
mortier frais suivant la technique
ding on the technique employed
utilisée
Cs Indice de recompression Recompression index (–)
Taux de consolidation
CD Rate of secondary consolidation (–)
secondaire
CDe Indice de fluage Creep index (–)

PROJET NATIONAL ASIRI
Cohésion (en termes Cohesion (in terms

c’
de contrainte effective) of effective stress) ML–1T–2 (Pa)
Coefficient de variation du loga- Coefficient of variation of the log

ck rithme de la perméabilité of permeability (–)
avec l’indice des vides with the void index
cu Cohésion non drainée Undrained shear strength ML–1T–2 (Pa)
Cohésion apparente Apparent cohesion

cuu ML–1T–2 (Pa) 9
d’un sol non saturé of an unsaturated soil
Coefficient de consolidation Coefficient of consolidation

cv L2T–1 (m2/s)
verticale in the vertical direction
Notations
D Diamètre d’une inclusion Inclusion diameter L (m)
Diamètre équivalent en pointe Equivalent tip diameter for an
Coefficient de variation du loga- Coefficient of variation of the log
ck rithme de la perméabilité of permeability (–)
avec l’indice des vides with the void index
cu Cohésion non drainée Undrained shear strength ML–1T–2 (Pa)
Cohésion apparente Apparent cohesion

cuu ML–1T–2 (Pa)
d’un sol non saturé of an unsaturated soil
Coefficient de consolidation Coefficient of consolidation

cv L2T–1 (m2/s)
verticale in the vertical direction
D Diamètre d’une inclusion Inclusion diameter L (m)

Diamètre équivalent en pointe Equivalent tip diameter for an
Dp pour une inclusion de section inclusion with a non-circular L (m)
non circulaire cross-section
Diamètre équivalent du fût Equivalent diameter of the shaft

Ds pour une inclusion de section for an inclusion with a non-circu- L (m)
non circulaire lar cross-section
Diamètre nominal du plus gros

dmax Maximum soil grain diameter L (m)
grain d’un sol
Distance horizontale entre l’axe Horizontal distance between the

di d’une inclusion et le centre de la axis of an inclusion and the cen- L (m)
fondation ter of the foundation
Dimension à n % (n % des parti- n percent dimension (n% of par-

dn cules en poids ont des dimen- ticles by weight with a dimen- L (m)
sions inférieures à dn) sion of less than dn)
E Efficacité en terme de charge Load efficiency (–)
Efficacité en terme
Etass Settlement efficiency (–)
de tassement
Efficacité selon le modèle Efficiency according to the

Hewlett et Randolph lorsqu’elle Hewlett and Randolph model
EV (–)
est contrôlée par la rupture au when controlled by failure
sommet de la voûte at the arch summit
Efficacité selon le modèle Efficiency according to the

Hewlett et Randolph lorsqu’elle Hewlett and Randolph model
ET (–)
est contrôlée par la rupture au when controlled by failure at the
pied de la voûte base of the arch
Fraction de la charge totale Proportion of total load to be

à appliquer en tête de la applied at the head of a fictitious
EQP (–)
colonne fictive d’un modèle ana- column associated with an ana-
lytique d’une maille courante lytical model of a common mesh Notations
Valeur de calcul de l’effet Design value of the effect
Ed
d’une action of actions
Young’s modulus, Modulus of

E Module d’Young
elasticity ML–1T–2 (Pa)
Module de déformation Apparent deformation modulus

E* apparent du sol renforcé sous of the reinforced soil subjected ML–1T–2 (Pa)
chargement vertical to vertical loading
10 Module conventionnel déter-
Normalized Menard pressure-
EM miné lors de l’essai pressiomé- ML–1T–2 (Pa)
meter modulus
trique Ménard normalisé
Module tangent du premier Tangent modulus for initial loa-

Ei ML–1T–2 (Pa)
chargement ding
Eoed Module œdométrique Oedometric modulus ML–1T–2 (Pa)
Valeur de référence du module Reference value of the tangent

Eoedref oedométrique tangent dans le oedometric modulus in the “Har- ML–1T–2
(Pa)
modèle Hardening soil dening soil” model
Module oedométrique équiva- Equivalent oedometric modulus

E * –1 –2
Module conventionnel déter-
Normalized Menard pressure-
EM miné lors de l’essai pressiomé- ML–1T–2 (Pa)
meter modulus
trique Ménard normalisé
Module tangent du premier Tangent modulus for initial loa-

Ei ML–1T–2 (Pa)
chargement ding
Eoed Module œdométrique Oedometric modulus ML–1T–2 (Pa)
Valeur de référence du module Reference value of the tangent

Eoedref oedométrique tangent dans le oedometric modulus in the “Har- ML–1T–2 (Pa)
modèle Hardening soil dening soil” model
Module oedométrique équiva- Equivalent oedometric modulus

Eoedo* lent du volume de sol renforcé of the soil volume reinforced by ML–1T–2 (Pa)
par inclusions inclusions
Young’s modulus
Ep Module d’Young de l’inclusion ML–1T–2 (Pa)
of the inclusion
Module de déformation Apparent deformation modulus

Es ML–1T–2 (Pa)
apparent du sol of the soil
Module de déformation Deformation modulus

Esol ML–1T–2 (Pa)
du sol non renforcé of the non-reinforced soil
Valeur de référence du module

Reference value of the secant
ref sécant à 50 % du déviateur à
E50
rupture dans le modèle
modulus at 50% strength in the ML–1T–2 (Pa)
"Hardening soil" model
Hardening soil
Valeur de référence du module Reference value of the unloa-

Eurref de recompression ding-reloading modulus in the ML–1T–2 (Pa)
dans le modèle Hardening soil “Hardening soil” model
e Indice des vides Void ratio (–)
e0 Indice des vides initial Initial void ratio (–)
Indice des vides maximal Maximum void ratio (in the loo-
emax (–)
(dans l’état le plus lâche) sest state)
Indice des vides minimal (dans Minimum void ratio (in the den-
emin (–)
l’état le plus dense) sest state)
FN Résultante du frottement négatif Resultant of negative friction MLT–2 (N)
Design value of the compres-

Valeur de
PROJET NATIONAL calcul de la résistance
ASIRI sive strength of the concrete,
fcd à la compression du béton, cou- ML–1T–2 (Pa)
grout or mortar used on an inclu-
lis ou mortier d’une inclusion
sion
Résistance caractéristique en Characteristic value of the com-

compression du béton, coulis ou pressive strength of the con-
fck ML–1T–2 (Pa)
mortier mesurée sur cylindres à crete, grout or mortar measured
28 jours on cylinders at 28 days
11
Résistance caractéristique en Characteristic value of the com-
compression du béton, coulis ou pressive strength of the con-
fck (t) ML–1T–2 (Pa)
mortier mesurée sur cylindres crete, grout or mortar measured
à t jours on cylinders at t days
Characteristic value of the com-

Résistance caractéristique à la
pressive strength of the con-
fck* compression du béton, coulis ou ML–1T–2 (Pa)
crete, grout or mortar used on
mortier d’une inclusion
an inclusion
Valeur de calcul de la résistance Design value of the shear and

en cisaillement et en compres- compressive strength of the
fcvd ML–1T–2 (Pa)
sion du béton, coulis ou mortier concrete, grout or mortar used
d’une inclusion on an inclusion
Valeur de calcul de la résistance Design value of the tensile

fctd à la traction du béton, coulis ou strength of the concrete, grout ML–1T–2 (Pa)
Notations
mortier d’une inclusion or mortar used on an inclusion

Valeur caractéristique de la
pressive strength value at 28
mortier d’une inclusion
an inclusion
Valeur de calcul de la résistance Design value of the shear and

en cisaillement et en compres- compressive strength of the
fcvd ML–1T–2 (Pa)
sion du béton, coulis ou mortier concrete, grout or mortar used
d’une inclusion on an inclusion
Valeur de calcul de la résistance Design value of the tensile

fctd à la traction du béton, coulis ou strength of the concrete, grout ML–1T–2 (Pa)
mortier d’une inclusion or mortar used on an inclusion

Valeur caractéristique de la
pressive strength value at 28
fc28 résistance à la compression à ML–1T–2 (Pa)
days for the ground slab con-
28 j du béton d’un dallage
crete
Valeur caractéristique de la Characteristic value of the ten-

résistance en traction par fen- sile strength value by splitting at
ftfendage28 ML–1T–2 (Pa)
dage à 28 j du béton d’un dal- 28 days for the ground slab con-
lage crete
fn Frottement négatif unitaire Negative skin friction ML–1T–2 (Pa)
Taux marginal de report d’effort Marginal load efficiency ratio on

G (–)
sur la tête d’une inclusion the inclusion head
G Module de cisaillement Shear modulus ML–1T–2 (Pa)
G11,G12, Qualificatif des missions géo- Qualifier of standardized geo-

G2,G3 techniques normalisées technical missions
G4 (norme NF P 94-500) (NF P 94-500 Standard)
Module de cisaillement Equivalent shear modulus

G*
équivalent du sol renforcé of the reinforced soil ML–1T–2 (Pa)
Accélération de la pesanteur
Acceleration due to earth gravity
g terrestre LT–2 (m/s2)
(g = 9.81 m/s2)
(g = 9,81m/s2) Notations
Part permanente d’une sur- Permanent component of a sur-
g
charge charge ML–1T–2 (Pa)
Déplacement latéral imposé du Imposed lateral displacement of

g (z) L (m)
sol autour d’une inclusion the soil around an inclusion
Valeur maximale du déplace- Maximum imposed lateral

gmax ment latéral imposé autour displacement value around an L (m)
d’une inclusion inclusion
12 H Hauteur du sol compressible Height of the soft soil L (m)
Hauteur du plan d’égal Height of the equal settlement

He L (m)
tassement plane
HR ou hR Hauteur du remblai Embankment height L (m)
HM ou hm Hauteur du matelas Platform height L (m)
Hauteur du modèle numérique Height of the numerical model

HM L (m)
plan plane
H, HS Épaisseur du sol compressible Soft soil thickness L (m)
h Épaisseur d’un dallage Thickness of a ground slab L (m)
Hauteur d’action du frottement Height of negative friction action

hc négatif dans la couche com- taking place in the soft layer L (m)
pressible (hauteur critique) (critical height)
Distance verticale entre le point Vertical distance between the

d’intersection d’un mécanisme point of intersection of a failure
hi L (m)
de rupture avec une inclusion et mechanism with an inclusion
le centre de la fondation and the foundation center
Hauteur d’application du frotte- Height of negative friction appli- ASIRI National Project
ment négatif sur la colonne cation on the fictitious column
hr, ha L (m)
fictive surmontant la tête positioned on top
d’inclusion of the inclusion head
H, HS Épaisseur du sol compressible Soft soil thickness L (m)
h Épaisseur d’un dallage Thickness of a ground slab L (m)
Hauteur d’action du frottement Height of negative friction action

hc négatif dans la couche com- taking place in the soft layer L (m)
pressible (hauteur critique) (critical height)
Distance verticale entre le point Vertical distance between the

d’intersection d’un mécanisme point of intersection of a failure
hi L (m)
de rupture avec une inclusion et mechanism with an inclusion
le centre de la fondation and the foundation center
Hauteur d’application du frotte- Height of negative friction appli-

ment négatif sur la colonne cation on the fictitious column
hr, ha L (m)
fictive surmontant la tête positioned on top
d’inclusion of the inclusion head
Product of inertia for a cross-

I Produit d’inertie d’une section
section L4 (m4)
ID Indice de densité Density index (–)
IC Indice de consistance Consistency index (–)
Ip Indice de plasticité Plasticity index (–)
Raideur d’une nappe

J
géosynthétique
Stiffness of a geosynthetic layer MT–2 (N/m)
Coefficient de la loi de variation Coefficient of the modulus varia-

k du module dans le modèle rhéo- tion law in the "Hardening soil" (–)
logique Hardening soil rheological model
Module de réaction du sol com- Coefficient of subgrade reaction

KS ou ks ML–2T–2 (kN/m3)
pressible
PROJET NATIONAL ASIRI (sol support) of soft soil (supporting soil)
Rapport entre contraintes Ratio between horizontal and
K (–)
horizontale et verticale vertical stresses
Facteur de pression Coefficient of earth pressure

Ko (–)
des terres au repos at rest
Coefficient de poussée Coefficient of active earth

Ka (–)
des terres pressure 13
Coefficient of passive earth
Kp Coefficient de butée des terres (–)
pressure
Coefficient de transmission Coefficient of surcharge

Kq d’une surcharge dans un massif transmission within a weight- (–)
non pesant less medium
Impédance horizontale Horizontal impedance of a shal-

Kx MT–2 (kN/m)
d’une fondation superficielle low foundation
Coefficients de perméabilité Coefficients of horizontal

kh, kv LT–1 (m/s)
horizontale et verticale and vertical permeability
Coefficient of subgrade reaction

Module de réaction en sous face
on the underside of a ground
ki d’un dallage à proximité de l’axe ML–2T–2 (kN/m3)
slab adjacent to the axis of a
d’une inclusion rigide (r < rk)
rigid inclusion (r < rk)

pressible ou module de réaction of the soft soil or coefficient of
ks en sous face d’un dallage à dis- subgrade reaction on the under- ML–2T–2 (kN/m3)
tance de l’inclusion side of a ground slab removed
(r > rk) from the inclusion (r > rk)
Pentes des lois de mobilisation Slopes of the Frank and Zhao

kW, kq de Frank et Zhao pour le frotte- mobilization laws for both the ML–1T–2 (Pa)
ment et la pointe friction and the tip
Empirical coefficient for determi-
Notations Coefficient empirique pour la
ning the design value of the
détermination de la valeur de
compressive strength of the
calcul de la résistance en com-
concrete, mortar or grout on a
pression du béton, du mortier ou
pressible ou module de réaction of the soft soil or coefficient of
ks en sous face d’un dallage à dis- subgrade reaction on the under- ML–2T–2 (kN/m3)
tance de l’inclusion side of a ground slab removed
(r > rk) from the inclusion (r > rk)
Pentes des lois de mobilisation Slopes of the Frank and Zhao

kW, kq de Frank et Zhao pour le frotte- mobilization laws for both the ML–1T–2 (Pa)
ment et la pointe friction and the tip
Empirical coefficient for determi-
Coefficient empirique pour la
ning the design value of the
détermination de la valeur de
compressive strength of the
calcul de la résistance en com-
concrete, mortar or grout on a
pression du béton, du mortier ou
deep foundation (NF P 94 262
coulis d’une fondation profonde
k1 Standard); this coefficient (–)
(norme NF P 94 262) ; tient
accounts for the mode of place-
compte du mode de mise en
ment in the soil as well as possi-
place dans le sol ainsi que des
ble cross-section variations
variations possibles de section
depending on the technique
selon la technique utilisée
employed
Coefficient empirique pour la Empirical coefficients for deter-

détermination de la valeur de mining the design value of the
calcul de la résistance en com- compressive strength of the
pression du béton, du mortier ou concrete, mortar or grout on a
k2 coulis d’une fondation profonde deep foundation (NF P 94 262 (–)
(norme NF P 94 262) ; tient Standard); this coefficient
compte des difficultés de béton- accounts for concreting difficul- Notations
nage liées à la géométrie de ties tied to the inclusion geo-
l’inclusion. metry
Coefficient empirique pour la Empirical coefficients for deter-

détermination de la valeur de mining the design value of the
calcul de la résistance en com- compressive strength of the
pression du béton, du mortier ou concrete, mortar or grout on a
14k3 coulis d’une fondation profonde deep foundation (NF P 94 262
(–)
(norme NF P 94 262) ; tient Standard); this coefficient
compte des contrôles d’intégrité accounts for the structural inte-
effectués grity testing conducted
Dimension de référence d’une Reference dimension for a shal-

L L (m)
fondation superficielle low foundation
L Longueur d’une inclusion Inclusion length L (m)
Largeur de la spirale logarithmi-

Width of the logarithmic spiral in
L1 que dans le mécanisme de L (m)
the Prandtl mechanism
Prandtl
Dimensions de référence d’un Reference dimensions of a

L1 , L2 L (m)
dallage ground slab
Longueur nécessaire à la mobi- Length required to mobilize

lisation des efforts d’ancrage anchorage forces, measured as
Lal comptée à partir de la dernière of the last inclusion in the L (m)
inclusion dans la direction longi- embankment longitudinal direc-
tudinale tion

Lat comptée à partir de la dernière of the last inclusion in the L (m)
inclusion dans la direction embankment transverse
transversale direction
Longueur d’ancrage d’une Anchorage length of a geosyn-

Lfr nappe géosynthétique comptée thetic layer, measured from the L (m)
à partir de la tête du talus top of the slope
Longueur disponible pour Length available for the ancho-

l’ancrage d’une nappe géosyn- rage of a geosynthetic layer, ASIRI
Lht L National Project
(m)
thétique comptée à partir de la measured from the top of the
tête du talus slope
Demi-largeur du modèle numéri- Half-width of the numerical

Lat comptée à partir de la dernière of the last inclusion in the L (m)
inclusion dans la direction embankment transverse
transversale direction
Longueur d’ancrage d’une Anchorage length of a geosyn-

Lfr nappe géosynthétique comptée thetic layer, measured from the L (m)
à partir de la tête du talus top of the slope
Longueur disponible pour Length available for the ancho-

l’ancrage d’une nappe géosyn- rage of a geosynthetic layer,
Lht L (m)
thétique comptée à partir de la measured from the top of the
tête du talus slope
Demi-largeur du modèle numéri- Half-width of the numerical

LM L (m)
que plan plane-strain model
Largeur du mécanisme de Width of the Prandtl mechanism,

Lmax Prandtl comptée depuis le bord measured from the outer edge ML–1T–2 (Pa)
extérieur de l’inclusion of the inclusion
Net moment of a system

M Moment d’un torseur d’effort
of loads ML2T–2 (Nm)
M NATIONALMoment
PROJET ASIRI fléchissant Bending moment ML2T–2 (Nm)
Valeur de calcul du moment Design value of net moment

Md ML2T–2 (Nm)
d’un torseur d’effort of a system of loads
Moment du torseur des réac- Net moment of reactions deve-
tions développées dans les loped in inclusions, for verifica-
MR ML2T-2 (Nm)
inclusions pour la vérification tion of ULS load-bearing
de portance ELU capacity
Mr 15
Moment radial dans une plaque Radial moment in a plate ML2T-2 (Nm)
Moment de flexion dans une Bending moment in a plate

Mx ML2T-2 (Nm)
plaque autour de l’axe (0y) around the (0y) axis
Moment de flexion dans une Bending moment in a plate

My ML2T-2 (Nm)
plaque autour de l’axe (0x) around the (0x) axis
Moment fléchissant qui sollicite Bending moment that loads the

Msup la fibre supérieure du dallage en upper fiber of the ground slab ML2T-2 (Nm)
traction in tension
Moment fléchissant qui sollicite Bending moment that loads the

Minf la fibre inférieure du dallage en lower fiber of the ground slab ML2T-2 (Nm)
traction in tension
MO Teneur en matières organiques Organic matter content (–)
Exposant de la loi de variation Exponent of the modulus varia-

m du module dans le modèle rhéo- tion law used in the “Hardening (–)
logique Hardening soil soil” rheological model
Moment calculé dans un dallage Computed moment in a conti-

ma continu sur sol homogénéisé nuous ground slab on an equi- ML2T–2 (Nm)
équivalent valent homogenized soil
Terme correctif représentant Corrective term representing the

mb l’influence des inclusions rigi- influence of rigid inclusionson ML2T–2 (Nm)
des sur un dallage continu a continuous ground slab
Terme correctif représentant les Corrective term representing

mc interactions entre les inclusions the interactions between rigid ML2T-2 (Nm)
rigides et les joints inclusions and joints
Coefficients des lois de Frank et Coefficients of Frank and Zhao

mW , mq Zhao de mobilisation du frotte- mobilization laws for both fric- (–)
ment et du terme de pointe tion and the tip term
Notations
Nc, Nq, N Facteurs de capacité portante Bearing capacity factors (–)
Facteur de corrélation entre la Correlation factor between

Nk cohésion non drainée cu et la undrained cohesion cu and cone (–)
mb l’influence des inclusions rigi- influence of rigid inclusionson ML2T–2 (Nm)
des sur un dallage continu a continuous ground slab
Terme correctif représentant les Corrective term representing

mc interactions entre les inclusions the interactions between rigid ML2T-2 (Nm)
rigides et les joints inclusions and joints
Coefficients des lois de Frank et Coefficients of Frank and Zhao

mW , mq Zhao de mobilisation du frotte- mobilization laws for both fric- (–)
ment et du terme de pointe tion and the tip term
Nc, Nq, N Facteurs de capacité portante Bearing capacity factors (–)
Facteur de corrélation entre la Correlation factor between

Nk cohésion non drainée cu et la undrained cohesion cu and cone (–)
résistance de pointe qc resistance qc
Facteurs de corrélation entre la

Correlation factors between
cohésion non drainée cu et la
Nkt undrained cohesion cu and cor- (–)
résistance de pointe piézocône
rected piezocone resistance qt
qt
Notations
n Porosité Porosity (–)
P Périmètre de l’inclusion Inclusion perimeter L (m)
Contrainte horizontale Horizontal stress

p
contre une inclusion against an inclusion ML–1T–2 (Pa)
Contrainte moyenne effective Effective mean stress

ML–1T–2 (Pa)
16 p’ = (V1’ + V2’+ V3’)/3 = (V1’ + V2’+ V3’)/3
Pression limite conventionnelle Standard limit pressure determi-

pl déterminée lors de l’essai pres- ned when conducting the stan- ML–1T–2 (Pa)
siométrique Ménard normalisé dard Menard pressuremeter test
Pression limite conventionnelle Standard net limit pressure cor-

comptée à partir de la contrainte rected from the total horizontal
pl * ML–1T–2 (Pa)
totale horizontale régnant dans stress acting in the soil at test
le sol lors de l’essai elevation
Valeur ultime de la contrainte Ultimate value of the lateral soil

plim ML–1T–2 (Pa)
horizontale contre une inclusion pressure against an inclusion
Résultante verticale d’un torseur Vertical net force of a system

Q
d’effort of loads MLT–2 (N)
Valeur de calcul de la résultante Design value of the vertical net

Qd MLT–2 (N)
verticale d’un torseur d’effort force of a system of loads
Résultante verticale des efforts Vertical net force of applied

Q* appliqués (en l’absence d’inclu- loads MLT–2 (N)
sions) (in the absence of inclusions)
Résultante verticale des efforts Vertical net forces of applied

appliqués sur l’aire d’une tête loads over the inclusion head
Q p* MLT–2 (N)
inclusion (en l’absence d’inclu- area
sions) (in the absence of inclusions)
Résultante verticale du torseur Vertical net force of reactions

des réactions développées dans developed in inclusions, for veri-
QR MLT–2 (N)
les inclusions pour la vérification fication of ULS load-bearing
Résultante verticale des efforts Vertical net force of loads

appliqués à la section d’inclu- applied to the inclusion cross-
Qs(z) MLT–2 (N)
sion placée à la profondeur z section placed at depth z
sous la tête below the head
Load applied at the corner (or

Charge appliquée en angle (ou
edge) of the ground slab serving
en bord) de dallage qui annule
to cancel out the lifting due to
Qs le soulèvement dû au retrait dif-
the differential shrinkage and MLT–2 (N)
férentiel et au gradient de tem- ASIRI National Project
temperature gradient
pérature (DTU 13.3)
(DTU 13.3)


appliqués à la section d’inclu- applied to the inclusion cross-
Qs(z) MLT–2 (N)
sion placée à la profondeur z section placed at depth z
sous la tête below the head
Load applied at the corner (or

Charge appliquée en angle (ou
edge) of the ground slab serving
en bord) de dallage qui annule
to cancel out the lifting due to
Qs le soulèvement dû au retrait dif-
the differential shrinkage and MLT–2 (N)
férentiel et au gradient de tem-
temperature gradient
pérature (DTU 13.3)
(DTU 13.3)

appliqués sur l’aire complémen- applied on the complementary
Qs* MLT-2 (N)
taire d’une tête d’inclusion area of an inclusion head
(en l’absence d’inclusions) (in the absence of inclusions)
Qp(0) ou Résultante verticale des efforts Vertical net force of loads

appliqués en tête d’une inclu- applied at the head of an inclu- MLT–2 (N)
Q P+ sion sion
Qs(0) ou Résultante verticale des efforts

Vertical net force of loads
+ appliqués à la surface du sol
applied to the soft soil surface MLT–2 (N)
QS compressible 17
q Déviateur des contraintes Equivalent shear stress ML–1T–2 (Pa)
Variable component
q Part variable d’une surcharge
of a surcharge ML–1T–2 (Pa)
Stress applied at the profile

Contrainte appliquée en tête du
q0 head ML–1T–2 (Pa)
profil (surcharge)
(excess surface load)
Contrainte verticale s’exerçant Vertical stress acting upon the

q* sur le sol compressible non ren- non-reinforced soft soil ML–1T–2 (Pa)
forcé (sans inclusion) (without inclusion)
Valeur asymptotique du dévia-

Asymptotic value of the hyper-
teur dans l’ajustement hyperbo-
qa bolic fitting of stress-strain curve
lique de la courbe effort-
in primary triaxial loading
déformation d’un essai triaxial
Résistance de pointe (ou résis-

qc Cone resistance ML–1T–2 (Pa)
tance de cône)
Résistance limite en pointe Limit value of point resistance

qp ML–1T–2 (Pa)
d’une inclusion of an inclusion
qs Frottement latéral unitaire limite Limit value of skin friction ML–1T–2 (Pa)
Cone resistance corrected

Résistance de pointe (ou résis-
qt for pore water pressure ML–1T–2 (Pa)
tance de cône) du piézocône
(piezocone testing)
Contrainte appliquée sur le sol Stress applied on the soft soil

compressible à l’emplacement at the location of the inclusion
q p* ML–1T–2 (Pa)
où se trouverait la tête d’inclu- head (provided an inclusion had
sion si elle était en place been placed)
contrainte appliquée sur le sol Stress applied on the soft soil

qs* ML–1T–2 (Pa)
compressible (sans inclusion) (without an inclusion)
contrainte appliquée sur la tête Stress applied on the inclusion

qp+ ML–1T–2 (Pa)
de l’inclusion head
Valeur limite de la contrainte sur Limit value of stress on the
qp+(P) la tête de l’inclusion calculée inclusion head, as calculated ML–1T–2 (Pa)
avec le mécanisme de Prandtl using the Prandtl mechanism
Notations
Notations
Valeur limite de la contrainte sur Limit value of stress on the

la tête de l’inclusion calculée inclusion head, as calculated for
qp+(L) pour un débord L de la semelle an overhang length L of the foo- ML–1T–2 (Pa)
par rapport au bord de l’inclu- ting relative to the inclusion
sion edge
Valeur limite de calcul de la con-

Design limit value of the stress
qp,d+ trainte appliquée sur la tête de ML–1T–2 (Pa)
applied on the inclusion head
l’inclusion
Contrainte appliquée à la sur- Stress applied to the soft soil

q s+ ML–1T–2 (Pa)
face du sol compressible surface
R Rayon de la maille équivalente Radius of the equivalent mesh L (m)
R Rayon d’une semelle circulaire Radius of a circular footing L (m)
Seuil dans la courbe charge- Threshold in the load-displace-

Rc déplacement d’une fondation ment curve of a foundation built MLT–2 (N)
sur inclusions on inclusions
Résistance ultime de pointe Ultimate point resistance

Rb MLT–2 (N)
de l’inclusion of the inclusion
Rayon maximal du cône de dif- Maximum radius of the diffusion

RC L (m)
fusion cone
Valeur de calcul de la résistance Design value of the resistance

Rd
à une action to an action
Rf Rapport qf/qa qf/qa ratio (–)
Valeur caractéristique
Rk Characteristic resistance value
de résistance
Résistance ultime mobilisée Ultimate resistance mobilized

Rs par frottement sur le fût by friction on the shaft MLT–2 (N)
d’une inclusion of an inclusion
Roc Rapport de surconsolidation Overconsolidation ratio (–)
Valeur de calcul de la résistance Design critical ground bearing

critique (fluage) en compres- resistance value (creep) in com-
Rc,cr ; d MLT–2 (N)
sion du terrain pour une inclu- pression for an isolated inclu-
sion isolée sion
Valeur caractéristique de la Characteristic value of short-

résistance de traction à court term tensile strength of the geo-
Rt ; k terme du géosynthétique mesu- synthetic, as measured accor- MT–2 (N/m)
rée suivant la norme NF EN ISO ding to the NF EN ISO 10319
10319 Standard
Valeur de calcul de la résistance
Design value of the ultimate ten-
Rt ; d ultime de traction du géosynthé- MT–2 (N/m)
sile strength of the geosynthetic
tique
Valeur de calcul de la résistance Design value of the ultimate ten-
ultime de traction du géosynthé- sile strength of the geosynthetic
Rt-L ; d MT–2 (N/m)
tique dans le sens longitudinal in the longitudinal direction of
du remblai the embankment

Rt-T ; d
tique dans le sens transversal in the transverse direction of the MT –2 19
(N/m)
du remblai embankment
Valeur de calcul de la résistance Design value of the ground bea-

Rv ; d du terrain sous une fondation ring resistance beneath a shal- ASIRI
L National(m)
Project
superficielle low foundation
Rayon définissant la distribution Radius defining the distribution

du remblai the embankment

Rt-T ; d MT –2 (N/m)
tique dans le sens transversal in the transverse direction of the
du remblai embankment
Valeur de calcul de la résistance Design value of the ground bea-

Rv ; d du terrain sous une fondation ring resistance beneath a shal- L (m)
superficielle low foundation
Rayon définissant la distribution Radius defining the distribution

rk des coefficients de réaction of coefficients of subgrade reac- L (m)
ki et ks tion ki and ks
rp Rayon de l’inclusion Inclusion radius L (m)
S Aire de la semelle Footing area L (m)
Saturation ratio, degree

Sr Degré de saturation (–)
of saturation
Taux de réduction des contrain-

SRR Stress reduction ratio (–)
tes
Entraxe des inclusions dans une Center-to-center distance of the

s L (m)
maille carrée inclusions in a square mesh
Coefficients de forme pour le Shape coefficients for computa-

sc, sJ, sq (–)
calcul de la capacité portante tion of the load-bearing capacity
Résultante horizontale d’un tor- Horizontal net force of a system

T
seur d’effort of loads MLT–2 (N)
Valeur de calcul de la résultante Design value of the horizontal

Td MLT–2 (N)
horizontale d’un torseur d’effort net force of a system of loads
Valeur de calcul de la traction Design value of tension in the

Td MT–2 (N/m)
dans le géosynthétique geosynthetic
Valeur de calcul de la traction

Design value of tension in the
dans le géosynthétique résultant
Td ; mesh geosynthetic resulting from ver- MT–2 (N/m)
des charges verticales sur une
tical loads on a mesh
maille

geosynthetic resulting from hori-
zontal outward thrust of the
Td ; thrust des efforts de poussée du talus, MT–2 (N/m)
Notations
embakment fill, as evaluated on
évaluée au nu extérieur
the external unfinished side of
de la dernière tête d’inclusion
the last inclusion head

geosynthetic resulting from hori-
Td ; thrust ; zontal outward thrust of the
des efforts de poussée du talus,
embakment fill, as evaluated in MT–2 (N/m)
max
évaluée à l’aplomb de la crête
alignment with the slope ridge
du talus
line
20T Valeur de calcul de la résistance Design value of geosynthetic
geo
de la nappe géosynthétique layer resistance MT–2 (N/m)
Valeur de calcul de la résistance Design value of geosynthetic

Tgeo, long de la nappe géosynthétique layer resistance in the longitudi- MT–2 (N/m)
dans le sens longitudinal nal direction

Tgeo, trans de la nappe géosynthétique layer resistance in the trans- MT–2 (N/m)
dans le sens transversal verse direction
Résultante horizontale du tor- Horizontal net force of the reac-

seur des réactions développées tions developed in inclusions,
TR MLT–2 (N)
dans les inclusions pour la vérifi- for verification of ULS load-bea-
Notations cation de portance ELU ring capacity
Effort tranchant dans une inclu-

T
sion
Shear force in an inclusion MLT–2 (N)
Tgeo, long de la nappe géosynthétique layer resistance in the longitudi- MT–2 (N/m)
dans le sens longitudinal nal direction

Tgeo, trans de la nappe géosynthétique layer resistance in the trans- MT–2 (N/m)
dans le sens transversal verse direction
Résultante horizontale du tor- Horizontal net force of the reac-

seur des réactions développées tions developed in inclusions,
TR MLT–2 (N)
dans les inclusions pour la vérifi- for verification of ULS load-bea-
cation de portance ELU ring capacity
Effort tranchant dans une inclu-

T
sion
Shear force in an inclusion MLT–2 (N)
Tv Facteur temps œdométrique Time factor
Degree of consolidation, conso-

U Degré de consolidation (–)
lidation ratio
Pression interstitielle, surpres- Pore pressure, excess pore

u
sion interstitielle pressure ML–1T–2 (Pa)
V Vitesse d’un bloc rigide Velocity of a rigid block LT–1 (m/s)
V Volume spécifique = (1 + e) Specific volume = (1 + e)
Valeur de bleu de méthylène (g/100 g

VBS Methylene blue value of a soil
d’un sol of soil)
Effort vertical appliqué en pied Vertical force applied at foot of a

Vi MLT-2 (N)
d’un rack rack
v Déplacement latéral Lateral displacement L (m)

Poids du volume de matelas Weight of the load platform
W
d’une maille élémentaire for a unit cell MLT–2 (N)
Poids du matelas supporté Weight of the load platform sup-

Wp par la tête d’une inclusion dans ported by an inclusion head in a MLT–2 (N)
une maille unit cell
Charge verticale supportée Vertical load supported by a
WT par une nappe géosynthétique geosynthetic layer placed MLT–2 (N)
entre deux inclusions between two inclusions
Relative displacement between
Déplacement relatif entre le sol
w (z) the soil and the inclusion L (m)
et l’inclusion ; = ys(z) – yp(z)
= ys(z) - yp(z)
w Teneur en eau Water content (–)
wn Teneur en eau naturelle Natural water content (-)21
wL Limite de liquidité Liquid limit (–)
wP Limite de plasticité Plastic limit (–)
y Tassement Settlement L (m)
ys Tassement du sol Soil settlement L (m)
yp Tassement de l’inclusion Inclusion settlement L (m)
Tassement à la surface Settlement at the load platform

yM L (m)
du matelas surface
Coverage area ratio/Area repla-

D Taux de couverture (–)
cement ratio/Area ratio
Déformation angulaire d’une Angular deformation

D (rad)
fondation of a foundation
Coefficient réducteur du frotte- Reduction coefficient of friction
D ment de l’interface sol-géo- at the soil-geosynthetic ASIRI National
(–)Project
synthétique interface
Coefficient pour le calcul Coefficient for the characteris-

yp Tassement de l’inclusion Inclusion settlement L (m)
Tassement à la surface Settlement at the load platform

yM L (m)
du matelas surface
Coverage area ratio/Area repla-

D Taux de couverture (–)
cement ratio/Area ratio
Déformation angulaire d’une Angular deformation

D (rad)
fondation of a foundation
Coefficient réducteur du frotte- Reduction coefficient of friction

D ment de l’interface sol-géo- at the soil-geosynthetic (–)
synthétique interface
Coefficient pour le calcul Coefficient for the characteris-

Dcc de la résistance caractéristi- tic concrete strength computa- (–)
que du béton tion
E Angle de diffusion des efforts Diffusion angle of forces (°)
Coefficient correcteur Correction coefficient for eva-

E pour évaluer le module appa- luating the apparent modulus of (–)
rent du sol renforcé reinforced soil
Rotation relative d’une fonda-

E Relative foundation rotation (–)
tion
' Déflexion d’une fondation Foundation deflection (–)
H Déformation Strain (–)
H1ouHa Déformation axiale Axial strain (–)
Hv Déformation volumique Volume strain (–)
Angle of shearing resistance (in

Angle de frottement interne terms of effective stress),effec- Notations
I’ (°)
effectif tive angle of shearing resis-
tance
Angle de frottement interne Angle of shearing resistance
I’crit (°)
à l’état critique at critical state
Angle de frottement de l’inter- Angle of friction at the soil-geo-

Igeo (°)
face sol-géosynthétique synthetic interface
22 Angle de frottement interne Effective angle of shearing
I’NC effectif dans le domaine nor- resistance within the normally (°)
malement consolidé consolidated domain
Angle de frottement interne Peak angle of shearing resis-

I’pic (°)
effectif au pic tance
Angle de frottement interne Effective angle of shearing

I’SC effectif dans le domaine sur- resistance within the overcon- (°)
consolidé solidated domain
\ Angle de dilatance Angle of dilatancy (°)

Facteur de proportionnalité
Proportionality factor between
entre les valeurs maximales
the maximum horizontal and
* du déplacement horizontal et (–)
vertical displacement values for
vertical du sol autour d’une
the soil around an inclusion
inclusion
Coefficient partiel lié au com-

Partial coefficient related to the
portement en fonction du
behavior over time of geosyn-
temps des géosynthétiques ;
*flu thetics; *flu =1/Uflu, as defined in (–)
*flu = 1/Uflu tel que défini dans
the NF P 94270 Standard,
la norme NF P 94270 annexe
Appendix F.4.3
F.4.3.
Notations
Coefficient partiel lié au vieillis-
sement des produits géosyn-
aging of geosynthetic products,
thétiques, par exemple par
e.g. by means of hydrolysis or
Facteur de proportionnalité
Proportionality factor between
entre les valeurs maximales
the maximum horizontal and
* du déplacement horizontal et (–)
vertical displacement values for
vertical du sol autour d’une
the soil around an inclusion
inclusion
Coefficient partiel lié au com-

portement en fonction du
behavior over time of geosyn-
temps des géosynthétiques ;
*flu thetics; *flu =1/Uflu, as defined in (–)
*flu = 1/Uflu tel que défini dans
the NF P 94270 Standard,
la norme NF P 94270 annexe
Appendix F.4.3
F.4.3.
Coefficient partiel lié au vieillis-

sement des produits géosyn-
aging of geosynthetic products,
thétiques, par exemple par
e.g. by means of hydrolysis or
hydrolyse ou oxydation,
oxidation, as a function of pro-
*deg dépendant des conditions (–)
duct environmental conditions;
d’environnement du produit ;
*deg = 1/ Udeg, as defined in the
*deg = 1/ Udeg tel que défini
NF P 94270 Standard, Appen-
dans la norme NF P 94270
dix F.4.4
annexe F.4.4.
Coefficient partiel correspon-

Partial coefficient correspon-
dant à l’endommagement des
ding to the damage of geosyn-
renforcements géosynthéti-
thetic reinforcements caused by
ques produit par leur installa-
their installation and embank-
*end tion et le compactage des (–)
ment compaction;
remblais.
*end = 1/ Uend, as defined in the
*end = 1/ Uend tel que défini
NF P 94270 Standard, Appen-
dans la norme NF P 94270
dix F.4.2
annexe F.4.2
PROJET
J NATIONAL ASIRI
Poids volumique du sol Soil unit weight ML–2T–2 (kN/m3)
J’ Poids volumique déjaugé Submerged unit weight of soil ML–2T–2 (kN/m3)
Partial coefficient relative to

Coefficient partiel relatif au
concrete
JC béton (NF EN 1992-1-1 (–)
(NF EN 1992-1-1 2.4.2.4 Stan-
2.4.2.4)
dard)
23
Facteur partiel pour une action Partial factor for a permanent
JG (–)
permanente action
Facteur partiel du matériau Partial factor of the geosynthe-

JM ; t (–)
géosynthétique tic material
Facteur partiel pour une action Partial factor for a variable

JQ (–)
variable action
Facteur partiel pour la résis- Partial factor for sliding resis-

JR;h (–)
tance au glissement tance
Facteur partiel pour l’incerti- Partial factor for the level of

JR ;d tude dans un modèle de résis- uncertainty in a resistance (–)
tance model
Facteur partiel pour la résis-

Partial factor for the soil-geo-
JR ; f tance d’interaction sol-géosyn- (–)
synthetic interaction resistance
thétique
Facteur partiel pour la por- Partial factor for the load-bea-

JR ; v (–)
tance (résistance) ring capacity (resistance)

Partial factor for the inclusion
Jb tance de pointe d’une inclu- (–)
point resistance
sion
Facteur partiel pour la cohé- Partial factor for effective cohe-

Jc’ (–)
sion effective sion
Facteur partiel pour la cohé- Partial factor for undrained
Jcu (–)
sion non drainée cohesion
Facteur partiel pour la por- Partial factor for the load-bea-
JR ; v (–)
tance (résistance) ring capacity (resistance)

Partial factor for the inclusion
Jb tance de pointe d’une inclu- (–)
point resistance
sion
Facteur partiel pour la cohé- Partial factor for effective cohe-

Jc’ (–)
sion effective sion
Facteur partiel pour la cohé- Partial factor for undrained

Jcu (–)
sion non drainée cohesion
Facteur partiel de sécurité sur

Partial safety factor on the geo-
Jgeo la résistance de la nappe géo-
synthetic resistance
synthétique

Partial factor for resistance by
Js tance par frottement sur le fût (–)
friction on the inclusion shaft
d’une inclusion
Facteur partiel pour l’angle de Partial factor for the angle of

JI’ (–)
frottement interne (tanI’) internal friction (tanI’)
Facteur partiel pour le poids

JJ Partial factor for the unit weight (–)
volumique
Jr Poids volumique du remblai Unit weight of the embankment ML–2T–2 (kN/m3)
Js Notations
Poids volumique du sol Unit weight of the soil ML–2T–2 (kN/m3)
Jp Poids volumique du pieu Unit weight of the pile ML–2T–2 (kN/m3)
Jw Poids volumique de l’eau Unit weight of water ML–2T–2 (kN/m3)
Indice de décompression
Unloading-reloading index in
recompression dans modèle
N* the constitutive soft soil model =
de comportement Soft soil =
24 2Cs /2,3 (1 + e)
2Cs /2.3 (1 + e)
Coefficient d’accrochage dans Latching coefficient used in

O (–)
la méthode de Combarieu Combarieu’s method
Indice de compression dans Compression index used in the
O* modèle de comportement Soft constitutive Soft Soil model =
Soil = Cc /2,3 (1 + e) Cc/2.3 (1 + e)
Facteur d’augmentation de la
Undrained cohesion cu increase
cohésion non drainée cu en
Ocu factor as a function of consoli- (–)
fonction de l’augmentation de
dation stress
contrainte de consolidation
Coefficient de l’équation diffé- Coefficient of the differential

µ rentielle dans la méthode de equation used in Combarieu’s M–1 1/m
Combarieu method
Indice de fluage dans modèle Creep index used in the consti-

P* de comportement Soft Soil = tutive Soft Soil model = CDe /2.3
CDe /2,3 (1 + e) (1 + e)
Q Coefficient de Poisson Poisson’s ratio (–)
V Contrainte totale Total stress ML–1T–2 (Pa)
Vc Pression de confinement Confinement stress ML–1T–2 (Pa)
Vh Contrainte horizontale Horizontal stress ML–1T–2 (Pa)
Contrainte verticale supposée Vertical stress assumed uniform

Vi uniforme sur le disque r d rk over the disc r d rk on the ML–1T–2 (Pa)
en sous-face du dallage ground slab underside
Contrainte verticale supposée
Vertical stress assumed uniform
Notations
V
uniforme sur l’anneau
over the ring rk d r dR on the
s rk d r d R en sous-face du dal- ML–1T–2 (Pa)
ground slab underside
lage
Vh Contrainte horizontale Horizontal stress ML–1T–2 (Pa)
Contrainte verticale supposée Vertical stress assumed uniform

Vi uniforme sur le disque r d rk over the disc r d rk on the ML–1T–2 (Pa)
en sous-face du dallage ground slab underside
Contrainte verticale supposée
Vertical stress assumed uniform
uniforme sur l’anneau
Vs over the ring rk d r dR on the ML–1T–2 (Pa)
rk d r d R en sous-face du dal-
ground slab underside
lage
Contrainte de consolidation
Isotropic consolidation stress
Vc’ isotrope durant un essai ML–1T–2 (Pa)
during a triaxial test
triaxial
Vv Contrainte verticale totale Total vertical stress ML–1T–2 (Pa)
Vv’ Contrainte verticale effective Effective vertical stress ML-1T–2 (Pa)

PROJET NATIONAL ASIRIverticale effective
Contrainte
Average effective vertical stress
Vv moyenne dans une section ML–1T–2 (Pa)
within a horizontal cross-section
horizontale
Valeur de calcul de la con-

Design value of the ultimate
Vv, d trainte verticale limite à la sur- ML–1T–2 (Pa)
vertical stress at the soil surface
face du sol
Contrainte verticale appliquée Vertical stress applied on the

Vv, geo ML–1T–2 (Pa)25
sur la nappe géosynthétique geosynthetic layer
V 1, V 2,
V3
Contraintes principales totales Principal total stresses ML–1T–2 (Pa)
V’V’ Contraintes principales

effectives
Principal effective stresses ML-1T-2 (Pa)
V’
Contrainte verticale effective Effective vertical stress in free

libre dans le terrain à l’état field in the final state, as calcu-
final, calculée sans tenir lated without taking into account
V’ compte de la présence de the presence of the inclusion ML–1T–2 (Pa)
l’inclusion (dans le modèle du (within the negative friction
frottement négatif selon Com- model, according
barieu) to Combarieu)
Contrainte de traction dans un Tensile stress in a non-reinfor-

VELS ML–1T–2 (Pa)
dallage non armé ced ground slab
W Contrainte de cisaillement Shear stress ML–1T–2 (Pa)
Valeur de calcul de la con-

Design value of shear stress in
Wcp trainte de cisaillement ML–1T–2 (Pa)
inclusion
dans l’inclusion
T Rotation d’une fondation Rotation of a foundation (rad)
Facteurs de corrélation pour

Correlation factors for evalua-
évaluer les résultats des
[1, [2 ting the results of inclusion sta- (–)
essais de chargement statique
tic loading tests
d’inclusions
Facteurs de corrélation pour

Correlation factors for deriving
dériver la résistance d’une
the resistance of an inclusion
inclusion des résultats de
[, [4 from field investigation results, (–)
reconnaissance du terrain à
with the exception of inclusion
l’exclusion d’essais de charge-
loading tests
ment d’inclusions.
Z Inclinaison d’une fondation Inclination of a foundation (rad)

Acronyms/abbreviations
ASIRI: Soil improvement by vertical rigid inclusions

CSTB: Scientific and Technical Resource Centre for the Building Industry
DTU: Unified Technical Document
DPM: Special Contract Documents
ELS: Serviceability Limit State (SLS)
ELU: Ultimate Limit State (ULS)
G11, G12, G2, G3, G4, G5: Standardized geotechnical missions (NF P 94 500)
ICEDA: Active Waste Conditioning and Storage Facility (project conducted by France’s
EDF electric utility company at its Bugey site)
MV1, MV2, MV3: Simplified models for computing footings on rigid inclusions, subjected
to a vertical loading
MH1, MH2, MH3: Simplified models for computing footings on rigid inclusions, subjected
to a lateral loading
ma: Result of the ground slab computation on an equivalent homogenized soil (DTU 13.3,
Appendix C)
mb: Influence of rigid inclusions on a continuous ground slab
mc: Interaction between the rigid inclusions and the joints
OPM: Optimum value found by Modified Proctor compaction test
Soed(SJ): Computation result of a continuous ground slab resting on an equivalent homog-
enized soil
Soed(JT): Computation result of a ground slab with joints resting on an equivalent homog-
enized soil
IR(SJ): Computation result of a continuous ground slab resting on a network of rigid inclu-
sions
IR(JT): Computation result of a ground slab with joints resting on a network of rigid inclu-
sions
Summary
CHAPTER 1
Descriptions, history, initial developments

and launch of the national project
The concept of installing a foundation on a soil reinforced by rigid inclusions constitutes one
of the recent techniques for soil improvement and reinforcement. It is used to significantly
reduce the settlement of the foundation block subjected to applied loads, while increasing its
stability in resisting punching.
This technique does not necessarily improve the soil in and of itself, as in most cases the
actual mechanical characteristics remain unchanged following implementation of the
inclusions. In reality, the soil is reinforced by means of creating a composite in which the
loads applied are distributed between soil and inclusions.
This foundation concept requires the presence of a ³load transfer platform´ between the
inclusions and the structure they are supporting.
1. RIGID INCLUSIONS AND FOUNDATION TYPES
It is helpful at this point to place the foundation concept of a soil reinforced by rigid
inclusions into the general framework of major structural foundation principles (see Fig. 1.1):
± the shallow foundation solution is obviously preferable if the foundation soil provides a
guarantee of stability and yields settlements acceptable for the structure;
± if at least one of these two criteria is not met, then the conventional alternative would
consist of using deep foundations that have been designed to carry the entire load. Load is
transmitted to the piles via a rigid element, which performs the role of distributing forces
among the piles: this element is known as the pile group cap or the slab where piles are
embedded.
Yet, many intermediate situations can be found of average-quality soils and/or structures
tolerating small deformations, whereby the shallow foundation solution is not acceptable
while the deep foundation solution is ³overdesigned´ in comparison with what would be
strictly necessary.
This situation can be solved by simultaneously taking into account the respective load-bearing
capacities of the cap and the piles, in considering that a part of the loads introduced by the
structure is actually being transferred to the soil underneath the cap. This concept, referred to
as a ³piled raft foundation´, is attractive for soils featuring average and homogeneous
characteristics. It leads to a fully satisfactory intermediate foundation system, in which a rigid
connection exists between the piles and the pile cap. The advantage is to decrease the load
transferred at each pile head (since a part of the load is transmitted by the cap to the soil
underneath it), leading to a reduction in the required pile length or diameter. The piled raft
foundation approach has unfortunately only been used sparingly in France, as opposed to
other countries like Germany.
Description, history, initial developments and launch of the national project 19

The foundation on rigid inclusions approach is somewhat similar to the piled raft foundation
approach, in that it associates rigid vertical elements, i.e. inclusions, with a flexible cap layer,
yet without any rigid mechanical link placed between the two. From a purely theoretical
standpoint, the rigid inclusion concept remains pertinent once the conventional rigid linkage
between pile cap and piles disappears in the piled raft foundation configuration. In practice,
this transition from piled raft foundation to a foundation on rigid inclusions is reflected by a
combined geometric and mechanical discontinuity, along with the introduction of a relatively
thin mattress, generally a granular layer, called the load transfer platform.
Figure 1.1: The various types of foundations.
This concept comprises various modes of interaction between: 1) the inclusions, each possibly
topped by a cap; 2) the load transfer platform directly supporting the foundation; and 3) the
foundation soil between the inclusions. The diagram in Figure 1.2 effectively summarizes this
range of interactions, with a differential settlement at the load transfer platform base, which
generates both a load transfer onto the inclusion caps via an arching effect taking place in the
load transfer platform and a negative friction along the inclusions over the upper part of the
soil between the inclusions. This load transfer by negative skin friction thus constitutes the
critical component of this concept and will be developed at length in Chapter 2.
Figure 1.2: The four components of a complete foundation on rigid inclusions.
20 ASIRI National Project

2. DEFINITION OF A RIGID INCLUSION
Rigid inclusions, in the strict sense of the term, contain elements that are slender, often
cylindrical in shape, mechanically continuous and typically vertical. They are laid out
according to a regular mesh pattern, which must be adapted both to the nature and geometry
of applied loads and to soil conditions.
The cross-section of an inclusion is in theory constant, except for the cap, which features a
larger cross-section.
For vertical inclusions, the term ³group´ is employed, and the present Recommendations are
intended solely for groups. Should the inclusions be slanted, in most cases at variable angles,
then the term network is introduced.
The adjective ³rigid´ is required whenever the component material displays a strong
permanent cohesion, thereby generating a level of stiffness significantly greater than that of
the surrounding soil. Nonetheless, this stiffness may vary widely depending on the type of
inclusion developed, ranging from the lime column to the metal section, yet still includes the
gravel column injected with a cement slurry, mortar or concrete (whether reinforced or not).
The rigid inclusion concept supposes that column stability is provided without any lateral
confinement of the surrounding soil, which sharply contrasts with the concept of stone
columns, whose justification would be totally different when adopting a rigid inclusion
approach.
The force to be applied at the cap, for a given cross-section, depends on the intrinsic strength
of the material composing the inclusion and thus varies from one type of inclusion to the next.
The various types of inclusions described in Chapter 7 reveal the presence of large families,
as characterized by both their stiffness and intrinsic capacity. As such, the design of a
reinforcement using rigid inclusions requires a minimum internal strength of inclusion
material and moreover must incorporate interactions with the surrounding soil: shaft friction,
and forces at the top and tip.
Consequently, the inclusion dimensions themselves prove to be highly variable. In most cases,
their length extends to at least the thickness of the relevant soft soils, in recognizing that
shorter inclusions would be less efficient due to a lack of load-bearing capacity. The diameter
or transverse dimensions may also vary considerably since current techniques, and those
practiced in France in particular, have led to installing diameters that routinely range from
250 mm to 800 mm for elements bored by a hollow auger, with these latter applications
involving a technology identical to that derived for piles.
Using the larger diameter from this range, 30-m long inclusions could be produced along the
banks of the Loire River in Montoir-de-Bretagne (Loire Atlantique Department). As an
exceptional case, metal tube elements 2 m in diameter were placed by pile-driving for the
foundations of the Rion-Antirion Bridge in Greece (Pecker, 2004). Smaller diameter
inclusions should still be anticipated in the outcome of the structural design calculations or as
validated by extensive practice. This is the case when introducing wood, such as bamboo, in
the Far East or casting in place 15 cm diameter mortar elements reinforced by a metal section
immediately driven into the mortar, as has been tested and used in Germany.

As revealed in their mechanistic study (see Chapters 2 through 5), inclusions are intended to
carry a significant fraction of the loads applied to a soft soil volume. They must therefore be
designed to effectively withstand such loads; when given an appropriate cross-section,
inclusions are most often stopped in a ground layer exhibiting sufficient strength.
Typically not reinforced (especially in the presence of vertical loads), inclusions may
sometimes receive rebar additions in order to resist the eventual transverse forces being
exerted. This occurs, for example, when reinforcing the base of a tall embankment slope on a
soft or compressible soil, where sliding stability is a prerequisite.
Under this kind of scenario, in addition to placing rebar into the inclusions, it may be
requested to introduce above the pile caps, or inside the embankment body, other
reinforcements like horizontal geosynthetic sheets that absorb forces through traction and thus
limit vertical forces transmitted to the inclusions. Furthermore, the lack of a rigid bond
between inclusions and the supported structure, along with the absence of any group effect, is
indeed favorable in the event of seismic loading (Chapter 2).
3. PILE CAPS
The pile cap lies at the summit of the rigid inclusion. The surface area of its cross-section
divided by that of the reinforcement grid determines what is referred to as the "DUHD UDWLR´.
This parameter, whose value often ranges between 2% and 10%, is an essential factor of
reinforcement efficiency.
In the majority of more common cases, the inclusion is simply embedded into the load
transfer platform; under certain conditions and for the purpose of raising this coverage rate,
the pile cap diameter may be increased or else the cap may be topped by a small slab.
The choice is available between uniform inclusions laid out in a relatively dense pattern and
elements sized with a diameter identical to the uniform inclusion but with greater spacing and
topped by a cap. Both cases offer the same cover rate.
Economic considerations however also play a role in the choice of cap type.
4. LOAD TRANSFER PLATFORM
The rigid inclusion concept implies that inclusion caps are not structurally bound to the
supported structure, as opposed to what is traditionally practiced for a foundation on piles
embedded into a tie raft.
In contrast, bonding is created by interspersing between the caps and structure a distribution
layer (or platform), on which the designed structure lies. The presence of this layer, called the
³load transfer platform´ and most often composed of gravel, determines the specificity of the
rigid inclusion reinforcement technique.
Inclusion placement, combined with covering their caps by a load transfer platform,
ultimately leads to a composite or reinforced soil volume, which tends to be stronger and less
deformable than the initial soil volume, allowing the structure to lay on a shallow foundation.

A minimum load transfer platform thickness is necessary to allow for appropriate load
transfer between inclusions and soil, as well as to limit forces within the supported structure
(slabs, base plates, etc.). This thickness, often on the order of 40 to 80 cm, proves essential in
deriving an optimal design for the supported structure, particularly with the aim of reducing
bending moments in the slabs.
The load transfer platform may be composed of the following, depending on the application:
± a simple layer of well-compacted granular material;
± a layer of soil treated with hydraulic binder;
±or a layer of soil reinforced by horizontal geosynthetic sheets.
In the case of a granular material layer, the objective consists of obtaining a high level of
compactness, which in turn yields a high modulus of deformation.
In the case of materials treated with hydraulic binder (lime or cement-lime mortar), the treated
layer must retain sufficient flexibility in order to avoid cracking; an extreme condition would
be described as a slab supported by deep foundations, whereby the principle of foundations on
inclusions would no longer apply.
A load transfer platform composed of a granular soil reinforced by geosynthetic sheets is

widespread in Anglo-Saxon countries. Geotextiles laid out in one or more horizontal sheets
within the load transfer platform are less commonly used in France, since they have been
deemed too easily deformable, especially when placed beneath slabs. The use of stiffer
geosynthetics, such as geogrids or reinforcing steel meshes, is more efficient given that
smaller deformations are sufficient to mobilize major forces. These horizontal reinforcements
can also be laid out in one or more sheets either inside the load transfer platform or at the base
of a homogeneous embankment, in which case they sit directly on the caps. For a given load
transfer platform thickness, the use of geosynthetics serves to lower the cover rate value.
The designer therefore has access to a wide array of potential solutions that would need to be
optimized as part of a comprehensive technical-economic approach aimed at improving the
design.
5. APPLICABLE SOILS
According to its underlying principle, the rigid inclusion system may be applied to all types of
soil conditions. In practice however, its economic benefit remains confined to soft or medium
soils, which are most often compressible, i.e. clay, silt or peat. Let's point out however that
peat and, more generally, all materials containing organic matter require special attention due
to the fact that they are subjected to secondary compression settlements.
The type of soil, which is often saturated, along with its index parameters, loading history and
mechanical properties are contributing factors in the choice of rigid inclusion production
mode, and some of these modes, like for piles, might not be advised.
The most widespread applications relate mainly to the limits of conventional soil
improvement techniques because of their inability to guarantee the necessary settlement
criteria or their requirement of a minimum quality threshold for the surrounding soil.

Reinforcement by rigid inclusions can also be effective for the purpose of building on former
waste storage sites. An analysis of such sites, in terms of chemical aggressiveness and
evolution, becomes critical when dealing with organic soils. Settlements, especially when
delayed, must be treated with special attention. The procedure for incorporating these
elements will be discussed in Chapter 6.
Under all circumstances, it is essential to recall that a foundation on rigid inclusions will
undergo settlement on the order of a few centimeters.
6. FIELDS OF APPLICATION
All structures, regardless of their nature, require both internal and external design in order to
ensure integrity throughout the construction period and then during the service life. This
integrity relies on whether the deformations, settlements, horizontal displacements and
distortions remain permissible, in recognizing the difficulty often involved when setting exact
thresholds.
European standardization also prescribes for geotechnical structures a specific deformation

design. Until recently, this step primarily revolved around: justifications at the point of failure
and the application of normal safety factors leading to relatively acceptable deformations for
the structures. Only very severe deformation conditions would motivate undertaking a
complete deformation design, which is often complex and ultimately results in choosing
higher safety factors than usually admitted. The foundation design, notably for compressible
soils, consists of identifying the most relevant solution that satisfies both stability and
deformation objectives while seeking to optimize construction costs and scheduling.
When the preliminary design of a structure reveals that the foundation soil in its current state
is incapable of carrying the loads transmitted by this structure without either excessive
settlement or incurring the risk of failure, then the designer must plan for a backup with deep
foundations or preliminary ground improvement or reinforcement.
The choice of solution thus depends on: the type of structure, type of applied loads (either
distributed or point), structure sensitivity to settlement, type of foundation soil, and
construction scheduling duration.
From a general standpoint, soil improvement solutions are more likely to be reserved for
structures with a large footprint and loads primarily of the distributed type.
As an example, a very tall building with a strong concentrated load on a poor quality
foundation soil will typically remain in the domain of more conventional deep foundations
with piles or diaphragm wall barrettes.
Conversely, many structures transmit distributed loads over large surface areas on the
foundation soil, as:
± slabs and foundations of industrial and commercial buildings;
± storage reservoirs (water, oil products or liquid chemicals), treatment plant basins and
retention facilities;
± highway embankments or railway embankments for high-speed trains.

For all these categories of structures, the implementation of soil improvement or
reinforcement solutions often proves well adapted and leads to savings when compared with
other potential solutions.
Under which conditions should rigid inclusions be favored over other soil improvement
solutions such as vertical drains with preloading, stone columns, dynamic compaction or
compaction by vibration?
For the most part, this choice will be guided by soil conditions, type of structure with its
maximum settlement specifications, the construction timetable and, lastly, execution costs.
As regards soil conditions, it is a well-known fact that, for example, cohesive soils cannot be
improved using dynamic methods such as dynamic compaction or vibroflotation. The
previous section also observed that some very soft soils (e.g. silt) or organic soils could
prohibit the use of a non-cement soil reinforcement technique like stone columns.
The depth of such a poor quality soil layer is another element to be taken into consideration
since some techniques become inefficient beyond a certain depth, whereas the technology for
producing rigid inclusions is closely tied to that of piles and allows reaching greater depths
using the right set of tools.
Rigid inclusions will tend to be well adapted therefore in cases of soft or very soft soils,
whether natural or manmade, with an adequate thickness.
As for the structure, it is obvious that reliance on a rigid inclusion solution will become
necessary in the presence of relatively heavy loads (e.g. a heavily-loaded slab, a tall reservoir)
rather than a solution calling for flexible inclusions of the stone column type, which would
not sufficiently reduce the predicted settlements.
The acknowledgment of construction time frames may be a determinant factor as well. In the
example of building an embankment on compressible soil, a preloading solution with vertical
drainage is often adapted and economical, yet still requires a large span of available time to
cover: vertical drain installation, embankment placement at its final height raised by the level
of settlement compensation and temporary excess load (potentially requiring a phase-by-
phase rise if stability cannot be guaranteed), the waiting period for consolidation, and removal
of the residual overload. A works program does not always offer this time frame, whereas a
rigid inclusion solution will allow for quickly raising the embankment and immediately
mobilizing the corresponding settlements.
Moreover, the solution cost obviously remains a key selection criterion, with the solution
ultimately chosen needing to be more competitive for the Project Owner. Let's also mention
that in some cases, several solutions might be technically feasible, thus making it useful to
compare the costs of these various options while not overlooking that this cost depends on
both the type and density of inclusions required as well as the performance of the tooling
proposed by contractors.

a: Slabs and foundations of industrial buildings
b: Embankment used to access a bridge
c: Tanks and basins
Figure 1.3: Examples of structures reinforced by rigid inclusions.
What are the specificities of these various types of structures for which rigid inclusion
solutions are commonly preferred?
For the first category, i.e. industrial and commercial building slabs, the problem to be solved
is basically one of limiting settlements, since the soil is typically capable of carrying these
distributed loads without any risk of failure.
For these structures, special attention is paid during load transfer platform design since the
slab structure tends to be thin and sensitive to the bending moments eventually created.
Furthermore, let's not overlook the fact that the operating load on the slab will not necessarily
be uniform (strips with fluctuating loads, traffic corridors, rack bases, etc.), all of which
serves to complicate the design step, as will be discussed in Chapter 5.

Let's also point out that should the slab foundation problem actually lead to a rigid inclusion
solution, then the same technology may be used as a complement underneath the structural
foundation footings.
For the second category, i.e. reservoirs, tanks and basins, the design criterion often stays
focused on settlements, whose magnitude is greater due to significantly higher stresses than
those found in the first category. Given the presence of load contributed by a liquid, the
operating stress will be perfectly uniform, except under the walls or skirts of tanks where
different localized reinforcements will be required.
Nonetheless, it must be noted that certain structures of the metal tank type are capable of
withstanding even greater settlements while remaining fully functional. For taller and more
heavily-loaded tanks, the problem of load-bearing capacity might also need to be addressed.
In the third and last category, i.e. embankments, these structures for the most part are loaded
in a permanent manner and by the embankment itself, with the extra operating load due to
road or rail traffic being relatively small. In this instance, it is difficult to identify a specific
structure, as opposed to the first two categories, and the embankment base is the target of a
specific treatment to ensure that the load transfer platform role is being fulfilled. For this
reason, full-scale testing undertaken within the scope of the ASIRI project has been divided
into two distinct full-scale experiments on inclusions: under slabs and under embankments.
For lower embankments, the design criterion will be based on settlements, while for taller
ones the stability problem will become predominant and generate the parasite horizontal
forces in the inclusions that need to be evaluated and taken into account.
7. A BRIEF HISTORY OF RIGID INCLUSIONS
Besides all available foundation soil improvement techniques, rigid inclusion reinforcement
offers a new and efficient technique. Yet in reality, this technique has already been used many
times over throughout history for building on difficult sites, such as marshy zones, without
necessarily a solid understanding of its mechanism and behavior.
It has longtime been observed that wood piles driven into the ground have served as
foundations for increasingly heavy structures over the ages. However, only when a sand layer
or stick bundle is positioned in between these piles and the structure can the thought be
entertained that rigid inclusion reinforcement is actually at work.
Noteworthy herein is the paper by Kerisel (1986), who cited an interesting publication by
Coles (1986) relative to the construction of Neolithic roads in England. The ingenious
underlying principle is as follows: long wood piles are driven at an angle in order to form a
succession of trestles, on top of which a traffic lane built on planks is placed, yet this
configuration can also comprise a line of vertical piles not aligned with the planks and placed
along a central axis, as shown to the right in Figure 1.4.

Figure 1.4: Foundation of Neolithic roads (England).
In the case described above, the planks are perforated with holes along the central axis to
enable the vertical piles to slide freely. While the trestles alone were in no way able to offer a
"foundation on rigid inclusions", the entire road foundation presented on the right-hand side
of the above figure provides a very clever example. The forces exerted on the traffic lane to
both sides of the central axis load the vertical piles with negative skin friction subsequent to a
soil settlement caused by the trestles. This mode of operations is similar to what was adopted
for certain buildings in Mexico City, as will be seen further below.
The modern period has led to technical and scientific improvements in the potential of these
foundation systems. A justification was provided with the study on negative skin friction
Zeevaert (1957) undertook in Mexico. Since Spain¶s 16th-century conquest, Mexico City has
faced acute problems regarding the behavior of its edifices. A very thick layer of soft volcanic
clay (ash), which is both saturated and compressible, lies underneath the external loads and
experiences settlements up to several meters. These settlements were triggered and intensified
as of the beginning of the 20th century by the permanent pumping of water into deeper layers.
From the 1960's on, the technical literature provides many examples where both the negative
friction phenomenon and group effect are used advantageously, demonstrating that exterior
piles contribute more than piles located in the interior. The few original examples that follow
seem to have won only slight recognition.
A more subtle justification technique would be the so-called ³overlapping piles´ introduced in
Mexico by Girault (1969); Figure I.5 provides the corresponding diagram. The building rests
on piles ³A´ that do not reach as deep as the substratum but instead stop in the deformable
layers, in order to limit the substantial differential settlements occurring between the building
and the surrounding soil, which winds up being compacted. These building settlements
nonetheless require ensuring that any evolution diminishes over the time period following
construction. Short, type ³B´ inclusions, called piles for this purpose, are dropped into the
resistant layer and allow absorbing a fraction of the forces by means of the vault effect and by
mobilizing negative skin friction along their shaft. This set-up results in a notable decrease in
settlements and the appearance of significant forces in the type ³B´ inclusions.

Figure 1.5: Building supported on "overlapping piles" (Mexico).
Correa (1961), as related by Broms (1969) and Auvinet et al. (2006), designed buildings set
on an apron, with the combination resting on compressible soils undergoing consolidation.
Inside these soils were vertical piles lying on the substratum layer, the top of which crossed
the base of a hollow raft that had been designed as a box. This raft base was placed so as to
slide along the piles (see Fig. 1.6) which were acting like rigid inclusions. The uniform load
transmitted to the soil by the raft is then partially transferred onto the inclusions via negative
skin friction and the group effect. These inclusions have been designed relative to the soil
with a low safety factor and can be bonded to the raft without any technical difficulty should
it be sought to definitively stop the settlements.
Figure 1.6: Inclusions independent of the supported structure (Mexico).

In 1904 however, an engineer had proposed to support the Mexican Parliament palace
building on driven metal inclusions not bonded to the structure.
At present, Mexico City is the site of many construction projects featuring several thousand
non-reinforced concrete inclusions, where justifications have been conducted by applying a
finite element calculation method developed for this specific purpose.
In Japan, Okabe (1977) performed a full-scale study, on behalf of the Japanese Railways, of
groups of piles subjected to negative friction. The test site, containing 40 m of soft clay,
displayed an annual settlement of 10 cm due to water pumping in the depth. Isolated metal
piles, 60 cm in diameter, were able to bear up to 6,000 kN of undesirable forces due to
negative skin friction. Some heavier structures were supported on pile groups, which
themselves were surrounded by rigid inclusions independent of the pile group cap. The
recorded measurements confirmed transfer of the majority of parasite friction onto the
inclusions, with an unloading of piles bonded to the structure.
At the European level, the first papers on the subject of structures supported on rigid
inclusions relate to road or rail embankments. In this respect, Broms (1979) in Sweden
supplied abacuses to proceed with designing pile groups, with the use of expanded pile caps
being specified. Along these same lines, Rathmayer (1975) in Finland produced a series of
similar recommendations with applications for road embankments. Several embankments for
accessing bridges were built in Scotland in 1983 based on recommendations featuring the
simultaneous use of geotextile reinforcement sheets above expanded prefabricated pile caps.
Let's add the construction, for West Germany's railway system, beginning in 1976 of a 7 m
embankment on rigid inclusions topped by prefabricated caps, as part of a layout designed by
Smoltczyk (1976).
All observations and measurements performed during the construction of these various
structures have demonstrated the efficiency of reinforcement by rigid inclusions.
In France, the first publication on reinforcement by rigid inclusions, presented in Figure 1.7,
is credited to Gigan (1975), who used the technique without taking account of the mechanism.
Nonetheless, discussions held with the specialized contractor, as recounted by the author,
reveal the emergence of new ideas in the field of foundations. In the case studied, the focus
was to improve the characteristics of former embankments, clayey silts then sandy silts, by
means of driving cast-in-place piles without bonding them to the structures. This pile-driving
step actually led to very significantly enhancing the characteristics of in situ soils, which were
then deemed sufficient to accommodate a direct foundation. Designers however questioned
one another over the complementary role played by piles, which despite being isolated from
the base plates by a sand-gravel platform obviously performed like foundations on rigid
inclusions and not like conventional piles, as had been suggested.

Figure 1.7: Improvement in foundation soil characteristics thanks to the installation of piles (France).
The foundations presented in Figure 1.8 were designed in 1982 in Indonesia for reinforced
earth protection walls nearly 10 meters high by 6.5 m wide on a set of liquefied natural gas
retention reservoirs. These foundations are more technically sophisticated and rest on a 20 to
30-meter compressible clay layer. The walls are supported on open metal tubes 0.40 m in
diameter, with each one covered by a square metal plate 0.50 m to a side. The group of piles
is backfilled by a 1-m thick granular platform that had been horizontally stiffened by a
continuous structure of metal reinforcement strips merging and covering the driven pile caps.
While the rigid inclusions term had not been introduced at that time, this in fact was the
applied technique, though it was poorly understood 20 years ago. Simon and Schlosser (2006)
presented a paper on this case at an international congress on foundation soil reinforcement
held in Mexico City.
Figure 1.8: Reservoir foundation on rigid inclusions (Indonesia).

Two consecutive publications on the analytical design of rigid inclusion groups by Combarieu
(1988, 1990), built upon the findings of two highly detailed studies (theoretical, experimental
and bibliographical), were devoted to negative skin friction on piles. These works served to
boost popularity in France of the foundation soil reinforcement technique using rigid
inclusions.
The first study examined the construction of embankments on mediocre quality soils; it
provided a thoroughly justifying approach for the mesh pattern of a rigid inclusion groups and
for the resistant inclusion embedment, in addition to determining compressible soil settlement.
The second study related to calculating the inclusion groups for either large-sized flexible
structures or rigid shallow foundations. For these latter elements, a more targeted justification
had been proposed, dedicated to both load-bearing capacity and settlement, with this
justification being close to that developed for piled spread footing foundations.
These methods have been compared with the several existing European regulations as well as
with the experimental results of embankments on soft soils supported by rigid inclusions
(some of these results have already been cited). For rigid footings, the loading tests carried
out on a plate on sand reinforced by rigid inclusions, as conducted by Plumelle (1985) in a
large tank at the CEBTP testing facility, yielded results that match predictions fairly well.
The transition into practice occurred in 1989 at the time of an initial project, namely the
Carrère junction (Fig. 1.9), near the Lamentin-en-Martinique Airport (Combarieu et al., 1994).
These works were, technically speaking, conservative, with the objective of building bridge
access embankments consisting of Reinforced Earth abutments 6 to 7 m high. The footings of
these abutments were supported by HP piles crossing both the Reinforced Earth walls and in
situ soil.
Figure 1.9: Carrère junction abutment (Martinique).
The foundation soils were slightly sandy, saturated clays over a depth of 6 to 7 meters.
Without being treated, these soils would have led to a settlement of 40 cm. The 124 inclusions
were cast in place using a recovered metal tube and lost tip. Equipped with a central
reinforcement rod, these inclusions were all between 8 and 9 m long, with a 30 cm diameter
and 2.20 m spacing; they were subsequently covered by small, square prefabricated reinforced
concrete caps 0.80 m to a side. At the embankment base, a 10 cm thick concrete slab,

reinforced by a metallic latticework, was cast 20 cm above the pile caps. The settlements
observed at the end of the works period were equal to 5 cm, without any subsequent evolution.
More difficult projects ensued, with thicker and highly compressible soils that even contained
substantial peat layers. The outstanding problems became more complicated while at the same
time calculation methods underwent various changes, some significant examples of which
will be cited below.
In 1990, Simon and D¶Apolito (1991) studied the foundations and access embankments of an
upper section over the A43 motorway, near Chambery in France (Fig. 1.10). This structure
was intended to double the existing facility with a foundation composed of heavily-loaded
piles on which any additional force impact needed to be prevented. Without special
precautions, the 7 meters of new embankment would have generated 80 cm of settlement and
an 11-cm horizontal displacement of the foundation soil, composed of 12 m of clayey soil.
The proposed solution consisted of foundation soil reinforcement by rigid inclusions, 37 cm

diameter and 15 m long, performed by using the soil mixing technique and supporting both
the new embankment and the shallow foundation of the new structure.
Figure 1.10: Abutment and embankment on rigid inclusions for the A43 motorway section,
Chambéry (France).
Also during 1990, at Mandelieu on the A8 motorway (Bustamante and Gouvenot, 1991),
annual deformations of 15 cm reaching the surface and affecting the upper 15 m of 30 m high
marl embankments have been stopped using rigid inclusions. This significant highway
operations obstacle was in fact due to successive pavement thickness increases. Bored rigid
inclusions injected under high pressure over a height of approx. 18 m and then stopped in the
lower part of the embankment (built with high-quality materials) allowed absorbing by
negative skin friction the majority of the load due to the embankment's upper 15 m. All
movements were practically stopped since the residual deformation only measured 3 mm over
a 6-month period.
In 1999, the Nantes - Saint-Nazaire Port authority built a container dock on piles, in Montoir-
de-Bretagne on the banks of the Loire River (Combarieu and Frossard, 2003). The transition
between a slab on piles and the unstable riverbank was handled by floating rigid inclusions 30
meters long (Fig. 1.11) embedded into alluvial silts featuring 40-m power and average
characteristics at these depths.

The inclusions, with a 3.50-m spacing and 54-cm diameter, were produced using a continuous
auger and composed of fiber-reinforced concrete. They were topped with 1.40 m u 1.40 m
prefabricated caps, which themselves were covered by a sheet of welded metallic latticework
laid out in the granular load transfer platform. The calculated settlement, in the absence of any
foundation soil treatment, was 1 m, and reduced to 20 cm with the rigid inclusions. In reality,
the measured settlements were between 5 and 10 cm.
Figure 1.11: Transition zone on inclusions between a dock on piles and the riverbank
(Montoir-de-Bretagne, France).
En 2000, it was proposed to found a closed frame made of reinforced concrete plus its
corresponding 6 m high access embankments on rigid inclusions, at the exit of France¶s A15
motorway in Rouen, (Combarieu and Pioline, 2004). Use of this technique resulted in
successfully meeting the requirements of an imperative 4 month schedule for opening the new
lane to traffic. With 10 m of highly compressible soils, including peat, rigid inclusions 15 m
long and 40 cm in diameter, produced with a hollow auger and topped by caps, brought
settlements on the structure and its access ramps down to 4 cm in a homogeneous manner, a
feat that could not have been accomplished by deep foundations placed exclusively beneath
the concrete frame.
The ICEDA (French acronym for Conditioning Installation and Storage of Active Wastes)
project conducted in 2010 by France's electricity utility EDF at the Bugey site is a building
intended to temporarily store wastes from dismantled 1st-generation nuclear power plants and
the Super-Phenix reactor, plus wastes produced from sections of the pressurized water reactor
in operation. The predicted life span for this installation is 50 years. Its dimensions are on the
order of 120 m by 60-70 m, and average loads range from 140 kPa (under the space used to
store packages of waste) to 240 kPa (under the packaging workshop).
Prior to these works, the ICEDA project zone stratigraphy was as follows:
± An average 5 m of sand-gravel alluvia offering high geotechnical quality;
± 35 to 55 m of silty clay;
± A molasse substratum located at a depth of between approx. 40 to 60 meters (pitch of the
layer top on the order of 15%).

The settlements evaluated during the preliminary design phase, of roughly 25 cm, were
deemed excessive, and a solution to reinforce the compressible clay layer by means of rigid
inclusions was adopted. This solution comprised (Fig. 1.12):
± 292 reinforced concrete inclusions 1 meter in diameter, with heads at least 2 meters below
the underside of the rafts and tips reaching the weathered molasse (i.e. a length of between
~37 m and ~57 m), with spacing varying between 3 m and 6 m;
± A load transfer platform 2 to 2.75 m thick, composed of site alluvia homogenized and
carefully compacted.
The building settlement calculation on the reinforced soil led to values on the order of 4 cm.
Figure 1.12: Reinforcement by inclusions under the ICEDA project (Bugey).
This historical perspective will be concluded with the earthquake-resistant foundations

implemented on the exceptional structure of the Rion-Antirion Bridge crossing the Strait of
Corinth in Greece. This structure, built on a seismically active site with potential tectonic
movement and accommodating a heavy maritime navigation route, rests on very thick soils
with weak to average resistance and a highly heterogeneous composition (sands, silts, gravels,
clays).
The foundation soil, for three of the bridge supports, was reinforced by rigid inclusions
composed of large-diameter (2 m) open metal tubes, driven over a depth of 25 to 30 m, filled
with sand and then covered by a 2.80-m thick gravel embankment, thus forming the load
transfer platform. The foundation, comprising a 90 m diameter box girder prefabricated and
transported to the site by flotation, lies directly on the reinforced soil at the sea floor under 90
m of water. This foundation system, proposed in Pecker (2004), proved during the design
phase to be much better adapted technically than a conventional foundation on piles, and this
was especially so relative to the earthquake risk. The insertion of a very thick granular load
transfer platform in fact created a ³fuse´ capable of absorbing by shear a large portion of the
lateral forces caused by an earthquake, with the caisson foundation then capable of sliding
more than 1 meter on its base without generating any significant impact on the structure.
Figures I.13 and I.14 provide a glimpse of these exceptional foundations.

Figure 1.13: The Rion-Antirion Bridge - Principle of the foundation solution on inclusions (Greece).
Figure 1.14: The Rion-Antirion Bridge - Cut-away diagram of the foundations.
These examples illustrate a few of the varied geotechnical problems that the new technique
involving rigid inclusions has been able to solve. While up until 2000 the building of
foundations using this process remained relatively infrequent, the number of such projects has
increased since then significantly. This concept is now being proposed by the majority of
contractors specialized in foundation works and soil treatment and moreover has been
accepted by structural inspection bodies and insurance companies, provided that the
contractors have been given a relevant set of specifications. Project Owners and Architects
alike have found in this technique an effective response to project deadline constraints. The
introduction of a slab and raft foundation has generated a number of attractive applications.
Alongside these advances, many computation models have been developed in France, by
either contractors or geotechnical design firms, entailing the use of analytical models relying
on the concept of negative friction or numerical models incorporating the finite element
method.
8. THE ASIRI NATIONAL PROJECT
As of the end of the 1990¶s, many projects could already be cited in which rigid inclusions
constituted the foundation system. Their use has only expanded since that time and the claims
rate recorded through use of this technique remains, at present, comparable to that of more

conventional soil or foundation reinforcement techniques. Though reassuring, this observation
is still not sufficient.
As indicated above however, a great diversity can be found within the set of implementation
techniques, component materials and justification methods. As such, it seemed both useful
and necessary to the French geotechnical engineering community to undertake a study
intended to better understand the mechanisms and behavior of reinforcement by means of
rigid inclusions, as well as to develop reliable design methods calibrated on the results
derived from a wide array of instrumentation.
At the end of 1999, a proposal was forwarded to the Institute for Applied Research and
Experimentation in Civil Engineering (IREX), through its ³Soil Expertise Unit´ that
interfaces with the geotechnical engineering community, by B. Simon with the firm Terrasol
suggesting a national project on the topic. Three preparatory stages preceded the official
launch of this project. A feasibility stage was initiated and officially commissioned in August
2000 to IREX by the Directorate for Research and Scientific and Technical Actions (DRAST)
of the national Public Works Ministry. The working group coordinated by B. Simon
(Terrasol) assembled representatives of project architects, design firms, structural inspection
offices and specialized contractors, namely: SETRA (G. Haïun), LRPC de Rouen (O.
Combarieu), Scétauroute (A. Morbois), Bureau Véritas (P. Berthelot), Ménard Sol Traitement
(P. Liausu), Botte Fondations (D. Thiriat), Keller France (M. Naidji), Bouygues Offshore
(which has since become Saipem) (J.P. Iorio) and Solétanche (T. Kretz).
The feasibility report (IREX, 2000) was presented in January 2001 and underscored the strong
interest behind reinforcing soils by rigid inclusions, through displaying the portfolio of
completed and potential projects. A collection of the points critical to improving
understanding of the phenomena involved has guided this proposal towards seeking a
certification that will rely upon:
± A state-of-the-art assessment of practices both in France and abroad;
± An evaluation of the performance realized by the use of various inclusion techniques;
a determination, via experimental campaigns (full scale, in a centrifuge and in a calibration
chamber) of contributions from the various interaction mechanisms introduced into the
process, and comparison of these observations with different models;
± Drafting of recommendations for field use with foundations, encompassing all aspects:
choice of techniques, design and control methods.
An initial program outline, covering 4 years, was presented along with a preliminary analysis
of the bibliography.
Based on the feasibility study, DRAST commissioned to IREX in October 2001 the task of
establishing, as a preparatory step to a National Project, a state-of-the-art on soil
reinforcement by rigid inclusions both in France and abroad, with this assessment jointly
coordinated by R. Kastner (INSA Lyon) and B. Simon (Terrasol).
L. Briançon executed this work program over the period February-July 2002, under close
monitoring of a committee of experts, composed of: S. Borel, O. Combarieu, J. Garnier,
E. Haza, Ph. Liausu, A. Morbois and L. Thorel.
Another step, carried out simultaneously in Lyon and focusing on 3D modeling, gave rise to a
Master4s degree dissertation, which was successfully defended in October 2002 (Laurent,

2002). The memoranda on these accomplishments then resulted in an IREX report published
in November 2002 (Briançon, 2002) offering a view of the current state of practices, by
highlighting outstanding project developments / experiments and relying on the results of a
survey conducted among specialized French firms.
The general program adopted by the National Project was presented on February 4th, 2005.
This R&D project was planned to span a 4 year period, with the first three years being
devoted to establishing and then implementing experimental and numerical protocols as well
as an analysis of the initial experimental data, and the final year spent synthesizing all data
collected, validating the various design methods and producing a document containing
recommendations.
The launch of this project was timed to coincide with the completion of the doctoral thesis
defended by Orianne Jenck, in November 2005 at the INSA de Lyon institution, dealing with
the physical and numerical modeling of the technique of reinforcement by rigid inclusions.
During the first Executive Committee meeting held on March 29th, 2005 at the FNTP offices
under the aegis of IREX, the National Project (abbreviated under the French acronym ASIRI,
for Soil Improvement by Rigid Inclusions) designated the following officers: President F.
Schlosser, Vice President O. Combarieu, and Scientific Director B. Simon.
Five working topics shape the scope of this project:

± Topic 1: Full-scale experiments, hosted by C. Plumelle and L. Briançon (Geotechnical
Engineering Chair at the Cnam). This topic treats full-scale experimental campaigns in an
extremely thorough manner and solely to satisfy research needs.
± Topic 2: Experimental sites, hosted by E. Haza (CER Rouen). This topic will focus on the
limited instrumentation built for actual project sites, with the aim of compiling results.
± Topic 3: Laboratory testing, hosted by L Thorel (IFSSTAR Nantes). The scope here covers
all tests intended to characterize materials and develop centrifuge-based tests.
± Topic 4: Numerical modeling, hosted by D. Dias and R. Kastner (INSA Lyon).
± Topic 5: Recommendations, hosted by O. Combarieu.

References
Auvinet G., Rodriguez J.-F. ± ³Rigid 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. ± « Renforcement des sols par inclusions rigides. eWDW GH O¶art en France et à
O¶étranger ». Irex, opération du Réseau génie civil et urbain, 2002.
Broms B.B. - ³Design of piles group with respect to negative skin friction; Specialty session
on negative skin friction and VHWWOHPHQWRISLOHGIRXQGDWLRQV´ 7th.ICSMFE, Mexico, 1969.
Broms B.B. - ³Problems and solutions to cRQVWUXFWLRQLQVRIWFOD\´Proc. 6th Asian regional
conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Singapore, vol. 2, 1979, p 28-
30.
Bustamante M., Gouvenot D. ± « &RQIRUWHPHQW G¶XQ UHPEODL GH JUande hauteur par
injection ». 10e conférence internationale de mécanique des sols et travaux de fondation,
Florence, mai 1991.
Coles J. - Sweet track to Glastonbury. Thames and Hudson, Londres, 1986.
Combarieu O. - « Amélioration des sols par inclusions rigides verticales. Application à
O¶pGLILFDWLRQ GHV UHPEODLV VXU VROV PpGLRFUHV ». Revue française de géotechnique n° 44,
1988, p. 57-79.
Combarieu O. ± « Fondations superficielles sur sol amélioré par inclusions rigides verticales ».
Revue française de géotechnique n° 53, 1990, p. 33-44.
Combarieu O., Frossard A. ± « Amélioration des sols des berges de Loire par inclusions
ULJLGHVSRXUVWDELOLVHUOHVUHPEODLVG¶DFFqVG¶XQSRVWHjTXDL ». 13e Congrès européen de
mécanique des sols et fondations, Prague, 2003.
Combarieu O., Gestin F., Pioline M. - « Remblais sur sols améliorés par inclusions rigides.
Premiers chantiers ». Bulletin des laboratoires des ponts et chaussées n° 191, 1994, p. 55-
62.
Combarieu O., Pioline M. - « &RQVWUXFWLRQ G¶XQ 3,&) HW GH VHV DFFqV VXU sol amélioré par
inclusions rigides »6\PSRVLXPLQWHUQDWLRQDOVXUO¶amélioration des sols en place, ASEP-
GI, 9-10 sept. 2004, Paris.
Gigan J.-P. - « &RQVROLGDWLRQG¶XQVROGHIRQGDWLRQSDUSLORWV ». Bulletin des laboratoires des
ponts et chaussées n° 78, 1975, p. 12-16.
Girault P. ± ³$ QHZ W\SH RI SLOH IRXQGDWLRQ´ Proc. Conf. on deep foundations, Mexican
society of soils mechanics; Mexico, 1969, vol. 1.
IREX - Pôle Compétence Sols. Utilisation des inclusions rigides pour le renforcement des sols
de fondaWLRQG¶ouvrages et de remblais.eWXGHGHIDLVDELOLWpG¶un projet national, 2000.
Jenck O. - Le renforcement des sols par inclusions rigides verticales. Modélisation physique
et numérique. Thèse de doctorat INSA Lyon, 2005.
Kerisel J. - « Angleterre ; découYHUWH G¶XQH URXWH QpROLWKLTXH ». Revue Archéologia n° 292,
1986, p 56-60.
Laurent Y. - Renforcement des massifs de fondation par inclusions rigides verticales, Étude
bibliographique et numérique. Mémoire DEA INSA Lyon, 2002.
Okabe.T. ± ³Large negative skin frictionDQGIULFWLRQIUHHSLOHPHWKRGV´ 9th ICSFME, Tokyo,
vol. 1, 1977.
Pecker A. ± « Le pont de Rion-Antirion en Grèce, le défi sismique ». 550e conférence,
SURQRQFpHjO¶8QLYHUVLWpGHWRXVOHVVDYRLUVOHRFWREUH.
Plumelle C. - « RenforcementG¶XQVROOkFKHSDULQFOXVLRQGHPLFURSLHX[ ». Revue française
de géotechnique n° 30, 1985, p.47-57.
Rathmayer H. ± « Piled embankment supported by single pile caps ». Proc. Istanbul
conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, 1975, 8 p.

Simon B. - « 8QH PpWKRGH LQWpJUpH SRXU GLPHQVLRQQHU OHV UpVHDX[ G¶LQFOXVLRns rigides en
déformation ». XVe Congrès international de mécanique des sols et fondations, Istanbul,
vol. 2, 2000, p. 1007-1010.
6LPRQ % '¶$SROLWR 3 ± « 'RXEOHPHQW G¶XQ SDVVDJH VXSpULeur fondé sur pieux ayant subi
des efforts parasites importants ». Colloque international fondations profondes, ENPC,
Paris, mai 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 - Ä3IlKOJUQGXQJ HLQHV (LVHQEDKQVGDPPV³ 6e Congrès européen de mécanique
des sols et fondations, Vienne, 1976, vol. 3.
Zeevaert L. ± ³Discussion on negative friction and reduction of SRLQWEHDULQJFDSDFLW\´Proc.
4th.ICSMFE, 1957, vol. 3.
40 Summary ASIRI National Project

CHAPTER 2
Operating mechanisms
This chapter presents the operating mechanisms applicable to a group of inclusions, which
serves as an essential prerequisite to raising the notions of Design and Dimensioning in
subsequent chapters. These mechanisms, which pertain to load transfer and subsequent impact
on settlements, rely to a considerable extent on full-scale experiments, in addition to physical
and numerical models, conducted within the scope of the ASIRI National Project; however,
they also incorporate previous results, especially as regards the negative skin friction model
proposed by Combarieu (1974).
According to its underlying principle, the soil reinforcement technique using rigid inclusions
introduces a whole sequence of complex interactions, from the structure being supported
down to the substratum layer:
± Interaction between the structure and the load transfer platform, depending on both platform
thickness and foundation stiffness;
± Interaction between the transfer platform and the reinforced soil block composed of the soft
soil layer and rigid inclusions;
± Interaction at the interface between the soft soil and the inclusions, where successively
negative then positive friction develops over the depth;
± Lastly, interaction between inclusion tip and load-bearing soil.
Once these interaction mechanisms have been demonstrated, attention will focus on
explaining the negative skin friction model, as well as load transfer mechanisms and the
associated settlements and deformations. In order to trim the length of Chapters 3 and 5,
dedicated respectively to design considerations and justifications, the analytical formulations
related to negative skin friction and load transfer in the platform will be developed in this
chapter.
As a conclusion to this chapter, lessons will be drawn from full-scale field experiments, which
are considered an essential step towards producing an effective design, along with a review of
seismic loadings as set forth in the Guide on Soil Improvement and Reinforcement Processes
under Seismic Action, published with the support of the French Earthquake Engineering
Association (AFPS).
1. THE STRUCTURE - TRANSFER PLATFORM - INCLUSION HEAD

INTERACTION
1.1. Interaction between the Reinforced soil and the Load transfer platform
Using the set of notations selected for the ASIRI National Project framework, the load
transfer mechanism on inclusions within the granular platform can be quantified by means of
the following parameters (Fig. 2.1):
Operating mechanisms 41
± The forcHWUDQVIHUUDWH(DOVRFDOOHG³load HIILFLHQF\´1 and defined as the ratio of load Qp
acting on the rigid inclusion head to the total vertical load applied on the element mesh
(W+Q), where W is the dead load of the transfer platform and Q the force due to the
surcharge applied;
± The marginal load transfer rate G, which represents the capacity of the granular platform to
transfer surcharges towards the rigid inclusions, is defined as the ratio of load increment 'QP
applied at the rigid inclusions to the incremental vertical surcharge 'Q applied.
Figure 2.1: Forces included in the efficiency calculation.
These two parameters can be written as follows:

Qp ' Qp
E and G (2.1)
W Q 'Q
In order to describe the transfer mechanisms, it would be useful to distinguish the case of an
embankment from that of a ground slab or shallow foundation.
1.1.1. Case of an embankment
The simplest case would be that of a load transfer platform composed of a granular material
inserted at the base of an embankment; this case has been studied in simplified form by
considering a uniform load exerted on the transfer platform. In using for this transfer platform
a three-dimensional model built with discrete elements, results demonstrate that, for a given
configuration, efficiency E increases with load until reaching a threshold value. This point
corresponds to the gradual mobilization of shear strength in the granular material, through
saturation. Moreover, calculations indicate the presence of tapered and relatively stationary
zones within the transfer platform on top of the inclusion heads, where shear concentrates at
the edge (Fig. 2.2, Chevalier et al., 2010). By this shear, load is transferred from peripheral
zones towards the inclusion heads, with only slight displacements associated. The opening of
cones is correlated with the peak friction angle of the granular material (or else with the
critical state friction angle should the surrounding soil be highly compressible).
1
Also defined herHLQLVWKHQRWLRQRI³VHWWOHPHQWeffLFLHQF\´ Etass: see Section 5.

Figure 2.2: Displacement fields (top view and vertical cross-section between rigid inclusions) for
various granular transfer platform thicknesses (hm = 0.5 m, left) and (hm = 1.0 m, right).
The ultimate load efficiency increases with transfer platform thickness hm until reaching a
threshold that defines a critical thickness. This thickness value may be interpreted as the
height from which the cones meet; it also corresponds to the complete development of stress
chains related to the most heavily-loaded grains in the granular medium that form like arches
inside the load transfer platform (Fig. 2.3, Chevalier et al., 2010).
The critical thickness depends on both the spacing between inclusions and mechanical
characteristics (deformation modulus and friction angle) of the load transfer platform. A
series of centrifuge experiments by Baudouin (2010) enables evaluating this thickness.
Among other findings, these tests demonstrated that the critical thickness is found for an hm/(s
- a) ratio value close to 2/3, with hm being the transfer platform thickness, and (s - a) the clear
span spacing between inclusions.
Figure 2.3: Stress chain networks inside the granular transfer platform (hm = 1.0 m).
In continuous numerical models, this phenomenon corresponds to the full rotation of principal
stresses at the top of the transfer platform halfway between the inclusions.
Jenck's two-dimensional model (2005), which yields access to the displacement field in the
load transfer platform, highlighted that increasing the platform thickness mitigates the
differential settlements at the surface. This is illustrated in Figure 2.4, where the evolution of
settlements in the transfer platform is plotted, both in alignment with an inclusion and
between two of them. According to this two-dimensional model, a relative transfer platform
thickness hm/(s - a) equal to 1.3 prevents complete development of the arch, which is reflected
by a persistent differential settlement at the surface. A relative thickness hm/(s - a) equal to 2.0
would enable completing the arching development, as reflected by a quick equalization of
settlements within the load transfer platform. It should be pointed out that these values of 1.3
and 2.0 are taken only as examples due to the model limitations.
Figure 2.4: Vertical displacement of the two-dimensional model in alignment with an inclusion
and between two successive inclusions, during consolidation at an area ratio D = 22%.
From a general standpoint, Jenck (2005) and the series of physical models developed within
the scope of the ASIRI National Project (Jenck et al., 2006) suggest that compressibility of
the surrounding soil exerts no significant influence on efficiency E, as long as the soil is
capable of providing the required level of confinement around the inclusion heads. When this
confinement risks no longer being sufficient, the discrete models reveal the beneficial role
played by a geosynthetic reinforcement placed at the base of the transfer platform.
The following graphs (Fig. 2.5), extracted from Chevalier (2008), illustrate this role of
geosynthetic reinforcement in the case of no downdrag effect between the soft soil and
inclusions. They also display the evolution in efficiency E vs. applied loading with two values
of stiffness J for the geosynthetic and a surrounding soil of variable deformability. It can be
observed that the primary contribution of the geosynthetic becomes tangible for the most
highly-compressible supporting soils. In this case, the geosynthetic, provided it offers
adequate stiffness, is able to mobilize sufficient tension to allow confining the transfer
platform base.

Figure 2.5: Efficiency of the granular transfer platform E vs. surcharge q0 for various coefficients
of subgrade reaction; hm = 0.5 m without a ground slab (discrete 3D model).
1.1.2. Case of a ground slab or shallow foundation
A shallow foundation, ground slab or footing, if encountered, plays a vital role in load
distribution whenever the transfer platform thickness is less than the critical thickness defined
above.
In the case of a ground slab, the slab through its stiffness tends to make the settlements
uniform and initiates a significant load transfer in alignment with the inclusions, along with
the development of bending stresses in the slab.
For a given transfer platform thickness, of less than critical height, the ultimate efficiency E
with a ground slab is always greater than the value without a ground slab. Besides, efficiency
E drops as transfer platform thickness increases, combined with a positive consequence,
namely a decrease in bending stresses within the ground slab. This finding would suggest the
existence of an optimal design for the platform-slab complex.
The following series of graphs (Fig. 2.6), all extracted from Dinh¶s thesis (2009), display the
trends in efficiency E vs. surcharge (see Fig. 2.6a), as well as the ultimate efficiency vs.
transfer platformWKLFNQHVV)LJELQWKH³HPEDQNPHQW´DQG³ground slab´ cases. It can
be observed that ultimate efficiencies converge on a single value (obtained at the critical
KHLJKW IRUWKH ³HPEDQNPHQW´ case). This observation would explain why the role of ground
slab, as a load transfer element, becomes negligible from a certain transfer platform thickness.
Figure 2.6: Evolution of boundary efficiencies vs. transfer platform thickness for the "embankment"
and "ground slab" cases (physical model run in a calibration chamber).
The following diagrams (Fig. 2.7) illustrate the load transfer mechanism underneath both an
embankment and a ground slab based on the results of a continuous 3D model using the Flac
software (Laurent, 2002).
,QWKH³HPEDQNPHQW´ case (Fig. 2.7a), load transfer is driven by shear inside the embankment,
with a rotation of the principal stresses that reflects arching development.
,QWKH³ground slab´ case (Fig. 2.7b), load transfer is governed by slab stiffness and leads to a
stress concentration in the transfer platform columns situated on top of the inclusion. These
columns become preferred zones in the development of stress chain networks. The stability of
each column is provided by the confinement existing in the transfer platform as well as by the
underlying soil reaction. Insufficient confinement degrades system operations. This point
must always give rise to a specific verification in the ground slab case.
In both cases at the level of the transfer platform base, it is noticed that the settlement gradient
is localized in the immediate vicinity of inclusion heads, with settlement being relatively
uniform between inclusions.

Figure 2.7: Comparison of load transfer mechanisms underneath an embankment and ground slab
(continuous 3D model).
$VRSSRVHGWRWKH³HPEDQNPHQW´ case, efficiency under a ground slab or shallow foundation

is slightly improved with more highly compressible soils (Chevalier, 2008).
1.1.3. Special case of a transfer platform treated with hydraulic binder
Whenever mechanical properties, in particular shear strength, of the transfer platform

component material prove inadequate, a soil treatment with hydraulic binder offers remedial
action.
The specificity of materials treated with hydraulic binder (i.e. lime or cement) is their ability
to reach a significant tensile strength, in contrast with granular materials. Depending on the
soil treatment type or formula employed, the associated behavior may be of either the
³GXFWLOH´ type (case of lime-EDVHGWUHDWPHQWRU³IUDJLOH´ (a predominantly cement treatment).
This consideration yields a different load transfer evolution at the inclusion head, as shown
below in the centrifuge test results, whereby a mobile tray simulates the soil settlement
(Fig. 2.8, extracted from Okyay, 2010).
Figure 2.8: Mobile tray set-up for centrifuge tests and simulation principle for soil settlement.
1.1.3.1. Ductile behavior (lime-based treatment)
The standard case of ductile behavior is that of a lime-treated silt. The material sets rather
quickly and acquires its definitive strength after a relatively long hardening period.
When the load is applied, the maximum efficiency E is gradually reached as the soft soil
settles. Despite local cracking of the load transfer platform, this maximum efficiency is in fact
very high (Fig. 2.9a). It can be concluded that the treated transfer platform partially plays the
role that would be provided by a ground slab.
In the absence of a large-sized ground slab or shallow foundation, the transfer platform
thickness exerts a major influence due to the cracking risk associated with insufficient
thickness.
1.1.3.2. Fragile behavior (cement-based treatment)
As opposed to the lime-based treatment, a cement treatment quickly stiffens the soil in an
irreversible manner and yields higher strengths. The behavior however is fragile and brittle.
When load is applied, the maximum efficiency E is attained with very limited soft soil
settlement (Fig. 2.9b), at a level observed to be less than that associated with lime-treated soil.

Figure 2.9: Evolution in the load applied at the inclusion head with soil settlement
(comparison between lime treatment and cement treatment) (Okyay, 2010).
Nearly all load is transmitted onto the heads of rigid inclusions. For higher loads, once the
transfer platform has been damaged, efficiency drops instantaneously. This phenomenon is
correlated with the transfer platform¶s fragile behavior. Given the considerable stiffness of
transfer platforms composed of cement-treated material, the stresses transmitted prior to
failure on the soft soil may be very small, or even nonexistent.
The load transfer platform behaves like a slab loaded in bending. If the transfer platform is
covered by a ground slab or raft, then the bending loadings will be distributed between this
structural element and the transfer platform in proportion with their respective stiffness and
according to the interface bonding condition.
Transfer platform behavior may be influenced by actual placement conditions. An ineffectual

treatment during reworking of the successive layers can considerably affect transfer platform
homogeneity as a result of inadequate adhesion.
1.1.4. Edge effect
At the edge of the structure, interactions between the load transfer platform and inclusion
heads are modified relative to conditions existing in the central part of the structure, due to the
following factors:
± Asymmetry between the loading zone and the exterior unloaded zone, which necessarily
causes significant stress field variations in the transfer platform;
± Limited extension of the load transfer platform around the inclusion;
± The transfer platform's reduced lateral confinement capacity;
± The transfer platform's vertical confinement limited to the structural footprint (ground slab
or footing);
± A non-uniform stress distribution on the underside of a stiff foundation (stress peak at the
foundation edge).
These factors can induce specific failure mechanisms with, as a consequence, a lower load
limit capable of being applied at the inclusion head.
The continuous 3D model that served to justify the ICEDA project (as described in Chapter 1,
Section 7) illustrates that the stress field at the head of the peripheral row can be distinguished
from that of the interior rows, which appears to be independent of position (Fig. 2.10). In this
project, the inclusions were 1 m in diameter, with 6 m spacing, and the load transfer platform
was 2 m thick. The present calculation assumes a 200 kPa load (including the weight of the
raft).
Figure 2.10: Example of a stress field at the periphery of the structure (ICEDA project).
1.2. Reinforced soil - Ground slab Interaction
1.2.1. Definition
As opposed to the ground slab placed on a homogeneous soil that, subjected to a uniform
load, undergoes a uniform reaction across the standard section, the ground slab on a soil
reinforced by rigid inclusions undergoes a non-uniform reaction whenever transfer platform
thickness is less than the critical thickness. This reaction is stronger in alignment with each
inclusion and then weaker in the area between inclusions (Fig. 2.11). Ground slab loading
depends on how these reactions are distributed. A minimum transfer platform thickness is
recommended, while recognizing that an increase in the relative transfer platform thickness
tends to standardize these reactions. From another standpoint, a calculation performed that
neglects the soil reaction between inclusions (as a suspended floor calculation) would turn out
to be very conservative.
This reaction distribution is to be evaluated by an appropriate calculation model able to take

account of the following parameters:
± Deformation modulus of the inclusion;
± Deformation modulus of the load transfer platform, soft soil and inclusion embedment
layer;
± Interactions of shear and/or shear failure between the various elements;
± Transfer platform thickness relative to inclusion spacing.
Figure 2.11 shows the total stress measurements performed on the full-scale field experiment
at Saint-Ouen-O¶Aumône (2006). These measurements lead to the following observations,
which effectively illustrate the interaction mechanisms between reinforced soil and the
ground slab:

± In this case, which corresponds to a relatively thin transfer platform, nearly the same
stresses have been measured on the rigid inclusion as on the underside of the ground slab in
alignment with the inclusion: the bulk of load transfer thus takes place through the ground
slab;
± As consequence, stresses measured under the ground slab are sharply lower between
inclusions than when aligned with them: the distribution of reactions is therefore non-
uniform, a finding that must be taken into account when designing ground slabs.
Figure 2.11: The Saint-Ouen-l'Aumône experimental campaign (2006):

Stresses measured on the 3D test section (ground slab and displacement inclusions).
Experimental and numerical studies have demonstrated that a thinner transfer platform
enhances the efficiency of rigid inclusions in the presence of a ground slab, inasmuch as the
ground slab will participate in the load transfer process. Compared to an infinitely thick
transfer platform, in which failure shear mechanisms cannot extend to the upper part of the
transfer platform, the presence of a ground slab on a thin transfer platform modifies how these
mechanisms develop through loading of the ground slab itself.
If a limited transfer platform thickness were associated with high mechanical characteristics
(modulus of compressibility, friction angle, cohesion), it would be possible to obtain optimal
efficiency, leading in turn to a maximum stress concentration on inclusion heads and therefore
a maximum decrease of settlements. In exchange, the ground slab would be more heavily
loaded in bending, as indicated in Figures 2.12 and 2.13 (Okyay, 2010). The characteristics of
both transfer platform and ground slab need to be defined so as to identify an optimum
between loadings in ground slab and settlements.
Figure 2.12: Influence of the transfer platform modulus of elasticity on efficiency,
settlements and loadings in a ground slab.
Ground slab: thickness = 20 cm;
Transfer platform: height = 60 cm and friction angle = 31°, variable modulus of elasticity;
Inclusions: diameter = 35 cm and spacing = 2 m.
Figure 2.13: Influence of the transfer platform friction angle and cohesion on bending moments in the
ground slab (Okyay, 2010; Okyay and Dias, 2010).
Ground slab: thickness = 20 cm;
Transfer platform: height = 60 cm and modulus E = 70 MPa, variable friction angle or cohesion;
Inclusions: diameter = 35 cm and spacing = 2 m.
The definition and control of the transfer platform component material, as well as its level of
compaction and aptitude for eventual treatment, are all keys to ensuring effective operations
of this transfer platform on a group of rigid inclusions. It would seem essential to define a
range of minimum and maximum values for the transfer platform¶s mechanical
characteristics, while acknowledging the placement conditions and their eventual evolution
(e.g. lime-treated soil, whose characteristics vary according to moisture conditions). The

upper values derived typically correspond to an upper bound of structural element loadings,
and lower values are associated with an upper bound of settlements.
The soil study executed in accordance with the sequence of geotechnical engineering missions
(see NF P 94-500 Standard, December 2006) is expected to establish a succession of soil and
fill layers, along with the values of parameters required as input for the calculation model
(Chapters 4 and 6).
1.2.2. Design considerations
Ground slab design and computation rely on DTU 13.3 (Standard NF P 11-213), yet still need
to incorporate the specific type of non-uniform distribution of reactions on the ground slab
underside. Along these lines, the simplified method for evaluating displacements and
loadings, as detailed in Appendix C of DTU 13.3, can only be applied to a reinforcement
configuration by rigid inclusions provided the corrective terms have been integrated. Such an
approach will be explained in Chapter 5.
These principles will now be applied by distinguishing inclusion meshes in a standard ground
slab section (central zone removed from the edges and joints) from meshes at the periphery of
the structure or joints and meshes positioned at a corner (Fig. 2.14).
Figure 2.14: Distinct zones to be considered for ground slab design and calculation.
The cases of point loads will also be determinant in the ground slab design process. In
practice, ground slab stiffness relative to the foundation base will imply a redistribution of
point forces on each mesh. The behavior of the foundation base (reinforced soil + transfer
platform) will remain controlled by the resultant of various reactions derived (by analogy with
Barré de Saint-9HQDQW¶s regularization principle for beams). Along these lines, the behavior
of the foundation base below the ground slab can be related to the behavior found below a
uniform loading with the same mesh resultant.
Under these conditions, the ground slab needs to be studied when exposed to a combination of
point loads at the ground slab surface, along with the reactions calculated on the underside.
Such reactions are estimated for an equivalent uniform loading applied to each mesh (see
Chapter 5: Justifications).
1.3. Reinforced soil - Footing Interaction
1.3.1. Definition
Whenever foundation elements with strong inertia (i.e. footing, raft) are submitted to loadings
that are not vertical and centered (moments, horizontal forces), the role of the transfer
platform extends beyond distributing uniform vertical loads: it must provide for an effective
distribution and transmission of forces, both vertical and transverse, between inclusion heads
and surrounding soil.
The transfer platform between the foundation base and inclusion heads allows for:
± Reducing, at the inclusion head, the axial and shear forces, and below, the compressive and
tensile stresses tied to bending; in turn, this may serve to avoid having to install rebar or
reinforcement elements (cage, section or tube);
± Better distributing the non-centered, vertical footing loadings on the inclusions;
± Limiting the parasitic forces relative to inclusion offset problems under the footing;
± Returning to a spread footing design, provided verification of sufficient transfer platform
thickness to prevent inducing bending loads in the footing.
The rigid inclusion design is inextricably tied to the characteristics of both the soil to be
reinforced and the load transfer platform.
The justifications to be provided in design calculations pertain, in the general case, to the two
following criteria:
± Maximum loads on the block of reinforced soil, and justification of the various types of
foundations with respect to failure;
± Absolute settlement of the various structural elements within the given structure,
justification of differential settlements either within the structure or between structure and
ground slab, depending on the allowable tolerances specific to each structure as well as
current regulations.
The tolerance on inclusion execution (as will be defined in Chapter 7) must be taken into
account during design of the footing and supported structure. Above this value, justification
must be provided that behavior remains compatible with the structural configuration.
2. SURROUNDING SOIL - INCLUSION INTERACTION
2.1. Foreword
The interaction between surrounding soil and inclusion remains closely tied to the load
transfer mechanism via a transfer platform.
The role of the inclusions is to transmit the load resulting from structural dead load and
service loads in deep soil layers offering greater load-bearing capacity. The purpose here is to
increase load-bearing capacity while reducing structural settlements, for which the rigid
inclusions will be designed in order to reach a load-bearing layer at depth.

Inclusions are mobilized not only by the load directly applied on their head, but also by the
friction of the surrounding soil, subjected to settlement under the loading applied by the
weight of the structure.
Over the upper part of the reinforced soil, the soil settles to a greater extent than the
inclusions, whereas at the base the inclusions settle more than the soil. A depth therefore
exists where both soil and inclusions settle to the same extent: this is known as the neutral
point. In the upper part, this effect takes the form of a negative friction loading the inclusion,
until reaching a maximum compressive load at the neutral point (Fig. 2.15).
Figure 2.15: Schematic of positive and negative friction.
This load is absorbed below the neutral point by means of positive friction and tip resistance.
The incorporation of soft soil action on the inclusions is complex since it involves a
combination of the following types of behavior:
± Transfer of forces by means of friction from the inclusion towards the soil and away from
the soil;
± Transfer of forces at the inclusion tip;
± Soil settlement between inclusions;
± Inclusion settlement by elastic shortening and tip penetration.
The main parameters to be integrated into the operating mechanism that describes this soil-
inclusion interaction are as follows:
± Area ratio;
± Soil overconsolidation ratio;
± Deformability of the soft soil;
± Deformability of the load-bearing soil;
± Eventual creep rate of the soft soil (case of organic soils, peat, etc.);
± Modulus of elasticity of the inclusion;
± Soil-inclusion shaft friction, negative as well as positive, and tip resistance.
All these parameters exert an influence on both the stress distribution and differential
settlements between the soil and rigid inclusions.
Remark: An evaluation of the shaft friction and tip resistance parameters must
take into account the type of inclusion and its installation technique, by
distinguishing those inclusions performed without soil displacementHJ³bored
piles´) from those executed with soil displacementHJ³driven steel pipe piles´).
2.2. Negative skin friction
2.2.1. Underlying principles
Negative skin friction is produced when soil settlement along the rigid inclusion shaft exceeds
the vertical displacement of the rigid inclusion itself.
In contrast with the pile, rigid inclusions do not experience negative skin friction like a
parasitic force, but instead the negative friction serves to relieve the soft soil layer of the
residual stress existing at the transfer platform base. Such transfer onto the inclusions occurs
gradually with depth.
2.2.2. Neutral point
The equality between the rigid inclusion vertical displacement and the vertical soil settlement
along the rigid inclusion serves to define the depth hc of the neutral point N. Above this point
N, friction is negative, while below it turns positive (Fig. 2.15).
At its head, the rigid inclusion absorbs a load QP(0).
At point N, the rigid inclusion is subjected to this load QP(0) increased by the negative skin
friction force FN (FN = ³0hc W(z).SD.dz) between the rigid inclusion head and point N.
The axial force in the rigid inclusion therefore rises between inclusion head and neutral point.
This total force [QP(0) + FN] must then be balanced by the positive friction force FP below
point N plus the tip force QP(L) (Fig. 2.15): QP(0) + FN = FP + QP(L).
In the vicinity of the inclusion shaft,VWUHVVı¶v thus decreases with depth since a portion of the
ground weight is transmitted to the inclusion via the negative skin friction mobilized above
this given point: such an effect is known as the downdrag effect.
2.2.3. Mobilization over both time and depth
The maximum negative skin friction depends on:

± Soil settlement (as a function of its compressibility and consolidation time);
± Inclusion displacement (as a function of its rigidity and embedment stiffness);
± Surcharges compared to the set of initial conditions;
± Soil-inclusion interface conditions;
± Boundary conditions (single inclusion vs. inclusion within a group).

The negative skin friction stress fn increases with relative soil-inclusion displacement Gy until
reaching a threshold value qs for relative displacement Gyc (on the order of a few millimeters),
hence a very small amount (Fig. 2.16). Given the consolidation process, this negative skin
friction fn is maximized in the long term and must be calculated on the basis of effective
stresses.
Figure 2.16: Simplified mobilization law of unit shaft friction qs.
The methods typically implemented to evaluate the forces due to negative skin friction do not
explicitly introduce a mobilization law for these forces as a function of relative soil-pile
displacement; instead, these methods tend to be failure methods.
The relationship between effective vertical and horizontal stresses can be written as follows:
ı¶h .ı¶v (z) (2.2)
with K being the earth pressure coefficient at the soil-pile boundary.
/HW¶V GHQRWH į WKH soil-pile friction angle, which depends on both the type of pile and soil
characteristics. The shear stress due to negative skin friction is then expressed as:
fn(z) = K. ı¶v (z). Tanį (2.3.)
,QSUDFWLFHWKHSURGXFW.WDQįLVFRQVLGHUHGDVDWHUPZLWKWZRLQVHSDUDEOHIDFWRUV
Negative skin friction may appear in cases other than surcharges on a soft soil, namely:
± Natural or artificial soils (recent embankments) settling under their own weight;
± Lowering of the water table;
± Liquefiable soils or loose soils that may settle by either saturation or densification in the
presence of seismic effects.
A detailed description of the protocol for calculating negative skin friction around a pile (or
an inclusion), whether single or in a group, will be provided below (see Section 3 of this
chapter), with reference to the model proposed by Combarieu (1974, 1985).
2.3. Soil resistance mobilization
The resistant part of the inclusion located below the neutral point, also called the resisting
length, allows absorbing, through positive friction and tip resistance, the maximum inclusion
load at the neutral point.
Mobilization of the positive unit shaft friction depends on relative displacement between
inclusion and surrounding soil, should the inclusion displacement be greater than soil
displacement.
The resisting length of the inclusion will be calculated according to methods specifically
devised for deep foundations. The safety factors however will be deliberately selected at
lower values (without applying a reduction factor to the creep load), given that a higher
displacement can be accepted for an inclusion than for a deep foundation.
2.4. Inclusion settlement
Loading tests have demonstrated that, like for piles, the vertical settlement of a single
inclusion bearing on a stiff layer is weak under a service load. Frank and Zhao (1982)
provided a method for calculating these settlements based on pressuremeter characteristics.
The settlement of an inclusion results from both its tip settlement and elastic shortening.
Elastic shortening of the various types of inclusions tends to be small in comparison with soft
soil settlement. Examples of characteristic deformation modulus values for inclusions are
given in Chapter 7 (Section 3.4).
As explained in Section 5 of this chapter, the settlement of a group of inclusions will be

calculated as the sum of two primary components: settlement of the actual reinforced soil
(including transfer platform settlement), combined with the settlement of non-reinforced deep
layers.
2.5. Loadings other than vertical and centered
2.5.1. Asymmetrical loading
In the case of large-sized foundations, the predominant vertical direction of loads to be

absorbed and the type of interaction mechanisms between soil and inclusions lead to primarily
compressive forces in the inclusions. Only those inclusions placed at the periphery of a loaded
zone would be able to accommodate additional bending loadings (i.e. the edge effect).
In the example of a small group of inclusions underneath a single footing (Fig. 2.17), the edge
effect that already exists in the presence of a vertical load becomes predominant when the
footing is exposed to a combined loading (i.e. transverse force and moment). A specific study
is needed to define the geometry and mechanical characteristics of the transfer platform that
yield a sufficient reduction in loadings in the inclusions so as to avoid, if applicable,
reinforcing the inclusions.

Figure 2.17: Example of asymmetrical loading leading to a non-uniform distribution of forces
in the inclusions.
Under large-scale foundations, edge effects are to be taken into consideration, and this leads
to calculating the inclusions close to edges differently from those located in the central zones,
whose loadings tend more often to be uniform.
As an example, under tall embankments, bending loadings may appear at the heads of
inclusions placed below the slope, in addition to compressive loadings developed along the
embankment axis. This condition might justify the incorporation of reinforcement layers
(geosynthetics, geogrids) at the embankment base in order to reduce the horizontal
displacement and its influence on inclusion heads. The asymmetry of embankment loads leads
moreover to a non-uniform distribution of vertical forces within the inclusions.
2.5.2. Transverse loading
As opposed to footings placed on piles (where transverse forces are fully distributed at the
pile heads), the granular transfer platform absorbs a portion of deformations, which could
produce the beneficial impact of decreasing displacements at the inclusion heads.
The transverse forces exerted on the foundation are distributed, via the granular transfer
platform, between the inclusions and the soil.
These lower forces applied at inclusion heads, when combined with the fact that inclusions
are free head, explain why the loadings induced in inclusions are typically significantly lower
than in the case of a footing installed on piles.
3. LOAD TRANSFER MECHANISMS
Load transfer mechanisms rely heavily on the model Combarieu (1974, 1985) proposed in
order to describe negative skin friction either around a single pile or on a group of piles.
In the case of reinforcement by rigid inclusions, this original model is only applicable to the
height of soft soil around the inclusions.
Combarieu subsequently proposed extending this model to the soil located above inclusion
heads in order to study load transfers within the platform, specifically in the following cases:
± Embankments lying directly over the inclusions (piled embankments) (1988, 2007);
± Load transfer platforms in the case of flexible ground slabs or rigid footings lying on soils
reinforced by inclusions (1990, 2007).
Other methods have also been proposed to study load transfer inside the platform, including
WKH³GLIIXVLRQFRQH´ method.
3.1. Negative skin friction over the soft soil height
3.1.1. Single inclusion or single pile
The model was developed to calculate the negative skin friction acting on structural piles.
Conventional methods consist of estimating the critical height hc, which corresponds to the
inclusion length actually subjected to negative skin friction (Fig. 2.18), and then calculating
the intensity of this negative friction based on the following relation:
hc
FN 2 S rp ³ K tan G V'
0
v ( z , r p ) dz (2.4)
in assuming WKDW WKH HIIHFWLYH YHUWLFDO VWUHVV ı¶v (z, rp) in the soil along the inclusion is not
disturbed by the presence of the inclusion itself and is identified with V¶1 (z), the effective
vertical stress in free field without inclusions.

Figure 2.18: Negative skin friction calculation diagram.
The height hc over which negative skin friction GHYHORSVLVUHIHUUHGWRDVWKH³FULWLFDOKHLJKW´.

K.tanG is the term that relates shear stress and vertical stress along the inclusion shaft.
According to Combarieu¶s proposal, which complies with those of many specialists, the two
terms need not be differentiated (i.e. K: earth pressure coefficient, tanG: coefficient of soil-pile
friction), but instead their product is to be treated like a single parameter whose value depends
on the type of pile (or inclusion) and on soft soil properties. These values were determined
experimentally on piles.
When FN is calculated using this method, its value always remains overestimated due to the
fact of overvaluing ı¶v (z, rp).
Combarieu (1974) proposed a more satisfactory approach for dealing with negative skin
friction, by introducing a modification in the state of stresses along the inclusion shaft as a
result of the downdrag effect. This modification reflects the fact that, with the pile or
inclusion taking a negative skin friction force, the soil around the inclusion becomes
unloaded.
The effective vertical stress along the inclusion is thus locally reduced and its value less than
that derived in the absence of an inclusion. This force transfer is manifested by a stress
ı¶v (z, r) being variable and increasing with distance r to the inclusion axis. This variation
describes a shear that develops as a function of surface areas concentric to the inclusion.
The approach can also be extended to groups of inclusions and enables determining the
critical height hc.
This method does not impose any other hypotheses than a sufficient level of soil
compressibility, so that the settlement allows attaining the ultimate negative skin friction
value.
Combarieu (1985) went on to define a radial variation law for vertical stress at height z, by
introducing the notion of downdrag effect of soft soil around the inclusion (Fig. 2.19).
Figure 2.19: Distribution of stress V¶v (z, r).
For r > rp:

§ O
r rp
·
¨ ¸
V' v ( z , r ) V' v ( z ) V'1 ( z ) V' v ( z )¨1 e
rp
¸ (2.5)
¨ ¸
© ¹
where:
± V¶1 (z) is the effective vertical stress in free field within the ground in the final state, as
calculated without taking into account the presence of the inclusion;
± V¶v (z) = V¶v (z, rp) is the effective vertical stress at the inclusion contact in the final state,
while taking into account the downdrag effect;
± V¶v (z, r) is the actual effective vertical stress at a distance r from the inclusion axis, in
taking into account the disturbance due to the presence of the inclusion;
± O is the so-called downdrag coefficient that characterizes the magnitude of the downdrag
effect around the inclusion.
The downdrag coefficient O is assigned the following values, all of which have been obtained
experimentally (Fig. 2.20).
Figure 2.20: Abacus used to determine the value of O (Standard NF P 94-262).

1
O if K.tanG d 0.15
0.5 0.25 K tan G
O 0.385 K tan G if 0.15 d K.tanG d 0.385
O 0 if K.tanG t 0.385
The case O = 0, i.e. maximum downdrag effect, corresponds to the simplifying hypothesis of
zero reduction in vertical stresses due to the presence of inclusions.
The values of K.tanG, which are correlated with the type of inclusion or pile as well as with
the nature and characteristics of the surrounding soil, stem from full-scale experiments
conducted on deep foundations exposed to typically strong intensities of the final negative
skin friction that is necessary for a successful interpretation (only obtained after what are
often long consolidation periods).
Table 2.1 below lists the values of K.tanG proposed in 1985 for piles (which could also
constitute rigid inclusions), by focusing on those piles whose mode of execution is applicable
to current inclusion types of smaller dimensions. Table 2.2 provides the values of K.tanG
proposed in the NF P 94-262 Standard (Appendix H: Evaluation of negative skin friction on a
foundation element).
The various types of inclusions currently performed on sites have been introduced into this
table as well. It must nonetheless be noted that in justifying a group of inclusions, the major
part of forces is absorbed at the inclusion heads; forces absorbed in the soft soil by means of
negative skin friction are relatively weak, and the influence of the term K.tanG thus remains
limited.
Table 2.1: Recommended values of parameter K.tanG.
Piles or inclusions executed by displacement or under pressure,

in fine-grained soils with a liquid to soft consistency or in organic soils 0.20*
*reduced to 0.15 for open elements
Piles or inclusions bored into fine-grained soils with a liquid to soft consistency
or into organic soils 0.15*
*reduced to 0.10 for the lost casing method
Piles or inclusions executed by displacement or under pressure,
in fine-grained soils with firm to stiff consistency 0.30*
*reduced to 0.20 for open elements
Piles or inclusions bored into fine-grained soils with firm to stiff consistency
0.20*
*reduced to 0.15 for the lost casing method
0.35-1 (depending
Piles or inclusions executed by displacement or bored, in sands and gravels on compaction
grade)
Table 2.2: Values of the K.tanG parameter (Standard NF P 94-262).
Bored cased piles Bored piles Driven piles

Peat Organic soils 0.10 0.15 0.20
Soft soils 0.10 0.15 0.20
Clays and silts
Firm / stiff soils 0.15 0.20 0.30
Very loose 0.35
Sands and gravels Loose 0.45
Dense 1.00
The principle of vertical force conservation in the model yields the following differential
equation, written using stressı¶v (z) as the variable (Combarieu, 1985):
dV' v ( z ) dV'1 ( z )
P( O ) V' v ( z ) (2.6.)
dz dz
with:
O² K tan G
P( O ) (2.7)
1 O rp
The solution to this equation results in the general expression of effective vertical stressı¶v(z)
at the soil-pile interface, over intervals where dV¶1(z)/dz can be assumed constant:
1 dV'1 ( z ) ª 1 dV'1 ( z ) º
V' v ( z ) e P( O ) z «V' v ( 0 ) » (2.8)
P( O ) dz ¬ P( O ) dz ¼
In the special case of a homogeneous, saturated soft soil layer with groundwater at the surface
dV'1 ( z )
and subjected to a uniform surcharge q0, dV¶1(z)/dz is constant: J' in the final state.
dz
Hence, after consolidation,ı¶1 (z) can be expressed as: V '1 z J ' z q0 ,

where J¶LVWKHsubmerged unit weight of the soil.
This simple case leads to the following:
J' P( O )z ª J' º
V' v ( z ) e «q 0 » (2.9)
P( O ) ¬ P( O ) ¼
and the height hc over which negative skin friction is exerted, i.e. from the inclusion head to
the neutral point as determined E\WKHFRQGLWLRQı¶v (hc) = J¶Kc, verifies the relation:
P (O )hc 1
e P ( O ) hc
q
P (O ) 0 1
J'
which, as a preference, is to be solved graphically.
If the calculated hc value is less than H (i.e. the soft soil thickness), then the negative skin
2 S rp K tan G
friction resultant is written as: FN q0 ,
P (O )
meaning that proportionality exists between FN and q0.
If the calculated hc value is greater than H, then FN is to be applied over the entire soft soil
thickness H, with the negative skin friction resultant being expressed as:
2 S rp K tan G
FN >J ' hc q0 V 'v (hc )@
P (O )
ZKHUHı¶v (hc) is given by:
J' P (O )hc ª J' º
V 'v (hc ) e « q0
P (O ) ¬ P (O ) »¼
It is shown that FN, which reaches its maximum value at the end of the consolidation period,
is very simply correlated with the degree of consolidation whenever hc is less than height H.

3.1.2. Inclusion within a group
In the presence of many inclusions, the group effect, which increases as the mesh becomes
tighter, combines with the downdrag effect.
Let's take a group of rigid inclusions regularly distributed in an unlimited number (Fig. 2.21).
Figure 2.21: Layout of the group of rigid inclusions.
The following parameters are to be defined:

± a and b: distances between inclusion axes along two orthogonal directions,
± rp: inclusion radius.
The calculation is comparable to that of a single inclusion, merely expressing the conservation
of forces applied at the element mesh A = ab (zone of influence).
This element mesh is related to a cylindrical mesh of radius R,FDOOHGWKH³radius of influence´

(Fig. 2.22):
ab
R
S
Figure 2.22: Zone of influence of one pile in an unlimited group.
Figure 2.23 schematically illustrates the negative skin friction model being studied along with
its associated notations.
Figure 2.23: Negative skin friction model according to Combarieu (1985).
This analysis results in a differential equation identical to that in (2.6), which makes it
possible to determineı¶v (z, rp) (Combarieu, 1985):
dV' v ( z , r p ) dV'1 ( z )
P( O , R ) V' v ( z , r p ) (2.10)
dz dz
with:
O² K tan G
P( O , R ) R rp
if O z 0 (2.11)
§ O R · O rp
rp
1 O ¨1 ¸e
¨ r ¸
© p ¹
or:
2 K tan G
P( 0 , R ) if O 0 (2.12)
§§ ·
2
· rp
¨¨ R ¸ ¸
¨¨ ¨ r 1¸
¸ ¸
©© p ¹ ¹
These relations are also given in the form of an abacus (Fig. 2.24).
Figure 2.24: $EDFXVXVHGWRGHWHUPLQHȝȜ5DFFRUGLQJWR6WDQGDUG1)3-262).

dV'1 ( z )
A solution is feasible in situations where the term (homogeneous at a unit weight)
dz
can be considered as constant, i.e. cases in which the profile V¶1 (z) can be linearized by layer.
Both the critical height determination and total negative skin friction force calculation are
carried out in the same manner as for a single inclusion. A number of software programs have
been developed for this purpose.
The vertical stress profileEHWZHHQLQFOXVLRQVı¶v (z, r) is obtained by solving (2.10), which is
a first-order linear differential equation. This solution uses as input the vertical stress profile
V¶1 (z) that would be obtained without any inclusion and the values of the two coefficients
K.tanG and O, which serve to characterize the downdrag effect around the inclusions (by
which vertical stress at the inclusion contact ı¶v (z, rp) decreases).
The negative skin friction along the inclusion is expressed like for the single inclusion, with
ȝ(O) being replaced E\ȝO, R/rp), where ȝO) corresponds to the limit derived for R/rp =
In assuming, as is the case with older conventional methods, that the vertical stressı¶1 (z) is
not disturbed by the presence of rigid elements, this would be equivalent to a maximum
downdrag effect O = 0, which does not prevent the group effect from intervening. Integrating
equation (2.10) yields the solution provided by Zeevaert in 1957, which constitutes a specific
solution of the proposed more general solution.
The average vertical stress ıv*(z) between inclusions is expressed, over the height where
negative skin friction is applied, as follows:
2 K tan G r p
> @
V v * ( z ) V'1 ( z ) V'1 ( z ) V' v ( z , r p ) (2.13)
R 2

r p 2 P( O ,
R
rp
)
The critical height hc is often determined by adopting the hypothesis that negative skin
friction only acts if the stress in contact with WKHLQFOXVLRQı¶v (z, rp) is greater than the initial
stress V¶v0 (z). The negative skin friction force acting on the inclusion can then be calculated
by the expression in (2.8) over the height hc or H.
Simon (2001) suggested an alternative whereby negative skin friction only develops upon
reaching a depth where the average vertical stress between inclusioQVıv*(z) remains greater
than or equal to the initial stress V¶v0 (z).
Combarieu's approach is based on ultimate stresses, where inclusions are only slightly
deformable, while the soil settlement is sufficient for shear stresses in contact with the
inclusions to reach their ultimate values W (z); these ultimate values are obtained for relative
displacements between soil and inclusion (or pile) on the order of 0.01 D (where D is the
element diameter). They stem from experimental tests on negative skin friction.
In order to verify method applicability, a study of deformations without inclusions must be

performed.
More specifically, this method produces:

± The shear stress at all points on the inclusion shaft;
± W (z) = K.tanG. ı¶v (z, rp);
± The average vertical stressEHWZHHQLQFOXVLRQVıv*(z), as used in the settlement calculation;
depth hc of the neutral point.
3.1.3. Inclusion in a group with a limited number of inclusions
In the case of a limited group of inclusions, the proposed rules are semi-empirical and have
been calibrated on centrifuge test results (Cartier, 1994).
In order to evaluate the negative skin friction on any element in a limited group of inclusions,
the single file case (Fig. 2.25) must be distinguished from that of several rows (Fig. 2.26) and
then the following parameters need to be determined:
± FN (f): total negative skin friction force on a single inclusion;
± FN (R): total negative skin friction force on an inclusion in an unlimited group.
The negative skin friction on each group inclusion (whether interior, exterior or placed in the
corner) is obtained by a linear combination of the terms FN (f) and FN (R); this combination
is defined by separating either the single file case or the several row case.
3.1.3.1. Single file
1 2
FNa FN ( R) FN (f)
3 3
2 1
FNe FN ( R) FN (f)
3 3
Figure 2.25: Layout of an inclusion in a single file.
3.1.3.2. Several rows
FNi FN (R) (i)o interior
7 5
FNa FN ( R ) FN (f) (a)o corner
12 12
5 1 Figure 2.26: Layout of an inclusion in several rows.

FNe FN ( R) FN (f) (e)o exterior
6 6
3.1.4. Model limitations
The following limitations need to be taken into consideration:

± The shape of the selected ı¶v (z, r) field implies that shear on the cylinder of radius R is
nonzero at the edge of the cylinder equivalent to the mesh. This point contradicts the fact that
at the mesh edge, for reasons of symmetry, the shear must equal zero;
± The method only applies to the volume where the negative skin friction actually develops; it
does not allow analyzing force distribution below the neutral point. Under the horizontal

plane passing at this level ("neutral plane of equal settlement"), friction is positive and
contributes to increasing the load transmitted to the soil between inclusions by means of
reducing the force being supported by these specific inclusions. The resulting settlement of
the surrounding soil can therefore only be estimated in an approximate manner based on a set
of complementary hypotheses;
± Soil stiffness under the inclusion tip and deep layer stiffness also prove to be major factors
since they determine the magnitude of differential settlement between the inclusion tip and
surrounding soil, thereby justifying the implicit hypothesis of Combarieu¶s method, according
to which relative soil-inclusion displacements in a standard cross-section are of sufficient
magnitude for the negative skin friction to reach its ultimate values.
3.2. Load transfer in the platform
Among the various analytical methods available to evaluate load transfer in the platform, the
ASIRI National Project forwards the two following tested methods:
± The fictitious inclusion method (developed by Combarieu), which offers the advantage of
providing a homogeneous approach consistent with the negative skin friction evaluation
method described above, based on the same set of principles (downdrag effect on fictitious
columns in the embankment);
± The diffusion cone method, which entails an approach compliant with the mechanisms
exposed during the various experiments and modeling exercises conducted within the scope
of the ASIRI National Project (i.e. load transfer by diffusion above the inclusion), as detailed
in Section 1 of this chapter.
These two methods and their limitations will be discussed below.
3.2.1. The fictitious inclusion method
3.2.1.1. Description
Combarieu (1988) proposed modeling the phenomena involved in load transfer above the
inclusion heads by assimilation with the negative skin friction that would have developed, had
these inclusions been fictitiously extended over the same height hr as that where this negative
friction has been exerted (Fig. 2.27). Parameter hr is thus equal to the thickness HR of the
embankment or load transfer platform supporting a flexible structure subjected to a uniform
load of intensity q0.
In the special case of cohesionless materials, it is suggested to set the value of .WDQĳr = 1
ĳr: embankment friction angle), yielding the value O = 0 for the downdrag coefficient.
The vertical stress in the soil between inclusions is then uniform and given by:
Jr
q S ( 1 e P r hr ) q 0 e P r hr (2.14)
Pr
with:
2 rp K tan M r
Pr
R² rp ²
where:
rp: inclusion radius,
R: equivalent mesh radius (or 2R: spacing between inclusions).
In the special case of embankments made with cohesionless materials, this expression is the
same as that exposed by Terzaghi in his study on the silo effect for sands.
Figure 2.27: &RPEDULHX¶s approach (1988).
In its general form, µr is also a function of O (directly related to K.tanG), the downdrag
coefficient introduced for negative skin friction and set equal to zero for a high-quality
embankment (granular material).
The expression yielding qs+ makes it possible to study the influence of the various geometric
parameters (rp/R, HR/R) on system efficiency. Moreover, in the calculation performed in
accordance with Combarieu's method, it has been verified that the load absorbed by an
inclusion is bounded by the load value corresponding to its zone of influence.
By applying Combarieu's model to the embankment with fictitious elements featuring the
same cross-section as the inclusions in soft soil, a comprehensive approach can be established
for the design of reinforcement by rigid inclusions, through setting an objective of minimizing
the stress applied on the soft soil.
From a general standpoint, it is sought to limit the stress qs+ on the soil between inclusions,
with the aim of limiting settlements. By setting an appropriate value for the stress reduction
rate (SRR) = qs+ / Jr.hr, it becomes possible to determine an acceptable mesh geometry for a
fixed inclusion radius rp. Each inclusion is then subjected to the following force at the head:
(FN + S rp2.Jr.hr), where FN is the negative skin friction developed over height hr.
3.2.1.2. Limitations and improvements introduced
The original method proposed by Combarieu in 1988 to treat the fictitious inclusion presented
the disadvantage of leading to stress reduction rate (SRR) increasing with embankment height
HR, which contradicts both the observations recorded on reduced-scale models and the
theoretical results established by Hewlett or Kempton (which indicate that this rate actually
reaches a threshold value vs. increasing embankment heights).

In reality, the method to be applied is based on the position of an upper plane of equal
settlement in the embankment, and not based on the upper surface position of the
embankment.
For the work carried out in the ASIRI National Project, the method has been modified
(Combarieu, 2007, 2008) as regards its extension to the calculation of forces passing through
the embankment above the inclusion heads. For this purpose, an empirical formulation has
been introduced to provide the active height ha between inclusion heads and the upper plane
of equal settlement (Fig. 2.27), vs. radius R of the equivalent circular mesh, i.e.:
ha R R
10 0.4(6 )² if <6
rp rp rp
ha R
and 10 if !6
rp rp
It is also proposed to evaluate the coefficient K.tanG in the embankment by means of the
following empirical relation:
K.tanG = 1.1 ± e±E/E0 (2.15)
based on the deformation modulus E of the layer of thickness ha (with E0 = 50 MPa).
This modulus value E is equal to the Ev2 modulus measured at the 60-cm diameter plate,
which may also be estimated from correlations with other deformability measurements.
The residual stress between inclusions can now be written under these conditions:
Jr
qs q( ha ) ( 1 e P r ha ) J r ( hr ha )e P r ha (2.16)
Pr
If the calculated value of ha exceeds HR, then it is necessary to set ha = HR.
The SRR ratio of residual stress qs+ to applied stress Jr.hr tends towards the finite value
e P r ha as hr increases indefinitely.
Introduction of the plane of equal settlement causes a rise in qs+ and, consequently, a smaller
force at the inclusion head. Conversely, negative friction along the shaft, generated by qs+
using a consistent mode of calculation, subsequently rises. On the whole, for efficient groups
of inclusions, this situation leads, relative to the 1988 proposals, to just a slight drop in
efficiency.
In the case of ground slabs, the upper plane of equal settlement can be related to the ground
slab underside.
3.2.1.3. Evaluation
The fictitious inclusion model is capable of describing load transfer in the platform, provided
taking into account the specific points raised in the previous section (e.g. identification of an
upper plane of equal settlement). Chapter 3 will detail the requirements inherent in analytical
type calculation models.
3.2.2. Diffusion cone method
Load transfer can be modeled by means of diffusion above the inclusion, with reference to the
mechanisms highlighted in the various experimental and modeling studies conducted as part
of the ASIRI National Project (Chevalier et al., 2010, 2011). As explained in Section 1 of this
chapter, it is important to recall that the load transfer mechanism depends on the specific type
of structure under consideration:
± Case of an embankment: diffusion occurs according to the model of the capital slanted at
the friction angle of the transfer platform material;
± Case of a ground slab or shallow foundation installed on a granular transfer platform: load
transfer occurs via the structural element (ground slab or shallow foundation), the vertical
transfer platform column on top of the inclusion and, to a lesser extent, the immediate vicinity
of this column.
In the case of an embankment on a granular transfer platform, load transfer takes place via
shear along a truncated cone derived from the inclusion head and forming a solid DQJOH ș
equal to the peak friction angle of the transfer platform material.
From angle T, made by the diffusion zone with the vertical direction, it is possible to evaluate
load transfer in the direction of inclusions by considering that the displaced block is
transmitting both its dead load and the load it receives directly to the soft soil. This
hypothesis, based on numerical simulation results, is compatible with the kinematic approach
calculation by the yield design theory of this rigid block in displacement: the angle T must be
equal to the friction angle M of the material in order to obtain a vertical displacement of this
block, which happens to be the only kinematically admissible direction (Fig. 2.28).
Figure 2.28: Kinematic approach of the failure calculation applied to determining

soil bearing resistance between inclusions.

Figure 2.29: The proposed load transfer mechanisms.
Based on the proposed geometry (Fig. 2.29), a determination can now be made of the share of
surcharge Qp and weight Wp of the granular layer being redirected towards the inclusions via
the load transfer zone. Both the efficiency E and capacity G of the granular transfer platform
relaying surcharges towards the inclusions can also be deduced in the case of square-section
inclusions or pile caps.
Qp
q a 2 4 a hm tan T S hm2 tan 2 T for hm d h*
sa
2 tan T
(2.17)
ª S º sa
Wp J « a 2 hm 2 a hm2 tan T hm3 tan 2 T» for h m d h * (2.18)
¬ 3 ¼ 2 tan T
E
Wp Qp
and G
a 2
4 a hm tan T S hm2 tan 2 T (2.19)
s J hm q
2
s 2
For circular-section inclusions or pile caps, with diameter a, the following are obtained:
Wp
J S hm
3
> a / 2 2
a / 2 hm tan T 2 a a / 2 hm tan T / 2 @ (2.20)
sa
q S a / 2 hm tan T
2
Qp for hm d h* (2.21)
2 tan T
Wp Qp S a / 2 hm tan T
2
E and G (2.22)
s 2 J hm q s2
Angle T is typically set equal to the peak friction angle Mp of the granular material in order to
assess the maximum efficiency capable of being mobilized for a given loading.
In comparison with numerical simulations using discrete elements run for a load transfer
platform of thickness hm = 1.0 m and 0.5 m, it is observed in Figure 2.30 that the proposed
analytical formulations serve to approximate, in a satisfactory manner, the range of load
transfer mechanisms. For small granular layer displacements, the friction angle to be
considered in the analytical formulations is indeed the peak friction angle of the granular
material introduced. For greater deformations however, it could be assumed that particle
disorganization would require adopting smaller friction angles.
Figure 2.30: Comparison between load efficiencies E and G obtained by discrete numerical
simulations and analytical calculations (Chevalier et al., 2010)
(Case of an embankment, with square inclusions a = 0.37 m, a 2.5-PPHVKDQGDUHDUDWLRĮ 22%)
4. BASIC MECHANISMS
4.1. Overall mechanism of reinforcement by rigid inclusions
/HW¶s recall that in comparison with foundations on piles or a reinforcement by flexible

inclusions of the stone columns type, a foundation soil reinforcement by rigid inclusions
features as its primary mechanism the distribution of loads between the inclusions and the
surrounding soft soil while minimizing settlements. This mechanism is also observed with
stone columns, though with the difference that stone columns produce equal settlements at the
column head and at the top of the surrounding soil.
Rigid inclusions thus serve to:

± Channel the stresses due to embankments, loads on ground slabs or rafts, towards the deeper
stiff soil strata;
± Reduce stresses in the soft soil in order to limit settlements;
± Eventually shorten consolidation time by lowering stresses in the soft soil, depending on its
overconsolidation ratio.
4.2. Behavior of the single rigid inclusion
The single rigid inclusion functions like a small pile. During loading of the rigid inclusion
head, shaft friction is quickly mobilized and then the process occurs more slowly for the tip
until reaching the ultimate resistance conventionally set at a head displacement equal to one-
tenth the inclusion diameter (Fig. 2.31).

Figure 2.31: Mobilization of total and tip resistance for a rigid inclusion.
As regards embedding the inclusion in layers beneath the soft soil layers, it would be
necessary to differentiate two very distinct cases:
± Domain no. 1: Inclusions are required for the stability and load-bearing capacity of the
structure. In this case, prescriptions from the Standard NF P 94-262 "Deep foundations" need
to be applied with, in general, a minimum embedment of 3 diameters for piles whose diameter
is less than 0.50 m. This lower embedment limit may be reduced to the minimum value of
0.50 m, provided the foundation contractor is able to guarantee execution of this pile tip
embedding operation within the load-bearing layer by either extracting samples, or
introducing a trepan or using a core sampler.
± Domain no. 2: The rigid inclusions are primarily intended to decrease settlements and are
not required to justify the stability or load-bearing capacity of the structure. From a general
standpoint, a limitation will be imposed of a minimum one-diameter embedment in the load-
bearing layer, provided a relevant evaluation has been performed of the load-bearing factor
(with respect to Standard NF P 94-262) along with a strict execution quality control (such as a
systematic recording of installation parameters), thus making it possible to guarantee
generating this minimum embedment for all inclusions. In the absence of a true load-bearing
layer, so-FDOOHG ³IORDWLQJ´ inclusions may be envisaged, albeit subjected to the condition of
specific justifications.
4.3. Behavior of a rigid inclusion within a group
Under the effect of soft soil settlement around grouped rigid inclusions, a negative skin
friction develops over the upper part of each inclusion; this friction increases with either the
embankment height or the surcharge. In this part, the vertical displacement of the neighboring
soil is greater than that of the inclusion itself. In contrast, over the lower part, the friction is
positive and moreover at each level, the vertical displacement of the rigid inclusion is greater
than that of the surrounding soil. A level of inclusion therefore exists at which the
displacements of both the inclusion and surrounding soil are identical; this level is referred to
as the ³QHXWUDO SODQH´ and corresponds to where the shear stress due to shaft friction equals
zero, and the normal force is maximized in the inclusion.
Two other neutral planes, located respectively above the inclusion heads and below the
inclusion tips, are typically defined as well (see Fig. 2.32):
Figure 2.32: Position of the 3 neutral planes determined from the shear stress profile
along the inclusion.
The upper neutral plane is the most interesting to study, since above it the settlements are
uniform and, as such, the upper embankment surface will not be subjected to ³egg carton´
type deformations (Fig. 2.33).
The lower neutral plane is located beneath the inclusions in the bearing soil, at a level where
soil settlement becomes uniform once again.
Figure 2.33: Pavement on rigid inclusions dispOD\LQJDGHIRUPHG³HJJFDUWRQ´ surface.

4.4. Soil behavior around the rigid inclusion within a group
In a reinforcement configuration using rigid inclusions, the soft soil, once relieved of a
portion of the stresses contributed by the embankment or ground slab, settles less than
unreinforced soil. The inclusion head reveals a sudden variation in settlement that quickly
becomes uniform away from the rigid inclusion shaft (Fig. 2.34).
Figure 2.34: Soil displacements at the level of the inclusion head.
It thus proves necessary to introduce a thick enough transfer platform to avoid differential
displacements at the top of an embankment or hard points under a ground slab. An
insufficient transfer platform thickness leads, in the case of an embankment, to failure within
a soil volume above the inclusion head penetrating the surface (compare Figs. 2.35 and 2.36)
or alternatively, in the case of a ground slab, to high stresses inside it.
Figure 2.35: Volume of soil at failure Figure 2.36: Confined volume of soil
under 1 m of cover. at failure under 7 m of cover.
4.5. Consolidation of saturated soft soil in a rigid inclusion group
The consolidation of a soft soil reinforced by rigid inclusions may occur much faster than the
consolidation of unreinforced soil. This finding is due to the decrease in vertical stresses
within the reinforced soft soil, causing most of the load applied in the overconsolidated
domain, where settling happens more quickly than in the normally consolidated domain.
The reduced settlements are thus generally accompanied by a shorter consolidation period
(Figs. 2.37 and 2.38).
These results once again recall the importance of conducting a comprehensive study of the
mechanical and hydraulic characteristics of the soft soil prior to any reinforcement project.
Figure 2.37: Settlement curves for an overconsolidated soil both with and without reinforcement.
Figure 2.38: Dissipation of excess pore pressure for an overconsolidated soil,

with and without reinforcement (U = 90%).
5. SETTLEMENTS AND DEFORMATIONS
The decision to reinforce a foundation soil stems from an observation that the settlement of
the structure on a virgin soil is not compatible with its intended purpose. The initial task then
will be to calculate the expected settlement in the absence of all reinforcement. If necessary,
the group of inclusions will be designed to reduce this settlement to an admissible value, by
means of applying the operating mechanisms described below.

In addition to load efficiency E (as defined in Section 1.1 of this chapter), it is common
practice for engineers to consider a settlement efficiency Etass that specifically expresses the
capacity of the process to satisfy the settlement criteria required for the structure. This
efficiency is established via the expression:
Etass = 1 ± yM / y0 (2.23)
with:
yM: settlement of the soil reinforced by rigid inclusions, as evaluated or measured at the
surface of the load transfer platform;
y0: settlement of the virgin soil (i.e. without inclusions), as evaluated based on site
investigation data.
The reinforced soil settlement may be:

± Either calculated based on data derived from site investigation results and the calculation
methods proposed in these Recommendations (see Chapters 3, 4 and 5);
± Or measured using appropriate instrumentation implemented within the scope of the control
testing campaign.
The settlement of a shallow foundation such as an embankment, footing, ground slab or raft
on soil reinforced by rigid inclusions is defined as the sum of two components, i.e.:
± The actual settlement experienced by the reinforced soil, including the settlement of the
load transfer platform;
± The settlement of deeper, non-reinforced layers.
5.1. Settlement of reinforced soil
A reinforcement by rigid inclusions is reflected, and such is the intended purpose, by a

reduction (most often of large magnitude) of settlements over the entire reinforced soil height;
this reduction depends on both the reinforcement mesh and characteristics of the granular
transfer platform (thickness, deformability and eventual presence of a structural additive like
a geogrid).
These settlements could be lowered thanks to a substantial transfer of applied load onto the
inclusions that occurs at two levels, as already described in the previous sections, namely:
± A load concentration at the inclusion head resulting from shear mechanisms in the transfer
platform and capable of leading, due to the induced stress rotation, to the creation of force
arches through which forces can be channeled, and possibly complemented by permanent
cohesion of the platform constituent material or by the membrane effect of geogrid(s) laid out
on the inclusion heads;
± A negative friction effect of the soft soil acting on the inclusion, according to the set of
mechanisms analyzed by O. Combarieu, as governed by parameters including .WDQįDQGO,
in combining the group and downdrag effects.
This load transfer yields a significant drop in the additional stress applied at the top of the soft
soil and inside it, hence leading to a very noticeable decrease in settlement, which after all is
the intended goal.
In recognizing that a sizable portion of the load is transferred onto the inclusions and
moreover that these inclusions display relatively high stiffness, final settlement reduction will
be even more pronounced if the inclusion tip rests on a load-bearing resistant layer such as a
stiff substratum or a layer of sand or gravel of adequate thickness.
In this respect, it would be necessary to accurately distinguish the case of inclusions stopping
in the soft soil layer, which can be qualified as floating inclusions, from the case of inclusions
resting on a resistant layer.
With the aim of optimizing reinforcement efficiency in terms of settlement reduction, it is

highly recommended, in common cases, to allocate reinforcement over the entire soft soil
layer height and then embed the inclusions on a load-bearing level, while acknowledging that
relatively short floating inclusions would display a near-zero efficiency.
In the presence of organic soils (peat, household waste, etc.), the residual surcharge applied
on the soil could cause creep settlements and thereby limit the phenomenon of downdrag.
5.2. Settlement of deeper, unreinforced layers
Depending on the mechanism described above, inclusions play the role of deep-seated load
transfer elements. This surcharge, transferred at the level of the inclusion base, winds up
causing settlements in the underlying layers (remaining in a virgin state given their lack of
reinforcement), in the same way as settlements potentially occurring under a group of piles
(even though the transfer mechanism is substantially different in the case of piles) (Fig. 2.39).
Figure 2.39: Necessity of verification for the load transfer influence under the inclusion tip.
It should nonetheless be pointed out that these deep layers tend to be relatively
incompressible, meaning that settlements induced at the surface are small and often uniform
at the scale of the structure examined.
Yet this examination of settlement within the deeper layers must not be overlooked.
5.3. Geotechnical investigations
As regards site investigations, it will be necessary to plan a series of boreholes with suitable
laboratory or in situ testing to allow evaluating soil compressibility characteristics. This will
require reaching a sufficient depth, relative to the targeted reinforcement area and depth, and
with a sufficient number of borings to determine the potential variations in these
characteristics at the scale of the structure, with the aim of assessing both total and differential
settlements.

The reader is referred to Chapter 6 for a detailed description of the relevant boreholes and
tests.
5.4. Determinant parameters
As a complement to in situ soil compressibility characteristics, the following key parameters,

which will be showcased in the calculation methods described in Chapters 3, 4 and 5, are
determinant to settlement evaluations:
± Granular transfer platform characteristics (thickness, deformability, friction angle, eventual
cohesion), including if applicable the characteristics of additives used as reinforcement layers;
± Inclusion characteristics (head diameter and diameter of the standard cross-section,
deformation modulus, length compared to soft soil thickness);
± The area ratio, i.e. ratio of the head cross-sectional area to the element mesh area.
Searching for the best combination of these parameters allows deriving an optimal design that
satisfies the settlement criteria.
6. LESSONS FROM THE FULL-SCALE EXPERIMENTS
As a complement to the description of fundamental mechanisms, it seems important to

highlight a number of observations or lessons from the two full-scale experiments (Saint-
Ouen-O¶Aumône and Chelles) conducted within the scope of the ASIRI National Project.
These lessons are deemed to be particularly useful in producing an effective design or
carrying out a realistic preliminary design of reinforcement by rigid inclusions during the
early project design stage.
6.1. Inclusion behavior
As for inclusion head loads and settlements, the Saint-Ouen-O¶Aumône (Fig. 2.40) and Chelles
(Fig. 2.41) experiments demonstrate that the behavior of an inclusion underneath the structure
(embankment, ground slab) is the same as that of the tip of a single rigid inclusion subjected
to a loading test. This outcome reveals that the load exerted at the head of an inclusion is
close to that exerted in the vicinity of its tip.
Such a finding expresses the fact that the positive and negative friction resultants along the
inclusion shaft are more or less balanced, and that consequently inclusion efficiency is
basically governed by its load-bearing capacity at the tip. These results expose the need to
determine this capacity and then accurately model the inclusion tip behavior in order to obtain
realistic results at the top of a structure on soil reinforced by rigid inclusions.
This result can be considered as valid solely for groups of inclusions lying on a resistant
substratum (and in theory does not apply to the floating inclusions).
Figure 2.40: The Saint-Ouen-O¶Aumône experiment ± Ground slabs - (2006)
Load and settlement measurements at the head of inclusions
placed at the center of the 2D and 3D test sections (displacement inclusions).
Figure 2.41: The Chelles experiment - Embankments - (2007)

Load and settlement measurements at the head of inclusions
placed at the center of the 2R, 3R and 4R test sections.
6.2. Load transfer
The Chelles experiment (2007), which contained a granular transfer platform, shows a
decrease in applied stress on the soft soil, compared to the stress contributed by the
embankment. This observation was not recorded above the transfer platform, which proves
that the load transfer mechanisms are effectively activated in the granular platform.
If the embankment material is of high quality, then the load transfer mechanisms can also
occur at the embankment base, in which case the base acts as a load transfer platform.
Should the upper layer of reinforced soil be of good quality, then it also participates in the
load transfer by means of friction, in which case the solution of pile caps placed at the head of

inclusions may not be optimal, given that it is capable of constraining this friction-based
transfer mechanism.
The step of cutting off inclusions at the base of the granular transfer platform could reduce
load transfer in that the soil aligned with the inclusion might not be compacted like the rest of
the load transfer platform. In this respect, appropriate arrangements are required in order to
guarantee the homogeneity of transfer platform compaction (see Chapter 7: Execution).
6.3. Reinforcement layers (geosynthetic)
The Chelles experiment (2007) indicates that the state of stress above a granular transfer
platform reinforced by geosynthetic layers differs depending on the type and number of layers
in the configuration:
± Case of the load transfer platform reinforced by a layer of geotextile, i.e. composed of a
rather deformable material: the geotextile deforms during embankment construction, and this
deformation is concentrated around the inclusion heads;
± Case of the load transfer platform reinforced by a geogrid layer, i.e. composed of a less
deformable material: the geogrid deforms in a uniform pattern during installation of the
granular platform; afterwards, the deformation is also concentrated around the inclusion heads
during embankment construction. The geogrid tends to prestress the load transfer platform
prior to its loading by the embankment, which yields a certain amount of cohesion. The
interpretations drawn from the Chelles full-scale experiments served to quantify this
additional equivalent cohesion;
± The number of layers introduced is also a key factor in that it contributes to increasing
transfer platform stiffness.
6.4. Settlement efficiency
The reinforcement by rigid inclusions significantly reduces settlement both at ground level
and throughout the soil depth.
In the Chelles instrumented test embankment, it has been observed that settlement occurs for
the most part during the construction stage, which therefore makes it necessary to impose
settlement criteria with reference to expected settlements after embankment construction and
not before.
The efficiency calculated for stresses at the level of inclusion heads is not always the most
pertinent design parameter; instead, the rationale should target reducing settlements. As an
illustration, in the case of the Chelles embankment, it can be remarked that a 20% stress
efficiency has yielded a 60% settlement reduction!
7. SEISMIC LOADINGS
The objective of a reinforcement step using rigid inclusions is to introduce sufficient

mechanical characteristics into the reinforced soil so as to allow building a shallow
foundation (or perhaps a raft or ground slab) or an embankment under fully acceptable
stability and settlement conditions.
In the case where the reinforced soil is subjected to seismic loadings, two very distinct
domains need to be distinguished (the AFPS Soil improvement and reinforcement processes
under seismic action Technical Guide, 2011):
± Domain no. 1: Inclusions are necessary for structural stability and for load-bearing capacity,
with verifications of the ultimate limit states (GEO). The next step requires guaranteeing the
same level of inclusion strength during an earthquake as that taken into account in design
calculations, thus justifying that these inclusions remain within the elastic domain
(justifications comparable to current rules in effect for piles).
± Domain no. 2: The rigid inclusions are primarily intended to reduce settlements and are not
required to justify the structural stability or load-bearing capacity. The absence of structural
failure must then be justified when exposed to seismic action by neglecting either part or all
of the inclusions, in a way that is not detrimental to human safety in the event of structural
damage.
Remark: The situation may be encountered where the Project Owner imposes that
the structure still be in working order after the earthquake, i.e. without any
physical disorders and operational limitations appearing either during or after the
earthquake [EN 1998-1 Standard, Section 2.1 (1) P]; in this case, the inclusions
would enter into domain n° 1.
The granular transfer platform must be able to perform the following functions:
± Facilitate energy dissipation by means of sliding in the granular medium. Accordingly, the
load transfer platform plays the role of a fuse triggering a controllable sliding, rather than
footing rotation via a loss of load-bearing capacity. A hierarchy in the strength of various
system components is thus introduced, and this step naturally assumes the absence of a plastic
zone outside of the transfer platform. This finding implies that rigid inclusions do not fail and
therefore prove to be correctly designed or even overdesigned;
± Reduce loadings in the inclusions (decrease in both shear force at the inclusion head and
lateral displacement of the soil over the upper part of the rigid inclusions);
± Perform a filtering effect by avoiding any seismic loading amplification, or even in some
cases by reducing inertial forces. This reduction phenomenon is closely correlated with
energy dissipation in the load transfer platform by friction. The intensity of this phenomenon
depends on transfer platform thickness;
± Ultimately, increase soil load-bearing capacity. The load transfer platform may be sized to
make the transition from domain no. 1 to domain n° 2.
Both shear and normal stresses will develop in the rigid inclusions when exposed to kinematic
and inertial effects. In domain no. 1, where inclusions are necessary for structural stability
(and load-bearing capacity), it will be mandatory to verify that all inclusion sections remain
compressed under the induced loadings and moreover that normal and shear stresses continue
to be acceptable (refer to Chapter 5: Justifications).
The earthquake resistance calculation for foundation soils reinforced by rigid inclusions is
complicated by the very complex feature of the soil-inclusion-platform-foundation-
superstructure interaction under cyclic loading.
Incident waves induce deformations in the soil, which then transmits these deformations to
the foundations and subsequently to the structure. The interaction present is thus very strong
and it decomposes into a kinematic interaction and an inertial interaction:

± The soil deformed by incident waves forces the foundations, and consequently the
superstructure, to follow its movement (i.e. a kinematic interaction). Even in the absence of
superstructure loads, foundations will exhibit different displacements than the free field soil
displacements due to differences in stiffness between foundation and soil;
± The superstructure mobilized by the foundation movement will develop inertial forces that
serve to induce soil-foundation system forces (i.e. an inertial interaction).
The two mechanisms occur simultaneously; the soil-foundation-structure (the soil-structure

interaction) system response can be obtained by simply combining these mechanisms. The
need to take into account a combination of both mechanisms depends on: the type of soil, the
seismic zone, and the category of structure (as referred to in Section 5.3 of the AFPS Soil
improvement and reinforcement processes under seismic action Technical Guide, 2011).
In liquefiable zones, the liquefaction potential may be reduced by use of rigid inclusions
under the eventually combined effect of the following actions:
± If inclusions are being used to increase density of the surrounding soil, e.g. by soil
displacement and/or vibration, then the gain in density following treatment would need to be
verified by in situ tests conducted between inclusions;
± Should inclusions be used to lower shear stress in the soil, then the design must be carried
out according to Hashin¶s homogenization method (1983), as detailed in the AFPS Soil
improvement and reinforcement processes under seismic action Technical Guide (2011). Any
method that consists of increasing average shear strength of the treated mesh by incorporating
inclusion strength would not be valid. This approach imposes verifying inclusion integrity
(i.e. both normal and shear stresses must remain acceptable). The practical application of this
design method typically only allows for a limited increase, on the order of 5% to 10%, in the
safety factor relative to liquefaction.
The AFPS Soil improvement and reinforcement processes under seismic action Technical
Guide (2011) will be consulted for:
± A review of the appropriate analytical methods;
± Indications on the role played by a group of inclusions in a potential soil liquefaction.
References
Internal reports (ASIRI National Project)
Baudouin G. - Sols renforcés par inclusions rigides : modélisation physique en centrifugeuse

de remblais et de dallage. Thèse de doctorat, université de Nantes, 27/10/2010.
Briançon L. ± « 5HQIRUFHPHQW GHV VROV SDU LQFOXVLRQV ULJLGHV eWDW GH O¶art en France et à
O¶pWUDQJHU,5(;RSpUDWLRQGX5pVHDXJpQLHFLYLOHWXUEDLQ, 2002.
Briançon L. -5DSSRUWILQDOGHO¶expérimentation de Saint-Ouen-O¶$XP{QH ». Rapport 1-07-1-
02 et annexes numériques, juillet 2007.
Briançon L. - « 5DSSRUW ILQDO GH O¶H[SpULPHQWDWLRQ GH &KHOOHV ». Rapport 2-08-1-05, juillet
2008.
Briançon L. ± « Complément benchmark tranche 1 ». Thèmes 1 et 4. Rapport 1-07-1 et 4-02,
novembre 2007.
Chakroun S., Simon B. - « Simulation du matériau Schneebeli dans Plaxis ». Rapport 1-06-4-
02, décembre 2006.
Chevalier B. - Études expérimentale et numérique des transferts de charge dans les matériaux
granulaires. Application aux renforcements de sols par inclusions rigides. Thèse de
doctorat, université Grenoble I Joseph-Fourier, 5/09/2008. http://tel.archives-
ouvertes.fr/docs/00/36/73/05/PDF/These_Bastien_Chevalier-version3.pdf.
Chevalier B., Combe G., Villard P. - « Modélisation discrète : étude du report de charge ».
Rapport 3-08-4-01, 2008.
Chevalier B., Combe G., Fantino R., Grange S., Villard P. - « Étude des mécanismes de report
de charge dans les matelas granulaires des remblais sur sol compressible renforcé par
inclusions rigides ». Rapport 4-10-4-02, juillet 2010.
Combarieu O. - « Remblais sur sol médiocre et inclusions rigides. Nouvelle approche du
dimensionnement ». Rapport 1-07-5-01, 2007.
Dinh A.Q. - Étude sur modèle physique des mécanismes de transfert de charge dans les sols
renforcés par inclusions rigides. Application au dimensionnement. Thèse de doctorat,
ENPC, 2009.
IREX ± « Pôle Compétence Sols. Utilisation des inclusions rigides pour le renforcement des
sols de fondation d¶RXYUDJHV HW GH UHPEODLV eWXGH GH IDLVDELOLWp G¶XQ SURMHW QDWLRQDO »,
2000.
Jenck O. - Le renforcement des sols compressibles par inclusions rigides verticales.
Modélisation physique et numérique. Thèse de doctorat, INSA Lyon, 29/11/2005.
Jenck O., Dias D., Kastner R. - « Expérimentations sur modèle réduit bidimensionnel en
laboratoire. Modélisation physique de la plate-forme de transfert de charge ». Rapport 1-
06-3-01, octobre 2006.
Jenck O., Dias D., Kastner R. - « Modélisation numérique bidimensionnelle du modèle de
ODERUDWRLUH GpYHORSSp j O¶,16$ HW pWXGHV SDUDPpWULTXHV ». Rapport 1-06-4-01, octobre
2006.
Jenck O., Dias D. - 0RGpOLVDWLRQ QXPpULTXH GLVFUqWH G¶XQ PRGqOH UpGXLW ELGLPHQVLRQQHO GH
matelas de transfert de charge granulaire édifié sur inclusions rigides. Rapport 2-08-4-03,
octobre 2007.
Koscielny M., Briançon L., Dias D. ± « Synthèse benchmark tranche 1. Thèmes 1 et 4 ».
Rapport 1-07-1 et 4-01, septembre 2007.
Laurent Y. ± Renforcement des massifs de fondation par inclusions rigides verticales. Étude
bibliographique et numérique. Mémoire de DEA, INSA Lyon, 17/09/2002.

Le Hello B. - Renforcement par géosynthétiques des remblais sur inclusions rigides. Étude
expérimentale en vraie grandeur et analyse numérique. Thèse de doctorat, université
Grenoble I Joseph-Fourier, 26/06/2007.
Okyay U.S. - Étude expérimentale et numérique des transferts de charge dans un massif
renforcé par inclusions rigides. Application à des cas de chargements statiques et
dynamiques. Thèse de doctorat, INSA Lyon, 24/11/2010.
Rault G., Baudouin G., Thorel L. - « Essais centrifugeuse FRPSRUWHPHQW G¶XQ JURXSH
élémentaire (3*3 inclusions) : conception des montages (1) ». Rapport 2-07-3-05,
décembre 2007.
Rault G., Baudouin G., Thorel L. - « Essais centrifugeuse FRPSRUWHPHQW G¶un groupe
élémentaire (3*3 inclusions) : réalisation des montages (2) ». Rapport 2-08-3-06, mai
2008.
Rault G., Thorel L. - « Étude du transfert de charge par cisaillement. Dispositif de plateau
mobile. Essais de réception ». Rapport 3-09-3-14, octobre 2009.
Thorel L., Rault G., Baudoin G. - « &RPSRUWHPHQWG¶XQJURXSHpOpPHQWDLUH LQFOXVLRQV :
VLPXODWLRQHQFHQWULIXJHXVHGXFKDUJHPHQWG¶XQUHPEODL ». Rapport 2-07-3-08 et annexes,
novembre 200).
External references (publications and standards)
AFPS ± « 3URFpGpVG¶DPpOLRUDWLRQHWGHUHQIRUFHPHQWGHVROVRXVDFWLRQVVLVPLTXHV », 2011.

Berthelot P., Besson C., Boucherie M., Carpinteiro L., Deryckere N., Frossard A., Glandy M.,
Pezot B., Poilpre C., Volcke J.-P. - « Recommandations sur la conception, le calcul,
O¶H[pFXWLRQ HW OH FRQWU{OH GHV FRORQQHV EDOODVWpHV VRXV EkWLPHQWV HW RXYUDJHV VHQVLEOHV DX
tassement ». Revue française de géotechnique n° 111, 2004, p. 3 à 16.
British Standard BS 8006 - ³&RGH RI SUDFWLFH IRU VWUHQJWKHQHG UHLQIRUFHG VRLOV DQG RWKHr
ILOOV´VHFWLRQGHVLJQRIHPEDQNPHQWVZLWKUHLQIRUFHGVRLOIRXQGDWion on poor ground,
1995, p. 98-121.
Cartier G. - Effet de groupe sur le frottement négatif (essais en centrifugeuse). Mémoire de
DEA, LCPC Nantes, 11/07/1994.
Chevalier B., Villard, P., Combe G. - ³Investigation 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 (+ Additif 2002) Recommandations pour la conception, le calcul,
O¶H[pFXWLRQHWOHFRQWU{OHGHVVRXWqQHPHQWVUpDOLVpVSDUFORXDJHGHVVROV.
Combarieu O. - « (IIHW G¶DFFURFKDJH HW PpWKRGH G¶pYDOXDWLRQ GX IURWWHPHQW QpJDWLI ».
Bulletin de liaison des laboratoires des ponts et chaussées n° 71, mai-juin 1974, p. 93-
107.
Combarieu O. - « Frottement négatif sur les pieux. » Rapport de recherche des Laboratoires
des ponts et chaussées n° 136, octobre 1985, 151 p.
Combarieu O. - Amélioration des sols par inclusions rigides verticales. Application à
O¶pGLILFDWLRQ GHV UHPEODLV VXU VROV PpGLRFUHV Revue française de géotechnique n° 44,
1988, p. 57-79.
Combarieu O. ± « &DOFXOG¶une fondation mixte ».1RWHG¶LQIRUPDWLRQWHFKQLTXHPLQLVWqUHGH
O¶eTXLSHPHQWHWGX/RJHPHQW/&3C, 1988.
Combarieu O. - « Fondations superficielles sur sol amélioré par inclusions rigides
verticales ». Revue française de géotechnique n° 53, 1990, p. 33 à 44.
Combarieu O. - « Estimation du frottement latéral sol-pieu à partir du pressiomètre et des
caractéristiques de cisaillement ». Bulletin de liaison des laboratoires des ponts et
chaussées n° 221, mai-juin 1999, p. 37-54.
Combarieu O. ± « Remblais sur sol compressible et inclusions rigides. Amélioration de
O¶DSSURFKHGXGLPHQVLRQQHPHQW ». Revue française de géotechnique n° 122, 2008, p. 45-
54.
DTU 13.2 - Fondations profondes pour le bâtiment. Norme AFNOR P11-212, 1992.
EBGEO - ÄEmpfehlungen für Bewehrungen aus Geokunststoffen. Bewehrte Erdkörper auf
punkt und linienförmigen Tragglieder. Abschnitt 6.9, Version du 15/11/2001, non publiée.
(in Deutsch)
Fascicule n° 62, Titre V - Règles techniques de conception et de calcul des fondations des
ouvrages de génie civil. CCTG applicables aux marchés publics de travaux. Ministère de
O¶eTXLSHPHQW, 1993.
FOREVER - Synthèse des résultats et recommandations du projet national sur les micropieux
(1993-2001). Opération du RGC&U. Paris, Presses des Ponts, 2004.
Frank R., Zhao S.R. -(VWLPDWLRQSDUOHVSDUDPqWUHVSUHVVLRPpWULTXHVGHO¶HQIRQFHPHQWVRXV
charge axiale de pieux forés dans des sols fins. Bulletin de liaison des laboratoires des
ponts et chaussées n° 119 mai-juin 1982.
Hashin Z. - ³Analysis of Composite Materials. A Survey´ Journal of Applied Mechanics, vol.
50, 1983, p. 481-505.
Hewlett W.J., Randolph M.A. ± ³Analysis of piled embankments´. Ground Engineering,
April 1988, p. 12-18.
Kempton G., Jones C.J.F.P. - 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 C.J.F.P. ± ³Two 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 - Calcul géotechnique. Partie 1 : Règles générales. (indice de
classement P 94-251-1) avec son annexe nationale (indice de classement P 94-251-2).
NF EN 1997-2, Eurocode 7 - Calcul géotechnique. Partie 2 : Reconnaissance et essais
géotechniques.
NF EN 1998-1, Eurocode 8 - Conception et calcul des structures pour leur résistance aux
séismes. Partie 1 : Règles générales, actions sismiques et règles pour les bâtiments.
NF EN 1998-5, Eurocode 8 - Conception et calcul des structures pour leur résistance aux
séismes. Partie 5 : Fondations, ouvrages de soutènement et aspects géotechniques.
NF EN 1536 - Exécution des travaux géotechniques spéciaux - Pieux forés. (P94-310).
NF EN 12699 - Exécution des travaux géotechniques spéciaux - Pieux avec déplacement de sol.
(P94-311).
NF EN 14199 - Exécution des travaux géotechniques spéciaux - Micropieux. (P94-313)
NF P 94-262 - Justification des ouvrages géotechniques. 1RUPHV G¶DSSOLFDWLRQ QDWLRQDOH GH
O¶(XURFRde 7 - Fondations profondes.
NF P 11-213, DTU 13.3 - Dallages - Conception, calcul et exécution, 2007.
Okyay U.S., Dias D. - Use of lime and cement treated soils as Pile supported load transfer
platform, Engineering Geology, vol. 114 (1-2), 2010, p 34-44.
Plumelle C. -5HQIRUFHPHQWG¶XQVROOkFKHSDULQFOXVLRQGHPLFURSLHX[Revue française de
géotechnique n° 30, 1985, p.47 à 57.
SETRA ± Traitement des sols à la chaux et/ou aux liants hydrauliques (GTS). Application à
la réalisation des remblais et des couches de forme. Guide technique, 2000.
SETRA-LCPC ± Réalisation des remblais et des couches de forme (GTR). Guide technique,
1992.

Simon B. - « 8QH PpWKRGH LQWpJUpH SRXU GLPHQVLRQQHU OHV UpVHDX[ G¶LQFOXVLRns rigides en
déformation ». XVe Congrès international de mécanique des sols et fondations, Istanbul,
vol. 2, 2000, p. 1007-1010.
Simon B., Schlosser F. - ³Soil reinforcement by vertical stiff inclusions in France.
Symposium Rigid inclusions LQ GLIILFXOW VXEVRLO FRQGLWLRQV´ ISSMGE TC36, Sociedad
Mexicana de Mecanica de Suelos, UNAM, Mexico, 2006.
Swedish Geotechnical Society (SGS) ± ³/LPH DQG Lime Cement columns. Guide for design,
FRQVWUXFWLRQDQGFRQWURO´6*)5HSRUW)RUVPDQ-XSGDWHG
Zeevaert L. ± ³Discussion on negative friction and reduction of point bearing capacity´. Proc.
4th.ICSMFE, 1957, vol. 3.
Operating mechanisms Summary 89

CHAPTER 3
Design methods
1. NOTATIONS
The forces and loads considered in the design methods are shown in the reference diagram in
Figure 3.1, where depths are measured from the inclusion head.
The force-reduction elements in the cross-section of an inclusion, denoted respectively Qp (for

axial force), Tp (shear force) and Mp (bending moment), can be identified by their respective
values:
± Qp(z), Tp(z), Mp(z) in the cross-section of depth z below the head;
± Qp(0), Tp(0), Mp(0) at the level of the inclusion head;
± Qp(L), Tp(L), Mp(L)at the level of the inclusion base (length L).
When the computational model includes a fictitious column overlying the inclusion on the
height of the load transfer platform hR (or of the embankment), the forces applied at the top of
the fictitious column are respectively Qp(-hR), Tp(-hR) and Mp(-hR).
When taken into consideration, the reduction elements applicable to a horizontal section of
the volume of reinforced soil excluding the inclusions are designated using the same
convention, by substituting the index ³s´ for ³p´, i.e. Qs, Ts and Ms.
Figure 3.1: Reference diagram adopted for identifying the force reduction elements
in the inclusion or soil.
Design methods 91
2. UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES
The design methods of a foundation on a soil reinforced by means of rigid inclusions are of
three distinct types:
± Analytical models (Section 3);
± Numerical models in continuous medium using either finite elements or finite differences
(Section 4);
± ³+RPRJHQL]DWLRQ´ PRGHOV whose application remains complex and not yet widespread
(Section 5).
Each of these models may be used for both the ultimate limit state (ULS) and service limit
state (SLS) verifications provided it is capable of taking into account:
± The behavior of an isolated inclusion loaded at the head, which is comparable to the
behavior estimated by implementation of the W ± w curves (curves linking the mobilized skin
friction at a given depth with the corresponding axial displacement) and q ± wb curves (point
pressure ±point displacement curve) proposed by Frank and Zhao (1982) as functions of the
pressuremeter modulus EM, the pile diameter and the type of soil;
± The behavior of a structure, when applicable, in the absence of inclusions, in terms of both
settlement and bearing capacity, with predictions based on classical methods such as:
pressuremeter or penetrometer methods in the case of a shallow foundation; the oedometer
method and bearing capacity and punching calculation in the case of an embankment, raft or
pavement.
Regardless of the method employed (analytical or numerical), the first step consists of
evaluating the behavior of the structure without inclusions, which will allow determining the
contribution of inclusions relative to the settlement and bearing capacity/punching.
3. ANALYTICAL METHODS
Three methods were selected within the scope of the ASIRI project; all three are simple to
implement for solving some of the most common situations: grid of inclusions placed in the
middle of the reinforced zone and subjected to uniform vertical loads. Their main intent is to
calculate the average expected settlement after reinforcement and then estimate the maximum
load applied to the inclusions.
An extension to the case of vertically and horizontally-loaded footings was derived for each
of these selected analytical methods.
Such methods are not necessarily analytical in the strict sense of the term in that they typically
do not lead to results in the form of explicit analytical formulas; they usually need to be
solved numerically through the use, for example, of a spreadsheet or a solver.
These methods however are capable of estimating the distribution of forces between soil and
inclusions, settlements and horizontal displacements.
They do not provide the possibility of incorporating any geotextile reinforcement in the load
transfer platform.

3.1. Vertical loads
3.1.1. Common elements to the methods
3.1.1.1. Behavior of the inclusion material
It is assumed that the material remains elastic.
This behavior is characterized by a modulus of elasticity E and a design strength.
3.1.1.2. Soil compressibility
The Young¶s modulus of the load transfer platform depends on the degree of compaction and
varies with both the stress state and stress path.
The apparent modulus of deformation to be used for compressible soil is an oedometric type
modulus Eoed, calculated as a secant modulus between the initial and final stress states, taking
into account the applied forces (see Chapter 6, Note 6).
Remark: When the pre-consolidation taken into account is linked to some

earthworks (cut and fill operations), it is necessary to provide a detailed
justification based on the duration of the various phases and their associated
consolidation.
3.1.1.3. Soil/inclusion interaction force mobilization laws
From a general standpoint, the mobilization laws adopted are a function of the local relative
displacement between soil and inclusion, with the difference between inclusion displacement
and soil displacement being: w(z) = yP(z)-ys(z).
This relationship applies to force mobilization at either the head or inclusion base as well as
for side friction forces along the inclusion.
a) Load at the inclusion base:

For this case, Frank and Zhao¶s mobilization laws (1982) are typically adopted.
Figure 3.2: Semi-empirical mobilization curve of the resistance at tip of the inclusion
(Frank and Zhao, 1982)
mq E M
kq (3.1)
DP
where Dp is the equivalent diameter of the inclusion tip.
Design methods 93
The values mq, which depend on both the type of soil and the method of installation, are listed
in Table 3.1 below (Frank and Zhao, 1982).
Table 3.1: Values of mq (Frank and Zhao, 1982).
Type of pile
Soil
Driven, closed Driven, open Bored
Silt, clay 11 11 11
Sands, gravels 14 11 4.8
Chalk 4.8 11 11
Marly limestone 4.8 11 11
Marl 4.8 11 11
b) Skin friction
Skin friction mobilization is described at any depth by a transfer function, thus expressing the
GHSHQGHQFHRIVKHDUĲZLWKWKHUHODWLYHGLVSODFHPHQWZ]
The empirical curves established by Frank and Zhao (1982) for piles bored into fine-grained
or granular soils, based on interpretations from a large sample of load tests, prove well suited
for describing the interactions that develop along the full length of the inclusion. These
relationships may be applicable as an absolute value, for positive as well as negative friction.
Figure 3.3: Semi-empirical mobilization curve of shaft friction (Frank and Zhao, 1982).
mW E M
kW (3.2)
DS
where Ds is the equivalent diameter of the inclusion section.
The values mW, which also depend on the type of soil and method of installation, are provided
in Table 3.2 (Frank and Zhao, 1982).
Table 3.2: Values of m (Frank and Zhao, 1982).
Type of pile
Soil
Driven, closed Driven, open Bored
Silt, clay 2 2 2
Sands, gravels 3 2 0.8
Chalk 0.8 2 2
Marly limestone 0.8 2 2
Marl 0.8 2 2
Other W-w law expressions have been proposed by various authors.
Combarieu (1988) offered an analytical expression of the Frank and Zhao laws.

Figure 3.4: Adjusted friction law, according to Combarieu (1988).
Mobilization of the resistance at tip of the inclusion:

Dp q p § q ·¸
w ln¨1 (3.3)
mq E M ¨ qp ¸
© ¹
Mobilization of skin friction:

Ds q s § W ·
w ln¨¨1 ¸¸ (3.4)
mW E M © q s ¹
Remark: In the absence of pressuremeter values, the typical correlations for

determining an equivalent pressuremeter modulus are to be used, although with
caution (see Chapter 6).
c) Force at the inclusion head:

The force at the inclusion head is calculated by considering the development of negative skin
friction on a fictitious column that extends from the inclusion head, as highlighted in
Chapter 2, Section 3.2.1. The mobilization law used for this friction may be assimilated with
that described by Frank and Zhao for a granular soil by setting:
± The value mW = 2;
± The threshold value qs = KtanG Vv¶ZLWK.WDQG = 1 and where Vv¶LVWKHYHUWLFDOHIIHFWLYH
stress in the load transfer platform between inclusions.
Design methods 95
Figure 3.5: Development of shear along the fictitious column overlying the inclusion.
3.1.2. Common spacing
3.1.2.1. Principles
LHW¶V FRQVLGHU D JULG RI LQFOXVLRQV ORFDWHG LQ WKH FHQWHU RI D ODUJH UHLQIRUFHG ]RQH DQG
subjected to uniform vertical loads.
The unit cell is assimilated to a cylinder, with the main axis being that of the inclusion and a
circular cross-section being an area equal to the grid area.
Remark: In general, the model must be extended to layers located underneath the
base of inclusions. In an ideal approach, the model base is chosen at a depth
where vertical stresses may be considered as uniform over the entire cross-section
or, alternatively, at a depth below which settlements become negligible.
As a consequence, both lateral deformations and shear stresses are equal to zero at the
cylinder periphery, and moreover the total force applied by the structure is conserved at all
levels, in each horizontal cross-section, with the addition of the overlying weight of the soil
and the inclusion.
It is assumed that at a given level, the settlement and vertical stress are uniform in the soil.
3.1.2.2. Differential equations
Equilibrium equations express the variation in forces with depth, as previously indicated, in
any horizontal cross-section of the model, in the inclusion (Equation 3.5) and in the soil
(Equation 3.6):
dQ p ( z ) ( PW J p A p ) dz (3.5)
dQ s ( z ) ( PW J s As ) dz (3.6)
whereW represents the shear developed at the inclusion/soil interface, Js the unit weight of the
soil at the indicated level (replaced by the submerged unit weight where appropriate), Jp the
unit weight of the inclusion at the indicated level (also replaced by the submerged unit weight

where appropriate), P the inclusion perimeter, and finally Ap and As the respective cross-
sections of the inclusion and soil at the indicated level.
Figure 3.6: Model of the basic cell around the inclusion.
Both the inclusion settlement and average soil settlement satisfy the following equations:
Qp ( z )
dy p ( z ) dz (3.7)
Ap E p
Qs ( z )
dy s ( z ) dz (3.8)
As E s
where Ep(z) is the Young¶s modulus of the inclusion material, and Es(z) the apparent modulus
of deformation of the soil at the applied load level, to be evaluated based on an oedometric
type of behavior (i.e. zero lateral deformation at the model¶s outer vertical boundaries and at
the soil/inclusion interface, see Section 2.1.1.2 and Chapter 6, Note 6).
Friction mobilization is described at the level of each layer by a transfer function (see Section
ZKLFKH[SUHVVHVWKHGHSHQGHQFHRIVKHDUĲon the relative displacement w(z), defined
as the difference between inclusion displacement and soil displacement: yP(z)-ys(z):
W( z ) f y p ( z ) y s ( z ) (3.9)
3.1.2.3. Solution
The nonlinear system composed of differential equations (3.5) through (3.9) requires, for its
resolution, that the relevant boundary conditions be defined. Such conditions are partially of
the ³stiffness´ type, i.e. fixed values of the load/displacement ratios at both the head and base.
The resulting system can only be solved by means of iteration.
The boundary conditions at the head of the model are as follows:

± Total load applied at the head of the model Q(± hR);
± The fraction of this load applied at the head of the model directly above the inclusion
EQP = Qp(± hR)/Q(± hR):
- in the case of an embankment subjected to a uniform load at the head, the factor EQP
constitutes the ratio of the inclusion section area to the grid area.
- in the case of a slab on grade or raft, the value of the factor EQP is established by
assuming that the surface settlements yp(± hR) and ys(± hR) are equal, which is justified by
the fact that deformations of the structural surface element (concrete slab or raft) are
negligible when compared to soil deformations.
Design methods 97
Figure 3.7: Boundary conditions at the top of an embankment or slab on grade model.
This calculation necessitates the update, at each iteration, of the average soil settlement
profile ys(z) according to Equations (3.5) through (3.9). Moreover, it provides the distribution
vs. depth of the settlement of the inclusion, the average soil settlement, the mobilized skin
friction, the axial force in the inclusion, and the vertical stress in the soil.
Figures 3.8 and 3.9 illustrate the application of this method to a slab on grade (or raft) and to
an embankment over the same soil profile. The settlements calculated using the analytical
method directly above the inclusion and in the surrounding soil are compared to those
obtained from an axisymmetric finite element model. In the embankment case, it is observed
that settlements become uniform in the embankment, at some height above the inclusion head.
Figure 3.8: Configurations analyzed.

Figure 3.9: Settlement profiles calculated for a slab (left) and an embankment (right).
3.1.3. Footings
3.1.3.1. Specificities and references
In the case of spread footings placed on rigid inclusions, the limited number of inclusions no
longer makes it possible to satisfy the hypothesis of a large number of adjacent identical grids.
Design methods 99
The interaction of the reinforced soil block below the footing with the surrounding non-
reinforced soil domain must be taken into account.
Few experiments involving spread footings on rigid inclusions have been reported in the
technical literature. Nonetheless, two types of experiments will be cited herein, including a
vertical loading of the targeted spread footings:
± Tests conducted in the CEBTP research facility's experimental tank specific to a spread
footing lying, through a layer of sand or crusher run, on a loose sand reinforced by micropiles
(Plumelle, 1985);
± Tests conducted in a geotechnical centrifuge on spread footings featuring varied geometry
and lying, through a sandy layer, on sand reinforced by inclusions laid out in a very loose
mesh pattern (Bigot et al., 1988).
Let¶s also mention the lateral load tests on spread footings acting as a piled footing
foundation, conducted in 1970 at Bucknell University (United States), as reported by Borel
(2001).
The ASIRI Project¶s experimental program was solely focused on the behavior of large
structures: slabs on grade and embankments on rigid inclusions under vertical loading. No
full-scale experimentation or centrifuge tests of a spread footing on rigid inclusions had been
performed. ASIRI project data relative to these types of structures are input from the 3D
numerical modeling of spread footings using models validated by comparison to simulations
of large structures with experimental data collected on the same type of structures. These
numerical models included the cases of vertical or inclined footing loading.
The simplified models proposed could be evaluated by means of a comparison with 3D

numerical modeling results (ASIRI National Project report, 2011); they cover:
± Simplified models MV1 through MV3 for a purely vertical loading of the footing;
± Simplified models MH1 through MH3, which take into account a lateral footing loading
(inclined force or moment).
The use of these simplified models requires consistency verifications specific to each model,
thus making it possible to validate a posteriori whether or not the model is applicable to the
given situation.
Any model from the MV or MH series can be used interchangeably:

± They yield an increasing volume of information (soil settlement, inclusion settlement, soil
stresses, loading inside the inclusion);
± They are based on an increasing number of computation steps;
± They require verification of a decreasing number of consistency tests, thus making it
possible to verify a posteriori that the hypotheses intrinsic to the model are indeed acceptable.
3.1.3.2. Simplified models for a purely vertical loading
3.1.3.2.1. MV1 analytical model
This model was first presented by Combarieu (1990).
It allows estimating the limit load QL and settlement y of the footing lying on rigid inclusions,
under a centered vertical load, by interpolating between the case of the footing acting alone
and the case of the footing acting as part of a composite foundation.

&RQILJXUDWLRQV DQG DQG ¶ ¶ ¶ LQ )LJXUH LOOXVWUDWH WKUHH SRWHQWLDO
foundation solutions:
± Rigid shallow foundation (1);
± Composite foundation, where the footing and piles both participate in carrying loads (3);
± Rigid spread footing foundation installed on top of inclusions (2).
In series (1), (2) and (3), the load transfer layer was replaced by natural soil.
The soil with a thickness of (H + hR) is the natural in situ soil; it covers a much more resistant
layer placed underneath the inclusions. The footing has a width of 2R.
Figure 3.10: Configurations associated with the three foundation solutions
Using pressuremeter tests, it becomes possible to calculate:

± For case (1), the limit load QL1 and settlement under load, y1;
± For case (3), the limit load QL3 and settlement under load, y3.
For case (2), it may be considered that if hR, i.e. the distance between the bottom of the
footing and the inclusion tips, exceeds 2R, then the inclusions do not improve the footing
load-bearing capacity.
It is proposed to calculate the load-bearing capacity as follows:

if hr < 2R QL2 = QL1 + 1/4 (2 ± hR/R)2 (QL3 ± QL1) (3.10)
if hr > 2R QL2 = QL1 (3.11)
The transition from series (1), (2), (3) to series¶¶¶LQYROYHVVXEVWLWXWLQJWKHin situ
soil thickness hR by a load transfer platform. According to this approach, it is considered that
the extension of such a substitution is unlimited within a plane, which obviously constitutes
an optimistic approximation.
Design methods 101

This substitution improves each of the QL terms into QL¶ terms. The improvement in footing
load-bearing capacity due to the mere presence of the load transfer platform (LTP) however
remains small as a result of the LTP¶s limited lateral extension. In most instances therefore,
this improvement can be neglected for the purpose of justifying the load-bearing capacity.
The results obtained using this calculation method are in agreement with the experimental
findings of both Plumelle (1985) and Bigot and Canepa (1988).
With respect to settlements, it is also well known how to calculate settlements corresponding
WRWKHWZRFDVHVDQGRU¶DQG¶ZLWKDORDGWUDQVIHUSODWIRUP&DVHRU¶LH
for the footing on inclusions, may be treated by introducing the notion of equivalent modulus
over the height H + hR, thereby simplifying the settlement calculation to that of a shallow
foundation on an equivalent multilayer. The estimated settlement y2 (or y2¶LVWKHQOHVVWKDQ
that of the footing on its own yet greater than that of the composite foundation, both of which
can be calculated.
Figure 3.11: Principle of the equivalent modulus procedure.
Combarieu¶s original method (1990) must be completed by two additional steps, intended to
calculate loadings within the inclusions.
Step 1
This first step consists of establishing the settlement profile ys(z) over the inclusion height, in
association with the settlement value at the head ys(± hR). The applied load below the footing
(width: 2R) yields the soil settlement under the footing ys(-hR), by means of pressuremeter
theory, and at every point ys(z) using the method suggested by Combarieu (1988). The
principle here is to replace the pressuremeter modulus EM of each element layer of thickness
R that enters into the settlement calculation, according to pressuremeter theory, by a very
large value, which through the corresponding difference determines the contribution of this
layer to total settlement. The composition of these element settlements is then used to draw
the desired profile ys(z).
Step 2
The loading curve of a single deep foundation element comprising the inclusion itself and the
related load transfer platform prism on top of it, which is assumed to be embedded inside a
soil block subjected to an imposed settlement ys(z) (as derived during Step 1 above), allows
establishing the load Qp(± hR) to be applied at the head of this column in order to obtain a
settlement equal to ys(-hr). In this particular calculation, the shaft friction at any point along
the inclusion (respectively the pressure under the tip) is correlated with the relative
displacement w(z) = [yp(z) ± ys(z)] using Frank and Zhao¶s laws for friction mobilization

(respectively, the point pressure). This calculation also determines the distribution of axial
forces Qp(z) in the inclusion.
Figure 3.12: Calculation of inclusion loading in the soil block

subjected to the imposed settlement profile ys(z)
In order to validate model consistency, it is necessary to verify that the stress found at the
inclusion head is compatible with the following (see Chapter 5, Section 4.2):
± The shear strength characteristics of the load transfer platform;
± The ultimate stress value at the inclusion head;
± The load transfer platform geometry, taking into account edge effects as required.
This consistency test is critical to the model validation step:

± When this test is not satisfactory, it becomes necessary to use a more detailed model;
± When this test is satisfied, the results obtained can be used to proceed with the set of STR
and GEO verifications, as indicated in Chapter 5.
Remark: This method neglects the settlement of the load transfer platform related
to stress concentration on the inclusion head. These settlements however may not
necessarily be negligible.
3.1.3.2.2. MV2 analytical model
This model was presented by Glandy and Frossard (2002).

It is intended to study the behavior of a footing on inclusions subjected to a vertical load. This
problem can be broken down into two distinct domains:
1) The ³pile´ domain, composed of the inclusions and soil volumes that extend the pile
vertically until reaching the lower or upper model boundary. This domain comprises n
identical elements, assumed to exhibit comparable behavior;
2) The ³soil´ domain, which serves to complement the above ³pile´ domain.
Design methods 103

Figure 3.13: Decomposition of the problem into two domains.
The interaction between the ³pile´ domain and the ³soil´ domain is assumed to be fully
described by the shear stress W that develops at their shared vertical boundary and by the
vertical stress q at the base of the pile domain; it is assumed that these interactions can be
described by the corresponding Frank and Zhao laws applied, considering the relative soil-
inclusion displacement at all points (instead of the absolute displacement for a pile).
Moreover, the method assumes that the settlement profile at the bottom of the footing is the
same for both domains.
This method requires an iterative computation in order to ensure the consistency of

calculations carried out in each domain, from the standpoint of settlements as well as
interaction forces. Moreover, it allows the estimation of a complete settlement profile along
the inclusion axis (pile domain) and in the soil domain underneath the footing, given an initial
hypothesis of total vertical load Q distribution between the soil domain (Qs fraction) and the
pile domains (n Qp fraction).
Figure 3.14: Principle of the MV2 model's iterative computation.

Based on the load Qs(± hR), which is assumed to be transmitted to the soil under the footing,
the settlement profile ys (z) below the footing can be determined by associating the
pressuremeter method with the method suggested by Combarieu (1988), as discussed in the
previous section; this profile also provides the settlement of the soil domain at the level of the
inclusion tip ys(L).
Based on an assumed inclusion displacement relative to this settlement ys(L), the following
can be calculated:
± End-bearing pressure mobilized at the tip,
and for each successive slice along the entire pile domain height (i.e. inclusion plus volume of
overlying load transfer platform):
± The amount of mobilized skin friction, taking into account the relative inclusion-soil
displacement (or soil-soil displacement in the platform);
± The normal stress;
± The elastic compression of each slice and its cumulative settlement;
± The load Qp(-hR) and the total settlement yp (± hRDWWKHWRSRIWKH³SLOH´GRPDLQ
An iterative calculation of the assumed displacement at the tip needs to be performed in order
to obtain the settlement compatibility at the top of both domains: ys (± hR) = yp (± hR).
Iterative calculations of the ratio of the load assumed to be applied to the soil domain is also
carried out so that this load gets summed with the nORDGVFDOFXODWHGDWWKHWRSRIWKH³SLOH´
domain, yielding a value equal to the total load applied to the foundation:
Q(± hR) = n * Ap * Qp(± hR) + Qs(± hR) * (S ± n * Ap) (3.12)
where Ap: area of the cross-section at the pile domain head;
S: area of the footing.
Figure 3.15 displays the application of the model to a simple case (Frossard, 2000), with the
calculation highlighting the various points to be verified.
Figure 3.15: Example of results derived from the MV2 model (Glandy and Frossard, 2000).
In order to validate model consistency, it is necessary to verify that the stress obtained at the
inclusion head is compatible with the load transfer platform shear strength characteristics and
moreover that the mobilized skin friction W above the neutral plane is indeed compatible with
the limiting values of negative skin friction (W .WDQGVv¶
This validation step requires that the vertical stress distribution in the soil domain be
estimated as follows:
Design methods 105

± For a relatively thin load transfer platform compared to the footing width, it can be assumed
that the total load at the bottom of the load transfer platform is equal to the load on the
footing. According to this condition, it is possible to evaluate the stress in the soil domain at
WKH ORDG WUDQVIHU SODWIRUP EDVH IURP WKH ORDG LQ WKH ³SLOH´ GRPDLQ IRU WKH VDPH HOHYDWLRQ
This allows verifying that the stress obtained at the inclusion head is compatible with both the
load transfer platform shear strength characteristics, i.e. ultimate stress at the inclusion head
and the platform geometry;
± The edge effect (Chapter 5, Section 4.2);
± The consistency verification relative to the negative skin friction proves to be a difficult step
as it depends on the vertical stress distribution in the soil domain, in alignment with the
footing, which is not calculated in the model. All verifications with respect to negative skin
friction thus impose adopting an additional hypothesis to allow the estimation of the vertical
stresses at any point (e.g. diffusion of loads transmitted to the soil by the footing at a selected
angle E).
Such consistency tests are crucial to the validation of the model:

± When these tests are unsatisfactory, it becomes necessary to use a more detailed model.
± When these tests are satisfactory, the results obtained can be used to proceed with the set of
STR and GEO verifications, as indicated in Chapter 5.
Remarks: Friction mobilization laws must incorporate the group effect between
adjacent inclusions: for the same load at the head of the model, the shaft friction
mobilized along an isolated inclusion is greater than that developed on one of the
group¶s inclusions. To take into account this phenomenon, the friction mobilization
curve in the MV2 model would need to be corrected by lowering, for example, the
value of the coefficient mW defined by the Frank and Zhao curves.
This group effect is naturally modeled in the MV3 model (to be described below),
which uses an axisymmetric model of the inclusion within a given group.
Since the settlement profile generated around the inclusions does not include the
influence of forces being transmitted to the soil below 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 soil block exposed to the action of positive skin friction mobilized
under the neutral plane.

3.1.3.2.3. MV3 analytical model (use of the monolithic approach)
This model was presented by Simon (2010).
The modeling process herein consists of the assimilation of the reinforced soil volume with
inclusions under the footing to an equivalent homogeneous monolith. The following
successive analyses are performed:
± The interaction between inclusions inside the reinforced volume, for the purpose of
establishing the properties of this equivalent homogeneous monolith;
± Then the interaction of this monolith with the surrounding soil.
The monolith studied herein is a prism circumscribed to the footing with main vertical axis
and the same cross-sectional area: it includes the load transfer platform, the soil layer
reinforced by inclusions and the upper part of the bearing layer where inclusions are
embedded. This monolith represents the juxtaposition of several reinforced unit cells
(inclusion and associated soil domain).
The cell cross-section is equal to the area of influence of each inclusion under the footing.
This approach entails 3 successive steps (Fig. 3.17), which are to be carried out using typical
methods used for deep foundation design:
± Analytical methods for the study of an isolated pile or a pile located at the center of a
reinforcement element mesh, under vertical loading, with the help of transfer functions
characterizing shaft friction and end-bearing mobilization around the pile;
± Or axisymmetric finite element models.
Figure 3.17: Underlying principle of the MV3 model's three-step protocol.
Step 1
A study of the behavior, under distributed vertical load, of a basic unit cell without any
interaction with the surrounding domain (i.e. case of a cell placed in the middle of a multiple
network of identical cells) serves to establish the elevation of the horizontal plane underneath
the inclusion tip where soil settlement is uniform (lower neutral plane). The average
Design methods 107

settlement derived between the upper cell face (below the footing), and this lower plane
allows calculating the apparent equivalent modulus of deformation E* of the unit cell under
vertical loading (Fig. 3.18).
Figure 3.18: a) Studied configuration; b) Step 1 of the calculation according to the MV3 model.
Step 2
A study of the vertical monolith with modulus E* assimilated to an isolated pile interacting
with the surrounding (non-reinforced) soil domain, exposed to a vertical force Q, determines
the profile ys(z) of the average monolith settlement, accounting for skin friction mobilization
on the monolith perimeter. The settlement recorded at the top ys(± hR) remains less than the
settlement of the cell studied during Step 1, as a result of the stress diffusion through shaft
friction along the surrounding soil block (Fig. 3.19).

Figure 3.19: Step 2 of the calculation according to the MV3 model.
Remark: The friction taken into account at the monolith edge is a soil-soil type
friction; it may be taken as the undrained cohesion cu in clayey layers. In sandy
layers, the value adopted will be calculated from the values for pl RUF¶DQGI¶RI
the targeted layer.
The model¶s relevance depends on the limiting friction value considered along the
monolith perimeter. It is recommended to calibrate the value of this limiting
friction by applying a monolith model comparable to the footing loading case on
the soil presumed to be non-reinforced in order to verify that the resulting
settlement is in fact comparable to that obtained by pressuremeter theory a load
½kpl*. In this case, the monolith has the same height as that used with the
inclusions and a modulus value equal to the modulus E of the soil and not the
modulus E* determined during Step 1.
Step 3
The loading curve of an inclusion assumed to be isolated (including the load transfer platform
prism displaying the same overlying cross-section) in a soil block subjected to an imposed
settlement ys(z) makes it possible to establish the load Qp(± hR) applied at the head of this
column in order to obtain a settlement equal to ys(± hR). According to this calculation, the
shaft friction at any point of the inclusion is correlated to the relative displacement [yp(z) ±
ys(z)] at the same depth. This load Qp(± hR) then determines the distribution of axial forces
Qp(z) in the actual inclusion. The value at the inclusion head (i.e. depth hR under the base of
the monolith studied during Step 2) is denoted Qp(0).
Design methods 109

Figure 3.20: Step 3 of the MV3 model calculation protocol.
To validate model consistency, it is necessary to verify that the stress calculated at the
inclusion head is compatible with the load transfer platform shear strength characteristics and
moreover that the friction mobilized above the neutral plane is compatible with the limiting
values associated with the negative skin friction KtanGVv¶
Knowing the vertical stress at any depth in the monolith (Step 2) and the axial force in the pile
domain (Step 3) enables the calculation at any point of the average stress in the soil domain
and then the verification of the consistency of these results (load transfer platform and
negative skin friction).
Consistency tests are essential to validate this model:

± When these tests are unsatisfactory, it becomes necessary to use a more detailed model.
± When these tests are satisfactory, the results obtained can be used to proceed with the set of
STR and GEO verifications, as indicated in Chapter 5.
Remark: Group effects relative to shaft friction are automatically taken into
consideration by use of the axisymmetric model of an inclusion within a group, as
introduced during Step 1.
3.2. Other loads
3.2.1. Horizontal load and moment on footings
The interaction between soil and inclusion is determined through the use of a set of simplified
models identified below.
These models are applied in accordance with the three methods developed subsequently.

3.2.1.1. Common features of the simplified models that incorporate both a horizontal loading
and a moment
The loading configuration considered herein has been presented in Figure 3.17; it includes a
vertical force, a horizontal force and a moment.
Lateral forces on the foundation cause shear to develop in both the soil and the inclusions:
± Shear generated in the soil introduces horizontal displacements of the soil block;
± The inclusions, which are also affected by a portion of the forces transmitted by the footing,
interact with the soil subjected to this displacement field.
The models must account for these interactions to evaluate the stress distribution within the
inclusions.
The horizontal force at the head of an inclusion Tp(0) is bound by the following value since it
can only be transmitted by friction between the load transfer platform and the inclusion head:
§ Q p 0 ·
T p 0 d min ¨¨ T ( hR ), Q p 0 tan G ¸¸ (3.13)
© Q( hR ) ¹
where:G is the load transfer platform-inclusion angle of friction;
Qp(0) the axial force transmitted to the top of the inclusion;
Q(± hR) the vertical force applied to the footing;
T(± hR) the horizontal force applied to the footing.
Let¶s also observe that the force transmitted to the inclusion head can never induce a
displacement of the inclusion head that exceeds the displacement of the surrounding soil.
One acceptable approach for obtaining a loading envelope therefore consists of applying a
shear force at the inclusion head that ³reduces´ the inclusion head displacement to a value
equal to that of the surrounding soil, provided it remains less than the maximum value defined
in Equation (3.13).
Remark: The numerical calculations performed within the scope of this project
have demonstrated that the shear force actually acting at the inclusion head
depends on the degree of shear strength mobilized in the load transfer platform.
Since ³punching´ of the inclusion head into the load transfer platform mobilizes,
under the vertical load component, a portion of this shear strength, the shear force
capable of being mobilized at the head depends on the remaining amount of
potentially mobilized strength. The mobilized shear force is small when the
vertical force in the load transfer platform on the inclusion head is close to its
ultimate value (see Chapter 5, Section 4.2.2: Calculation of the ultimate transfer
of loads at the inclusion head).
In all cases, the boundary conditions at the inclusion base are:

T(L) = 0 and M(L) = 0.
Loadings in the inclusions may be calculated via the coefficient of subgrade reaction method
associated with the imposed lateral displacement field g(z) created in the soil due to the
additional shear forces.
Design methods 111

These subgrade reaction coefficients are estimated in a manner similar to an isolated pile (see
Appendix I of the NF P 94-262 Standard on deep foundations).
The following analytical models present different ways of evaluating the imposed
displacement field.
Remarks: In general, the same rules as for shallow foundations are applied on the
unreinforced soil regarding the determination of passive pressure and side friction
reactions on the lateral footing faces.
When these reactions are neglected, the horizontal force at the bottom of the
footing is equal to the horizontal force applied at the top of the footing.
3.2.1.2. Simplified models for horizontal loading and moment
3.2.1.2.1. MH1 analytical model
The shear transmitted in the soil can be neglected by assuming g(z) = 0. The upper bound of
the horizontal force potentially developed at the inclusion head is (see Section 3.2.1.1):
§ Q p 0 ·
T p 0 min ¨¨ T ( hR ), Q p 0 tan G ¸¸ (3.14)
© Q( hR ) ¹
The inclusions are only taken into account if they are strictly located in the compressed zone,
as shown in Figure 3.23.
Remark: The load transfer platform enables spreading shear forces generated by
T with depth. This spreading can be neglected without jeopardizing safety.
Figure 3.21: Inclusions taken into account relative to the lateral loadings.
At this point, it is necessary to:

± Derive the vertical reaction distribution of both the soil and inclusions using a basic cell
model subjected to vertical load;
± Convert these reactions into equivalent distributed spring stiffnesses for the soil and
inclusions;
± Establish the vertical reaction distribution between the soil and the inclusions at the base of
the load transfer platform that balances the load system [Q(± hR), M(± hR)].

Remark: Neglecting, during this step, both the group effect (which would imply
lower subgrade reaction coefficients) and the soil displacement g(z) induced by
the residual shear force (T ± 6Ti) is an acceptable simplification.
3.2.1.2.2. MH2 analytical model
The horizontal force applied at the footing is used for the purpose of calculating the horizontal
displacement of the footing v(± hR) lying on an elastic mass.
For this task, it is possible to use the foundation impedance formulas at the surface of a semi-
infinite elastic mass. As an illustration, for a circular foundation of radius R at the surface of
an isotropic homogeneous mass characterized by shear modulus G and Poisson¶s ratio Q, the
stiffness Kx = T/v with respect to a horizontal force is given by (Pecker, 1984):
Kx = 8 GR/(2 ± Q) (3.15)
Similar solutions for a two-layer system have been given by Gazetas (1990).
Based on the shear stress applied to the soil at the level of the inclusion head, the shear stress
W(z) distribution at any depth could be calculated from a diffusion angle E down to the bearing
layer (where shear strains are considered to be negligible).
Starting from the bearing substratum, the shear strain is integrated in order to derive the
lateral displacement profile as follows:
g(z) = 6Wz/G(z) dz (3.16)
where G(z) is the shear modulus of the soil at depth z

The parameter E is calibrated to obtain a deformation at the top g(-hR) equal to the value
v(-hR) determined previously.
The resulting displacement profile is the targeted displacement field g(z).
Remark: When the soil is homogeneous, the tri-linear profile proposed by Borel
(2001) for a piled-raft foundation can also be adopted.
Table 3.3: Tri-linear approximation of relative displacement in the center of a stiff rectangular footing L
x B at the surface of a soil mass with height H (valid for H/B > 3).
Relative depth z/B 0 0.4 1 3

Relative displacement g(z)/g(0) 1 0.5 0.25 0
Design methods 113

Figure 3.22: Tri-linear approximation of the g(z) profile (Borel, 2001).
The subgrade reaction calculation incorporates this displacement field g(z) and the following
boundary conditions:
± at the inclusion head:
Mp(0) = 0 (3.17)
and Tp(0) calculated in accordance with the recommendations set forth in Section 3.2.1.1.
More specifically, a loading envelope is produced by selecting the value for Tp(0) that yields a
displacement of the inclusion head equal to g(0) i.e. equal to the displacement of the
surrounding soil, provided Tp(0) remains less than the maximum value defined in Equation
(3.13);
± at the inclusion tip:
Mp(L) = 0 (3.18)
and Tp(L) = 0 (3.19)
3.2.1.2.3. MH3 analytical model (monolithic method)

The MH3 model, introduced in conjunction with the MV3 model, has two successive
additional steps (Simon, 2010; Fig. 3.23).
Remark: The considered monolith corresponds to only the compressed part under
the footing.
This approach is similar to that employed to study an isolated pile subjected to transverse
loading, as depicted by a force T and a bending moment M applied at the head and/or a
displacement imposed on the surrounding soil g(z), on elastic-plastic springs (p = p(v) < plim).
The limited monolith length-to-width ratio and its orthotropic nature however require taking
the shear deformations of the pile into account.
The simple model of a thin beam, commonly used for piles, tends to be inappropriate in that
case.

Figure 3.23: Underlying principle of Steps 4 and 5 in the MH3 model.
Step 4
The monolith with an equivalent modulus E*, which can ultimately be extended to the footing
volume (modulus Eb), is assimilated with a horizontally-loaded pile interacting with the
external soil block via elastic springs p(v). The horizontal load considered herein is
characterized by the load system [T, M] applied to the footing. The calculation establishes a
transverse displacement profile g(z) for the monolith, which is subjected to the loading action;
it also determines the rotation Z(± hR) of the footing (Fig. 3.24).
Figure 3.24: Step 4 of the calculation, according to the MH3 model,

for the example shown in Figure 3.15a.
Design methods 115

Remarks: Since the monolith under consideration typically features a low
slenderness ratio, the shear deformations controlled by the G*:1 factor (with G*
being the equivalent shear modulus of the monolith and :1 the reduced shear
cross-section) cannot be neglected when compared with bending deformations
controlled by the factor E*I (with E* being the equivalent deformation modulus
of the monolith and I the cross-section inertia of the compressed zone of
homogenized soil).
The equivalent shear modulus G* may be assimilated with the shear modulus of
the soil on its own (with the contribution of inclusions to shear strength remaining
negligible compared to that of the soil). This G* value is thus equal to
Esol/[2(1 + Q)], which is distinctly less than the value E*/[2(1 + Q)] that would
have been obtained in a monolith made of isotropic material. This reasoning
explains why deflections by shearing must not be neglected in comparison with
those by bending (Esol denotes the deformation modulus of non-reinforced soil).
Step 5
A subgrade reaction model, limited to the inclusion alone and assumed to be subjected to the
previous displacement field g(z), is calculated assuming the following relevant boundary
conditions:
± at the inclusion head:
Mp(0) = 0 (3.20)
and Tp(0) evaluated in accordance with the recommendations set forth in Section 3.2.1.1.
More specifically, a loading envelope is produced by selecting the value for Tp(0) that gives a
displacement of the inclusion head equal to g(0), i.e. equal to the displacement of the
surrounding soil, provided Tp(0) remains less than the maximum value defined in Equation
(3.13);
± at the inclusion tip:
Mp(L) = 0 (3.21)
and Tp(L) = 0 (3.22)
This calculation in turn defines both the shear force distribution Tp(z) and bending moment
distribution Mp(z) in the inclusion resulting from the loading [T, M] (Fig. 3.25).
Figure 3.25: Step 5 of the calculation, according to the MH3 model,

for the example shown in Figure 3.15a.

Axial forces in the inclusions depend on the cell position with respect to the axis of rotation of
the footing. The footing rotation Z(-hR) (as calculated during Step 4) actually determines
settlement along the axis of the cell placed a distance d from the axis of rotation, as follows:
yp(-hR) = Z(-hR).d (3.23)
The associated axial forces in the inclusion placed at the center of this cell can then be
estimated by assimilating them with the axial forces found under a uniform vertical loading of
the cell that yields the same settlement yp(-hR) = ys(± hR). This step is performed by means of
a specific calculation linking Steps 2 and 3.
The forces Qp(z), Tp(z) and Mp(z) obtained according to the various load cases must be
combined in order to verify the stresses in the inclusions.
Remark: The various inclusions placed beneath the footing are subjected to
vertical forces that in theory differ from one another due to the footing rotation.
The horizontal force applied at the top of each inclusion must remain compatible
with the associated vertical force (according to the formula in 3.13).
3.2.2. Loadings under asymmetric conditions
Inclusions may be subjected to additional bending stresses under certain kinds of situations.
These loads may be imposed on peripheral inclusions installed below embankment slopes, or
on inclusions placed beneath a mechanically-stabilized embankment used as bridge abutment.
They may also be those imposed by asymmetric load conditions on an industrial slab or
during an earthquake.
In the case of inclusions placed under an embankment slope, a g(z) type of approach proves
possible. The maximum displacement gmax of the profile needs to be correlated with the
maximum settlement ys(0) in the intermediate sections following treatment. The
proportionality factor * = gmax/ys(0), as well as the shape of the g(z) curve, may be chosen
following the observations recorded on instrumented embankments (see the NF P 94 262
Standard on deep foundation applications).
The bending stresses inside the inclusions may be calculated similarly to piles placed in a soil
subjected to a displacement g(z).
Remark: Since inclusions only typically represent a small volume of reinforced

soil, it is permitted to consider that free displacement of the soil block between
inclusions is not being modified by the inclusions.
In the case of earthquakes, the g(z) curve to be assessed is the one defined by the free field
soil displacement, which depends on the shear wave velocity Vs profile (AFPS, 2011).
4. NUMERICAL MODELS USING FINITE ELEMENTS OR FINITE DIFFERENCES
The finite element and finite difference methods are the most widespread for resolving
mechanical equations involving continuous media.
Both methods rely on a discretization of the model under study. Based on constitutive models
of both soils and the various component materials found in this model, these methods allow
Design methods 117

simulating the behavior of the discretized medium in terms of stresses and strains under the
effect of loads.
The accuracy of a simulation depends on the relevance and quality of the soil constitutive
models adopted and the discretization strategy selected for the studied soil block.
Moreover, these types of methods lead to a verification of bearing capacity and stability
criteria for the modeled zone.
From the user¶s standpoint, no noteworthy differences distinguish the two methods.
For purposes of illustration, a 2D finite element mesh model will be presented below
(Fig. 3.26) along with a 3D model of a reinforced soil block beneath a footing (Fig. 3.27).
Figure 3.26: 2D computational model of an embankment overlying compressible soils.
Figure 3.27: Example of 3D mesh for a footing supported by rigid inclusions.
The result obtained through these methods yields an approximated solution whose accuracy
depends on:
± The model constitutive laws of materials and interfaces;
± Discretization, resulting in a meshing pattern that must be finer where the strain field
variations are greatest;
± The type of elements adopted (number of nodes) and interpolation laws incorporated into
each element (linear vs. quadratic);
± The use of interfaces between structural elements and the soil in order to allow the
integration of soil/structure interaction phenomena;
± The boundary conditions.

4.1. Benefits of using these methods
These tools allow the geotechnical engineer to simulate complex structures (in terms of
geometry and behavior); in addition, problems impossible to solve analytically can be solved
in a complete manner.
Compared to the simplified methods, numerical modeling in a continuous medium takes into
account the entire configuration of the soil mass, the rigid inclusions and the interfaces
between the various components. This type of modeling leads to the calculation of
displacements, stresses and strains for each element and moreover enables considering the
hydro-mechanical coupling whenever consolidation problems arise.
The construction history of the particular structure, which includes for example the phasing of
embankment installation, the placement of geo-synthetics or ground slab, and the lowering of
the water table, can also be incorporated, thus making it possible to evaluate the impact of
each phase of the works.
Numerical modeling also allows performing the structural verification steps relative not only
to displacements (in the service limit state SLS), but also regarding failure (ultimate limit
state ULS).
Calculations in small displacements on the initial geometry (common case) are typically
performed. In some cases, when second-order effects can no longer be ignored, it becomes
necessary to run the simulations with a large displacement assumption. This type of modeling
allows updating the geometry of the mesh adopted during the loading sequence. This is
necessary to correctly account for the influence of reinforcement layers that develop tensile
forces, depending on the vertical displacements they undergo.
These methods generate, from an extensive knowledge of the behavior of the different layers
of soils as well as of the inclusions, the interactions between various components and the
phasing of the construction of the structure, plus a set of relevant simulations of the overall
performance of the structure.
They are also beneficial for conducting parametric studies that demonstrate the sensitivity of a
given parameter.
4.2. Limitations of two-dimensional modeling
Currently, 2D structural models are commonly used, either plane strain models or
axisymmetric models.
In the axisymmetric models, the grid of inclusions in the central part of the embankment is
modeled by transforming the area of influence of the inclusion, whether rectangular or square,
into a circle (Fig. 3.28). With this type of configuration, it is possible to only model a single
unit cell located either close to the embankment axis or at the center of a slab on grade.
In plane strain models, the complete response of the entire embankment or slab on grade on
the soil reinforced by rigid inclusions can be obtained through broad simplifications relative
to the rigid inclusion geometry. While the 2D hypothesis is valid for the embankment itself, it
Design methods 119

is no longer acceptable when adding the rigid inclusions. The 3D inclusion must then be
transformed into an ³equivalent´ 2D plate (Fig. 3.29).
A slab on grade may also demonstrate a behavior closer to a 3D representation than a 2D

behavior, in which case the model strays significantly from reality since the computational
space remains two-dimensional.
Figure 3.28: Axisymmetric modeling of the central mesh (right)
Figure 3.29: Model of the embankment and soil reinforced by rigid inclusions in plane deformation.
4.2.1. Axisymmetric model
The axisymmetric analysis can only, strictly speaking, provide a model of the central mesh in
the embankment axis, as the embankment itself is assumed to be symmetrical (Fig. 3.30).
For a slab on grade, the interior of the slab far from the edges can be modeled, provided that
the loading is uniform across the inclusion grid.

Figure 3.30: Axisymmetric model representing a single mesh of a distributed load
supported by a soil reinforced by rigid inclusions.
4.2.2. Plane strain model
In this type of configuration, the rows of inclusion are transformHGLQWR³ZDOOV´SHUSHQGLFXODU

to the sectional plane of the model.
In order to depict the entire embankment and rigid inclusion configuration in 2D, the rigid
LQFOXVLRQVQHHGWREHPRGHOHGLQWKHIRUPRI³ZDOOV´RUSODWHVZLWKDQHTXLYDOHQWVWLIIQHVV($
relative to the normal force and an equivalent EI relative to the bending stiffness, while also
verifying that the side friction developed against this plate and the forces transmitted at the
head and base of the plate are comparable to the actual forces applied to the inclusions.
7KH ³ZDOO´ ZLGWKDW ERWKWKH KHDGDQGEDVHKDVWR EHDGDSWHGLQRUGHU WR PDLQWDLQ WKH DUHD
replacement ratio and thus correctly model the force at the head and base of the inclusion.
Interface parameters must be set so as to replicate the force being mobilized by side friction.
The plane strain model thus offers an acceptable approximation for the design of inclusions
beneath embankments. In contrast, it is poorly adapted for the verification of the stresses
developed in the load transfer platform at the top of the inclusions as well as stresses and
moments in slabs on grade.
Yet depending on the type of parameters (stresses, displacements), it is acceptable to choose

to accurately model only a portion of the previously defined criteria. The validity of plane
strain models should be verified by comparison with the results of an axisymmetric model.
Design methods 121

4.3. Modeling considerations
4.3.1. Geometric boundaries of these models
Model boundaries are chosen so as not to influence the calculation results.
For an axisymmetric model, the vertical geometric boundaries are imposed by the model,
which exhibits an oedometric behavior (Fig. 3.31).
When a plane strain model is used, the model¶s vertical geometric boundaries must be placed
at a distance such that the displacements and stresses contributed by the loads will remain
negligible with respect to these boundaries. For a perfectly symmetric structure (from both a
geometric and mechanical standpoint) with symmetric loadings as well, only half of the
structure needs to be modeled (e.g. Fig. 3.28).
For these two models (axisymmetric and plane strain), horizontal geometric boundaries are
chosen to take into account the geological profile in the case of a rigid substratum or a stiff
shallow soil layer. In classical configurations, the rigid inclusions go through a layer of soft
soil and are embedded into a much stiffer layer. Should this particular layer not be overlying a
rigid substratum or a layer of very stiff soil, then it would be necessary to extend the model
below the inclusion tip over a soil thickness sufficient to neglect the deformations due to
stresses of the structure at depth as well as the stresses at the tip of the inclusions at depth.
Special attention will be paid to the raft effect from groups of inclusions (Fig. 3.32).
The load transmitted to the inclusions is subsequently transferred to the bearing layer. It is
therefore critical to accurately model the thickness and characteristics of the underlying
layers. Their compressibility could in fact cause additional non-negligible settlements.
Figure 3.31: Boundary conditions. Figure 3.32: Raft effect and zone of influence.
It might be useful to test the sensitivity of the results by studying how they are affected by the
choice of boundaries further away from the inclusions (larger model).
4.3.2. Boundary conditions
In an axisymmetric model, the horizontal displacement is by definition equal to zero on the

model axis and the outer edge of the model.

In the case of a plane strain model, more often than not, a zero horizontal displacement is
imposed at the vertical boundaries of the model. When the problem is symmetrical
(Fig. 3.31), e.g. in plane deformation, the horizontal displacement is by definition equal to
zero on the vertical plane of symmetry.
For both models, a zero vertical and horizontal displacement is imposed on the lower
horizontal boundary.
4.3.3. Axisymmetric model of a unit cell
4.3.3.1. Embankment
Far from the toe of the embankment (Fig. 3.33), the following axisymmetric model may be
considered (Fig. 3.34).
Figure 3.33: Sketch of in situ soil reinforcement Figure 3.34:

by means of rigid inclusions ( embankment case). Basic cell.
4.3.3.2. Slab on grade
An axisymmetric model can only represent the central mesh of a network of rigid inclusions;
this model is specially adapted to uniform surface loads.
The radius R of the equivalent model is chosen to represent the area of a unit cell, provided
that this area's proportions are close to those of a square (i.e. b < 1.25 a):
ab
R (3.24)
S
Design methods 123

Figure 3.35: Sketch of in situ soil reinforcement Figure 3.36:
by means of rigid inclusions (Slab on grade case). Unit cell
4.3.4. Plane strain model
The requirements specific to this type of model are detailed in Section 4.2.2. Other geometry-
based requirements must also be taken into consideration.
As a preliminary indication, the model dimensions 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).
Moreover, with respect to the influence of rigid inclusion tips, the following maximum values
will be adopted beneath the tips:
± 10 times the tip diameter;
± 3 times the width of the raft equivalent to the group of inclusions.
In all instances, it is necessary to verify that the results obtained are not influenced by the
selected model dimensions.
Quite often, the structure is symmetric from both a geometric and hydro-mechanical
standpoint; under such conditions, which are indeed frequently encountered, this symmetry
will be utilized to consider only half of the structure (Fig. 3.31).

Figure 3.37: Geometry-based criteria for the plane model of an embankment over inclusions.
4.3.5. Volumetric or linear elements
Rigid inclusions may be represented by either volumetric or beam elements (Fig. 3.38).
In soil reinforcement projects, it is preferable to model the rigid inclusions using volumetric
elements in order to represent the interactions at the inclusion head and tip as well as along
the shaft of the inclusion.
Figure 3.38: Model of inclusions using volumetric or linear elements.
Whenever an inclusion is represented by volumetric elements in linear elasticity, it is helpful

to introduce a beam element with a very low stiffness EA into the inclusions so as to facilitate
the analysis, by means of simple proportionality, of the forces in the inclusion.
4.3.6. Behavior of the soil mass below the reinforced volume
The axisymmetric model of a unit cell depicts the case of the uniform loading of a very large
extended area. It is implicitly assumed that no load diffusion outside the volume of the model
actually occurs. This model is representative over the inclusion length, since inclusions tend
to attract the loads applied at the top of the model. A horizontal neutral plane where the stress
distribution is uniform across the model should be located between the tip of the inclusion
base and the base of the model (the lower neutral plane of equal settlement) (Fig. 3.39).
Design methods 125

Figure 3.39: Upper neutral planes of equal settlement,
along with the intermediate and lower planes around an inclusion.
It is necessary to examine the amount of settlements caused by this uniform stress in the soil
volume located below this neutral plane of equal settlement.
If these settlements are non-negligible, their estimation may require a specific model distinct
from the axisymmetric model of the unit cell:
± Simply extending the unit cell model is most definitely a pessimistic approach since no
lateral diffusion of the load would be allowed to intervene. The resulting calculated settlement
would thus be an upper bound of the total settlement under the structure (Fig. 3.40);
Figure 3.40: Extending the unit cell model downward

in order to estimate settlements of the underlying soil layer.
± One option consists of estimating the settlements of a fictitious foundation of the same
dimensions as the structure itself, which has been lowered to the level of the neutral plane
positioned below the inclusion tips and loaded with the average stress of the structure. The
total surface settlement is therefore the sum of the unit cell settlement (with the model limited
to the neutral plane beneath the tip of the inclusion) plus the settlement of the lowered
fictitious foundation (Fig. 3.41);

± A comprehensive global 2D model of the structure that incorporates its dimensions
(whether plane or axisymmetric), where the reinforced zone is modeled as a homogenized
zone, gives a less pessimistic representation of load diffusion with depth. This model allows
modeling the side interaction between the non-reinforced zone and surrounding soil block.
The settlement calculated by the model thus represents an estimation of the total settlement of
the structure (Fig. 3.42).
Figure 3.41: Fictitious footing loaded at the inclusion tip,

for the purpose of estimating the settlement of the layer below the tip of the inclusions.
Figure 3.42: Homogenized equivalent volume interacting with the non-reinforced soil,
for the purpose of estimating the settlements of the underlying bearing layer.
4.3.7. Use of 3D modeling
The primary advantage associated with three-dimensional modeling is the ability to represent
the targeted problem in a comprehensive global manner. This type of simulation can be
necessary in the case of a reinforced slope, a footing subjected to complex loading or a non-
uniformly loaded slab on grade. All these models however lead to very high computational
times.
Design methods 127

4.4. Constitutive models
4.4.1. Study of model parameters
Regardless of the type of model and computational tool, the modeling parameters must
provide the opportunity for numerical models to replicate the actual behavior of the project as
closely as possible.
The parameter calibration phase needs to verify that the selected constitutive model,
combined with the particular dataset of selected parameters, will yield representative results
when applied to the simulation of the available test data. It is essential, during the preliminary
phases, to calibrate the parameters described in the subsequent sections. Without any
empirical field data, it is advised to select the least favorable hypotheses.
In the absence of direct comparison with an in situ load test, it is recommended to verify the
capacity of an appropriately-dimensioned model, using the selected constitutive models and
parameters, in order to produce a loading curve at the head of an isolated inclusion
comparable to the curve estimated according to the semi-empirical approach combining Frank
and Zhao-type mobilization laws with ultimate values qs and qp relative to the type of
inclusion considered.
Similarly, underneath a footing, it is recommended to verify the capacity of an appropriately-

sized model to yield a loading curve at the top of an isolated non-reinforced footing
comparable to the curve estimated by implementing a semi-empirical pressuremeter or
penetrometer type approach.
4.4.2. Mechanical characteristics of soils
The introduction of numerical models enables utilizing the ³best´ constitutive models adapted
to each structure-soil combination. In other words, it is not necessary to solely use the so-
called ³Mohr-Coulomb model´ (which is in fact a linear elastic-perfectly plastic model with a
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion), even though it is the most widely known and most widely
used in the geotechnical community. The parameters selected for the materials in the
calculation will thus depend on the selected constitutive model for a soil mass, structure or
support.
4.4.2.1. Linear elastic-perfectly plastic model (Mohr-Coulomb)
This first-order model is the best known among geotechnical engineers; it can be used for stiff
soils without any problem of consolidation.
For a homogeneous and isotropic material, this model requires determining 5 parameters (as
shown in Fig. 3.43).

Figure 3.43: Elasto-plastic constitutive model.
In order to select the 5 relevant parameters (see Table 3.4), the most appropriate test is the
triaxial test.
Table 3.4: Mohr-Coulomb parameters.
Parameter Unit Means of determination

E (Young¶s modulus) kPa, MPa Triaxial, pressuremeter (EM)
Q¶3RLVVRQ
VUDWLR ± 0.2 < Q¶
M¶DQJOHRIIULFWLRQ Degrees Triaxial, correlations?
F¶FRKHVLRQ kPa Triaxial, correlations
\ (angle of dilation) Degrees \ §M¶± 30°
This model, which describes (using a limited number of parameters) the soil behavior up to
failure, can still prove overly simplistic in some cases:
± For excavation during which the soil mass is unloaded; according to this model, the
unload/reload modulus is equal to the loading virgin modulus, which is an unrealistic
assumption, resulting in an excessive calculated heave at the bottom of the excavation when
compared to experimental data;
± For slightly over-consolidated soft soils whose apparent deformation modulus depends on
the stress increment.
The initial stress state of the soil, which depends on both its geologic and anthropogenic
history, must be specified by oedometer testing at various levels in order to determine the
degree of over-consolidation (ROC) vs. depth.
The stresses from the structure, the embankment, slab on grade loads, tanks and reservoirs,
etc. will be used to determine the precise domain of stresses where the various layers will be
loaded, i.e. normally consolidated domain vs. over-consolidated domain (Fig. 3.44).
)RUVRLOVLQWKHQRUPDOO\FRQVROLGDWHGGRPDLQF¶| 0; the angle of friction will be set at the

critical state M¶NC = M¶crit (on the yield surface) and will thus be identical to the peak friction
angle.
For soils with stresses in the over-consolidated domain, if the strain is limited and less than
that of the elastic limit (i.e. below the yield surface), then the values will be set at the peak,
where M¶SC = M¶peakDQGF¶SC F¶peak. In the over-consolidated domain, stress paths end up on
Design methods 129

the ³limit state ellipse´; the ends of these paths are therefore not aligned, though the curve is
usually linearly interpolated in order to calculate M¶peakDQGF¶peak. It can be noted on Figure
3.44 that the determination of M¶peakDQGF¶peak requires experience and is less reliable than in
the normally consolidated domain.
¶
Figure 3.44: Determination of M DQGF¶LQERWKWKHQRUPDOO\FRQVROLGDWHGDQGRYHU-consolidated
domains (according to Josseaume and Azizi, 1991).
SuggHVWHG YDOXHV RI F¶ DQG M¶, based on correlations as a function of Ip, are provided in
Chapter 6.
4.4.2.2. Elasto-plastic model with strain hardening (modified Cam-clay)
This model is well adapted for soils subjected to primary consolidation phenomena.
The concepts of elastic limit state and critical state are introduced on the basis of:
± Isotropic consolidation tests that define the elastic limit points (Fig. 3.45);
± Triaxial tests that define the critical states and critical state line T 0S¶in the Cambridge
D[HV^S¶T`)LJZLWK
6 sin M '
q p'
3 sin M ' (3.25)

Figure 3.45: Isotropic compression curve. Figure 3.46: Stress and strain paths leading to
critical state.
CVI: virgin isotropic compression curve
LEC: critical state line
CEC: critical state curve
V: specific volume = (1 + e)
VA: initial specific volume
S¶DQGT average stress and deviatoric stress
So, in order to determine the 5 main parameters of the model, a series of oedometer tests and
triaxial tests need to be conducted (see Table 3.5 for further details).
The ³Soft Soil´ model has been derived from the ³modified Cam-clay´ model.
Table 3.5: "Soft Soil" model parameters.
Parameter Units Means of determination

Ȝ* (compression index) - Oedometer: Cc / 2.3 (1 + e)
ț* (decompression-recompression index) - Oedometer: 2Cs / 2.3 (1 + e)
M¶DQJOHRIIULFWLRQ Degrees Triaxial (or correlations?)
F¶FRKHVLRQ kPa Triaxial (or correlations?)
4.4.2.3. Elasto-plastic model with strain hardening (modified Cam-clay) and creep
This model incorporates soil viscosity (Fig. 3.47) and is particularly applicable to soft organic
clay and peat for which creep (secondary consolidation) cannot be neglected when compared
to Terzaghi's primary consolidation.
Design methods 131

Figure 3.47: Creep curves.
CD, the secondary consolidation rate, is defined as follows:

'H
'H H0
CD (3.26)
' lg t ' lg t
Using the void ratio, the creep index CDe is expressed as:
'e
CDe CD 1 eo (3.27)
' lg t
where eo is the initial void ratio.
With respect to the ³Soft Soil´ model, an additional parameter is thus required. Both short and
long-term oedometer tests need to be conducted along with triaxial tests (Table 3.6).
Table 3.6: Parameters used for the "Soft Soil Creep" model.

Ȝ* (compression index) ± Oedometer: Cc/2.3 (1 + e)
ț* (decompression-recompression index) ± Oedometer: 2Cs/2.3 (1 + e)
P* (creep index) ± Long-term oedometer: CDe / 2.3
(1 + e)
M¶DQJOHRIIULFWLRQ Degrees Triaxial (or correlations?)
F¶FRKHVLRQ kPa Triaxial (or correlations?)
4.4.2.4. Hyperbolic model of the elasto-plastic type with strain hardening

Second-order models are currently the most advanced for the purpose of simulating the
behavior of both stiff and soft soils. As an example, let's describe the hyperbolic constitutive
model which is an elasto-plastic type model with strain hardening (so-called ³Hardening Soil
Model´); it features an initial nonlinear behavior, with a plastic threshold, an unloading
modulus greater than the virgin loading modulus, and both compression and shear hardening
(Fig. 3.48). This model also allows describing the dilatancy prior to failure.
The deviatoric curves q - axial strain H1 from the triaxial tests are approximated to hyperbolas,
i.e.:
H1
q (3.28)
1 H
1
Ei q a
with: Ei: tangent modulus of the virgin loading;
qa: horizontal asymptote value of the deviatoric tensor.
Figure 3.48: Relation between stress q and strain H1 in the hyperbolic model.
The tangent modulus Ei increases with stress V¶3:

m
§ V' ·
Ei kp a ¨¨ 3 ¸¸ (3.29)
© pa ¹
where k and m are parameters determined based on drained triaxial tests and pa is the
reference pressure, typically taken as atmospheric pressure; k depends on the type of soil and
its density. For sand material, m is on the order of 0.5, while for clay m is closer to 1.
The failure threshold qf is determined from the Mohr-Coulomb criterion; the deviator-
hyperbolic strain curve is truncated accordingly (Fig. 3.48). Rf is the ratio of qf / qa ; its value
generally lies between 0.8 and 0.9 and in the Plaxis software has been set by default at 0.9.
In order to completely describe this model, a total of 10 parameters are necessary. A triaxial
testing campaign should be conducted, in theory, with an unloading-reloading loop so as to
measure Eurref. Oedometric tests are also recommended. (Table 3.7).
Design methods 133

Table 3.7: The set of "Hardening Soil Model" parameters.

E50ref kPa Triaxial CD, with a 'V measurement
Eoedref kPa Oedometer
M ± Triaxial, correlations?
Eurref kPa Triaxial, in unloading (3 u E50ref)
Qur ± Triaxial, in unloading (0.2)
pref kPa (100 kPa)
Rf ± Triaxial (0.9)
M¶DQJOHRIIULFWLRQ Degrees Triaxial, correlations?
F¶FRKHVLRQ kPa Triaxial, correlations?
The soil parameter determination protocol is provided as part of Chapter 6, Soil Surveys.
Remark: In order to calibrate the parameters in this model, results from drained
triaxial tests and/or oedometer tests are required.
4.4.3. Hydraulic characteristics of soils
The soil permeability values (both horizontal and vertical permeability) allow taking
consolidation into account. The selection of these values requires that the evolution of the
permeability with the load from the structure is known. Let¶s recall at this point the
relationship between the coefficient of vertical consolidation cv and kv:
k v E oed
cv (3.30)
Jw
This formula can also be expressed as a function of Cc, in the normally consolidated domain
and, by extension, in the over-consolidated domain as a function of Cs, for a given vertical
stress V¶DVFORVHDVSRVVLEOHWRWKHYHUWLFDOVWUHVVIURPWKHVWUXFWXUHEHLQJFRQVLGHUHG
k 1 e
cv 2 .3 v V' (3.31) in the ³elastic´ domain: V¶V¶p
Cs J w
k 1 e
cv 2 .3 v V' (3.32) in the ³plastic´ domain: V¶!V¶p
Cc J w
The value of this coefficient depends on the vertical stress V¶DVZHOODVRQWKHFRHIILFLHQWRI

vertical permeability kv (expressed in m/s), and soil compressibility Cc/(1 + e0).
The variation in permeability kv is directly derived from variation of the void ratio e (Fig.
3.49) by the following relation:
§k · e e0
lg ¨¨ v ¸¸
© k v0 ¹ ck
'e c k 'lg k (3.33)

Figure 3.49: Curve depicting the variation in coefficient of permeability kv vs. void ratio,
thus enabling the determination of parameters ck and log kv0.
Benchmark values and correlations between these parameters are discussed in Chapter 6.
4.4.4. Characteristics of the inclusion/soil interfaces
These numerical calculation tools propose various types of interfaces for simulating the soil /
inclusion interaction. The constitutive models typically used for interfaces are of the elasto-
plastic type.
The elastic part allows modeling a gradual mobilization of shear with strain.
As for the plastic part, two techniques are used:

± Either a reduction of M¶DQGF¶LVDSSOLHG
± Or a fictitious soil M¶ ZLWK D QRQ]HUR FRKHVLRQ IRU VLPXODWLQJ FRQVWDQW IULFWLRQ
F¶ Ts, in compliance with the limiting values of shaft friction set forth by the French
standard for deep foundations.
Other means are also available to handle this phenomenon, for example by refining the mesh
around the contact zone. In this approach, it is more difficult to incorporate the limiting shaft
friction values qs, which also depend on the techniques of execution of the inclusions.
In order to fully represent this interaction and define the set of model parameters, data from in
situ axial load tests conducted on an isolated inclusion may also be used.
4.4.5. Characteristics of the rigid inclusions
A linear elastic model is typically adopted for the inclusions.

The value of the long-term modulus is generally used in the design calculations. The short-
term modulus value is only used for short-term exceptional situations (shocks, impact loads or
seismic actions).
The Poisson's ratio value is typically set equal to Q = 0.2.
The diameter of the inclusions in the model is the nominal diameter defined in Chapter 7,
which depends on the execution technique, while the length selected is the theoretical value.
Design methods 135

4.4.6. Characteristics of the load transfer platform
The load transfer platform is composed of a granular material or else a material treated with a
hydraulic binder. The characteristics of this layer can be determined from tests on the strength
of these materials. The load transfer platform may at times be reinforced by geo-synthetics.
A linear elastic model with a Mohr-Coulomb plasticity criterion may be adopted for cement
or lime-treated materials.
For granular soils whose behavior depends on the stress state, a more advanced constitutive
model might prove more pertinent. The ASIRI National Project established the parameters of
deformation and shear for a few representative materials (industrial gravel, lime and cement-
treated silt) (Dupla et al., 2007; Okyay et al., 2010).
4.4.7. Characteristics of geo-synthetics
Geo-synthetics are usually characterized by a linear elastic constitutive model with a modulus
value depending on the level of anticipated strain and the duration of application of the load
LQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKHDFKSURGXFW¶VLVRFKURQHFXUYHV$FULWLFal step in the design is to verify
that the calculated tension is compatible with the material characteristics, as defined by the
relevant regulations and codes.
4.4.8. Characteristics of the slab on grade or raft
A linear elastic constitutive model may be used. The Poisson's ratio value is set at
Q = 0.2 for slabs on grade, in compliance with the DTU 13.3 Standard.
To respect the settlement calculation that includes long-term deformations, it is recommended

to adopt the long-term value for the slab or raft concrete modulus. Such an approach matches
the DTU 13.3 specifications, which states in Article 6.3 that storage loads are to be considered
as long-term loads.
The short-term modulus value should therefore only be used for short duration loads (i.e.
dynamic actions) and for exceptional / catastrophic events (shocks or seismic actions).
4.5. Construction phases
Generally speaking, the following phases are to be considered:

± Stress initialization: the initial stress state must comply with the over-consolidation ratio of
each soil layer as well as the initial water table level;
± Construction conditions;
- site re-grading (cut and fill),
- installation of the inclusions,
- installation of the transfer load transfer platform and geo-synthetics as required,
- construction of the embankment or structure;
± Service situations (defined by associating a load system with an assumption regarding the
drained vs. undrained behavior of soils);
- accounting for variable loads,
- calculation of both the consolidation and potential creep of the different soil layers,
- various water table conditions.

4.6. Calculation considerations
The constitutive laws selected for each layer are activated under the hypothesis of a drained
vs. undrained behavior adapted to the various calculation phases. It is important to note that
for the soils, the linear elastic, perfectly plastic model (Mohr-Coulomb) is not well suited to
simulate undrained behavior.
Calculations are performed assuming either small deformations (according to Euler's

hypothesis) or large deformations (Lagrange¶s hypothesis). The large deformation calculation
is critical in the presence of horizontal reinforcement layers acting as membranes (second-
order effect).
4.7. Analysis of the results
The analysis of the results shall validate the computational model, while verifying the various
limit states and allowing the preparation of the design calculation report.
4.7.1. Validation of the results
The validation of the results needs to:

± Systematically verify all the geotechnical hypotheses made in the model;
± Check the relevance/adequacy of the choice of model boundaries as well as the selection of
the grid of the inclusions to the most heavily loaded zones;
± Ensure that the adopted constitutive models and the selected modeling principles are
capable of acceptably reproducing the behavior of an isolated inclusion loaded at the top or
the behavior of a typical foundation representative of the structure;
± Verify the properties of interfaces are correct and that the interfaces are activated;
± Verify that convergence criteria have been met;
± Examine the results phase-by-phase (deformed mesh, displacement field, stress states,
forces in structural elements, i.e. normal forces, shear forces, moments) on the appropriate
type of output (maps and graphs with suitable scales, or tables) relative not only to the entire
model, but also the more heavily loaded zones;
± Verify the consistency of the results with respect to skin friction (negative or positive) as
well as the tip bearing pressure, as explained in Section 4.1 of Chapter 5;
± Ensure the consistency of lateral and frontal soil reactions on the foundation footing relative
to the hypothesis to neglect or not these reactions.
Remark: Consistency with respect to load transfer platform behavior, as

explained in Section 4.2 of Chapter 5, is automatically verified by the numerical
models that incorporate the platform material strength criterion and that represent
the inclusions individually (which is only the case for the 2D axisymmetric model
of the unit cell or for any 3D model).
4.7.2. Verification of the various limit states
These verifications are detailed in Chapter 5.
These steps must be presented in the design calculation report.
Design methods 137

4.7.3. Contents of the design calculation report
The design calculation report must contain the following elements:

± Input parameters for the constitutive models selected for:
- in situ soils,
- the load transfer platform,
- embankments, if applicable,
- the inclusions,
- structural elements (slab on grade, footings, raft),
- horizontal reinforcement layers;
± Description of the numerical model (software and version, types of elements);
± Geometry of the model and mesh;
± Details of the various calculation phases;
± Pertinent results in the form of tables and/or graphs adapted to the project configuration
and - requirements, which may include:
- displacement and/or stresses along the model's cross-sections,
- position of the 3 neutral planes, if applicable (Fig. 3.39),
- deformations / displacements at the surface (case of an embankment) (see Fig. 3.50),
Figure 3.50: Deformed mesh of the entire structure.
- normal stresses (or axial force) in selected inclusions,

- bending moment and shear force in the same inclusions (if applicable),
- stress field in the load transfer platform above the inclusions (Figs. 3.51 and 3.52),
particularly the plot of the plastic zones,
- loading in the structural elements (bending moment, shear force).

Figure 3.51: Extension of the plastic zones Figure
Figure3.52:
3.52:Extension
Extensionofofthe
theplastic
plasticzones
zonesunder
under7
under 1 m of embankment, revealing a failure m7ofmembankment, revealing a confined failure
of embankment, revealing a confined failure bulb
mechanism above the inclusion head reaching above the inclusion head.
bulb above the inclusion head.
the soil surface.
5. HOMOGENIZATION-BASED METHODS
5.1. Simple homogenization method
One homogenization method applicable in cases when loads are exclusively vertical consists
of modeling beforehand the behavior of a typical representative unit cell including a typical
inclusion along with its associated soil and load transfer platform volumes. This unit cell is
generally modeled using an axisymmetric model.
The results of this model are then compared to those obtained with a second model featuring
the same dimensions, where the soil and inclusion are replaced by a unique and homogeneous
material, with characteristics chosen so as to yield results similar to the first model.
This equivalence is typically achieved with regards to settlement, which allows defining the
apparent modulus E* of the equivalent homogeneous material that provides an average
equivalent settlement at the surface of the model.
The properties derived may then be used in a more comprehensive model that encompasses
some or all of the unit cells. This approach reduces the complexity of the model while
describing the complete behavior of the structure. This approach is only valid for the specific
modeled loading case.
Let's point out that it is not possible for rigid inclusions to use the same homogenization
procedure as that applied when designing stone column reinforcement projects, which states:
Design methods 139

E.A* = (Ep Ap + Es As) / A (3.34)
Ep and Ap: modulus of deformation and cross-section of the inclusion, respectively.
Es and As: modulus of deformation and area of the soil.
The differential sliding at the soil/inclusion interface requires the introduction of a correction
coefficient E, i.e.:
E.A* = (Ep Ap / E+ Es As) / A (3.35)
Comparisons between the two methods have been performed and have demonstrated that this
factor E could easily exceed 10 in some cases.
5.2. Extended biphasic model
5.2.1. Modeling principle
With inspiration drawn from a homogenization approach, yet allowing for the limitations of
the homogenization method to be corrected (i.e. failure to take into account the soil-rigid
inclusion interactions, as well as bending and shearing of the inclusions), the biphasic model
of a soil reinforced by rigid inclusions takes advantages of three characteristics of this
reinforcement technique in the case of distributed loads (slabs on grade or embankments):
± Uniform grid of inclusions within the soil mass;
± The relative scale of the reinforcement (spacing between two consecutive inclusions), which
is reasonably small compared to the overall dimensions of the inclusions;
± A reinforcement material (steel, concrete, etc.) with significantly better mechanical
properties than the surrounding soil, but on the other hand with a fairly low volumetric
proportion / replacement ratio (generally a few percent).
A detailed presentation of this modeling approach is provided in Sudret and de Buhan (2001),
Cartiaux et al. (2007) and Hassen et al. (2009), including its application to soils reinforced by
rigid inclusions. This discussion will be limited to describing the underlying principle, as
illustrated in Figure 3.53. The ³reinforced soil´ composite has been modeled at the
macroscopic scale, not as a single equivalent medium as would be the case in a conventional
homogenization approach, but instead by two continuous media, called phases, with mutual
interaction.
Figure 3.53: Principle behind the biphasic modeling of a soil reinforced by rigid inclusions.
Such a modeling approach leads to a description of stresses (i.e. internal forces) relative to
each of the phases assessed separately (Fig. 3.54): standard stresses for the matrix phase
representing the soil; axial force, shear force and bending moment densities for the
reinforcement phase, which is modeled as a continuous distribution of beams.

Figure 3.54: Stresses and interaction forces relative to a biphasic model.
The interaction between phases is modeled using two types of forces:

± A volumetric density of interaction forces (denoted I) at any point in the reinforced zone
which represents, at the macroscopic scale of the model, the forces applied by the surrounding
soil along the length of the inclusions (so-called longitudinal interaction);
± A surface density (denoted p), which describes the forces applied by the surrounding soils at
the extremities of the inclusions (head and tip).
5.2.2. Model implementation
Figure 3.55: Simplified biphasic model.
In the case of a soil layer reinforced by a uniform distribution of vertical rigid inclusions,
subjected to a uniform and vertical load (Fig. 3.55), the biphasic model is equivalent to a
simplified approach developed in the Taspie + computation software (Cuira and Simon,
2009). According to this configuration, forces inside the inclusions are actually simplified to
the axial loading, whereas the interaction forces I and p are purely vertical. The interaction
laws can thus be directly derived from the "W-w" curves classically established for piles.
Far from being limited to this unique situation, the biphasic model may in fact be easily
integrated into a finite element computation code, and this software can solve a very broad
array of situations. The main advantage of such a modeling technique, compared to a more
conventional design method that models the soil and inclusions as two geometrically distinct
elements, is twofold. With regards for example to a numerical simulation of the problem
using either the finite element or finite difference technique, the conventional approach
consists of separately discretizing the inclusions and soil, resulting in a mesh size significantly
smaller than the size of the inclusions. Since the problem also happens to be three-
dimensional, such a numerical procedure requires considerable mesh preparation time and
Design methods 141

computation time and is therefore not compatible with the goal of a quick design of the
solution.
As an example of the superior performance of the biphasic model, Figure 3.56 shows the
surface settlement profiles of a reinforced soil layer subjected to the weight of an
embankment, as evaluated based on a 2D biphasic simulation and a comprehensive 3D
numerical calculation whose implementation was far more complex than the 2D biphasic
calculation (Hassen et al., 2009). The biphasic model was incorporated into the CESAR-
LCPC software package (Bourgeois et al., 2006), with the constitutive laws of the individual
phases, as well as the interaction laws, assumed to be elasto-plastic.
Figure 3.56: Comparison between a biphasic (2D) calculation and a 3D numerical simulation
(extracted from Hassen et al., 2009).
5.2.3. Effects of shear and bending in the inclusions
In the cases where the soil reinforced by rigid inclusions is subjected not only to a vertical
loading but also to a horizontal load (e.g. seismic event), it becomes impossible, given the
inclusion cross-section, to neglect the bending and shear components of the interaction forces,
which in this case can actually play the predominant role in support of the structure. The
complete biphasic model, i.e. model that takes into account the bending and shear
components, may be implemented numerically, i.e. using a numerical computation code (Thaï
Son et al., 2009, 2010). Figure 3.57 below offers a stability calculation example of an
embankment on a soil reinforced by rigid inclusions; this figure clearly shows the major role
played by the resistance to bending of these inclusions.

Figure 3.57: Stability computation for a seismically loaded structure
according to the biphasic approach (Thaï Son et al., 2010).
References
AFPS - « Amélioration et renforcement des sols sous actions sismiques ». Groupe de travail,
2011.
Bigot G., Canepa Y. - « Fondations de bâtiments. Utilisation des techniques de traitement et
G¶DPpOLRUDWLRQGHVVROV ». Rapport interne LPC, 1998, p. 37 - 41.
Borel S. - Comportement et dimensionnement des fondations mixtes. Études et recherches
LPC, GT 73, 2001.
Bourgeois E., Rospars C., Humbert P., Buhan (de) P. - ³A multi-phase model for finite
HOHPHQW DQDO\VLV RI WUDFWLRQ IRUFHV LQ EROWV XVHG LQ WKH UHLQIRUFHPHQW RI WXQQHO ZDOOV´
Proc. Num. Meth. Geotech. Eng., Schweiger (ed.), Taylor & Francis Group, London,
2006, p. 341-346.
BS8006 - ³Code of Practice for Strengthened/reinforced soils and other fills, Section 8,
Design of embankments with reinforced soil foundations on poor ground´
Cartiaux F.-B., Gellee A., Buhan (de) P., Hassen G. ± « Modélisation multiphasique
DSSOLTXpHDXFDOFXOG¶RXYUDJHVHQVROVUHQIRUFpVSDUinclusions rigides ». Revue française
de géotechnique, n° 118, 2007, p. 43-52.
Combarieu O. - « &DOFXOG¶XQHIRQGDWLRQPL[WHVHPHOOHSLHX[VRXVFKDUJHYHUWLFDOHFHQWUpH ».
Note d¶information technique LCPC, 1988, 15 p.
Combarieu O. - « Fondations superficielles sur sol amélioré par inclusions rigides
verticales ». Revue française de géotechnique, n° 53, 1990, p. 33-44.
Cuira F., Simon B. - « 'HX[RXWLOVVLPSOHVSRXUWUDLWHUGHVLQWHUDFWLRQVFRPSOH[HVG¶XQPDVVLI
renforcé par inclusions rigides ». Proc. 17th ICSMGE, Alexandrie, M. Hamza et al.
(Eds.), IOS Press, 2009, p. 1163-1166.
Dupla J.-C., Canou J., Dinh A.Q. - « Caractérisation des graves utilisées sur les plots
expérimentaux de Saint-Ouen-O¶$XP{QHHW&KHOOHV ». Rapport ASIRI 1.07.3.02, 2007.
Frank R., Zhao S.R. ± « (VWLPDWLRQ SDU OHV SDUDPqWUHV SUHVVLRPpWULTXHV GH O¶HQIRQFHPHQW
sous charge axiale des pieux forés dans les sols fins ». Bulletin de liaison des laboratoires
ponts et chaussées, n° 119, mai-juin 1982, p. 17-24.
Design methods 143

Gazetas G. - Foundation vibration. Foundation Engineering Handbook, chap. 15, Hsai-Yan
Fang Eds, 2nd Edition, 1990.
Glandy M., Frossard A. - « -XVWLILFDWLRQ G¶XQH IRQGDWLRQ VXSHUILFLHOOH VXU XQ VRO UHQIRUFp
G¶LQFOXVLRQV ». $QQDOHVGHO¶,%73, 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, n° 6, 2009, p. 258-266.
Hewlett W., Randolph M.A. ± ³Analysis of piled embankments´. Ground Engineering, 21(3),
1988, p. 12-18.
Josseaume H., Azizi F. - « Loi de comportement des sols raides. Détermination de la courbe
G¶pWDW OLPLWH GH O¶DUJLOH YHUWH GH 5RPDLQYLOOH ». Études et recherches des LPC, GT 33,
1988.
Monnet A., Bernhardt V. (2000). Quelques propositions au sujet des fondations profondes,
Revue française de géotechnique 90, p. 15-24.
NF P 94-262 - Justification des ouvrages géotechniques. Normes d¶application nationale de
l¶Eurocode 7. Fondations profondes (à paraître).
Okyay U.S., Dias D., David J.-P., Auriol J.-C. - « Essais de caractérisation du limon de
Goderville traité ». Rapport ASIRI 3.09.03.10, 2009.
Pecker A. - Dynamique des sols, Presses des Ponts, 1984.
Plumelle C. ± « 5HQIRUFHPHQWG¶XQVROOkFKHSDULQFOXsions de micropieux ». Revue française
de géotechnique n° 30, 1985, p. 47-57.
Simon B. ± « 8QH PpWKRGH LQWpJUpH SRXU GLPHQVLRQQHU OHV UpVHDX[ G¶LQFOXVLRQV ULJLGHV HQ
déformation ». XVe ICSMGE, Istanbul, vol. 2, 2001, p. 1007-1010.
Simon B. - « Une méthode simplifiée pour le calcul des semelles sur sol renforcé par
inclusions rigides ». JNGG 2010, Grenoble, Tome 1, p. 529-536.
Sudret B., Buhan (de) P. - ³Multiphase model for inclusion-reinforced geostructures.
Applications to rock-bolted tunnels and piled raft foundations´. International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, vol. 25, 2001, p. 155-182.
Thai Son Q., Hassen G., Buhan (de) P. - « Dimensionnement sous sollicitation sismique de
sols de fondations renforcés par inclusions rigides ». Proc. 17th ICSMGE, Alexandrie, M.
Hamza et al. (Eds.), IOS Press, 2009, p. 606-609.
Thai Son Q., Hassen G., Buhan (de) P. - ³Seismic stability analysis of piled embankments: a
multiphase approach´. International Journal for Analytical and Numerical Methods in
Geomechanics, vol. 34, 2010, p. 91-110.

Chapter 4
Design considerations
1. CHOICE OF IMPROVEMENT METHOD

The purpose of this chapter is to draw up an inventory of items that would justify choosing a
rigid inclusion-based solution.
The uniqueness of a reinforcement scheme using vertical rigid inclusions is for the soil, in
relative proportion to its own strength, to bear a portion of the loads generated by the
structure, with the bulk of these loads being transmitted by various mechanisms to the rigid
inclusions. This process applies to foundations as well as to earthen structures.
The basic criterion inherent in this set-up is the relative displacement of the inclusion with
respect to the soil: for the system to operate optimally, soil settlement at the level of the
inclusion head must be significantly greater than the displacement of the inclusion itself, with
a granular load transfer layer intended to absorb the resulting differential movement.
Generally speaking, the choice guiding a project towards a given type of soil improvement or
reinforcement solution is, in most cases, based on an economic rationale taking into account
traditional deep foundation solutions, associated with rigid and expensive structural designs
(e.g. a solution of structural slab with a distributed load).
This rationale generally comes first when designing the foundations for a heavily-loaded
industrial slab on surface areas extending several thousand square meters.
Various soil improvement and soil reinforcement processes may be considered for eventual
selection within the scope of a slab-on-grade project featuring typical characteristics and/or a
shallow type foundation system that meets both the absolute and differential settlement
criteria.
The choice of methodology is primarily dictated by the following criteria:

± Data concerning the soil,
- type of compressible soil and its geomechanical characteristics,
- thickness of the compressible layer,
- presence of an aquifer;
± Data concerning the structure,
- purpose and geometry of the intended structure (type and loading conditions),
- operating constraints,
- allowable residual strains and settlements;
± Data concerning works execution conditions,
- environmental context,
- interface with the various construction phases (earthworks, paving, structural frame, etc.),
- works schedule.
Design considerations 145

2. INPUT DATA
Depending on the set of criteria indicated above, it would be advised to specify the following
items, above all else, in order to determine the "value" of a rigid inclusion solution.
2.1. Data relative to the soil

± One or more standard lithostratigraphic cross-sections;
± Compressibility, eventual overconsolidation profile; these data must be used to derive an
estimated range of final total settlement without reinforcement;
± Water table elevation(s);
± Data relative to both the consolidation rate and permeability of the various layers;
± Soil strength profile: load-bearing capacity vs. foundation elevation;
± Compressible thickness heterogeneity;
± Lateral confinement capacity;
± Organic matter content;
± Presence of a creep-sensitive layer;
± Onsite seismic conditions.
2.2. Data relative to the structure and its operations

± Layout plan and footprint of the project structure;
± Applied loads:
- permanent or temporary loads;
- distributed or point loads;
± Eventual zoning considerations designating the extent of high-load areas and their intensity
(whether maximum or minimum);
± Operating constraints;
± Displacement and strain criteria;
± Type of structure being supported;
± Technical guidelines to implement.
2.3. Data relative to works execution conditions

± Works schedule and milestones;
± Eventual aggressiveness of the environment with respect to concrete;
± Presence of cobbles creating potential obstructions to penetration;
± Water table elevation (substitution method feasible or not );
± Water table variations (seasonal, long-term);
± Type of excavated materials and conditions for reuse.
3. PROJECT-SPECIFIC CRITERIA
The project design necessitates that the deformation criteria to be met during serviceability
limit state (SLS) verifications must have been defined and approved by the Project Owner,
i.e.: absolute and/or differential settlements.
Remark: The criteria to be taken into account for ultimate limit state (ULS)
verifications are listed in the most current rules and regulations as well as in the
present recommendations.
In the absence of prescriptions set forth by the Project Owner, it is possible to refer to one of
the following documents:

± Annex H (informative) of Eurocode 7-1 (NF EN 1997-1 Standard), which gives the limiting
values of structural deformation and foundation movement;
± Standard NF P 11.213 (DTU 13.3 reference), which indicates the limiting values of absolute
and differential settlements for concrete ground slabs;
± Design of shallow and deep foundations (Frank, 1999), which provides a review of limiting
values of settlements applicable to buildings and civil engineering structures;
± The RFF Railway Operator's Technical Guide;
± Technical guidelines specific to tanks and reservoirs;
± Guidelines relative to road pavements (surface evenness).
As a complement, a number of deformation-related consequences must also be taken into

consideration with respect to:
± Maintaining the slopes for all utility networks;
± Operating criteria specific to some equipment (vibrating machines).
In all cases, it is necessary to distinguish between:

± Cumulative settlements since the beginning of the building construction;
± Settlements occurring during the eventual proof loading test;
± Settlements undergone by services and equipment;
± Settlements recorded on the structure itself as well as those induced on neighboring
structures.
Experience has shown that a solution of reinforcement using rigid inclusions can lead to a
reduction in settlements by a factor of between 2 and 10 compared to settlements of non-
reinforced soil.
4. USE LIMITATIONS AND FIELDS OF APPLICATION
Any foundation project on soil reinforced by rigid inclusions must consider the full array of
foundation components: inclusions, load transfer platform, and structural elements. The
design must therefore focus on all of these components and cannot be broken down into
several distinct functions that would successively treat each component individually. Herein
lies a major characteristic of all foundation projects built on a soil that has been reinforced by
rigid inclusions. As a result, the Engineer, who oversees and coordinates the design process
and the execution of the works, plays a truly vital role in projects featuring a ³rigid inclusion´
solution.
4.1. Favorable factors
The factors that favor selecting a rigid inclusion strategy consist of:
± Projects with settlement criteria on finished structures that are not overly stringent;
± The following objectives:
- reducing overall compressibility of the foundation soil,
- increasing load-bearing capacity,
- limiting interactions with neighboring structures,
- allowing the use of a slab-on-grade instead of structural reinforced slabs,
- shortening the construction schedule (given the fact that less of the load gets transferred to
the soil, thus activating a more efficient consolidation phenomenon: reduced compressibility
if remaining in the overconsolidated range, plus a higher consolidation coefficient for lower
stress states),

- optimizing total cost of the resulting foundation,
- preserving the natural seal between the various layers;
± the existence of a soil either with a limited lateral confinement capacity or capable of
exhibiting creep;
± the ductile nature of the resulting foundation:
- this characteristic proves favorable with regards to vertical loadings that can accommodate
settlements over a larger extended range, as both soil and inclusions are mobilized; it is also
favorable regarding seismic loadings by controlling the least favorable failure mode
(translation) and by eliminating loadings at connections between the structure and its deep
foundations.
4.2. Unfavorable factors
The following factors may produce unfavorable consequences:

± Projects whose criteria regarding acceptable settlement on the finished structure are
especially stringent;
± The qualification required to perform structural design: the foundation system is a
composite system that necessitates a comprehensive approach encompassing the design and
execution phases (hence the importance of coordination among project actors in order to
achieve an optimal design while preserving the integrity of all components during
construction and until final acceptance of the works);
± More severe execution constraints (e.g. interfacing between three distinct contractors
installing the inclusions, the load transfer platform and the slab). Many setbacks in a project
actually arise from a lack of adequate coordination between these participants. Once again,
the Engineer's key role in the design, choice of selected options, coordination, supervision and
acceptance of the works needs to be stressed;
± The sensitivity of freshly-completed inclusions to asymmetric loadings that have negative
and potentially destructive effects (simultaneous and successive execution of the inclusions,
their eventual cutting-off and leveling of the load transfer platform layer);
± Horizontal forces and wide load differentials (deviatoric stresses);
± The requirement of a high-quality friction material for the load transfer platform layer
which may prove to be detrimental in situations with limited mineral supply sources;
± The need for a working platform that guarantees stable conditions of the rigs.
5. OTHER SPECIFIC POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
5.1. Load transfer at depths
Another important step is to verify the influence of transferring the loads from the structure to
greater depths, especially with respect to the eventual settlement of deep compressible layers,
by recognizing that the inclusions concentrate loads at their tip.
5.2. Edge effects
Edge effects are to be examined very carefully. Such an examination focuses on the
inclusions placed beneath embankment slopes or else those placed at the periphery of slabs-
on-grade and rafts or at the edge of spread footings.
This consideration could lead to selecting one or more of the following measures:
± Reinforcing the inclusions with rebar at the edge;

± Allocating an over-width of the reinforced zone beyond the identified structural footprint;
± Inserting reinforcement layers (steel wire mesh or geogrid) immediately above the inclusion
heads.
Moreover, it is sometimes necessary to design a gradual transition zone placed between the
treated and untreated zones (adaptation of the grid of installation and/or inclusion length
between a reinforced and unreinforced platform zone, or between the embankment at the
periphery of a bridge abutment and an intermediate embankment section).
For some structures, edge effects might result in treating a larger footprint than the net
footprint of the structure.
5.3. Special case of a very thick embankment installed on a consolidating soil
Caution must be exercised with respect to the initial state of consolidation of the in situ soils,
especially when the site has been backfilled (whether recently or in the past) and the
consolidation of lower layers is not yet complete: the settlements experienced by the structure
will not exclusively depend on the structural loads, but also on a continuation of excess pore
pressure dissipation. The underconsolidated nature of the layers can only be revealed through
oedometric testing, piezocone tests or pore pressure cells.
The case where the soil profile contains layers capable of exhibiting creep (peat or organic
layers) falls in the same category as the previous case since creep settlement does not directly
depend on loads applied at the surface.
Another case would be one where project grading work requires a major preliminary
backfilling process. Under these circumstances, it is preferable to install the inclusions prior
to the embankment and then account for this load in the inclusion design.
The introduction of reinforcement layers at the base of the embankment can, in some
instances, offer a desirable option.
5.4. Choosing among the various rigid inclusion processes
During the preliminary project design stage, the type of inclusion (i.e. with or without soil
displacement, driven, etc.) is typically not taken into consideration.
An estimation of the load transmitted to the inclusion gives the order of magnitude of the
targeted strength for a given diameter.
5.5. Impacts on Slab-on-grade design
The behavior of a foundation installed on reinforced soil constitutes a complex problem of

soil-structure interaction between several localized elements with different characteristics and
behavior (soil, concrete).
The parameters involved in these interactions sometimes oppose one another on settlements
or loadings in the structure:
± On the one hand, a stiffer load distribution platform induces smaller settlements, while
generating stronger bending moment and shear force values within the slab;

± On the other hand, a more flexible load transfer platform creates larger settlements with less
demand on the slab.
The mechanical characteristics of the load transfer platform layer (deformation modulus,
angle of friction, cohesion) must be chosen so as to cover the expected dispersion in these
values, by focusing on the high or low results, depending on the type of verifications where
these values will be used.
For the load transfer platform layer made of lime- or cement-treated soil, it is indeed
necessary to take into account the eventual evolution in mechanical characteristics depending
on the type of binder, its dosage and moisture variations. For these materials, the influence of
loading type (e.g. cyclical nature) also needs to be incorporated.
6. DEVELOPMENT STEPS IN A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
The design of a structure on a soil reinforced by rigid inclusions entails a step-by-step

approach: preliminary design using simple methods, followed by the detailed project design
and execution planning. This design process relies on a sequence of the following
geotechnical engineering missions, as defined in the NF P 94-500 Standard:
± Preliminary site-specific geotechnical study (G11);
± Preliminary geotechnical design (G12);
± Detailed geotechnical project design (G2);
± Geotechnical design and monitoring of project execution (G3);
± Geotechnical supervision of the execution phase (G4).
Remark: Two documents (Syntec Ingénierie, 2009 and 2010) explain the links
between the geotechnical engineering missions specified in the NF P 94-500
Standard and the Engineer¶s missions according to the ³MOP Law´ for
constructing buildings or infrastructure.
Another document, entitled Geotechnical considerations in the design and
execution of concrete slabs and released in June 2011 by Syntec/Unesi/Coprec,
emphasizes the importance of managing the interfaces among the various project
contractors in reference to the NF P 94-500 Standard.
6.1. Preliminary site geotechnical study (mission G11)
This study is conducted prior to having a precise definition of the project. By referring to
information contained on the geological map, risk prevention plans and data obtained from
the BRGM Office (Geology and Mining) (particularly underground cavities, shrinkage-
swelling hazards of clays) and DRIRE Office (Environment) (mining, underground
quarrying), the geotechnical engineer must indicate the major risks identified. He also
establishes a program of geotechnical investigations for the purpose of quantifying these risks
and, depending on their nature, recommends a set of feasible technical solutions.
6.2. Geotechnical study of the preliminary project design (mission G12)
Conducted in conjunction with the preliminary project design, this G12 mission is intended to
mitigate the major geotechnical risks identified during the previous study.
With respect to each of the risks encountered, the geotechnical engineer is to:

± Define one or more geotechnical models depending on the degree of homogeneity of the
site and indicate, if possible at this stage, the depth at which the substratum may be
considered non-deformable; these models are tied to the NGF ground level benchmark
system;
± Use these models to examine the set of feasible solutions adapted to the design loads and
estimate the resulting settlements;
± Indicate, should the settlements obtained not comply with serviceability criteria, the types of
soil improvements potentially proposed by emphasizing the specificities of each improvement
type (e.g. the ³hard point´ effect of rigid inclusions);
± Identify the measure(s) to adopt or consider adopting, especially in the presence of soils
sensitive to shrinkage-swelling phenomena;
± Establish, if deemed necessary, a program of geotechnical investigations with the specific
aim of determining a geotechnical model that either integrates in-plane heterogeneity or more
narrowly targets the case of soils exhibiting complex behavior.
6.3. Services performed within the scope of the Engineer¶s mission
6.3.1. Geotechnical study of the detailed project design (mission G2)
This G2 geotechnical mission, assigned as part of the Engineer¶s scope of works, lays out a
basic project solution encompassing the inclusions, the load transfer platform and the
structure.
This study, paid for by the Project Owner, is critical to defining the final structural design.
This study is performed based on the Project Owner¶s set of specifications defining the design
loads and acceptable values of deformations.
The geotechnical model(s) derived must be developed to a sufficient level of detail.
The soil deformation modulus values assigned to each layer are calculated as a function of:
± Duration of load application;
± Load intensity (stress-strain dependency);
± Water content variations, causing modifications in consistency and/or suction.
The G2 geotechnical mission comprises:

± A design at both the serviceability limit state (SLS) and ultimate limit state (ULS)
(including GEO and STR verifications) for the inclusions and load transfer platform;
± Based on the estimation of the settlement of the reinforced soil, definition of the equivalent
homogenized soil profile;
± The means and methods to be used by the concrete slab contractor to incorporate eventual
additional loadings due to the ³hard point´ effect of inclusions.
Lastly, this mission is to indicate the construction steps to be implemented (particularly in the
case of soils sensitive to desiccation phenomena) and, in the event of in-plane heterogeneities,
it must define the appropriate geotechnical models taking these heterogeneities into
consideration.
This study also facilitates the preparation of the construction project bid documents.

6.3.2. Geotechnical supervision of the construction phase (mission G4)
This mission falls within the scope of the Project Owner¶s responsibilities and comprises two
phases:
± Supervision/management of the design documents submitted by each contractor responsible
for each part of the final structure:
- review of the geotechnical study of the detailed project design (G3),
- review of the product fact sheets (e.g. GTR classification protocol for the materials to be
used as sub-base ),
- review of the inspection/quality control program (stripping of the inclusions, load testing
on the inclusions, plate load testing, monitoring of pre-loading settlements, etc.) and their
associated threshold values;
± Inspection and supervision of the works performed by the various contractors through onsite
spot inspections:
- review of the actual geotechnical context observed onsite and the potential need for
additional construction plans (G3),
- review of eventual adaptations proposed by the contractors,
- review of the results generated from the quality control program.
6.4. Services provided within the scope of each contractor¶s contract
This mission, which encompasses the construction plans and works progress monitoring, is
conducted for each structural element (platform, potential soil reinforcement, paving,
foundation, etc.).
Each individual contractor is responsible for fulfilling this mission.
6.4.1. Geotechnical evaluation of execution (Mission G3)
During the construction phase, the G3 mission (geotechnical evaluation of execution)

pertaining to the inclusion component of the project may be performed either by the
contractor responsible for soil improvement or else subcontracted to an outside entity.
The G3 mission (inclusions) serves to validate the geotechnical model established during the
project development phase, in addition to determining the size of the rigid inclusions and
providing the elements required to complete the project's other components (load transfer
layer and concrete slab).
The geotechnical model, which covers a homogeneous zone, is intended to:

± Evaluate the deformations undergone by the reinforced soil;
± Perform all justifications within the geotechnical domain;
± Define the load distribution layer-related specifications necessary to the project;
± Provide all useful elements and parameters to the project design and the impact on the other
structures.
The earthworks contractor must determine both the means and methods required to meet the
project specifications for the load transfer platform.
The slab contractor then uses these data in its own construction plan; it refines the slab design
by taking into account the various design and construction plans of the other works (material

substitution, drainage, earthworks, soil improvements or reinforcements, base layer), as
validated by the Engineer.
This entire set of studies is then validated by the Engineer, advised by a geotechnical engineer
as part of the G4 mission: ³Geotechnical supervision of the construction phase´.
6.4.2. Geotechnical monitoring of project execution (mission G3)
The soil improvement contractor is responsible for handling, either on it is own or through a
subcontractor, all internal and external quality control operations.
The contractor responsible for installing the load transfer platform performs on its own or
subcontracts internal and external quality control operations, and adopts all necessary
measures to ensure preserving the integrity of all the installed inclusions, in particular during
the earthworks, land leveling and compaction performed after the inclusions have been
completed.
As part of the ground slab works, any anomaly potentially detected by the slab contractor, as
per the works acceptance reports received, is to be notified to the Engineer.
6.5. Services conducted as part of the technical inspection contract
Throughout the design phase, the technical inspector undertakes a critical examination of all
of the project's technical specifications.
During the works execution period, the inspector also ensures, among other things, that the
technical verifications under the responsibility of each contractor, as listed in Article 1792-1
of the Civil Code, are being performed in a satisfactory manner.
References
Frank R. - Calcul des fondations superficielles et profondes 7HFKQLTXH GH O¶Ingénieur,
Presses des Ponts, 1999.
Loi MOP - Loi n° 85-704 du 12 juillet 1985 modifiée relative à la maîtrise d¶ouvrage
publique et à ses rapports avec la maîtrise d¶°XYUHSULYpH, 1985.
NF P 11-213 DTU 13.3 - Dallages - Conception, calcul et exécution, 2007.
NF P 94-500 - Missions d¶ingénierie géotechnique, Classification et spécifications, 2006.
Syntec Ingénierie - Synchronisation des missions d¶ingénierie géotechnique et de maîtrise
d¶°XYUHSRXUODFRQVWUXFWLRQGHEkWLPHQWV. Éditions Syntec-Ingénierie, 2009.
Syntec Ingénierie - Synchronisation des missions d¶ingénierie géotechnique et de maîtrise
d¶°XYUHSRXUODFRQVWUXFWLRQd¶infrastructures. Éditions Syntec-Ingénierie, 2010.
Syntec/Unesi/Coprec - La géotechnique dans la conception et la réalisation des dallages en
béton, 2011.
Design considerations Summary 153

CHAPTER 5
Justifications
1. GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR PRESENTING JUSTIFICATIONS
The justifications associated with structures built on soil reinforced by means of rigid
inclusions are conducted in strict compliance with Eurocode 7. This step requires verifying
both the serviceability limit states (SLS) and the ultimate limit states (ULS).
The structures need to be differentiated depending on whether they are embankments,

pavements and foundation of structures (slabs on grade, rafts, footings) supported on rigid
inclusions. Such structures all share the characteristic of relying on the in situ soil for a
portion of the support of the structural loads, with the bulk of this support being transmitted
via various mechanisms to the rigid inclusions. In the case of foundations, the load transfer is
produced by avoiding any direct contact between the structure and the inclusions thanks to the
installation of a continuous load transfer platform.
The present recommendations do not apply to footings that lie directly over the inclusions.
In the remainder of this document, a distinFWLRQ ZLOO EH PDGH EHWZHHQ WKH ³1st domain´
corresponding to the case of inclusions required for stability of the structure and the ³2nd
domain´ corresponding to the case of inclusions not required to ensure the stability of the
structure, but instead whose objective is primarily to reduce the settlements.
1.1. Serviceability limit states (SLS)
The limit states that need to be verified are related to either the vertical or horizontal
movement.
1.1.1. Set-up
The behavior of structures lying on soil reinforced by rigid inclusions can only be fully
understood with a detailed study of the interaction between the soil and the various structural
elements (foundations, inclusions). This interaction entails considering the shear mechanisms
at work within the load transfer platform, along the shaft and under the tip of the inclusion.
In practice, the justification of these structures requires the implementation of a computational
model capable of incorporating these various mechanisms as well as ensuring the
compatibility of the deformations required to mobilize each individual mechanism. This step
signifies that the justification systematically includes the calculation of displacements under
service loadings.
The verification with respect to serviceability limit states, to be emphasized herein, places the
focus on deformations as described by Eurocode 7-1 in 2.4.8 (1):
Ed < Cd (5.1)
Ed: design value of the effect of actions;
Cd: limiting design value of the effect of an action.
Justifications 155
1.1.2. Pertinent displacement or deformation criteria
The values of the effects of the actions to be considered may, depending on the Project
2ZQHU¶s requirements, be included in the following list of parameters:
± Total/absolute settlement (maximum and/or average);
± Differential settlement;
± Rotation;
± Inclination;
± Deflection;
± Relative deflection;
± Relative rotation.
The definitions of a number of terms relative to foundation movement and deformations are
given in Figure 5.1:
± Settlement y, differential settlement Gy, rotation T and angular deformation D;
± Deflection ' and relative deflection '/L;
± Inclination Z and relative rotation (angular distortion) E.
Figure 5.1: Definitions of foundation movements and deformations.
Note 1: The appearance and overall functionality of the structure may be altered
whenever the calculated deflection ymax of a beam, slab or bracket subjected to
quasi-permanent loads exceeds L/250, where L represents the span. Practically
speaking, the deformation after construction ymax is typically limited to L/500 for
quasi permanent loads.
The foundation movement components that need to be considered are primarily the surface
settlement values (average value yave or maximum value ymax) or relative settlement (or
differential settlement: ymax - ymin), either with or without the ground slab, for comparison
with allowable values.
The pertinent settlement criteria are defined by the Project Owner in conjunction with the
Engineer.
Remark: Depending on the nature of the structure bearing on the ground (absence
or not of a slab on grade, relative stiffness of this slab) and on the type and
sensitivity of any surcharge (road, storage), there might be major differences in
the allowable values.
These verifications are quite obviously complemented by verifying that the forces in the
structural elements, most notably the inclusions, are compatible with the design resistance of
the material of the different components.

0RUHRYHU LI WKH ³load transfer SODWIRUP VWUHQJWK´ criterion is not included in the SLS
computational model, it becomes necessary to verify after the fact the consistency of the
calculated values of the vertical stresses between the soil and the inclusion heads relative to
this shear strength.
1.1.3. Alternative SLS verification
1.1.3.1. Inclusions used to reduce settlement (Domain 2)
The alternative verification with respect to the soil consists of the verification that a
sufficiently low fraction of the ground strength has been mobilized to keep deformations
within the required serviceability limits [EC7-1: 2.4.8 (4)]. Such verification is typically
unnecessary whenever the inclusions strictly serve to reduce settlements, since the settlements
are always calculated (as opposed to the procedure for deep foundations, for which the
displacements are not systematically calculated and may be omitted). It is therefore
unnecessary to verify the SLS forces within the inclusions relative to creep values.
This is also true under the condition that the computational model is capable of accurately
representing the gradual mobilization of both the shaft friction and point resistance along the
entire inclusion, until a point close to failure.
Numerical models in a continuous medium must include interfaces between the soil and the
inclusions, with interaction laws matching collected experimental data (limiting value qs of
the soil-inclusion friction in accordance with the type of soil and selected installation
technique, gradual mobilization of friction with settlement of the element). One approach for
verifying that this behavior is included in the model consists of modeling the case of a direct
load at the top of an inclusion and then comparing the results obtained to the load-
displacement curve determined using the W-w law method proposed by Frank and Zhao (1982)
or Combarieu (parabolic law, 1988).
In the case of a simplified model, the relevance of the model must be verified with respect to:
± Load transfer platform shear and deformation characteristics;
± Vertical stress applied to the soil between inclusions.
The model, applied to the case of loading of a rigid shallow foundation without an inclusion,
must also yield results comparable with the settlement estimations obtained by the most
appropriate method between the pressuremeter method or the oedometric method.
1.1.3.2. Inclusions required for the bearing capacity (Domain 1)
When inclusions prove necessary to justify the ULS stability, the conditions set forth in the
³'HHS IRXQGDWLRQV´ DQG ³6KDOORZ IRXQGDWLRQV´ national Standards are applicable. It then
becomes necessary to verify at SLS that:
± The maximum load in the inclusion does not exceed the design value of the critical creep
load in compression Rc,cr;d under the neutral plane (Article 14.2.1, NF P 94 262 Standard,
Deep foundations);
± The stress applied on the soil at the level of inclusion heads (top of the inclusion) does not
exceed the SLS limiting value (Chapter 13, NF P 94 261 Standard, Shallow foundations).
Justifications 157
1.2. Ultimate limit states (ULS)
For structures built on soil reinforced by rigid inclusions, only the STR and GEO ultimate
limit states require verification in most instances (EC7-1: 2.4.7.3); they are correlated with:
± The internal failure or excessive deformation of the structural elements (inclusions,
inclusion caps, reinforcement layers, footings, slabs on grade, rafts), in which the material
strength (in compression, tension and shear) makes a significant contribution to the overall
strength [STR];
± The failure or excessive deformation of the ground in which the strength of soil is
significant in providing resistance [GEO] (interaction of the inclusion with in situ soil, by
means of friction and/or punching, and mobilization of the soil's intrinsic strength).
Remark: The other limit states (EQU, UPL and HYD) tend not to be pertinent
relative to inclusions, given that the inclusions are not connected to the structure.
It must now be verified that:

Ed < Rd (5.2)
Ed: design value of the effect of actions,
Rd: design value of the resistance to the actions.
1.2.1. General case (Design Approach 2)
According to the French national Appendix to EC7-1, the Design Approach 2 (DA2) must be
selected for the general case.
This approach uses a combination of the following partial factors for persistent and transient
situations:
$µ¶0µ¶5
According to this approach, the partial factors are applied to the actions or to the effects of
actions and to the ground resistances, whereas partial factors M1 applicable to soil parameters
(I¶F¶Fu and J) are all set equal to 1.
Based on the dataset A1, the permanent actions are weighted by JG = 1.35 or 1.0, while the
variable actions are weighted by JQ = 1.5 or 0, in order to identify the least favorable case.
The R2 partial strength factors are defined in the EC7 code solely for the following cases:
± Shallow foundations:
- bearing resistance JR;v = 1.4
- sliding resistance JR;h = 1.1
± Deep foundations:
- base resistance Jb = 1.1
- shaft resistance (compression) Js = 1.1
In the case of deep foundations, the NF P 94 262 application Standard (Appendices C and E)
also introduces correlation factors [1 and [2, which depend on the number of load tests, or
correlation factors [3 and [4, which depend on the number of soil tests and geotechnical
investigation surfaces.
Whenever inclusions are needed to justify ground bearingVWDELOLW\³'RPDLQ´):

± Incorporation of these coefficients [1, [2, [3 and [4 becomes necessary if the load-bearing
capacity verificationLVFRQGXFWHGDFFRUGLQJWRWKH³PRGHOSLOH´ method;
± These coefficients are not applicable should the verification be conducted based on the
³JURXQGPRGHO´ method.
These recommendations tend to favor the XVHRIWKH³JURXQGPRGHO´ method.

In Domain 2, since justification of the stability of the structure has been performed without
taking inclusions into account, these coefficients are not used.
Moreover, model coefficients JR;d, defined in the national Application Standards for piles (NF
P 94 262) and shallow foundations (NF P 94 261), must be acknowledged; these coefficients
serve to define the characteristic resistance values of the ground Rk based on either
pressuremeter or penetrometer tests.
Remarks: According to Design Approach 2, the choice of partial resistance factors

is complicated by the fact that the assessed foundations cannot be considered in the
category of either shallow foundations or deep foundations. Hence, Section 7 of the
EC7 code which focuses on deep foundations, stipulates that the set of provisions it
describes should not be applied to the design of piles that are intended for
settlement reduction; such an indication directly targets the case of rigid inclusions
placed beneath structural foundations when strictly used to reduce settlements. The
distinction proposed in this document between Domain 1 (inclusions required for
ground bearing stability) and Domain 2 (not required for ground bearing stability)
addresses this specific observation.
According to the national Appendix EC7-1, the Design Approach 3 (DA3) can also
be adopted for the numerical analyses of soil-structure interaction.
1.2.2. Special case of embankments on rigid inclusions (Design Approach 3)
In the special case of embankments on rigid inclusions and for persistent and transient
situations, Design Approach 3 should be selected for the overall or combined stability
verification step, which is consistent with the choice made for reinforced soil structures (NF P
94 270 Application Standard).
The combined stability verification of a reinforced soil structure must be carried out by
considering a sufficient number of overall stability failure surfaces that intercept and/or run
parallel to at least one of the reinforcing elements.
The load transfer calculation considers the internal embankment equilibrium and therefore
must be carried out with Design Approach 2.
Design Approach 3 introduces the following combination for persistent and transient
situations:
$ RU$Aµ¶0µ¶5
± The symbol * denotes actions from the structure;
± The symbol ^ denotes geotechnical actions.
According to this approach, the partial factors are applied to actions or to the effects of actions
from the structure and to ground strength parameters.
Justifications 159
All permanent actions (originating from the soil) are weighted by a factor JG = 1.0, while the
unfavorable variable actions (transmitted through the soil) are weighted by a factor JQ = 1.3.
The M2 partial factors are as follows:
JI¶ = JF¶ = 1.25; Jcu = 1.4; JJ = 1.0
The set of R3 partial resistance factors are all equal to1.0.
2. ³*(2´ LIMIT STATE VERIFICATION MODELS
Experience has shown that for common structures, these verifications may be conducted using
the simplified models described in Section 2.1.
The more detailed models presented in Section 2.2 are typically only justified for exceptional
structures.
2.1. Simplified models
7KH VLPSOLILHG ³HQYHORSH´ models are intended to replace the more sophisticated models
described below, in order to demonstrate that the fundamental relation Ed < Rd is indeed
satisfied.
Simplified models lack the capacity to introduce more advanced laws (for soil and/or
interfaces) or to establish relevant failure modes for the considered load case [e.g. difficulty in
handling the failure of a footing exposed to loading (Q, T, M)].
These models are applicable to check both the SLS and ULS of footings, rafts, ground slabs,
embankments or pavements.
A fully elastic model without an interface is at first glance insufficient; at the very least,
interface laws of the type Frank and Zhao would need to be introduced.
2.1.1. Simplified models for ULS verifications
Three approaches of increasing complexity are proposed herein in order to evaluate stability
(Fig. 5.2). It is merely necessary to demonstrate that the stability criterion is satisfied with any
one of the approaches.
Remark: If the stability criterion can be verified using Approach (i), then it is
necessarily verified with approaches of a higher level.

Q: load applied to the footing,
Rv,d: design value of the ultimate ground bearing resistance over the footing surface,
Qp (0): normal force at the inclusion head,
Qp (I): normal force of the inclusion at the intersection with the failure surface.
Figure 5.2: Envelope models of increasing complexity (1) to (3).
2.1.1.1. Envelope model (1)
This approach consists of demonstrating that the fundamental relation Ed < Rd is satisfied,
even without having to take the inclusions into account. It applies to all situations in which
inclusions primarily serve to reduce settlements and are not required for the stability of the
structure (Domain 2). Slabs on grade are most often included in this category.
Justifications 161
The approach thus strictly consists of performing ULS (GEO and STR) structural
verifications (on shallow foundations or embankments) while neglecting the presence of
inclusions.
Remark: The envelope model (1) is critical to identify which domain to associate
with the inclusions:
± Domain 1: inclusions required for stability;
± Domain 2: inclusions used to reduce settlements and not required for stability.
For a shallow foundation (Fig. 5.3), these verifications are carried out according to Design
Approach 2 by following the set of detailed conditions explained in the corresponding
Application Standard (NF P 94 261, being drafted as of January 2011):
± Unfavorable permanent actions are weighted by JG = 1.35, and unfavorable variable actions
by JQ = 1.5 (the alternative combination of 1.0 G + 0.0 Q tends not to be relevant);
± Bearing capacity is verified using the partial resistance factor JR;v = 1.4;
± Sliding is verified by using the partial resistance factor JR;h = 1.1;
± A model factor JR;d is introduced into the computation of each of these resistances.
Figure 5.3: Envelope approach (1) applied to the case of a footing

(i.e. with inclusions neglected in the computation).
For an embankment, the stability verifications are conducted by employing Design

Approach 3. These verification steps are similar to the overall stability verification for
reinforced soil structures described in the NF P 94 270 Standard. The computational models
may be based on the BishRSVOLFHPHWKRGRUHOVHRQWKH³SHUWXUEDWLRQ´ method or on the Yield
design exterior approach:
± All permanent actions (originating from the soil) are weighted by a factor JG = 1.0, and the
unfavorable variable actions (transmitted through the soil) by a factor JQ = 1.3;
± The following partial factors are used for the soil characteristics:
JI¶ JF¶= 1.25; Jcu = 1.4; JJ = 1.0;
± All partial resistance factors are set equal to 1.0.
The verification is satisfied if the safety coefficient F established by the computational model,
neglecting the inclusions, is greater than or equal to 1 (Fig. 5.4).

F = 1.00
Figure 5.4: Envelope approach (1) applied to the case of an embankment

(with inclusions deactivated for this computation).
In this model, the contribution of the inclusions is taken into account by integrating the
resisting force at the head of each inclusion, as calculated by the interaction calculation.
For a footing, this envelope approach (2) may be directly applicable to loads with a resultant
inclined at less than 10° off the vertical.
For more pronounced inclinations, either an envelope model (3) or one of the detailed models
described in Section 2.2 or 2.3 would need to be implemented.
The bearing capacity verification is carried out at the level of the inclusion head over a
footprint equal to the foundation area.
At this stage, it is necessary to have calculated the action of the ULS design loads (Qd, Td,
Md) applied at 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 then have
verified:
± The load transfer platform equilibrium conditions (GEO, Section 4.2), which define the
domain of acceptable axial force values at the inclusion head Qp(0) (Fig. 5.54); this domain is
built by integrating the limits relative to both the bearing capacity of the inclusion (GEO) and
the allowable limit stresses of the material in the inclusion (STR, Section 3), as explained in
Section 4.2.2.2;
± If the computational model is of the simplified type, then the forces transmitted at the
inclusion head will satisfy the consistency conditions explained in Chapter 3, Section 2.2.4.2;
± The other model consistency conditions if they have not yet been considered in the above
verification (e.g. negative friction).
The forces at the inclusion head Qp(0) and Tp(0) represent a global reaction (QR, TR, MR):
Justifications 163
QR = 6 Qp(0)
TR = 6 Tp(0) (5.3)
MR = 6 Qp(0) di
where di is the lever arm of inclusion i relative to the center of the footing.
Figure 5.5: Envelope approach (2) applied to the case of a footing

(inclusions taken into consideration when evaluating the load transmitted to the soil).
The load-bearing capacity verification Ed < Rd is performed:

± By adopting for Ed the combination of the design loading (Qd, Td, Md) and of the reaction (-
QR, -TR, -MR):
(Qd - QR, Td - TR, Md + TR hR - MR) (5.4)
± By setting for Rd the design value of the ground bearing resistance below a shallow
foundation with the same surface area as the footing, as evaluated using the NF P 94 261
Standard.
The sliding verification takes place on the underside of the foundation, with (Qd, Td), and at
the level of the inclusion head with (Qd - 6Qp(0), Td - 6Tp(0)).
Remark: Directly below the foundation, the design friction angle may be assumed
equal to the effective critical state angle of critical friction angle I¶crit of the load
transfer platform material for cast-in-place concrete foundations and equal to 2/3
I¶crit IRU VPRRWK SUHFDVW IRXQGDWLRQV $Q\ HIIHFWLYH FRKHVLRQ F¶ RI WKH WUDQVIHU
platform should be neglected.
At the level of the inclusion head, the effective critical state angle of friction I¶crit
of the transfer platform should be considered if the inclusion actually penetrates
into the platform; otherwise, the value adopted is weighted depending on the
transfer of the loads at the inclusion head between the design value I¶crit of the
platform and the corresponding value of the supporting soil.
For an embankment, the stability verifications are performed as described in Section 0

according to Design Approach 3 and by means of a slice method or the Yield Design exterior
approach:
± All permanent actions (originating from the soil) are weighted by a factor JG = 1.0, and
unfavorable variable actions (transmitted by the soil) by a factor JQ = 1.3;
± The characteristic soil parameters are assigned the following partial factors:
JI¶ JF¶ = 1.25; Jcu = 1.4; JJ = 1.0

± All partial resistance factors are set equal to 1.0;
± For this calculation, each inclusion is replaced by an upward vertical force Qp(0);
± By analogy with the combined stability verification of reinforced soil structures (NF P 94
270 Standard), a model factor JR;d must be introduced into this calculation. The value of this
factor equals 1.1 when the structures are relatively insensitive to deformations, without
otherwise influencing any of the other justifications required for serviceability limit states. It
would be necessary to adopt higher values for structures that show great sensitivity to
deformations.
The verification step is satisfied provided the safety factor established by the computational
model exceeds or is equal to 1 (Fig. 5.6).
Figure 5.6: Envelope approach (2) applied to the case of an embankment

(inclusions deactivated and replaced by an increasing vertical force).
2.1.1.3.1. Underlying principle
The bearing capacity verification herein is identical to the envelope approach (2), in
substituting for terms Qp(0) and Tp(0) (calculated at the level of the inclusion head) the terms
Qp(I) and Tp(I), which have been evaluated at the intersection of each inclusion with the
failure surface.
Remark: Subjected to the action of the ULS loads (Qd, Td, Md) applied at the base
of the footing, the distribution of forces between the soil and each of the mobilized
inclusions must have been previously calculated, according to the models presented
in Chapter III, and then have been verified:
± the load transfer platform conditions of equilibrium (GEO, Section 4.2), which
define the domain of acceptable axial force values at the inclusion head Qp(0)
(Fig. 5.54); this domain is built by integrating the limits relative to both the load-
bearing capacity of the inclusion (GEO) and the structural resistance of the
inclusion material (STR, Section 3), as explained in Section 4.2.2.2;
Justifications 165
± if the computational model is of the simplified type, then the forces transmitted at
the inclusion head will satisfy the consistency conditions explained in Chapter III,
Section 2.2.4.2.
The forces calculated in the inclusions Qp(I) and Tp(I) represent a global reaction (QR, TR,
MR), evaluated similarly to the design loading (Qd, Hd, Md).
QR = 6 Qp(0)
TR = 6 Tp(0) (5.5)
MR = 6 Qp(0) di + 6 Tp(0) hi
di and hi are the vertical and horizontal distances between the point of intersection of the
failure surface with inclusion i and the point where design loads (Qd, Hd, Md) are defined.
The bearing capacity verification Ed < Rd is thus verified:

± By adopting for Ed the combination of the design loading (Qd , Td , Md) and of the reaction (-
QR , -TR , MR);
± By setting for Rd the design value of the ground bearing resistance below a shallow
foundation with the same surface area as the footing, as evaluated according to Standard NF P
94 261.
This approach requires searching for the most critical failure surface as well as the
contribution of the inclusions at the level of their intersection with this surface.
Remarks: The verification against sliding failure is always performed in

accordance with envelope model (2) procedures (i.e. by selecting for QR and TR
the values calculated at the inclusion head).
In the case of a footing subject to a primarily vertical load on a homogeneous soil,
it is acceptable to adopt the geometry of the Prandtl diagram as the critical failure
surface.
Yield design theory (Salençon, 1983) offers the most comprehensive theoretical framework
for evaluating the safety of structures lying on soil reinforced by rigid inclusions; this method
is similar to the method used for soil nailed structures.
For these structures, a more restricted part of the theory will be applied, by only considering:
± Its kinematic approach;
± The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion;
± The motion of rigid blocks, as delimited by a succession of logarithmic spiral arcs with the
same pole and with a parameter equal to the angle of friction of each layer.
It is possible to take the bending strength of inclusions into consideration in addition to their
compressive strength. Stability may then be evaluated by only considering the contribution of
axial forces in the inclusions or else the combination of axial forces and shear forces. Practice
has shown that a significant stability improvement is generally obtained with axial forces,
whereas the additional benefit derived by adding shear forces is more limited: neglecting the
shear contribution therefore does not exert much influence and remains a safe simplification.
The set of multicriteria (Schlosser, 1983) establishes the domain of possible values for the
force within each inclusion [QP(I), Tp(I)] (Fig. 5.7).

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 to the resistant moment depending on the orientation of the rigid block
displacement velocity vector (Fig. 5.8).
(V: velocity vector of the rigid block under consideration)
Figure 5.8: Determination of the maximum resistant contribution.
Justifications 167
2.1.1.3.2. Application to shallow foundations
For footings, these calculations are carried out in accordance with Approach 2 of Eurocode 7
(see Section 1.2.1).
(Inclusions taken into account in the evaluation of load transmitted to the soil and
by their interaction with the failure surface)
Figure 5.9: Envelope approach 3 applied to the case of a footing
Remark: This approach is only strictly applicable to plane strain problems. It is

still possible however to introduce shape coefficients comparable to those
appearing in the bearing capacity formulation of square, rectangular or circular
shallow footings in order to extend the results obtained to 3D situations.
Searching for the failure surface by associating two or more rigid blocks is also possible, as
described in the NF P 94 270 Standard (for soil nailing structures): in a two-block approach,
the resistant contribution of the soil block placed outside the footing is assimilated to the earth
pressure at passive limit state on the vertical soil block boundary (Fig. 5.10). This strategy is
applicable regardless of the type of loading (Q, T, M) being applied to the footing on the
upstream block; this method includes two successive stages:
± Study of the passive limit state equilibrium within the soil volume outside the footing;
± Study of the active limit state equilibrium within the soil volume located underneath the
footing subject to the action of load applied at the footing and the limit earth pressure over the
boundary of both domains, as evaluated during the previous stage.

Figure 5.10: Decomposition of the problem into two juxtaposed passive and active limit states of
equilibrium.
2.1.1.3.3. Application to embankments
For embankments, these calculations are carried out using Approach 3 (see Section 0), which
relies on the Yield design exterior approach:
± All permanent actions (i.e. originating from the soil) are weighted by a factor JG = 1.0, and
unfavorable variable actions (transmitted by the soil) by a factor JQ = 1.3;
± The characteristic soil parameters are assigned the following partial factors:
JI¶ JF¶ = 1.25; Jcu = 1.4; JJ = 1.0;
± By analogy with the combined stability verification of reinforced soil structures (NF P 94
270 Standard), a model partial factor JR;d must be introduced into this calculation. The value
of this factor is equal to 1.1 when the structures are relatively insensitive to deformations,
without otherwise influencing any of the other justifications required for serviceability limit
states. It would be necessary to adopt higher values for structures that show great sensitivity
to deformations.
The values for the contribution of each inclusion (QP(I), TP(I)) are computed based on a
strategy that relies on the specifications of Standard NF P 94 270 for nailed soils, as these
structures had also been verified according to Approach 3: the coefficient of dataset M2 for
the soil-inclusion interaction resistance is thus set at: JM,f = 1.1.
Compared to nailed soil structures, structures built on rigid inclusions also require taking into
account the ultimate stresses at both the inclusion head and tip (these contributions are
assumed to be zero in the case of nailed soils due to the small diameter of the nails).
For the inclusions, these contributions are combined with the forces developed by shaft
friction over either the inner part of the studied block or its outer part (Fig. 5.11).
The same value of coefficient JM,f of dataset M2 is adopted for the contributions at the head
and at the tip.
To ensure continuity with the NF P 94 262 Standard (for deep foundations), it is

recommended to perform the calculations according to the "ground model" method, along
with the application of the associated model factor JR,d on the contribution of the inclusions
(shaft friction, head and tip). The values of this factor depend on the inclusion installation
Justifications 169
method, as well as on the type and mode of interpretation of the geotechnical data (i.e. with or
without statistical analysis).
Remark: This is equivalent to applying a reduction coefficient JM,f x JR,d = 1.1 JR,d
on forces Qp(I), Tp(I), Mp(I).
The computation of forces mobilized in the inclusions must also take into account the limit
design resistance of the inclusion material, as explained in Section 3.1 (concrete inclusions) or
3.2 (steel inclusions).
Figure 5.11: Application of the failure calculation to the case of an embankment built on rigid
inclusions, for which only the axial contribution has been taken into account.
Remarks: In the example provided in Figure 5.11, where only the axial
contribution of the inclusion has been taken into account, the inclusions placed to
the left of the center of rotation contribute via a normal compressive force, while
those placed to the right may be working in tension. This maximum resisting
contribution in either compression or tension varies depending on the targeted
failure surface, meaning that the contribution cannot therefore be chosen ahead of
time; moreover, it must necessarily be established for each failure surface by
applying the principle of maximum plastic work. Only the Yield Design approach
allows applying this principle without any approximations.
The design values of the forces in either tension or compression must be
compatible with the STR verifications of the constitutive material of the inclusions.
2.1.2. Simplified models for SLS verifications
All the models described in Chapter III can also be used for SLS verifications.
If some of the strength criteria have not been explicitly introduced in these models, they still
need to be verified a posteriori. Depending on the specific models used, this verification may,
for example, entail:
± Punching of the inclusion head into the load transfer platform;
± Vertical stress applied at the soil surface between the inclusions with regards to its
allowable value for the specific situation considered
± The ratio of negative friction (W/V¶v) mobilized relative to the limit value KtanG, specific to
each layer;
± Positive friction values relative to the limit friction value qs, associated with both the type of
soil and inclusion installation technique;

± The value of the stress below the inclusion tip relative to the limit value qp, associated with
both the type of soil and inclusion installation technique;
± Maximum stress values in the materials (inclusion, ground slab, reinforcement, etc.) relative
to the allowable SLS values.
2.2. Detailed numerical models
The most comprehensive computational model is a 3D model using finite elements or finite
differences in a continuous medium, through the use of advanced behavior constitutive laws
for the various layers that take into account the range of soil-structure interactions via
interface elements. These laws must be capable of describing the behavior in terms of
stresses/strains until nearing failure.
The introduction of interfaces between inclusions and the ground is essential for two reasons:
± It authorizes the sliding of soil against the inclusions;
± It allows defining a limit value for soil/inclusion friction in order to reflect the influence of
the method of installation of the inclusions, which would have been neglected in the
computational model (e.g. lateral displacement).
The significant rotation of the principal stresses in the load transfer platform, coupled with the
need to describe a nonlinear behavior highly dependent on the stress state, leads for the
granular material typically used in the platform to the selection of an advanced behavior law
(2nd-order model or nonlinear elasticity).
The 1st-order model associating linear elasticity with the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion
might not be sufficient to assess ULS situations, even though it generally proves acceptable to
check SLS situations.
The (soil-inclusion) interface laws also need to introduce a failure criterion.
It is preferable to introduce either a Cam-Clay or hardening soil type model (i.e. one that
incorporates an isotropic strain hardening mechanism) for slightly overconsolidated
compressible soils. Only these models are actually capable of reproducing the oedometric
type behavior of soils while distinguishing deformations before and after the preconsolidation
pressure.
In the other cases, in particular for the bearing layer, the requirement or not of advanced laws
must be examined on a case-by-case basis.
For the inclusion component material, the adopted law must necessarily introduce the
material-specific failure criterion (an elastic model without a failure criterion is unacceptable).
The ability of the model to yield representative results up to near failure must be evaluated by
assessing:
± The direct load case of an isolated inclusion, and then comparing this simulation:
- to results of a direct load test, if available (with the failure load being set as the load
yielding a settlement at the top equal to one-tenth of the diameter D/10);
- otherwise, to the prediction obtained by using the Frank and Zhao type transfer curves;
± The loading of a rigid footing at the model surface (not reinforced by the inclusions) in
order to compare:
Justifications 171
- under SLS loads, the calculated settlement with the settlement calculated using the most
appropriate method (either the pressuremeter or oedometric method);
- under larger loads, the values for bearing capacity or sliding resistance using
conventional methods.
Such models can obviously also be used for SLS verifications.
2.2.1. Detailed numerical models for ULS verifications
2.2.1.1. Case of foundations built on inclusions
2.2.1.1.1. Underlying principle
If Design Approach 2 is selected, then the model allows establishing the applied load -
displacement curve of a characteristic point of the foundation, over an interval greatly beyond
the service load.
The shape of this theoretical load-displacement curve is examined to see if it reveals a limit
value Rc beyond which an increase in the ratio between displacements and applied forces is
noticeable. In the event such a threshold is defined, the value of the design strength Rd is:
Rd = Rc/JR (5.6)
It is proposed herein to adopt the value JR = 1.4 for the partial resistance factor.
If the failure mechanism is associated with a sliding plane on the underside of the foundation,
then the value JR can be reduced to 1.1 in agreement with the conditions applicable to shallow
foundations.
Remark: Should the detailed models rely on a greater number of parameters, it is

important to recall that the use of this method is acceptable only if the tests
discussed in Section 2.2 have all been performed.
2.2.1.1.2. Application example
An equivalent approach has been adopted to justify the ICEDA project, which was an
exceptional structure subjected to some very specific requirements. This project was
described in the historical review presented in Chapter 1 of this guide.
A static load test area containing 9 inclusions has served to calibrate the constitutive laws of a
numerical model representing the test section, using a 3D finite element model.
A basic unit cell model using these constitutive laws was built in order to study the overall
behavior of the foundation, with special emphasis on the settlement / applied load relation.
A parametric study conducted on this model has enabled the determination of the sensitivity
of the settlement to successive variations of practically all the parameters at increasing applied
loads.
Figure 5.12 illustrates one of the results obtained: it depicts the settlement vs. load behavior of
a raft, for a given mesh and for the reference case (blue curve), as well as for the improved

characteristics of compressible layer (red curve) and degraded characteristics of this layer
(green curve). The settlement curve vs. loading indicates a change in behavior around an
applied load of 360 kPa on the raft.
In order to design the grid of inclusions for the ICEDA project under static loads, the forces in
the inclusions corresponding to a load of 360 kPa on the raft were factored using the JR
coefficients of 1.0 at ULS and 1.4 at SLS, in order to define the maximum allowable forces.
Figure 5.12: Load-settlement curve established for the ICEDA project.
Once the ultimate value for the stress on the raft was defined, the grid of inclusions was
designed with respect to the SLS such that:
± The calculated settlements remain less than the allowable settlement values;
± The integrity of the load transfer platform is verified: absence of zones where the shear
strain (evaluated as the second invariant of the deviatoric strain tensor) would be greater than
or equal to 5% and moreover would:
- continuously connect the inclusion heads to the raft;
- continuously connect the inclusion heads to the natural soil, at the periphery of the
buildings;
- continuously connect two contiguous inclusions.
± The structural integrity of the inclusions is verified, through the conventional methods
described in the EC7 draft "Deep foundations" Standard.
Remark: Calibration of the ultimate resistance value must be the same as for the
case of the footing on non-reinforced soil.
2.2.1.2. Case of embankments built on rigid inclusions
In this case, the verification step is carried out according to Approach 3.
Justifications 173
The ULS verification takes the form of a specific calculation during which the parameters for
WKH VWUHQJWKRIWKHVRLOVDUH³GHJUDGHG´ compared to their characteristic values applying the
M2 set of partial factors:
JI¶ JF¶= 1.25 Jcu = 1.4 JJ = 1.0
The M2 partial factors must be complemented by the factor applicable to the soil-inclusion
lateral interaction strength JM;f.
As presented in Section 2.1.1.3.3 and in order to ensure continuity with Standard NF P 94 262
(deep foundations), it is proposed to adopt, for the factor JM;f applicable to the shaft friction
resistance, the composite value (1.1 JR,d) where JR,d is the partial factor associated with the
"ground model" method in Standard NF P 94 262. The values of this factor depend on the
inclusion installation technique, as well as on the type and mode of interpretation of the
geotechnical data (with or without statistical analysis).
As opposed to the shaft friction, the interaction at the head or base of the inclusion does not
require, for this calculation, the introduction of a specific M2 coefficient. This interaction is
correctly described by the input parameters for the soils provided that the inclusions are
modeled as volume elements and not as "beam" elements (i.e. without thickness).
Remark: It should be recalled that for the inclusion, the behavior law must
necessarily introduce a failure criterion for the material in the inclusion (an elastic
model without any failure criterion is unacceptable).
The ULS verification therefore requires a specific calculation step that consists of ensuring
that an equilibrium has actually been reached when all M2 factors are applied to the soil
parameters, inclusion material and shaft friction.
The fact that the calculation performed using these new parameters actually converges on a
solution provides the desired verification.
Remark: It is to be noted that the displacements obtained have no physical

significance.
2.2.2. Detailed numerical models for SLS verifications (settlements)
The purpose here is to verify that Ed< Cd:

± Ed and Cd are settlements (or deformations);
± Cd is the allowable settlement (or deformation) defined by the Project Owner.
This advanced model is employed without factoring the strengths. Since the model takes into
account the full set of material failure criteria, the existence of localized plastic zones in the
soil is acceptable as long as the SLS settlement criterion remains satisfied.
Remark: In the case of the exceptional ICEDA structure, the previous criterion was
supplemented by a criterion limiting the development of a free plastic flow zone:
the absence of a continuous shear band (defined by a shear1 above 5%) connecting
either the inclusion heads to the raft, or the inclusion heads to the natural soil, at the
periphery of buildings, or two contiguous inclusions.
1
Second invariant of the deviatoric strain tensor.

2.3. Specific calculation models based on the Yield design theory for ULS verifications
These models apply the Yield Design theory (Salençon, 1983) within its general framework:
± Static and kinematic approaches;
± Displacement field not reduced to a field of rigid blocks.
These models are capable of processing any type of loading cases (Q, T, M) by determining
the associated failure mode.
Remark: These models are to be used under exceptional circumstances and must
be calibrated by comparison with other approaches, as illustrated in the following
section.
2.3.1. Application example
This approach was applied to the exceptional structure of the foundations for the Rion-
Antirion bridge, as described in Chapter 1 (Pecker, 1998).
An upper bound on the foundation capacity was established using the Yield Design Kinematic
approach by introducing the strength contribution of the inclusions into mechanisms such as
the one presented in Figure 5.13. Given the foundation caisson dimensions (diameter: 90 m),
this approach was developed exclusively in the form of a 2D plane strain model.
Figure 5.13: The studied failure mechanisms (case of a cohesive soil).
These mechanisms can be defined by 5 geometric parameters (Z or D, O, G¶ P and H¶¶ DV
identified in Fig. 5.13). These mechanisms juxtapose the motions of rigid blocks and blocks
under deformation fields compatible with the displacements of neighboring blocks.
The minimization step over the space defined by these geometric parameters (representing all
possible geometries of these various failure mechanisms) serves to establish the value of the
smallest load capable of leading to failure.
The theory indicates that this value constitutes an upper bound of the actual failure load: any
load greater than or equal to this value necessarily causes the failure of the system.
Justifications 175
The set of ultimate values obtained allows defining a surface within the space (Q, T, M) that
encompasses all loads that the system is able to withstand. Any loading represented by a point
located outside this surface causes failure.
A cross-section of this surface in a plane corresponding to a constant vertical force value Q

gives the shape of this limit surface (Fig. 5.14). This example illustrates the increase in
capacity obtained by installing inclusions compared to a situation with the same foundation
on non-reinforced soil.
The inclusions have served to raise the values of Tmax and Mmax that can be supported for a
given Q value. The vertical part of the limit curve with inclusions represents the
configurations in which failure occurs by sliding on the foundation's lower side.
Figure 5.14: Cross-section of the limit surface for reinforced soil.
The results from the Yield design calculations have proven to be consistent with those yielded
by finite element numerical models as well as physical models tested in a centrifuge. In this
special case, the general validation principle for detailed models presented in Section 2.2 has
thus also been respected.
2.3.2. Verification principle
The formal inequality Ed < Rd therefore consists of verifying that the point representing the
load Ed is within the volume Rd delimited by the limit surface:
± Within this framework, Design Approach 2 consists of establishing the limit surface within
the Q, T, M space based on non-weighted soil parameter values, then positioning the
representative loading point obtained by applying factors JG = 1.35 or 1.0 and JQ = 1.5 or 0 to
the characteristic values Q, T, M;
± Design Approach 3 consists of establishing the limit surface in the Q, T, M space based on
the soil parameters modified using the set of M2 partial factors:
JI¶ JF¶ = 1.25 Jcu = 1.4 JJ = 1.0
and then locating the representative loading point (characteristic values Q, T, M assigned the
A2 partial factors: JG = 1.0 and JQ = 1.3 or 0).
The distance from the representative loading point to the domain boundary characterizes the
VDIHW\³UHVHUYH´.

³675´ LIMIT STATES
The material strength limit states are relevant to the structure (footing, ground slab, raft), as
well as to geotextiles, inclusion caps and the inclusion itself.
Remark: Chapter 4: Design has focused the attention on the need to consider the
sensitivity of the calculated loads on the choice of soil parameters. Whenever
necessary, this parametric sensitivity study will be conducted by examining the
dispersion observed on the measurements of the soil parameter relevant to the
computational model.
3.1. Concrete or mortar inclusions
For rigid inclusions, the following limit states are to be verified:

± Strength relative to compression;
± Strength relative to bending;
± Strength relative to shear;
± Strength relative to buckling.
These verifications are to be conducted by considering the following:

± Vertical loads of all types from the structure;
± Horizontal forces capable, in certain cases, of being transmitted to the inclusion head via the
load transfer platform (industrial or commercial building footings, braking forces on a slab on
grade, edge effects underneath an embankment or reservoir, or horizontal load behind an
abutment);
± Loads potentially resulting from displacements imposed on the soil around the inclusions
(asymmetric loading under the footprint of a reinforced zone, toe of an embankment, lateral
soil displacement beneath a vertically-loaded footing);
± Loadings induced by an earthquake;
± Eventually, the forces experienced during construction (construction site vehicles
circulating in the vicinity of the inclusion heads).
3.1.1. Compressive strength for axial loading
3.1.1.1. Definition of fcd
When using concrete or grout, the computed value fcdRIWKHPDWHULDO¶s compressive strength
for uniaxial load is defined according to either the Eurocode 7 National Application Standard
(NFP 94 262 for Deep foundations) or the particular job specifications:
§ f* f (t ) C ·
f cd Min¨¨ D cc k 3 ck ; D cc ck ; D cc max ¸
¸ (5.7)
© JC JC JC ¹
with:
Dcc: coefficient depending on the presence or absence of steel reinforcement (reinforced =
1, non-reinforced = 0.8);
JC: partial coefficient with a value equal to 1.5 at the fundamental ULS and 1.2 at the
accidental ULS;
Justifications 177
fck*: characteristic value of the compressive strength of the concrete, grout or mortar in the
inclusion, as determined based on the following formula:
1
f ck inf fck (t ); Cmax ; fck (5.8)
k1k2
fck: characteristic value of the compressive strength measured on cylinders at 28 days;
fck(t): characteristic value of the compressive strength measured on cylinders at time t;
Cmax: maximum compressive strength value taking into account the required consistency of
the fresh concrete, grout or mortar, depending on the technique used, as shown in Table
5.1;
k1: value depending on both the drilling method and slenderness ratio, as listed in Table
5.1.
Table 5.1: Assigned values of Cmax and the coefficient k1.
Cmax
Case Execution mode k1
(MPa)
Drilled inclusions with soil
1 35 1.3
extraction
Drilled inclusions using a hollow
2 30 1.4
auger with soil extraction
Drilled inclusions using a hollow
3 35 1.3
auger with soil displacement
Inclusions either vibratory driven
4 35 1.3
or cast in place
Incorporation of a binder with
5 the soil (treated soil columns, jet (*) (**)
grouting, etc.)
(*) Value to be determined through field site testing.
(**) columns of treated soil using a mechanical tool that guarantees the cross-section
geometry: k1 to be determined on a case-by-case basis with k1 > 1.3.
For a soil treated by jet grouting or with a tool that does not guarantee a homogeneous section
geometry, the k1 value is to be determined on a case-by-case basis k1 > 1.5.
k1 may be decreased by 0.1, only for drilled inclusions when the composition of the ground
layers guarantees stability of the outer borehole walls or when the inclusion is cased and
concreted in the dry (a guarantee of borehole wall stability must be demonstrated using the
procedure outlined in the EN 1536 bored pile execution Standard):
k2 depends on the slenderness ratio:
k2 = 1.05 for inclusions whose ratio of smallest dimension d to length is less than 1/20;
k2 = 1.3-d/2 for inclusions whose smallest dimension is less than 0.60 m;
k2 = 1.35-d/2 for inclusions combining the two previous conditions.
k3 depends on the type of control performed, as specified in Table 5.2 below.

Table 5.2: Values of k3.
With
With load-
reflection or With quality With reinforced
k3 values Without test bearing
impedance tests control tests (b)
capacity tests
tests (a)
Domain 1
(inclusions
* 0.75 ** 1.2 1.4
required for
stability)
Domain 2
(inclusions not
0.65 0.85 1.4 1.5 1.7
required for
stability)
* In Domain 1, reflection or impedance tests are mandatory.
** In Domain 1, load tests are at least load-bearing capacity tests.
(a) Only for small-sized projects (See Chapter 8, §2.2 and §4.1).
(b)When reinforced control tests per Standard NF P 94 262 and with the required frequency are performed in addition to the
load-bearing capacity tests.
The coefficients in Table 5.2 cannot be combined: for instance, when both load-bearing
capacity tests and reflection or impedance tests are performed, the k3 coefficient value equals
1.2 for Domain 1 and 1.5 for Domain 2.
/HW¶s recall the following definitions (see Chapter 8: Controls):

± quality tests: static loading test conducted at the maximum value, as defined in Section
2.2.1.2 of Chapter 8;
± load-bearing capacity test: static loading test conducted at the maximum value, as defined in
Section 2.2.1.3 of Chapter 8;
± reinforced control test: as intended in the Eurocode 7 National Application Standard NF P
94 262 for Deep foundations, whenever applicable.
Example: /HW¶VFRQVLGHUDsmall-sized project with 1500 ml inclusions and without

any load-bearing test. Domain 1 inclusions will be controlled by reflection or
impedance tests; they are assigned a coefficient k3 = 0.75. Domain 2 inclusions
receive a coefficient k3 = 0.65 if not controlled by reflection or impedance tests and
a coefficient k3 = 0.85 otherwise.
3.1.1.2. ULS design compressive strength
At the ULS, the maximum compressive stress is limited to the computed value fcd, while the
average compressive stress on the compressed part of the cross-section is limited to a fixed
value of 7 MPa.
3.1.1.3. SLS design compressive strength
At the SLS, the maximum compressive stress in the concrete is limited to Min (0.6 k3 fck*, 0.6
fck) and the average compressive stress on the compressed part of the cross-section is limited
to (0.3 k3 fck*).
The value of k3 is defined in Table 5.2.
Justifications 179
3.1.1.4. Calculation of the modulus of deformation
± For concrete: long-term modulus E = 3,700 fck1/3;
± For mortar: long-term modulus E = 2,700 fck 1/3 (sand concrete, 1994).
3.1.2. Design strength for axial loading and bending
In Domain 1 (inclusions required for stability), the inclusions must be reinforced over the
length where they are not fully compressed.
In Domain 2 (inclusions not required for stability), it is proposed not to reinforce the
inclusions, provided the maximum tensile stress in the concrete can be justified.
In all cases, the maximum design compressive stress must comply with the criteria detailed in
Sections 3.1.1.2 and 3.1.1.3.
3.1.3. Design strength relative to shear
The shear stresses are verified in accordance with Eurocode 2.

Verify that Wcp < fcvd, with:
Wcp = 1.5 Ved / Ac
Ac: Area of the compressed section of the inclusion.
3.1.3.1. Case of a reinforced inclusion
The verification steps are carried out in accordance with Eurocode 2, Section 6.2.3.
3.1.3.2.Case of a fully-compressed non-reinforced inclusion
3.1.3.2.1. Recall of the Eurocode 2 prescriptions.
Verify that Wcp < fcvd, with:

Vclim = fcd - 2 (fctd . (fctd+fcd))0.5 (Eurocode 2, Section 12.7)
Vcp = Ned / Ac
fctm = 0.3 fck*(2/3)
fctd = design tensile strength = 0.7 Dct fctm / Jc
Dct = 0.8 (Eurocode 2, Section 12.3.1)
fcd = design compressive strength of the concrete
fcvd = design shear and compressive strength of the concrete
if Vcp < Vclim fcvd = (fctd² + Vcp fctd)0.5
if Vcp > Vclim fcvd = (fctd² + Vcp fctd - [(Vcp- Vclim)/2]²)0.5
3.1.3.2.2. Application to Domain 1
In Domain 1, the shear is verified in accordance with Section 12.6.3 of the NF EN 1992-1-1
Standard. As per Section 12.2.1(8) of Standard NF P 94 262 however, when the ULS design
normal stress NEd/Ac exceeds 0.3fck, it becomes necessary to verify that the shear stress Wcp
does not exceed fcvd/10, as illustrated in Figure 5.15.

Figure 5.15: Evolution of design shear strength vs. ULS normal compressive stress.
According to Section 12.2.1(8) of Standard NFP 94 262, in Domain 1, no shear is allowable

as long as the inclusion diameter remains below 400 mm. Provided the transmission of
horizontal forces has been calculated by using one of the three footing computation models
described in Chapter 3 (i.e. MH1, MH2 or MH3), this threshold can be reduced to 300 mm.
3.1.3.2.3. Application to Domain 2
In Domain 2, a shear stress verification is not usually necessary, hence the condition on the
inclusion diameter defined in Standard NFP 94 262 (Section 12.2.1(8)), is not applicable.
3.1.4. Buckling resistance
Buckling (or the amplification of bending loads) needs be verified, through conventional
methods, provided the two following conditions have been satisfied:
± Pressuremeter modulus EM < 3 MPa, over a significant height (i.e. more than 5 diameters);
± Diameter inclusion D < 300 mm.
The bending stiffness EI to be used in this analysis for non-reinforced inclusions must be
justifiable up to the critical load.
3.2. Steel inclusions
All of the conditions described in Standard NF P 94 262 (Deep foundations) for steel
elements are applicable.
The maximum allowable stresses in the material are those listed in Eurocode 3.
3.3. Pile caps
Generally speaking, pile caps are considered to work as a cantilever on the inclusion head.
Whenever pile caps or their equivalent are installed, their dimensions must be compliant with
Eurocode specifications.
Justifications 181
3.4. Slabs on grade
In Standards NF P11-213-1 and NF P11-213-2 it is required to take into account the

heterogeneity introduced by the improvement technique as part of the serviceability limit state
verification.
Remark: Standards NF P11-213-1 and NF P11-213-2 correspond respectively to Part

RI'78³Contract bill of technical clauses for paving in industrial or related
uses´ DQG3DUWRI '78 ³Contract bill of technical clauses for paving in uses
other than industrial or rHODWHG´ from March 2005, with Amendment A1 adopted in
May 2007. In the remainder of the present document, the term "DTU 13.3" will refer
to these two documents.
3.4.1. Limit states requiring verification
According to DTU 13.3, the limit states requiring verification are relative to:
± Absolute and differential deformations of slabs on grade;
± Compressive strength of concrete in the case of a reinforced concrete slab on grade;
± Tensile strength in the case of a non-reinforced slab on grade.
3.4.1.1. Limit States for total and differential deformation of slabs on grade
The total and differential vertical deformations must be compliant with the prescriptions set
forth in DTU 13.3 (except for special specifications listed in Special Contract Clauses):
± Total settlement /1/2,000) in mm, where L1 is the smallest dimension of the
rectangular envelope for the structure (expressed in mm);
± Differential settlement /2/2,000) in mm, between two points separated by L2
(expressed in mm).
It should also be noted that this second criterion, which requires verification between a loaded
zone and an unloaded zone is most often the limiting criterion.
3.4.1.2. Structural limit states
The layout of rigid inclusions with respect to the applied loads and joints is taken into
consideration in these verifications.
3.4.1.2.1. Compressive limit state of concrete in the case of a reinforced concrete slab
on grade
The compressive limit states of concrete are verified in the case of a reinforced concrete slab
on grade in accordance with the set of design rules for reinforced concrete.
A reinforced slab on grade must be used according to the DTU 13.3 whenever:
± The operating conditions defined in the Special Contractual Clauses require a limitation of
the crack opening size;
± Joint spacing does not satisfy DTU 13.3, Section 5.6.6;
± The mechanical characteristics of the support, the actions or the construction method
prohibit the design of a non-reinforced slab on grade;

± The slab on grade is intended to be covered with a skid resistant layer either directly on the
slab or via a self-leveling product.
According to the DTU 13.3 guidelines and in order to fulfill the non-brittle condition in
tension, the minimum section area of steel reinforcement is 0.4% in each direction.
3.4.1.2.2. Tensile limit state for non-reinforced concrete in bending
The calculated tensile stress in bending at the serviceability limit state under the most
unfavorable action combinations listed in DTU 13.3 must verify the following condition for a
non-reinforced slab on grade:
ıSLS = 6.M/h² Ic28Ҁ (5.9)
(M: moment per linear meter)
As an example, for a concrete compressive strength fc28 = 25 MPa, the limit tensile stress
HTXDOVıSLS = 1.8 MPa.
It is also possible to refer to the limit splitting tensile strength value, ftsplitting28, at 28 days. In
this case, the condition to be satisfied becomes:
ıSLS = 6.M/h² Itsplitting28 (5.10)
For a given concrete strength class (e.g. C25/30), depending on the concrete mix design and
the type of materials used, the characteristic splitting tensile strength can vary significantly,
HJ WR 03D UHVXOWLQJLQ D OLPLW VWUHVVıSLS varying between 1.8 and 2.7 MPa. Splitting
tensile tests are required.
Note: The initial approach stemming from compressive strength has a higher
margin of safety since it takes into account the uncertainties between a concrete's
compressive strength and its tensile strength. In reality, no mathematical
relationship exists between these two magnitudes.
3.4.1.2.3. Bending tensile limit state of the concrete with metal fiber additives.
Steel fiber-reinforced concrete slabs on grade are assimilated with non-reinforced slabs for the
entire set of conditions listed in DTU 13.3. The specificities of these processes are governed
by technical memoranda issued by the CSTB Building Research Center. The main
exemptions are: the tensile stress strength of the composite concrete, concrete characteristics,
distances between interruptionsEHWZHHQSRXUVLQWKHFDVHRI³a slab on grade without sawed
MRLQW´, or more commonly called ³DMRLQWIUHHVODERQJUDGH´), and aspects of the construction
method.
The orders of magnitude of the limit tensile stresses evaluated by these technical memoranda,
for fiber concentrations of between 20 and 40 kg/m3, currently stand at:
± in the vicinity of joints (panel corner and edge): between 1.8 and 3.5 MPa;
± over the main part of the panel: between 2.5 and 5 MPa.
7KHGHVLJQHU¶s attention must be drawn to the fact that all technical assessments of fibers are
based on the post-cracking behavior of the material; this behavior may lead to conflicts with
the requirement for no cracking, hence making the slab unfit for its final purpose.
Justifications 183
3.4.2. Types of joints
In accordance with the DTU 13.3 guidelines, the slab on grade is split and isolated from the
other structural elements using various types of joints.
For all projects, prior to the execution phase, a slab layout will be prepared and will
incorporate:
± Phasing of the pours;
± Construction layout;
± Special considerations at critical points: internal angles and circulation direction, presence
of protuberances;
± Eventually, the position of static loads applied on the slab;
± Eventually, the inclusion mesh.
Four types of joints exist, and each will be discussed in detail below.
Remarks:
± In the event that the design explicitly takes into account the relative positions of
the loads, joints and inclusions, then these hypotheses must be detailed in the
project contract documents from the design phase;
± All of the contraction and construction joints (pour interruption, shrinkage,
dilatation) solely transmit shear force and are to be modeled like hinges.
3.4.2.1. The pouring interruption joint (construction joint)
This joint serves to delimit the daily casting phases and affects the entire ground slab
thickness. It must be designed so as to prevent the relative vertical motion called "tinkling",
while allowing for free horizontal, transverse or longitudinal movements and protecting the
joint edge.
Expansion joints are to be prohibited; only butt joints are authorized (Fig. 5.16).
Figure 5.16: Types of casting interruption joints.

3.4.2.2. The shrinkage/contraction joint
This joint is intended to control and position the cracking due to shrinkage. In most instances,
it is constructed by sawing over a depth corresponding to one-third of the slab thickness. The
continuity is ensured using welded wire mesh.
For non-reinforced slabs with fiber concrete, the distances between shrinkage/contraction
joints will not exceed 6 meters (except under special conditions).
For slabs with fiber additives over 40 kg/m3, or so-FDOOHG ³MRLQW-OHVV VODEV RQ JUDGH´ and
reinforced concrete slabs, saw-cut joints are not necessary; only the pour interruptions are to
be installed based on the distance authorized by the method and by taking shrinkage into
account in the design.
3.4.2.3. The expansion joint (for reference since it is rarely used on slabs on grade)
This joint allows compensating for the expansion/contraction of a slab due to temperature
variations; its use is not required inside buildings.
3.4.2.4. The separation or isolation joint
This joint allows the decoupling of the slab from the influence of any obstacles or
obstructions capable of interfering with its unrestricted motion. Such a joint lies within the
expansion joint family.
Each load has an influence (of varying importance) on stresses in the slab depending on the
zone considered (main part, edge or corner, near a joint) and must be taken into account.
More specifically, for point loads, it is necessary to consider the least favorable configurations
and combinations (Figs. 5.17 and 5.18).
Remarks:
± The edge and boundary zones are sensitive areas;
± Layout of the rack bases is never known with certainty;
± This can lead to designs with higher safety factors.
Justifications 185
Figure 5.17: Examples of modeled situations in the main part of the zone for point loads.
Figure 5.18: Examples of modeled situations in the edge zone for point loads.
The slab on grade supported on soil reinforced by inclusions is a structure addressed in the
DTU 13.3 document, yet its design over its main part requires incorporating the specific
nature of a non-uniform distribution of reactions on the ground slab lower face.
As such, the simplified method for evaluating deformations and loads, as explained in
Appendices C3.1 and C4.1.4 to C4.1.7 of DTU 13.3, proves to be insufficient.
The present recommendations propose two distinct methods based on an interpretation of the
full-scale experiments and the analysis of a large number of detailed, three-dimensional
computations (ASIRI, 2011):
± An envelope PHWKRGEDVHGRQWKHFRQFHSWRI³DGGLWLRQDOPRPHQWV´;
± An alternative method based on differentiated subgrade reaction coefficients.
Each of these methods serves to estimate the loadings of mechanical origin (related to loads).
The effects of shrinkage and thermal gradient will then be added (along with the appropriate
combination coefficients) to these loadings.

3.4.3.1.³$GGLWLRQDOPRPHQW´ envelope method
This method consists of defining the corrective terms due to the presence of inclusions, which
are to be added, in the form of an envelope, to the bending moments in the slab calculated in
accordance with Appendix C for the main part of the slab, the edges and corners of panels, on
an equivalent homogenized soil.
These two corrective terms are:

± One term representing the influence of the rigid inclusions on a continuous slab (no joint);
± Another term representing the interaction between rigid inclusions and joints.
The determination of these corrective terms will be explained below, as well as the definition
of the equivalent homogenized soil.
Remarks:
± For all of the calculation methods presented below, it would be referable to select
a sign convention and determine all of the bending moment values as algebraic
values. The adopted sign convention will be specified by identifying on which fiber
tension is being developed when the calculated moment is positive;
± When using the simplified method outlined in DTU 13.3, the approach assumes
the use of butt joints capable of transmitting shear forces from one panel to the
other.
3.4.3.1.1. Breakdown of the problem
The results of the calculation for a slab on rigid inclusions can be broken down as the sum of
WKUHHLQGHSHQGHQWWHUPV³PD´³PE´DQG³PF´, which represent respectively:
±³PD´: calculation of a slab on equivalent homogenized soil (Appendix C, DTU 13.3);
± ³PE´: Influence of the rigid inclusions on a continuous slab without joints;
± ³PF´: Interaction between rigid inclusions and joints.
Each of these three terms may be evaluated separately.
/HW¶s now define the following notations:

± Results of the calculation = distribution of bending moment in any cross-section;
± Soed(SJ): results of the calculation for a continuous slab on an equivalent homogenized soil;
± Soed(JT): results of the calculation for a slab with joints on an equivalent homogenized soil;
± IR(SJ): results of the calculation of a continuous slab without joints on a network of rigid
inclusions;
± IR(JT): results of the calculation of a slab with joints over a network of rigid inclusions.
Regardless of the type of loading considered1, the following equation can be written:
IRJT Soed

JT > SJ
Soed
IR SJ
@ >
IRJT Soed
JT

IRSJ

Soed
SJ
@
(5.11)
ma mb mc
1
Uniformly-distributed surcharge, alternating loaded and non-loaded bands, superposition of point loads, etc.
Justifications 187
3.4.3.1.2. 'HWDLOHGVWXG\RIWKHWHUPV³PD´³PE´DQG³mc´
7KH³PD´ term: Results of calculation of a slab on an equivalent homogenized soil

The soil reinforcement is represented by a homogenized soil profile, for which each layer is
charaFWHUL]HGE\DQHTXLYDOHQW<RXQJ¶s modulus ESDVVRFLDWHGZLWKD3RLVVRQ¶s ratio Q.
This is the case adopted when designing an industrial slab in accordance with the method
described in DTU 13.3 (Part 1, Appendix C), which allows taking into account the interaction
between applied loads and joints, based on their respective positions.
In this special case, during the design phase of the slab, it becomes necessary to perform the
analysis at the panel edge and at the corner in systematically considering the ³FXUOHG´ case as
well as the case where this curling effect is cancelled out by the subsequent to differential
shrinkage attenuation (load Qs equals 0 in the Appendix C design method) because this last
case may become the critical design case. It is therefore necessary to run two calculations in
SDUDOOHO³FXUOHG´ZLWKRXWWKHLQIOXHQFHRIWKHLQFOXVLRQVDQG³QRQ-FXUOHG´ZLWKLQIOXHQFHRI
the inclusions.
Remark: In the case of a uniformly-distributed load, as per Article 5.1.1.1 of Part

1, DTU 13.3, an isolated concentrated load with an intensity equivalent to the
distributed load value applied on a 1 m² total area (with an impact area
corresponding to a 5 MPa pressure) must be considered in order to evaluate corner
and edge zone loadings.
The homogenized soil profile is selected from the study of a basic unit cell (inclusion and the
corresponding surrounding soil volume, load transfer platform and joint-free slab) subjected
to an equivalent uniformly-distributed load q0. This basic cell is modeled with a constrained
condition at the edge (zero lateral deformation). Any of the methods described in Chapter 3
may be used here.
The value of the load q0 should be representative of the average load case for the condition
being studied, on an area (see Fig. 5.19):
± Corresponding to several grids of inclusions, in order to ensure that the behavior of these
inclusions is compatible with the zero lateral displacement boundary condition at the
periphery of the model;
± In proportion with the reinforced soil thickness.

Figure 5.19: Examples of an average load computation.
Settlement y at the model surface is used to define the equivalent oedometric modulus Eoedo*
over the total model height H:
Eoedo* = q0 H/y (5.12)
This oedometric modulus can be split into at least three moduli corresponding to a three-layer
model bearing on a soil substratum assumed to be non-deformable:
± Load transfer platform: height H1, modulus Eoedo1;
± Reinforced soil: height H2, modulus Eoedo2;
± Soil layer underlying the reinforced soil: height H3, modulus Eoedo3.
Since Eoedo1 and Eoedo3 are known values, the value Eoedo2 can be calculated from the following
formula:
H/Eoedo* = H1/Eoedo1 + H2/Eoedo2 +H3/Eoedo3 (5.13)
Justifications 189
Remarks:
± H1 is the load transfer platform thickness (between the inclusion head and the
bottom of the slab);
± H1 + H2 may be assimilated, indifferently, either as the sum of the load transfer
platform thickness + inclusions length, or as the distance separating the bottom of
the slab from the lower plane of equal settlement, located below the inclusion tip
(Fig. 5.21);
± Selecting the thickness H2 as the compressible layer thickness, the inclusion
length or the depth to the lower plane of equal settlement placed (located slightly
below the tip of the inclusions) has no noticeable impact provided the value of the
equivalent modulus Eoedo* over the total model height remains unchanged. This
option however must be maintained for all of the calculations;
± The design according to Appendix C of DTU 13.3 implicitly assigns an infinite
thickness to the deepest soil layer. Moreover, the geotechnical model typically
assumes that an uncompressible substratum has been reached at a given depth. It is
necessary to ensure the consistency of these two models, especially by verifying
that the two profiles considered yield identical settlements. This step therefore
leads to incorporating a layer with a very high modulus value into the
computational model derived from DTU13.3 at the base of the model, which in
turn simulates the incompressible substratum defined by the geotechnical engineer
(Fig. 5.20).
Figure 5.20: Uncompressible substratum added to the "slab on grade" model.

Figure 5.21: Example used to determine the H2, Eoed2 couple.
Figure 5.21: Example used to determine the H2, Eoed2 couple.
For calculations that rely on Appendix C of DTU 13.3 and are performed in a conventional
For calculations that rely on Appendix C of DTU 13.3 and are performed in a conventional
manner using the value Q = 0.35 for the soil, the equivalent oedometric moduli Eoedo* are
manner using the value Q = 0.35 for the soil, the equivalent oedometric moduli Eoedo* are
FRQYHUWHGLQWRHTXLYDOHQW<RXQJ¶s moduli E*:
FRQYHUWHGLQWRHTXLYDOHQW<RXQJ¶s moduli E*:
E* = Eoedo* * (1 +Q) (1 - 2Q)/(1-Q) (5.14)
E* = Eoedo (1 +Q) (1 - 2Q)/(1-Q) (5.14)
Remark: The E* modulus corresponds to the E modulus listed in Appendix C of
Remark: The E* modulus corresponds to the Es smodulus listed in Appendix C of
DTU 13.3.
DTU 13.3.
The equivalent modulus values to be used in the specific slab on grade calculations must be
The equivalent modulus values to be used in the specific slab on grade calculations must be
evaluated on the basis of residual settlements experienced from the construction of the slab.
evaluated on the basis of residual settlements experienced from the construction of the slab.
The goal here consists of defining these modulus values for consistency with the slab on
The goal here consists of defining these modulus values for consistency with the slab on
grade, which only considers the loads directly applied to the slab.
grade, which only considers the loads directly applied to the slab.
Example:
Example:
x Hypotheses:
x Hypotheses:
/HW¶s take the example of an industrial slab on a fill layer with thickness h = 1.80 m and unit
/HW¶s take the example of an industrial slab on a fill layer with thickness h = 1.80 m and unit
weight J = 20 kN/m3 3 and built on a soil previously reinforced by inclusions.
weight J = 20 kN/m and built on a soil previously reinforced by inclusions.
The average surcharge load is 30 kPa (including the weight of the slab).
The average surcharge load is 30 kPa (including the weight of the slab).
If the analysis of in situ soil consolidation rate allows the estimation of the percentage of
If the analysis of in situ soil consolidation rate allows the estimation of the percentage of
settlement reached under the embankment weight and prior to construction of the slab, then
settlement reached under the embankment weight and prior to construction of the slab, then
the equivalent modulus to enter into the ground slab design may be evaluated as follows.
the equivalent modulus to enter into the ground slab design may be evaluated as follows.
x Results of the basic unit cell calculation:
x Results of the basic unit cell calculation:
The calculation for a basic cell with inclusions incorporating all loads leads to the following
The calculation for a basic cell with inclusions incorporating all loads leads to the following
results:
results:
1) Total settlement under embankment weight q = 1.8 u 20 = 36 kPa: 'h = 1.4 cm;
1) Total settlement under embankment weight q1 1= 1.8 u 20 = 36 kPa: 'h1 1= 1.4 cm;
Justifications 191
2) Total settlement under operating load q2 = 30 kPa: 'h2 = 1.2 cm.
If the analysis of in situ soil consolidation rate allows estimating that the percentage of
settlement reached under the embankment weight prior to slab execution is 40%, then the
residual settlement of the slab (from the start of the construction of said slab) is therefore:
'hres 1 40%.'h1 'h2 2.0 cm
As intended in DTU13.3, the slab is designed solely by considering the surcharge load q2
(without taking into account the loading history: installation of the embankment and partial
consolidation due to this load q1).
The homogeneous soil profile must therefore be adapted in order to derive the previously
*
calculated total settlement 'hres ; the equivalent oedometric modulus Eoedo over the total
model height can thus be expressed as:
* q 2 .H
Eoedo (5.15)
'hres
The estimation of Eoedo2 over the reinforced soil height remains in compliance with what had
been previously defined (see Fig. V.21 above).
Remarks:
± The model must be prepared in accordance with the phasing, in order to
determine, among other things, whether or not the load transfer platform
constitutes an additional load applied onto the soil compared to the initial
conditions before construction;
± The homogeneous soil profile must be defined for each grid of inclusion and for
each loading case.
7KH³PE´ term: Influence of rigid inclusions on a continuous slab without joints
Regardless of the loading type, WKHHQYHORSHRIWKHFRUUHFWLYH³PE´ term (influence relative to

the rigid inclusion on the bending moment in a continuous slab without joints) may be
evaluated by using the case of the basic unit cell subjected to a uniform load q0 as defined in
Section 3.4.3.1.2.
Remark: The distribution of the radial moment Mr in the axisymmetric model is

uVHGWRHYDOXDWHWKHFRUUHFWLYH³PE´ term, which is applied to both the distributions
of the moment Mx and the moment My for the complete model of the slab.
This envelope is determined, as part of the analysis of a uniformly-loaded basic unit cell,
using:
± The moment Mupper (which creates tension in the upper fiber) equal to the radial moment
obtained directly above the rigid inclusion Mr(r = 0);
± The moment Mlower (which creates tension in the lower fiber) equal to the radial moment
obtained at the edge of the axisymmetric model Mr (r = ¥$S, where A is the mesh surface
area).

Figure 5.22: Definition of the Mupper and Mlower moments calculated in a slab on grade on inclusions.
,Q SUDFWLFH WKH ³PD´ moments calculated from the homogenized model are therefore
increased by Mupper when they result in tension on the upper fiber and by Mlower when they
result in tension in the lower fiber.
Remarks:
± If for the same structure, several separate load cases exist, it would be necessary
to conduct a basic unit cell calculation for each load case in order to determine the
corresponding additional moments;
± For a load q0 with a limited extent, it is also possible to consider that the
moments Mupper and Mlower are proportional to the load, with all other parameters
being held constant;
The corrHFWLYH ³PE´ term is not applicable to moments calculated according to
Sections C4.2.3 and C4.2.4 of Appendix C, DTU13.3 whenever the edge (or
FRUQHU LV ³FXUOHG´ )LJ 5.23). The moments calculated with these methods only
pertain to the raised part of the panel which is not influenced by the inclusions.
Nevertheless, it may be necessary to study the influence of the load sharing
between soil and inclusions on the determination of value q0 used in the
determinationRIWKH³PE´ term.
Justifications 193
± On the other hand, it is also necessary to study the case where this curling of the
slab disappears subsequent to the attenuation of differential shrinkage (i.e. with
load Qs equal to 0, as per Appendix C, DTU13.3), and in that case, the corrective
³PE´ term needs to be used.
Figure 5.23: ,QIOXHQFHRI³FXUOLQJ´RQWKHVWUHVVWUDQVPLWWHGWRWKHVRLO.
7KH³PF´ term: Interaction between the rigid inclusions and the joints
The presence of a joint in the slab produces the following effects:
± No bending moment at the location of the joint;
± The bending moment diagram is shifted in the vicinity of the joint.
In practice, the set of studies carried out within the scope of the National Project have led to
the conclusion that at the location of a joint and regardless of the type of loading, an upper
ERXQGYDOXHRIWKHFRUUHFWLYH³PF´ term (i.e. specific to the interaction of the rigid inclusions
with the joints) may beFKRVHQDVWKHRSSRVLWHRIWKH³PE´ term, which was established from
the basic unit cell calcuODWLRQ UHVXOWV 7KH FRUUHFWLYH ³PF´ term (maximum moment offset)
thus lies within the interval {-Mlower, -Mupper} (reminder: Mupper and Mlower are both algebraic
values).
Between the joints, this interval decreases with the distance to the joints exclusively. It is
equal to zero at a point on the ground slab sufficiently far from any joint. The overall shape is
presented in Figure 5.24.
Figure 5.24: Example of the profile of corrective "mc" term values.

Figure 5.25: Field of "mc" values calculated based on the moments Mx
Figure 5.26: Field of "mc" values calculated based on the moments My
In practice, three levels of complexity can be anticipated:

1) The relative position of inclusions with respect to the joints is known: the DFWXDO ³PF´)
curve can then be built point by point using the basic XQLWFHOOPRPHQWGLVWULEXWLRQ³DFWXDO
PFFXUYH´ shown in Fig. 5.24).
2) The relative position of inclusions with respect to the joints is not known, but the joint
position is known: it is then necessary to use the upper bound and lower bound curves
(continuous blue and red curves in Fig. 5.24). These curves only depend on the joint position,
which is considered to be known; they span all inclusion positions relative to these joints.
3) In theory, the joint position remains unknown: with this level of complexity, it would be
necessary to use the least favorable values over the interval, i.e. the upper bound
(± Mlower) and lower bound (± Mupper) (parallel dashed lines in Fig. 5.24). These curves depend
on neither the joint position nor the inclusion position; hence, they encompass all inclusion
and joint positions.
Remarks:
± 7KH FRUUHFWLYH ³PF´ term is not applicable to moments calculated according to
Sections C4.2.3 and C4.2.4 of Appendix C, DTU13.3 whenever the edge (or
Justifications 195
FRUQHU LV ³FXUOHG´ )LJ 5.23); the moments calculated with these methods only
pertain to the raised part of the panel which is not influenced by the inclusions;
± On the other hand, it is also necessary to study the case where this curling of the
slab disappears subsequent to the attenuation of differential shrinkage (i.e. with
load Qs equal to 0, as per Appendix C, DTU13.3), and in that case, the corrective
³PF´ term needs to be used.
The edges of the slab on grade (boundary of the structure) have a similar effect at
WKH MRLQWV7KH FRUUHFWLYH³PF´ term must therefore also be taken into account in
DGGLWLRQWRWKH³PE´ term.
Special case of continuous slabs RQJUDGHZLWKRXWVDZHGMRLQWV³MRLQW-free slab on

JUDGH´)
The design of slabs on grade with joints (typical spacing of 5 to 6 m between joints), which
involves the combined use of the three terms ³PD´, ³PE´ and ³PF´, leads to an envelope of
moment in all cases.
The special case of a slab made of reinforced concrete or with the addition of steel fibers and
without sawed joints (typical spacing of 25 to 35 m ± herein referred WRDV³MRLQW-free slab on
JUDGH´) can be desigQHG ZLWKRXW DFFRXQWLQJ IRU WKH ³PF´ term except in the vicinity of
pouring joint interruptions and the edge of the structure.
In this case, it has been observed in certain unique configurations (back-to-back racks and
alternation of loaded and non-loaded bands) that the moment obtained, when solely focusing
RQ WKH ³PD´ DQG ³PE´ terms, might not constitute a strict upper bound of the calculated
moment through a comprehensive 3D model.
This is illustrated in Figures 5.27 and 5.28, which compare for the geometry displayed the
³PE´ values deduced from FLAC 3D calculations with the values of the moments Mupper and
Mlower calculated from the basic unit cell computation:
± In the case of loaded and non-loaded bands (Fig. WKH ³PE´ values calculated by
FLAC 3D in the longitudinal direction of the loaded strip exceed the negative moment Mlower
value at the intersection of the loaded zone axis and the inclusion axis;
± In the case of lRDGLQJYLDDUDFNV\VWHPWKH³PE´ values calculated in FLAC 3D in the rack
direction exceed the Mlower value at location where the back-to-back racks are aligned with the
inclusions.
Consequently, it would be useful to apply a model coefficient JR;d = 1.75 on the corrective
³PE´ term relative to the lower fiber over the typical part of the slab [Mupper; 1.75 u Mlower] in
all load cases (e.g. localized distributed loads, stationary or mobile point loads), with the
exception of the uniformly-distributed load case.

Figure 5.27: Comparison of "mb" values (along the Y direction) from FLAC 3D calculations
with the Mupper and Mlower values derived from a basic unit cell computation
(succession of loaded/non-loaded bands).
Figure 5.28: Comparison of "mb" values (along the Y direction) deduced from FLAC 3D computations
with the Mupper and Mlower values derived from a basic cell computation (loading via the rack bases).
3.4.3.1.3. Summary
A slab on grade supported by a network of rigid inclusions may be designed by adding the
results of the following calculation cases:
± ³ma´, which is the output from a model with joints lying on an equivalent homogenized
soil;
±³PE´ derived from the influence of rigid inclusions on the bending moment of a joint-free
slab on grade, with this influence being bounded by [Mupper; Mlower] (note: both Mupper and
Mlower are algebraic values);
±³PF´ generated from the interaction between rigid inclusions and joints, bounded by
[± Mlower; ± Mupper].
Justifications 197
In the general slab on grade case, the influence of the rigid inclusions interacting with the slab
joints always remains bounded by:
[Mupper - Mlower; -(Mupper - Mlower)]
)RUD JLYHQORDGFDVHWKH³PE´DQG³PF´ terms are independent of the location of the load

with respect to the joints, as opposed toWKH³PD´ term.
With better knowledge of the relative positions of inclusions and joints, it is possible to refine
the above interval (see Section 3.4.3.1.2 and Fig. 5.24).
When the design explicitly takes into account the relative position of loads, joints and
inclusions, these hypotheses must be listed in the contractual clauses in a detailed manner at
the design stage.
The design of slabs on grade with joints (typical spacing of 5 to 6 m between joints), which
involves the combined use of the three termV³PD´³PE´DQG³PF´OHDGVWRDQHQYHORSHRI
moment values in all cases.
In the special case of a slab on grade without sawed joints (i.e. joint-free slab on grade), the
³PF´ term is equal to zero except in the vicinity of edges of the structure and pouring joints
interruptions. It is then necessary to apply a model coefficLHQWRIRQWKHFRUUHFWLYH³PE´
term for only the lower fiber of the slab [Mupper; 1.75 u Mlower] for all load cases, with the
exception of the uniformly-distributed load case.
3.4.3.2. Alternative method: subgrade reaction coefficient
According to this method, the ultimate objective is to define a computational model limited to
the slab itself, the interaction of the slab and the foundation being modeled by springs with
properties estimated for a given loading level.
The first step is to study a basic unit cell of ground improvement under an equivalent uniform
load of the same intensity as the load case being studied. Afterwards, a calibration step is
performed on the previous results in order to determine a distribution of subgrade reaction
coefficients. In a final step, these coefficients are incorporated into a model of a plate on
elastic supports for the purpose of estimating the moments in the slab under the project loads
(point and/or distributed loads).

3.4.3.2.1. Analysis of the basic unit cell
Figure 5.29: The configuration under study.
This method consists of studying a basic unit cell subjected to an equivalent uniformly-
distributed load q0 under the same conditions as those presented Fig. 5.29.
The axisymmetric model of this basic cell has a radius R.

This calculation gives the distribution of the vertical stress under the slab (Fig. 5.30) as well
as the slab bending moment diagram.
Figure 5.30: Vertical stress distribution characteristic directly under the slab.
3.4.3.2.2. Determination of subgrade reaction coefficients
A simplified distribution of subgrade reaction coefficients k(r) = V(r) / y(r) is defined in such
a way that the bending moment distribution is similar to the bending moment diagram in the
slab from the unit cell calculation.
Justifications 199
This simplified distribution is characterized by the following (see Fig. 5.31):
± Two values ki and ks;
± A diffusion radius rk underneath the ground slab.
These parameters as defined as follows.

0 < r < rk k(r) = ki
rk < r < R k(r) = ks
Figure 5.31: Simplified subgrade reaction coefficient distribution.
It is recommended to choose the values ki, ks and rk as follows:

± ks is calculated by considering both the minimum value of the stress Vs applied to the soil
directly below the slab (Fig. 5.30) and the settlement of the slab;
± For a given value of rk, chosen in the interval [rP, rP +HM], ki is calculated with the stress Vi,
defined from the total load Q conservation equation applied to the mesh (Fig. 5.32),
Vi S rk2 + Vs S (R2 ± rk2) = Q (5.16)
and with the settlement calculated from the basic unit cell calculation;
± The bending moment distribution for the uniformly distributed load Q is calculated for the
circular plate of radius R on springs ki over the interval [0, rk] and ks over the interval [rk, R];
± The value for rk is determined by iteration and is the value that gives the best agreement
with the bending moment diagram established during Stage 1 (Section 3.4.3.2.1) with respect
to the two values Mupper (directly above an inclusion) and Mlower (at the edge of the model).
This procedure has been illustrated by the example detailed in Figures 5.32 and 5.33, using an
application to the case of a slab with thickness h = 0.17 m, a load transfer platform with
thickness HM = 0.5 m supported by a network of inclusions (D = 0.42 m, and mesh
a = 2.5 m):
± Figure 5.32 shows the distributions k(r) obtained for various rk values in comparison with
the value resulting from a FLAC 3D calculation;
± Figure 5.33 shows that the maximum moment obtained in the plate directly above an
inclusion decreases as the value chosen for rk value rises. In this special case, the k(r)
distribution defined by rk = 0.5 m yields values for Mupper and Mlower, with good agreement

with the corresponding FLAC 3D calculations; this rk value represents a diffusion cone with
an approx. angle of 6h/10v from the top of each inclusion.
Figure 5.32: Reaction coefficient distributions for various rk values.
Figure 5.33: Influence of the parameter rk on the moments Mupper and Mlower.
Remarks: The stiffness ki or ks cannot be correlated with the stiffness obtained by

interpreting results from a plate load test.
One method, which consists of selecting a set value for rk and then calculating the
values ki and ks based on the average stress V(r) within each sector, does not
generally agree with the moment diagram from the basic unit cell and tends to
underestimate the moment.
Several calculations were performed and showed that the choice of a fixed value for rk
corresponding to a 1h/5v diffusion on the load transfer platform height is acceptable (on the
side of safety), provided that the design model satisfies all of the conditions explained in
Chapter 3, Section 2.2.1.
Justifications 201
3.4.3.2.3. Focus on the slab on grade
The distribution of reaction coefficients defined by ki, ks and rk has been extended to a
complex slab-on-grade model (incorporating joints), by reproducing the pattern, as many
times as there are inclusions.
In order to validate this extensive model, it is necessary to verify that when subjected to the
same uniformly-distributed load as the model of the basic unit cell, the model leads more or
less to the same moments as those established during Stage 1. Results may show sensitivity to
choices made regarding both the design tools as well as the level of model discretization and
the mesh.
Remark: The three stages may be performed using different computation tools and
software.
Such a comprehensive model makes it possible to treat all cases of distributed and/or point
loads, provided the load resultant on a given mesh remains of the same order of magnitude as
the uniform load set as the reference for the purpose of calibrating the ki and ks values.
Remarks: It is necessary to verify that the springs are never mobilized in tension.
Joints should be modeled as a hinge that allows for shear force transmission (with a
zero moment imposed at the location of the joint).
Point loads may be modeled by taking into account the impact surface area (e.g.
support bearing plate of a rack base) with a diffusion angle of 45° up to the neutral
axis of the slab section.
If the relative position of loads, joints and/or inclusions cannot be fixed, then it
becomes necessary to perform a sensitivity analysis of the results for various
configurations (Fig. 5.34).
Figure 5.34: Examples of unfavorable configurations for ground slab loadings.

3.4.3.2.Comparative results of the two methods
x The envelope method of additional moments by superimposing corrective terms is, by virtue
of its envelope approach, relatively conservative; it allows the calculation of the moments at
any point, including at the edge of the structure. Moreover, it is well adapted to:
± The sequencing of the design stages;
± The sequencing of work phases relative to the various work phases;
± The design approach described in DTU13.3 for non-reinforced soils;
± The level of expertise of the various subcontractors (ground improvement, earthworks,
industrial slab).
x 7KH³VXEJUDGH UHDFWLRQFRHIILFLHQW´PHWKRGFDQRQO\EHXVHGWRWUHDWWKHPDLQSDUWRIWKH
structure, far from the edges; it corresponds to an approach often adopted to link the study of
soil-structure interaction and the detailed structural design. According to this approach, it is
necessary to examine the least favorable configurations (Fig. 5.34).
The calculation of the subgrade reaction coefficients is especially sensitive to the type of
loading and its special distribution (point loads, uniform loads).
Remark: Ideally, the subgrade reaction coefficients should be calibrated for each
load case, though they can only be calculated under a uniformly-distributed load
for practical reasons. It is necessary to verify that the subgrade reaction coefficient
values determined under a uniformly-distributed load are still acceptable in the
case of point loads. This verification step may, for example, be completed through
an iterative process using the stresses calculated directly under the slab for the least
favorable load (in terms of both intensity and position).
This method does not allow for a simple estimation of forces and moments at the edge of the
VWUXFWXUH GXH WR WKH JHQHUDO ³GLVK´ VHWWOHPHQW SURILOH ,I QR VSHFLILF YDOXHV Ni and ks are
selected at the edge of the structure, these forces and moments can be determined through the
additional moment method.
x A comprehensive computational model that includes the inclusions, the foundation soil, the
load transfer platform, the slab on grade, the location of the joints and distribution of the loads
may offer an alternative to these methods from the standpoint of refining the moments and
forces in the slab. This model is necessarily a 3D finite element or finite difference model.
This usually makes its creation and interpretation particularly complex.
Remarks: Tanks, reservoirs or structures built on rafts that are not addressed in
DTU 13.3 may be designed similarly using the envelope method of additional
moments by replacing the DTU13.3 type computations by raft type computations
that take into account the eventual existence of joints (in which case specific
models become necessary: 3D on equivalent homogenized soil, or comprehensive
3D on soil + inclusions, or 2D axisymmetric with inclusions replaced by equivalent
cylinders).
Justifications 203
3.5. Footings and rafts
3.5.1. Rigid footings or rafts
The general calculation models for footings were detailed in Chapter 3. Our attention here is
IRFXVHGRQWKHQHFHVVLW\WRYHULI\WKH³KDUG-SRLQW´HIIHFWGHSHQGLQJRQERWKWKHORDGWUDQVIHU
platform thickness and the inclusion layout.
A design considering that the footing lies on isolated fixed supports directly located at the top
of the inclusions will generate an envelope of forces and moments to be used for the footing
design.
3.5.2. Flexible rafts
Flexible concrete rafts (e.g. reservoirs, tanks or basins), which work both in bending and
shear, are subjected to a non-uniform reaction distribution similar to the slabs on grade. The
³675´ verifications can then be carried out by evaluating the forces and moments assuming
the case of joint-free slabs on grade (Section 3.4.3).
The steel bottom floors of reservoirs and tanks are working in tension (via membrane effect)
and may also contribute to a different distribution of the reactions directly above and in
beWZHHQ WKH LQFOXVLRQV 7KH ³675´ verifications must be performed based on forces and
moments calculated using a relevant model.
3.6. Pavements
The typical design of a pavement structure does not take into account the hard-point effects
typically associated with the presence of inclusions. Under load, the risk of differential
settlements exists between the inclusion and the center of the grid of installation (Figs. 5.35
and 5.36).
Figure 5.35: Example of an "egg box" type of deformation beneath a pavement.

Figure 5.36: Deformation underneath a pavement.
It is therefore necessary to guarantee a sufficient distribution layer thickness HM between the

pavement structure base and the inclusion head in order to ensure that the settlements at the
pavement base remain acceptable. The following condition must then be verified:
HM > 0.7 (s ± a) (5.17)
A horizontal reinforcement (geosynthetics, welded wire mesh or slab) installed in the load
transfer platform may help to reduce the thickness of this layer (see Section 3.7 of this
Chapter).
Figure 5.37: Layers composing the pavement.
Point loads (i.e. loads due to traffic or storage) allow designing the pavement using properties
obtained at the top of the subgrade layer (as determined by plate load tests). These
characteristics depend on both the compaction and the thickness of the subgrade layer, but
tend to be only slightly influenced by the presence of inclusions.
In contrast, the pavement surface settlements must be calculated using a model that
incorporates inclusions.
Lawson (2000) proposed charts for designing the geosynthetic layer stiffness as a function of
acceptable differential settlements at the embankment surface (Fig. 5.38). These results may
be used for SLS situations, yet they cannot replace the settlement analysis performed using
conventional methods.
Justifications 205
Figure 5.38: Charts for geosynthetic design based on allowable differential settlement
(Lawson, 2000).
3.7. Load transfer platform reinforcement
3.7.1. Foreword
The ASIRI National Project studied the specific case of embankments on inclusions, with a
load transfer platform reinforced by geosynthetics and geotextiles: full-scale experiment
carried out on the Chelles site (Briançon, 2008), coupled with physical and numerical
modeling work (Jenck, 2005; Chevallier, 2008). Reinforcements using welded wire steel
mesh or a concrete slab were not mentioned by these authors.
The justifications relative to geosynthetic layers (geotextiles, geogrids and composite

products) might also rely on the experience acquired through both experiments and the
construction of many structures in France and abroad. A number of national standards or
recommendations have dealt with this specific topic: BS8006 (2010), EBGEO (2010), Nordic
Handbook (2005), and CUR 159B (2010).
The items presented in these Recommendations pertain solely to reinforcement using

geosynthetic layers and rely on the referenced research examples. The use of welded wire
steel mesh or a slab will need to be specifically studied.
With regard to welded wire steel mesh, for which bending strength and stiffness will always
be neglected, the verification may be performed comparably to the justifications proposed for
geosynthetics (verifications of tension, anchorage in the transverse and longitudinal directions
and non-sliding), but still meeting the NF P 94 270 Standard (for reinforced soils).
As for slabs, the verifications must match the justifications proposed for slabs on grade in
Chapter 5, Section 3.4.
All of the methods discussed in detail in Chapter 3 can give the stress distribution in the
horizontal plane located at the inclusion head; these methods specifically model the load
transfer mechanism both by shear in the load transfer platform and friction along the inclusion
in compressible soils. Therefore, these methods are different from the design methods used in
standards and recommendations on the use of geosynthetics like the method initially proposed

by Hewlett and Randolph (1988), and subsequently adopted in the BS8006 Standard (2010).
The Hewlett-Randolph method will be presented herein for illustration purposes: it is limited
to providing the stress distribution on the geosynthetics layer without taking into account
either the settlements or the inclusion friction phenomena.
In contrast, the method used to calculate the tension in the various layers, selected by these
Recommendations, is based on the BS8006 Standard Method (2010).
3.7.2. Function of geosynthetic layers
The reinforcement by geosynthetics can have two distinct and complementary objectives:
± Ensuring the transmission of forces stemming from the weight of the embankment located
outside of the diffusion cones towards the inclusion heads (so-called stress approach), which
influences the optimal thickness of the load transfer platform;
± ³Absorbing´WKHODWHUDOIRUFHVIURPWKHHPEDQNPHQW
These functions serve to determine the limit states needed to be verified.
3.7.3. Computational approach for the ULS verifications
Consistent with the EC7 NF P 94 270 Application Standard (2009) dedicated to reinforced
embankments:
± Verifications pertaining to the geosynthetic reinforcement function at the base of the load
transfer platform (i.e. soil support between inclusions, lateral thrust, anchorage) are conducted
in accordance with the Design Approach 2 as intended in Eurocode 7;
± For the general stability study of an embankment installed on compressible soil, as
performed with failure surfaces intercepting the geosynthetic reinforcement, the Design
Approach 3 must be employed.
3.7.³675´ verification
The tension Td calculated in the horizontal geosynthetic reinforcements must be less than the
computed long-term strength value Rt;d.
This tension is derived from the characteristic short-term strength value Rt;k (as measured
according to the NF EN ISO 10319 Standard), isochronous creep curves (established as per
the NF EN 13431 Standard) and the appropriate partial coefficients that serve to take into
account long-term product behavior:
Rt ;k
Rt ;d
J geo
This verification must be carried out in a ULS situation and, if necessary, a SLS situation (see
Section 3.7.5.4).
The safety coefficient on the geosynthetic material Jgeo can be expressed as:
Jgeo = JM;t . *creep . *deg . *dam
JM;t partial material factor set equal to 1.25 (as per the NF P 94 270 Standard).
The values of *creep , *deg and *dam are specific to each product and supplied by the
individual producer. Default values have been proposed in the NF P 94 270 Standard:
Justifications 207
*creep partial coefficient correlated with geosynthetic behavior vs. time. Application
of this coefficient allows, over the entire structural use period, taking into consideration the
influence of creep on the tensile strength of geosynthetic reinforcements as well as limiting
structural deformations.
*creep =1/Ucreep, as defined in the NF P 94270 Standard, Appendix F.4.3.
*deg partial coefficient correlated with aging of the geosynthetic products, e.g. by means of
hydrolysis or oxidation, given the product's environmental conditions.
*deg =1/ Udeg, as defined in the NF P 94270 Standard, Appendix F.4.4.
*dam partial coefficient corresponding to the geosynthetic reinforcement damage produced
by their installation along with embankment compaction.
*dam =1/ Udam, as defined in the NF P 94270 Standard, Appendix F.4.2.
Remarks: The NF P 94270 Standard serves to define the partial coefficient Ucreep
for the SLS and ULS limit states, by taking into account both the creep failure
criterion and allowable creep deformation criterion.
The partial coefficient *dam corresponding to damage may vary with respect to the
deformation. At the SLS, the value corresponding to the geosynthetic service
deformation would be a suitable choice.
The other partial factors (JM;t and *deg) are identical at both the SLS and ULS.
3.7.5. Tensile forces under vertical loading
3.7.5.1. Review of notations
Figure 5.39: Definition of the configuration geometry.
HM: embankment height,

s: center-to-center spacing between inclusion,
a: inclusion head dimension (assuming a square inclusion head).
In the case of a circular inclusion head of diameter D, the equivalent square dimension is set
such that:
S D2
a | 0 .9 D (5.18)
4
3.7.5.2. Computation of load transfer between soil and inclusions
All of the methods detailed in Chapter 3 allow deriving the stress distribution in the horizontal
plane placed at the inclusion head, which serves to evaluate tension in the geosynthetic layers.

These methods make it possible to calculate the average vertical stress Vv,geo applied to the
soil between the inclusion heads.
As an example of other potentially effective methods, Hewlett and Randolph's (1988) will
now be presented.
x Hewlett and Randolph method:
Figure 5.40: Schematic diagram of the Hewlett and Randolph method (extracted from BS8006-2010).
This method considers hemispherical domes for the purpose of calculating load transfer
efficiency, by focusing on failure at the key of vaults or at the inclusion heads (Fig. 5.40). For
thin embankments (relative to the inclusion spacing), stability at the keystone typically
governs the mechanism, whereas for thicker embankments, stability at the inclusion head
level becomes predominant.
This method calculates the average vertical stress applied to the geosynthetic by evaluating
the efficiency of load transfer towards the inclusions, in considering system failure either at
the top of the arch (i.e. efficiency EV) or at the level of the inclusion heads (efficiency ET).
The selected efficiency is the lower of the two, thus maximizing the load transferred to the
geosynthetic reinforcement.
Emin = Min (EV, ET)
x Efficiency EV:
ª § a ·2 º
Ev 1 «1 ¨ ¸ » A AB C (5.19)
«¬ © s ¹ »¼
Justifications 209
2( K 1 )
ª aº
p
A «1 s » (5.20)
¬ ¼
s ª2K p 2º
B « » (5.21)
2 H ¬« 2 K p 3 ¼»
s a ª2 K p 2º
C « » (5.22)
2 H «¬ 2 K p 3 »¼
x Efficiency ET:
E
ET (5.23)
1 E
2Kp ª§ a · K p § a ·º
E «¨1 ¸ ¨1 K p ¸ » (5.24)
§ a·

K p 1 ¨1 ¸ ¬«©
s¹ © s ¹¼»
© s¹
The vertical load to be absorbed by the geosynthetic between two adjacent inclusions equals:
Vv, geo = s2/(s2 - a2) Vv (1 - Emin) (5.25)
with: Vv = JJ Jr H + JG g + JQ q (5.26)
HM: embankment height above the geosynthetic
Jr: unit weight of the embankment
g: permanent excess vertical load
q: variable excess vertical load
JJ: partial factor on the soil unit weight
JG: partial factor on the permanent actions
JQ: partial factor on the variable actions
3.7.5.3. Tensile force Td;mesh in the geosynthetic
The main principle of this method assumes that the entire vertical load acting between two
inclusions is aEVRUEHGE\WKH³PHPEUDQHHIIHFW´, resulting in tension in the geosynthetic and
in considering that no load is being transmitted to the soil between the inclusions.
The BS8006:2010 Standard gives the relation between the tension in the geosynthetic T and
both WT, the vertical load between two inclusions, and the geosynthetic deformation Hd:
( s a)WT 1 ( s a ) s V v ,geo 1
Td ;mesh 1 = 1 (force per linear meter) (5.27)
2a 6H d 2a 6H d
with: WT Vıv, geo (force per linear meter)
This equation with two unknowns Td;mesh and İd can be solved either by using the force-
deformation law of geosynthetics (with introduction of the tensile stiffness of the
geosynthetic) or by taking into account a maximum deformation criterion (called the
reference deformation).
3.7.5.4. Reference deformation
It is necessary to consider the deformation of the geosynthetic to calculate the mobilized

tension T d;mesh.

In a ULS situation, the reference geosynthetic deformation is the one selected by the BS8006
Standard (2010), i.e.: Hd = 6%.
For a load transfer platform thickness HM > 0.7 (s-a), the reference deformation must not
exceed this maximum long-term value of 6%.
For thinner embankments (e.g. when the condition HM > 0.7 (s-a) has not been satisfied) and
for which the load transfer is not guaranteed, this reference deformation must be lowered to
values of less than 3% in order to reduce the risk of differential deformation at the load
transfer platform surface. In this case, verification in an SLS situation becomes necessary to
ensure that the differential deformation at the load transfer platform surface is acceptable.
It must be noticed that the value of the partial coefficient Jcreep also depends on the choice of
the reference deformation.
The reference geosynthetic deformation must include the initial deformation as well as the
creep deformation: the initial geosynthetic deformation is necessary to develop reaction
forces. Moreover, the long-term deformation (due to creep) must be limited in order to ensure
that localized, time-delayed deformations do not occur on the embankment surface.
The post-construction creep deformation of the geosynthetic must be reduced to a minimum

so as to prevent localized differential deformations at the embankment surface, while not
exceeding 2% over the structural life cycle. This deformation is determined on the basis of
indications provided in the ISO/TR 20432 guide.
These two criteria would neeGWREHYHULILHGRQWKHSURGXFW¶s isochronous load-deformation

curves (Fig. 5.41).
Figure 5.41: Verification of deformation criteria and choice of partial factor Jcreep on
the geosynthetic isochronous load-deformation curves (according to the NF P 94 270 Standard).
Justifications 211
3.7.6. Tensile force when subjected to active slope forces
If horizontal forces caused by the active earth forces of an embankment are not fully
dissipated, it is necessary to install a horizontal reinforcement at the embankment base.
This reinforcement might also serve to limit lateral soil displacements and therefore any
displacement of the inclusions.
The maximum tensile force Td;thrust;max mobilized in the geosynthetic by the embankment
lateral active forces is calculated below the embankment crest (Fig. 5.42):
Td;thrust;max = 0.5 . Ka ( JJ .Jr. HR + 2 JG . g + 2 JQ q).H (5.28)
with:
HR: embankment height above the geosynthetic,
Ka: coefficient of active earth pressure of the embankment:
§ S Id ' ·
2¨
Ka tan ¸ (5.29)
¨ 4 2 ¸
© ¹
Ka is calculated with the design value I¶d (using the Design Approach 2, the value of JI equals
1 meaning that the design value Id¶Hquals the characteristic value):
Jr: unit weight of the embankment;
g: permanent excess vertical load;
q: variable excess load;
JJ: partial factor on the soil unit weight;
JG: partial factor on the permanent actions;
JQ: partial factor on the variable actions.
Beneath the embankment slopes, the tensile force Td;thrust mobilized in the geosynthetic by the
embankment lateral active pressure decreases with distance from the slope crest; this force
may be calculated at any point based on the embankment slope and thickness above this given
point.
Figure 5.42: Configuration examined at the edge of the embankment.
Remarks: The coefficient Jcreep required to determine the design long-term strength
Rt;d is obtained by adopting the same reference deformation value as that used for
vertical loads (Section 3.7.5.4).
It is important to note that this configuration may also induce lateral displacements
of the compressible soil capable of creating bending moments in the inclusions that
also require verification.

3.7.7. Determination of the geosynthetic(s)
x ,Q WKH HPEDQNPHQW¶s longitudinal direction, the geosynthetic must display an allowable
strength RtL,d such that the following condition is met:
Td;mesh < RtL;d (5.30)
Td;mesh: tensile force mobilized in the geosynthetic subjected to the action of vertical loads
applied to a unit cell (see Section 3.7.5.3).
x In the embankment's transverse direction, the geosynthetic must display an allowable

strength RtT,d such that:
Td;mesh + Td; thrust;max < RtT;d (5.31)
Td;thrust;max: tensile force mobilized in the geosynthetic subjected to lateral active slope forces
(Section 3.7.6).
3.7.7.1. Anchorage length computation
In most instances, this verification is done in the transverse direction and may at times prove
necessary in the longitudinal direction at the boundary of the treated zone.
In all cases, the geosynthetic anchorage length is limited to the available footprint Lht, which
depends on the embankment geometry (Fig. 5.42). In the specific case where the length Lht is
not suitable for creating a sufficient one-layer anchorage, it would be necessary to introduce a
trench-type or overlapping anchorage type construction (see Chapter 3: Execution
Conditions).
The length Lfr, which is measured from the crest of the slope, is the length required to
mobilize by friction (on a single side) the strength relative to lateral forces (block thrust)
(Fig. 5.42). This length is expressed as follows (BS8006, 2010):
Td ;thrust ;max
L fr t J R ;h J R ; f (5.32)

J r h D tan Id'
with:
Td;thrust;max: tensile force in the geosynthetic due to lateral pressure on the embankment slope
Jr: unit weight of the embankment;
h: average embankment height in the anchorage zone (corresponding to Lfr);
D: reduction coefficient of the soil-geosynthetic interface friction:
tan I geo
D (5.33)
tan I' d
I¶: design value of the angle of friction of the soil atop the reinforcement layer (according
to the Design Approach 2, the value JI equals 1, and the design value Iҝd equals the
characteristic value)
I: design value of the angle of friction of the soil-geosynthetic interface
JR,hҏ: partial factor of the sliding resistance (equal to 1.1 with the Design Approach 2 as per
EC7)
JR,fҏ: partial factor of the soil-reinforcement bond resistance.
It is proposed herein to adopt the value JR,f = 1.35, in compliance with the NF P 94 270
Standard (Design Approach 2).
Justifications 213
x,QWKHHPEDQNPHQW¶s longitudinal direction, length LaL, as measured from the last inclusion
needed for mobilization of anchorage forces by friction on both the upper and lower faces of
the geosynthetic, is such that (BS8006, 2010):
Td ;mesh
LaL t (5.34)

J r h D 1 tan I'd 1 D 2 tan I'd 2 J R ;h J R; f
I'ͳ: design value of the angle of friction of the soil above the geosynthetic reinforcement
I'ʹ: design value of the angle of friction of the soil below the geosynthetic reinforcement
h: average height over length LaL.
x In the HPEDQNPHQW¶s transverse direction, length LaT, as measured from the last inclusion
(Fig. V.42) needed for mobilization of anchorage forces by friction on both the upper and
lower faces, is such that (BS8006, 2010):
Td ;mesh Td ;thrust
LaT t (5.35)

J r h D 1 tan I'd 1 D 2 tan I'd 2 J R ;h J R; f
h: average embankment height over length LaT

Td;thrust:tensile force in the geosynthetic due to active embankment pressure, evaluated in the
plane of the outside edge of the last inclusion head.
Remark: In the absence of a detailed calculation to derive the Td;thrust force value, it
would be a safe assumption to adopt Td;thrust;max value when computing LaT (see Fig.
5.42).
3.7.7.2. Special case of reinforcement layer overlapping
The length of overlapping can be justified from the previous equations by:
± Using the force corresponding to the direction of the overlap;
± Replacing the term (D2tanI'd2) by the geosynthetic-geosynthetic friction tanIgeo-geo.
Remark: The angle of friction Igeo-geo is given by the manufacturer.
4. '(7$,/62)7+(³*(2´ LIMIT STATE CONSISTENCY VERIFICATIONS
4.1. Inclusion behavior
4.1.1. Behavior at the tip
It must be verified that the force being mobilized does not exceed the limit value calculated in
accordance with the principles set forth in both Eurocode 7 and the National Application
Standard (NF P 94 262):
± Limit value of the tip resistance:
± Rb = kp . pl A (pressuremeter method)
± Rb = kc . qc A (penetrometer method).
The values of kp or kc are those found in either Eurocode or any of the special specifications.
Remarks: The conventionally-defined Rb values refer to a settlement at the head

equal to 10% of the inclusion diameter.
In the case of inclusions beneath an embankment and even when they contribute
towards bearing capacity and stability of the structure, this threshold proves

irrelevant since settlement at the tip is not necessarily limited to 10%. In order to
introduce other Rb values than those calibrated on a 10% settlement, it is required
to interpret the results of an instrumented load test on an inclusion of the same type
as those actually installed.
The kp or kc value depends on the relative embedment depth, according to the
relationship given in the NF P 94 262 Standard.
4.1.2. Behavior along the shaft
4.1.2.1. Positive friction in the bearing layer and in the compressible soils below the neutral
plane
It must also be verified that the value of friction mobilized under the neutral plane does not
exceed the limit value qs calculated in accordance with the principles set forth in both
Eurocode 7 and the National Application Standard (NF P 94 262):
± The limit value of lateral friction qs is evaluated by either the penetrometer or pressuremeter
method;
± The qs values are listed in the NF P 94 262 Standard or else in the specifications intended
for the given technique; otherwise, experimental values established onsite are to be used.
Remark: It is to be observed that friction mobilized in the vicinity of the neutral

plane tends to be small, independently of the maximum friction at this elevation
(Fig. V.43). In some cases, it may be preferable for the load-bearing capacity
verification not to consider the total length below the neutral plane, but instead a
reduced length from the tip.
Figure 5.43: Friction mobilized in the vicinity of the neutral plane.
3.7.7.2.Negative friction above the neutral plane
It must be verified here that the friction Ĳ RI WKH VRLO DORQJ WKH LQFOXVLRQ VKDIW DERYH WKH
neutral plane does not exceed the limit value Vv¶ .WDQG (where Vv¶ LV WKH YHUWLFDO VWUHVV
calculated against the inclusion).
KtanG is the empirical factor defined in Chapter 2.
Justifications 215
Remarks:
The choice of the KtanG reference value must be made judiciously since this factor
is pivotal to the overall design and influences to a different extent the maximum
force in the inclusion and the resultant settlement.
This verification is mandatory when introducing finite element modeling; it
consists of verifying values of the ratio WVv¶ at all points on the inclusion above
the neutral plane.
4.2. Load transfer platform behavior
This verification consists of establishing, for the applied external loading, the maximum
allowable stress value at the inclusion head that's compatible with both the load transfer
platform material characteristics and the structural geometry.
4.2.1. Method justification
4.2.1.1. Experimental results
x Load transfer mechanism on the inclusion head:
The mobile bottom tray tests in a centrifuge gave, for various geometric configurations, the
maximum values reached at the inclusion head (Okyay, 2010). The results obtained with a
granular load transfer platform placed beneath a loaded rigid plate (ground slab analogy)
provide a very worthwhile set of results, as they correspond to a material whose shear
characteristics were experimentally measured for different in situ densities of the material.
These results were obtained for various area replacement ratios D and load transfer platform
thicknesses HM (with HM/D = 1.4 to 2, with D being the inclusion diameter). Figure 5.44
presents an example of the variation of the load transfer on an inclusion head in the case of a
ground slab.
Figure 5.44: Load transfer ratio on an inclusion head vs. relative settlement y/D
during a centrifuge test with a mobile bottom tray.

x Characterization of the load transfer platform material behavior:
The load transfer platform material, installed at 85% of the Relative Density Index value (ID),
displays an angle of friction equal to 42°, in association with a peak phenomenon (Fig. 5.45).
For ID = 60%, no peak was observed. The angle of friction obtained at the maximum load is
equal to 38°; this value is representative of the critical state.
Figure 5.45: Characteristic curves of shear tests on the material composing the load transfer platform
for moving bottom tray tests
4.2.1.2. Method evaluation based on the Prandtl failure diagram
It is proposed here to calculate the limit value of the stress at the inclusion head based on the
failure diagram developed by Prandtl (Fig. 5.46).
Justifications 217
Figure 5.46: Prandtl's failure diagram in the load transfer platform.
The relations expressing conservation of force

Dqp+ + (1-D) qs+ = q0 (5.36)
and the local eTXLOLEULXPDFFRUGLQJWR3UDQGWO¶s diagram
qp+ = Nq qs+ (5.37)
constitute a system of equations that allows the calculation of the maximum limit stress value
qp+ at the inclusion head for a given situation (D, q0), when the coefficient Nq is known.
Remarks:
± Equation (5.37) neglects the surface term 0.5 J B NJ whose contribution remains
QHJOLJLEOH IRU FRPPRQ LQFOXVLRQ GLDPHWHUV DQG LJQRUHV WKH FRKHVLRQ WHUP F¶1c,
which is not applicable to a purely frictional material;
± Equation (5.37) is applicable to the axisymmetric problem of stresses around an
inclusion head of diameter B, just as it applies to the plane strain problem around a
continuous shear wall of width B. The shape factor sq associated with the
coefficient Nq actually equals 1 in both cases, according to Terzaghi;
± The above remark, indicating a value of 1 assigned to the shape factor sq
associated with the coefficient Nq, confirms that the axisymmetric problem may be
treated like a plane strain problem, yet without requiring any corrective term. This
point will be utilized in order to take edge effects into account.
The values of factor Nq are respectively Nq = 85.4 (for I¶ DQG1q = 48.9 (for I¶
Remark: As indicated in Section 4.2.1.1, the value of I¶ IRU D JLYHQ PDWHULDO
depends on its Relative Density Index value ID.
The values of the stress at the inclusion head, calculated using the Nq values, were compared
with the values measured in the tests and experiments presented in Section 4.2.1.1 (Fig. 5.47).
It appears that with Nq(42°), the calculated design values overestimate the experimental
values for the lowest area replacement ratio (D = 1.25%, purple triangles). The choice of
Nq(38°) value leads to a much better agreement with experimental values.
The magnitude of mobile bottom tray displacements (representing the effect of a settlement
on the supporting soil) required to reach the limit values qp+ reflects a significant increase in
the load transfer platform volume and, hence, a reduction of its compaction. The angle

I¶ ZKLFKLVUHSUHVHQWDWLYHRIWKHFULWLFDOVWDWHLHWKHVWDWHLQZKLFKWKHPDWHULDOVKHDUV
at constant volume) turns out to be better adapted to the final situation.
Figure 5.47: Comparison of calculated and measured values of limit stress on the inclusion head.
4.2.1.3. Conclusions
The limit stress value at the head of inclusions placed at the center of a mesh may be
determined on the basis of Equations 5.36 and 5.37, by adopting for the Nq coefficient value
the calculation result using the angle of friction at the critical state (i.e. shear at constant
volume). This value is less than the peak friction value for materials with a Relative Density
Index (ID) above 60%.
It is suggested herein to introduce the Nq coefficient in association with the shape factor value
sq previously proposed by Terzaghi, which equals 1 regardless of the foundation shape. This
choice has been adopted in order to compare the experimental results with theoretical values.
The Nq value associated with the Prandtl mechanism is representative of situations in which
the load transfer platform thickness exceeds the height Hmax for the full failure mechanism to
develop. The ratio Hmax/D increases with the angle of friction, as illustrated in Table 5.3.
For HM/D less than Hmax/D, the apparent load-bearing capacity coefficient Nq* would be more
favorable than the coefficient derived by the Prandtl mechanism, and it remains a safe
assumption to neglect this increase.
Figure 5.48: Geometric parameters describing the Prandtl failure diagram.
Justifications 219
Table 5.3: Characteristic values of Prandtl diagram parameters.
I 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 manner, it may be noted that for a distance between inclusions of less than
2L1 (Fig. 5.48), the failure surfaces associated with two neighboring inclusions overlap. For
meshes smaller than this threshold, the factor Nq* is thus also higher and moreover neglecting
this increase would not compromise safety.
The width L1 is therefore the value to take into consideration when verifying the possible
interference between inclusions, as illustrated in Figure 5.49 showing the results for a finite
element model of an elementary unit cell modeling the mobile bottom tray system (Okyay,
2010). The domain of plastic points (shown in red) is actually very similar to Domain L1 of
the Prandtl mechanism.
Figure 5.49: Numerical simulation of a moving plate test below a slab on grade,
demonstrating the extent of the plastic zones.
4.2.2. Computation of limit transfer at the inclusion head over the general main section
4.2.2.1. Introduction
In this section, let's consider a network of rigid inclusions with diameter D = 2.rp installed on
a square mesh pattern of dimension s, covered by a load transfer platform of thickness H,
defined by LWVLQWULQVLFSDUDPHWHUVF¶I¶J) and exposed to a uniformly-distributed load q0.

Figure 5.50: Problem hypotheses and geometry.
Remark: The load from the load transfer platform weight J.HM is separated here
from the loading q0 applied on the load transfer platform (eventually composed of
both permanent loads and operating loads).
When the load is applied on the system and depending on the geometry and nature of this
loading, two types of axisymmetric limit equilibrium can be generated between the applied
stress q0, the stress at the inclusion head qp+ and the stress applied on the soil between
inclusions qs+.
x 3UDQGWO¶s diagram:
The first limit equilibrium diagram within the load transfer platform may be modeled by the
Prandtl diagram, which associates a Rankine active limit state domain (I) above the inclusion
head, with a domain delimited by a logarithmic spiral arc (II) and another Rankine passive
limit state domain outside the inclusion head (III).
Figure 5.51: Prandtl failure diagram in the load transfer platform.
Justifications 221
x Shear cone:
The second limit equilibrium diagram within the load transfer platform can be modeled by a
vertical cone section opening onto the load transfer platform surface, originating from the
inclusion head and forming an angle I' with respect to the vertical plane equal to the angle of
friction of the load transfer platform material.
Figure 5.52: Failure diagram in the load transfer platform using a shear cone type model.
For a given external load q0, these two types of limit equilibrium serve to define the
maximum load that may be concentrated at the inclusion head qp+, i.e. the maximum system
efficiency at the level of the inclusion head/HW¶s note that an increase in load q0 allows an
increase in stress at the inclusion head qp+, and that the failure of the system will only occur
when it no longer becomes possible to increase the applied load q0.
Remark: The tests and experiments conducted in the centrifuge and on discrete
models have demonstrated that:
± The Prandtl model failure diagram is applicable when considering the material's
critical angle (large deformations within a compacted material) (Section 4.2.1.2);
± The shear cone failure diagram is associated with the peak angle of the material
(mobilized for small deformations).
9HULILFDWLRQRI³*(2 limit states at the ULS
This verification is performed by implementing Design Approach 2 from EC7, with the
following combination of partial factor datasets:
$µ¶0µ¶5
x For the Prandtl diagram:
According to Design Approach 2 from EC7 and based on Prandtl's diagram, the limit stress at
the inclusion head qp+ can be determined from: the stress applied on the supporting soil qs+;
WKHVHWRILQWULQVLFORDGWUDQVIHUSODWIRUPSDUDPHWHUVF¶M' and J; and the following formula:
c' J
qp s q .N q u q s s C .N c u s J .N J .r p u (5.38)
J c' JJ
where:
sJ, sc, sq are the inclusion head shape coefficients

tan 2 S 4 M ' J M ' 2 u e
S . tan M ' J M '
Nq
Nc N 1u cot M ' J
q M'
NJ 2.N 1u tan M ' J
q M'
JF¶= JI¶= JJ = 1 (set M1 as defined in EC7).
Remarks:
For a relatively thin load transfer platform, the platform weight is typically
neglected and so are the term sJ.NJ.rp.J .
For granular load transfer platforms, the value of the shape coefficient sq will be set
equal to 1 regardless of the foundation shape, in agreement with Terzaghi.
x For the shear cone:
According to Design Approach 2 from EC7 and from the shear cone diagram depiction, the
limit stress at the inclusion head qp+ is determined using the applied external load q0,
WKLFNQHVV+RIWKHORDGWUDQVIHUSODWIRUPDQGWKHSODWIRUP
VLQWULQVLFSDUDPHWHUVF¶M' and J in
the following set of equations:
Figure 5.53: Technique with shear cone development.
R rp
If H M H C :
tanM'
HM § RC ² R · J RC ² 1 §¨ RC ² · c'
qp
¨ 1 C ¸u u q0 1¸ u (5.39)
3 ¨ rp ²
© r p ¸¹ J J rp ² tanM' ¨© r p ² ¸ J c'
¹
where :
§ M' ·
RC r H M u tan ¨ ¸
¨J ¸
© I' ¹
R rp
If H M ! H C :
tanM'
ªH § R² R· R² º J R ² ª 1 § R² ·º c'
¨ 1 ¸ H M H C ¨ 1¸» u (5.40)

qp « c »u u q0 «
¬«
3 ¨ rp ²
© rp ¸¹ rp ² » J J rp ²
¼ «¬ tanM' ¨© rp ² ¸» J c'
¹¼
Justifications 223
where:
s
R
S
JF¶= JI¶= JJ = 1 (set M1 as defined in EC7).
Remarks:
For HR > HC, the shear cones of adjacent inclusions overlap, and the surface area of
each inclusion's zone of influence remains equal to s2;
In the case of an embankment supported by rigid inclusions, the height HR and load
q0 to be used in these equations are respectively the total height of the embankment
plus load transfer platform and the surcharge load applied at the top of the
embankment.
The limit stress qp+ defined by Equation 5.39 or 5.40, corresponding to a shear cone
opening onto the load transfer platform surface only exists as a design parameter
for thin load transfer platforms that are not covered by any rigid structural element
such as a raft, a slab on grade or a footing. It is the case for example of a road
embankment on which an operating load is being applied.
Moreover, the stress applied on the supporting soil qs+ is limited at the ULS by the allowable
stress Vv,d referenced in the current standards (with set R2 defined in EC7), e.g. for the
pressuremeter method:
qs+ < Vv,d = kp.ple*/(JR,v JR;d) (5.41)
where:
JR,v = 1.4 at the ULS (set R2 defined in EC7-1), combined with the appropriate model
coefficient JR;d defined in the National Application Standard NF P 94 261 (for shallow
foundations).
The value of Vv,d is derived from the geotechnical soil investigation.
Remark: This value should be determined in a realistic manner since an overly

conservative value (e.g. 0) would render any design of the load transfer platform
impossible.
Finally, the stress applied at the inclusion head is limited by the load-bearing capacity of the
inclusion as well as by the allowable stress in the inclusion material, i.e.:
§ R J J Rs J R ,d J s ·
qp+ < q p ,max Min¨ b R ,d b ; f cd ¸ (5.42)
¨ S u rp
2 ¸
© ¹
where, referencing the National Application Standard 94.262 and the "ground model"
approach:
Rb is the ultimate soil resistance at the tip of the inclusions;
Rs is the ultimate shaft friction under the neutral point;
Jb = Js = 1.1 at the ULS (set R2 defined in EC7-1);
JR,d = 1.25 (model coefficient);
fcd as defined in Section 3.1.1.
Therefore, in the (qs+; qp+) plane and independently of the load level, the domain of allowable
stresses at the ULS in the load transfer platform is determined by Equations 5.38, 5.41 and
5.42, which correspond respectively to curves 1a, 2 and 3 (shown in Fig. 5.54).

Therefore, in the (qs+; qp+) plane and independently of the load level, the domain of allowable
stresses at the ULS in the load transfer platform is determined by Equations 5.38, 5.41 and
5.42, which correspond respectively to curves 1a, 2 and 3 (shown in Fig. 5.54).
Under certain conditions, this domain may also be partially limited by the curve (1b)
associated with Equation 5.39 or 5.40 corresponding to a shear cone opening onto the load
transfer platform surface. This additional limit only exists as a design parameter for thin load
transfer platforms that are not topped by any rigid structural element such as a raft, a slab on
grade or a footing.
Figure 5.54: Allowable domain of stresses at the load transfer platform base.
Remark: For illustration purposes, the curves in Figure 5.54 above (1b) associated with the
Equation 5.39 or 5.40 correspond to the case of a thin embankment not covered by any rigid
structural element, with the additional constraints:
± Load resulting exclusively from the weight of a load transfer platform with variable
thickness (shown in red);
± The load transfer platform has a given thickness and an external load applied at the surface
(blue).
4.2.2.3. Load conservation principle
For a given load q (for which the partial factors of the set A1, as defined in EC7 have been
applied), stresses q0, qs+ and qp+ are in equilibrium and required to satisfy the load
conservation equation:
§
¨ q 0 J G . J .H M
¨ JJ
· 2
¸u s
¸

2

q s u s 2 S.rp q p u S.rp
2
(5.43)
© ¹
The mobilized stress parameters (qs+, qp+) must simultaneously satisfy the load conservation
equation (5.43) while falling within the allowable domain defined above in Figure 5.54.
For a given load q0, the allowable limit stress in the load transfer platform at the inclusion
head qp;d+ is thus determined by solving the system of equations associated with the curves
(1a), (1b), (2), (3) and (4). The principle is illustrated in Figure 5.55. For this load q0, the
allowable domain can be reduced to the intersection of segment (4) with the shaded surface
(delimited by curves derived from Equations (1a), (1b), (2) and (3)).
Justifications 225
+
Figure 5.55: Determination of qp;d (case where qpmax < sq.Nq.qsmax + sc.NcF¶JF¶)
The calculated design limit qp;d+ thus depends on the structural load q0, but remains
independent of the deformability of the various soil layers: this value solely depends on the
applied load q0, system geometry (load transfer platform thickness HM, mesh size s, inclusion
GLDPHWHU'DQGWKHLQWULQVLFSDUDPHWHUVF¶I¶J) of the load transfer platform material.
In contrast, the value (qs+; qp+) actually mobilized at the load transfer platform base lies inside
the allowable domain, on segment (4) of the load conservation line, at a position that depends
on the deformability of the various soil layers. This value turns out to be heavily dependent on
the deformability of the soil layer located directly beneath the load transfer platform; the
greater WKLV OD\HU¶s compressibility, the closer the mobilized value moves towards the
allowable limit value.
4.2.2.4. System efficiency and load-bearing capacity
The system efficiency at the load transfer platform base is used to measure the proportion of
total load in the inclusion; this efficiency is expressed as follows:
2
q p u S.rp
E (5.44)
q0 J.H M u s 2
The maximum efficiency that can be mobilized by the soil reinforcement at the level of the
load transfer platform base (eventually corresponding to the line in Equation (1), (3) or (1b))
decreases with the applied load, whereas the efficiency actually being mobilized during
loading tends to increase with the applied load.
A variation in external load q0 moves the point representing the equilibrium in the plane (qs+;
qp+) along a curve that, for high loads, tends towards the asymptotes of Equation (1), (1b) or
(3). In other words, the increase in applied external load q0 increases the efficiency towards its
maximum value yet can never cause internal failure of the load transfer platform by
intersecting with the equation (1) line (Fig. 5.56).

+ +
Figure 5.56: Evolution of the equilibrium point (qp ;qs ) vs. applied load
The maximum allowable loading on the load transfer platform + reinforced soil system
corresponds to the uniform stress qmax applicable to the system prior to its failure. This
maximum load (system load-bearing capacity) results from summing two terms:

qmax s 2 Vv ,d s 2 S.r 2 q p ;u S.r 2 (5.45)
The potentially mobilized stress at the level of the inclusion head qp;u can then be determined
by employing the following relation:
§ c' J ·
q p ;u Min ¨ s q .N q u V v ,d sC .N c u s J .N J .r p u ; q p max ¸ (V5.46)
¨ J c' JJ ¸
© ¹
In the specific example illustrated in Figure 5.57, the maximum load corresponding to a
uniform stress qmax on the mesh results in a stress Vv;d applied to the soil around the inclusion
and the stress qp,max on the inclusion head.
Figure 5.57: Maximum stress qmax on the load transfer platform + reinforced soil system.
(Note: The case illustrated corresponds to one in which 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 scheme is set
up as:
ª § S M ·º
tan M ' «T ¨ ¸ »
r T r0 u e ¬ © 4 2 ¹¼
(5.47)
Justifications 227
Depending on the intrinsic load transfer platform parameters, the main dimensions of this
logarithmic spiral are as follows:
Figure 5.58: Main dimensions of the logarithmic spiral.
with:
height of the Rankine active limit state domain:
D
h1 u tan S 4 M ' 2 (5.48)
2
the extent of Rankine active limit state domain:
S
tan M ' .
Due 2
r0 (5.49)
2 u cosS 4 M ' 2
cos S 4 M ' 2
S
tan M ' .
L 2 u r0 u cos S 4 M ' 2 Due 2 (5.50)
cos S 4 M ' 2
ª § S M ' ·º
tan M ' . «T max ¨ ¸ »
h2 r0 u e ¬ © 4 2 ¹¼
. sin T max h1 (5.51)
ª § S M ' ·º
tan M ' . «T max ¨ ¸ »
d 1 r0 u e . cosT max
¬ © 4 2 ¹¼
(5.52)
the angle at the top of the logarithmic spiral:
§ 1 ·
T max tan 1 ¨¨ '
¸¸ (5.53)
© tan M ¹
x Application example:
With the following hypotheses:
D = 0.30 m
s = 1.75 m
q0 = 50 kPa
C = 0 kPa
M¶ = 38°
the following values are obtained:
qp;d+ = 1,160 kPa

h1 = 0.31 m
h2 = 0.34 m
L = 2.10 m
d1 = 0.50 m
In order to allow the logarithmic spiral to fully develop within the load transfer platform, the
platform must have the following minimum dimensions:
HM > h1 + h2
d>L
Remarks:
For the case of thin embankments not covered by a structural element (such as a
footing, slab on grade, raft, etc.), then these criteria are used to determine a
minimum thickness Hmin WR EH UHVSHFWHG LQ RUGHU WR ³KRSH´ to optimize system
efficiency. Otherwise, the load potentially mobilized at the inclusion head (i.e.
efficiency) is reduced and failure occurs due to shear around a cone developing to
the upper embankment surface. The limit load is controlled by the cone weight to
which the double effect of cohesion and surface load must be added. Experiments
have led to the conclusion that the cone angle is equal to the peak friction angle of
the material.
For thin load transfer platforms (HM < h1 + h2) under a structural element (e.g. a
footing, slab on grade or raft), since in this case the failure mechanism can only
develop over a reduced height, then the potentially mobilized load at the inclusion
head is greater than the load obtained using the Prandtl diagram. Without a detailed
study, the use of the value obtained with the Prandtl scheme for load transfer
platform thicknesses of less than (h1 + h2) will lead to a safe design.
4.2.3. Calculation of the limit load transfer on the inclusions at the edge of the structure
4.2.3.1. Case of zero footing overhang
4.2.3.1.1. Presentation
The configuration adopted herein is that depicted in Figure 5.59. The edge of the inclusion
coincides with the edge of the footing. The load applied on the footing turns out to be nearly
entirely retransmitted onto the inclusion head. The vertical stress applied on the soil at the
level of the top of the inclusions is the stress JH generated from the surrounding ground.
Justifications 229
Figure 5.59: Extreme case of an inclusion at the footing edge with an overhanging load transfer
platform.
This value JH only depends on the geometry and not on the footing load; it controls the
failure mechanism capable of being developed from the top of the inclusion The limit value of
the qp+/JH ratio defines the coefficient Nq* associated with this case.
4.2.3.1.2. Nq* evaluation method
It is possible to determine the value of the coefficient Nq* simply by decomposing the
mechanism into two juxtaposed failure mechanisms: an active limit state equilibrium (above
the inclusion head), and a passive limit state equilibrium (elsewhere), as illustrated in
Figure 5.60.
Following the remark presented in Section 4.2.1.2, this analysis may be conducted as a plane
strain problem.
Figure 5.60: Decomposition into an active limit state equilibrium and a passive limit state equilibrium.

Since the equilibrium considered herein are those of a weightless medium, the intermediate
stress q in the plane separating the two domains is uniform. This stress q represents
respectively:
± Volume 1 (left side of the figure): active earth pressure at the angle IҝGXHWRVWUHVVTp+ in the
weightless medium:
q = qp+ Kq1 (5.54)
± Volume 2 (right side of the figure): passive earth pressure reaction at the angle I¶GXH WR
stress JH in the weightless medium:
q = JH Kq2 (5.55)
The coefficient Kq1 (respectively Kq2) is the surcharge pressure transmission coefficient in a
weightless medium relative to the active limit state (respectively, passive limit state). Its
analytical expression was established by Caquot and Kérisel (1966) in the most general case
(Fig. 5.61). These expressions become simplified in the present case in recognizing that:
G0 = E = O = 0.
By applying Equations 5.55 and 5.56, it results that the ratio qp+/JH is equal to Kq2/Kq1; this
ratio is therefore similar to a load-bearing capacity factor Nq*.
Remarks:
This approach may be extended to the case of a material exhibiting cohesion
&DTXRW¶V&RUUHVSRQGLQJ6WDWHVWKHRUHP2QO\ the natural soils (and not the load
transfer platform) may require introducing an additional cohesion term.
Neglecting natural soil cohesion constitutes a safe assumption.
Justifications 231
Figure 5.61: Transmission of a surcharge pressure in a weightless medium
(Caquot and Kérisel, 1966).

4.2.3.1.3. Case of a zero footing overhang and an extended load transfer platform
The failure mechanism develops within a homogeneous medium. The Prandtl solution
therefore is directly applicable.
Figure 5.62: Configuration of the zero footing overhang and extended load transfer platform.
It is worthwhile however to compare the value Nq(Prandtl) with the value obtained using the
previous approach consisting of breaking down the problem into two juxtaposed states of
equilibrium.
The inclination G of stress q in the vertical plane separating the two domains is chosen equal
to the angle of friction I¶RIWKHORDGWUDQVIHUSODWIRUPLHIDLOXUHVLWXDWLRQ
Table 5.4 confirms that it is indeed acceptable to assimilate the term Nq* = Kq2/Kq1 with
PrDQGWO¶s load-bearing capacity factor.
Table 5.4: Comparison of Nq* values with Prandtl's load-bearing capacity factor Nq.
I1͛ Nq Kq1(I1͕͛ Kq2(Iҝ1, Nq*= Kq2/Kq1 Nq*/Nq

(Prandtl) G/I1͛сϭͿ G/I͛с-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
This observation shows that a decomposition of the bearing capacity problem into two
juxtaposed active - passive limit states of equilibrium constitutes a valid approximation.
It is proposed herein to extend this approximation to the case where the two domains are
made of different materials.
Justifications 233
4.2.3.1.4. Case of a zero footing overhang and a platform limited to the footing footprint
Figure 5.63: Configuration of the zero footing overhang and a platform limited to the footing footprint.
In this situation, Volume 1 is characterized by the angle of friction of the granular platform
(I1¶DQG9ROXPHE\WKHDQJOHRIIULFWLRQRIWKHVXUURXQGLQJVRil (I2¶7KHLQFOLQDWLRQRI
stress q in the vertical plane separating the two volumes must be set equal to the smallest
angle of friction, which in theory would be the friction angle of the surrounding soil.
This approach was applied combining a range of values for I1¶ >- 40°] for the platform
and another range of values I2¶ >- 30°] for the surrounding soil.
Table 5.5 summarizes the Nq* values over the two defined intervals.
Figure 5.64 displays the same results graphically and then compares them to the Nq values
that would have been obtained with a load transfer platform extending beyond the limits of
the structure.
For a platform whose angle of friction is I1¶ WKHFRHIILFLHQW1q applicable to the main
central portion of the structure, equal to 33.3, is divided for the extreme case of an inclusion
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 25° or just 20°.

Justifications
Table 5.5: Values of the Nq* factor for a load transfer platform of limited extension (angle of friction I1¶LQDVRLODQJOHRIIULFWLRQI2¶.
Load Nq(I1͛Ϳ Soil I2͛ = 15° Soil I2͛сϮϬΣ Soil I2͛сϮϱΣ Soil I2͛сϯϬΣ
transfer
platform
I1͛
Kq1(I1͕͛ Kq2(IҝG N q* Kq1(I1͕͛ Kq2(I'G N q* Kq1(I1͕͛ Kq2(I'G N q* Kq1(I1͕͛ Kq2(I'G N q*
G/I2͛с 1) I¶ ) G/I2͛с 1) I¶ ) G/I2͛с 1) I¶ ) G/I2͛с 1) I¶ )
30 18.4 0.305 2.129 6.98 0.304 2.872 9.45 0.306 4.002 13.08 0.315 5.804 18.43
33 26.1 0.271 2.129 7.86 0.270 2.872 10.64 0.272 4.002 14.71 0.278 5.804 20.88
35 33.3 0.250 2.129 8.52 0.249 2.872 11.53 0.250 4.002 16.01 0.256 5.804 22.67
38 48.9 0.220 2.129 9.68 0.220 2.872 13.05 0.221 4.002 18.11 0.225 5.804 25.80
40 64.2 0.202 2.129 10.54 0.201 2.872 14.29 0.203 4.002 19.71 0.207 5.804 28.04
235
As a consequence, these values indicate that under the same load transfer platform conditions
with I1¶ WKH OLPLW VWUHVV RQ DQ LQFOXVLRQ SODFHG DW WKH HGJH RI D VWUXFWXUH DQG DW P
below the surface of the surrounding soil does not exceed 160 kPa (soil I2¶ RU HYHQ
115 kPa (for a soil with I2¶
Figure 5.64: Comparison of Nq* values (case of a zero overhang platform) with Nq values
for a load transfer platform extending beyond the edge of the structure
4.2.2.6.Case of a footing overhang greater than Lmax
If the footing largely extends beyRQG WKH LQFOXVLRQ WKHQ 3UDQGWO¶s mechanism may fully
develop in the load transfer platform, but becomes controlled by the average stress qs+ applied
to the soil between inclusions.
The coefficient Nq, to be used in Equation 5.39, is the Prandtl value for angle I1¶RIWKHORDG
transfer platform.
It may be considered herein that this condition is fulfilled when the footing extends beyond
the edge of the inclusion by more than Lmax (Fig. 5.48).
The limit stress value obtained at the inclusion head via the Prandtl mechanism will then be
denoted qp+(P). In the special case of a purely frictional granular load transfer platform,
Equations 5.38 and 5.43 allow establishing the following relationship qp+(P) function of the
area replacement ratio D:
Nq
q p ( P ) q0 J M H M (5.56)
D ( N q 1 ) 1
where:
HM: load transfer platform thickness between the inclusion head and the footing;
I¶ angle of friction of the load transfer platform;
JM: unit weight of the load transfer platform.

4.2.3.3. Case of an intermediate overhang between 0 and Lmax
This case is illustrated in Figure 5.65. The failure mechanism in Volume 2 (passive limit state
equilibrium) is controlled by both the stress qs+ and the stress JH. The factor Nq* to be
evaluated thus also depends on the ratio L/D (L: structural overhang, D: inclusion diameter).
The transmission coefficient for passive surcharge pressure can no longer be expressed
analytically. Its direct calculation can be performed by applying a Yield Design failure
approach. This method for given values of qs+, JH and L allows determining the passive limit
state earth pressure in the vertical plane separating Volumes 1 and 2.
These computations werHFRQGXFWHGXVLQJWKHVRIWZDUH³7DOUHQ´ for several configurations.

Several calculations were performed between the two extreme cases of a load transfer
platform largely extending beyond the edge of the structure and the case where the load
transfer platform was limited to the edge of the footing. In this case, the passive earth pressure
reaction mechanism was actually developing in both the load transfer platform and
surrounding soil.
Figure 5.65: Case of a foundation overhang less than Lmax.
Justifications 237
Figure 5.66 presents, for illustration purposes, the limit stress values qp+ derived by this
approach for the two extreme situations of a load transfer platform largely extending beyond
the footing and limited to the edge of the footing. This study demonstrates that the limit stress
on the inclusion head varies rather linearly between the two values, associated respectively
with:
± No overhang, i.e. load transfer platform limited to the edge of the footing: qp+(L = 0) = Nq*
JH;
± An overhang of L, greater than Lmax, (load transfer platform extending well beyond the edge
of the footing) for which the limit value is that produced by the Prandtl mechanism qp+(P),
calculated with Equation 5.57 for a given load q0 and an area replacement ratio D.
Figure 5.66: Variation in limit stress on the inclusion head

vs. extent of the load transfer platform beyond the footing edge.
Remark: The case studied herein is that of a load transfer platform with thickness
HM = 30 cm, an inclusion of diameter D = 30 cm, angle of friction I1¶ IRUWKH
platform and I2¶ IRU WKH VXUURXQGLQJ VRLO 1RWH WKDW KHUH WKH LQIOXHQFH RI
ratio HM/D has not been neglected).
The limit stress on the considered footing for a given overhang L can thus be estimated using
a linear interpolation between the two extreme values qp+(L = 0) and qp+(P) (Fig. 5.67):
q p L q p L 0
L
Lmax
>q
p P q p L @
0 (5.57)

Figure 5.67: Principle used to determine the threshold stress on the inclusion head by interpolating
between the extreme values for an overhang greater than Lmax and a zero overhang.
4.2.3.4. Edge effect combination
In the general case, where more than one inclusion is installed beneath the footing, the edge
effect analyzed above only applies to a fraction of the inclusion. This fraction obviously
varies depending on whether the considered inclusion lies at a corner or on a side of the
footing.
The limit stress qp+(L) only DSSOLHV WR WKH ³H[WHULRU´ portion of the perimeter, whereas the
limit value calculated with Prandtl's mechanism, qp+3DSSOLHVWRWKH³LQWHULRU´ portion of the
inclusion. The selected value must therefore be a weighted average of these two terms.
By analogy with the distribution of negative friction within a group of piles, as defined in
Appendix H of Standard NF P 94-262 (for Deep foundations), it is proposed to use the
following weighting relationship in order to establish the limit stress values on the inclusion
head qp+ applicable to the different locations of the inclusions under the footing:
Justifications 239
Single row of inclusions
1 2
q p ,a q p ( P ) q p ( L ) (5.58)
3 3
2 1
q p ,e q p ( P ) q p ( L ) (5.59)
3 3
Figure 5.68
Several rows of inclusions
(i)o interior
q p ,i q p ( P ) (5.60)
(a)o corner
7 5
q p ,a q p ( P ) q p ( L ) (5.61)
12 12
(e)o exterior Figure 5.69

5 1
q p ,e q p ( P ) q p ( L ) (5.62)
6 6
4.2.4. Summary
The limit stress value at the inclusion head for an inclusion placed at the center of a mesh may
be determined based on Equations 5.38 and 5.43, by adopting for the coefficient Nq the value
associated with the Prandtl mechanism (Table 5.3), along with a shape coefficient sq equal to
1. The angle of friction is the one found at the critical state (i.e. shear at constant volume).
It is safe to neglect the increase in Nq when the load transfer platform is of limited thickness
relative to the inclusion diameter.
In the case of peripheral inclusions, the limit stress at the top of the inclusion depends on the
relative position of the edge of the outermost inclusion to the edge of the footing (overhang
L). Results obtained confirm the validity of the assumption that this stress varies linearly with
L over the interval [L = 0, Lmax] (Lmax: width of the Prandtl mechanism, see Fig. 5.58 and
Table 5.3) between these two extreme values:
± For an overhang L greater than Lmax, i.e. the value qp+(P) associated with the Prandtl
mechanism as calculated by Equation V.56 in the configuration of a basic unit cell subjected
to a uniform load q0. The coefficient Nq only depends on the load transfer platform angle of
friction (Table 5.5);
± No overhang, i.e. the value qp+(L = 0) = Nq* JH; this value depends on the vertical stress JH
applied outside the footing at the level of the inclusion head as well as on the coefficient Nq*,
calculated using the angles of friction of both the load transfer platform and surrounding soil
(Table 5.3).

The value qp+ (L) is obtained by linear interpolation between these two values
(Equation 5.57).
To determine the limit values for different inclusions at different locations under the footing,
different combinations of the weighted values of qp+(L) and qp+(P) are used depending on the
actual location of the inclusion with respect to the footing edge.
x Application example:
Figure 5.70: Layout of the example under study.
Load transfer platform thickness HM = 0.3 m, and angle of friction I1¶
Inclusion diameter D = 0.4 m
Area replacement ratio in the central mesh: D = S 0.22/1.22 = 8.7%
Surrounding soil: angle of friction I2¶ DQGXQLWZHLJKWJ = 18 kN/m3
Influence of the ratio HM/D neglected
Design load on the footing Qd = 2.2 MN (representing an equivalent uniform stress q0 ~ 300
kPa).
I1¶ Nq (P) = 48.9 (Table 5.3)
Lmax/B = 7.0 (Table.3)
Lmax = 7.0 u 0.4 = 2.8 m
The value qp+(P) applicable for an overhang of L greater than 2.8 m:
Nq = Nq(P) = 48.9
D = 0.087
q0 + JMHM ~ 300 kPa (platform weight JMHM neglected)
qp+(P) = 2,839 kPa (Equation 5.56)
qs+(P) = 2,839/48.9 = 58 kPa
The value qp+(L = 0) for a zero overhang
Nq*(I1¶I2¶ (Table 5.5)
+
qp (L = 0) =Nq* JH = 13.05 u 0.8 u 18 = 188 kPa
yielding: qp+(L) = 188 + 0.3/2.8 (2,839 ± 188) = 472 kPa
and the following limit values at the inclusion head for:
an interior inclusion qp,i+ = 2,839 kPa
a corner inclusion qp,a+ = 7/12 u 2,839 + 5/12 u 472 = 1,850 kPa
Justifications 241
Note:
The previous calculations were performed assuming that:
± The stress qs+(P) obtained in the interior grid remains less than the calculated value of the
limit stress at the soil surface Vv,d;
± The maximum load in inclusion Qp,max satisfies the strength criteria relative to both the soil
and native inclusion material.
Remark: In the case of a thin load transfer platform located under a rigid structure
(such as a footing, slab on grade or raft), at the edge of this structure and under
certain geometric conditions (distance from the inclusion compared with the
distance to the edge of the structure, platform thickness, etc.), two failure modes
may coexist: one described with the Prandtl mechanism, and the other for a plastic
flow starting from the inclusion head extending at the surface to the edge of the
structural element. The construction specifications adopted for purposes of this
document typically enable avoiding the generation of plastic flows up to the ground
surface; as such, no special verification beyond the one presented above is required
herein.
Figure 5.71: Development of failure mechanisms according to the extent of foundation overhang.
4.2.5. Special case of materials treated with hydraulic binders
Materials treated with hydraulic binders reach a non-negligible tensile strength. This feature is
taken into account in the design process for pavement layers.
The failure mechanism may be correlated with the first crack (failure by shear or tensile
failure).
The recommendations currently implemented in road work (SETRA-GTS 2000 and Road
Standards) provide indications on expected strength levels for a given treatment as well as the
design limit values to be taken into consideration.

In light of the current state-of-the-art, it is proposed herein to adopt the same set of
recommendations. Close attention must be paid to adopting a failure criterion compatible with
this tensile strength.
References
BS8006 ± Code of Practice for Strengthened/reinforced soils and other fills. Section 8, Design of
embankments with reinforced soil foundations on poor ground, 2010.
Bétons de sable - &DUDFWpULVWLTXHV HW SUDWLTXHV G¶XWLOLVDWLRQ UpDOLVp VRXV O¶pJLGe du projet national
Sablocrete. Presses des Ponts, 1994.
Berthelot P., Durand F., Glandy M., Frossard A ± « Dallage et modules de déformation des couches de
sols ; applications aux renforcements de sols par inclusions et analyse du comportement du matelas
de répartition ». XIV ECSMGE 2007, Madrid, Spain.
Briançon L. ± « 5DSSRUWILQDOGHO¶H[SpULPHQWDWLRQGH&KHOOHV ». Rapport 2-08-1-05, juillet 2008.
Caquot A., Kerisel J. - Traité de mécanique des sols, Gautier-Villars, 1966.
Chevalier B. ± Études expérimentale et numérique des transferts de charge dans les matériaux
granulaires. Application aux renforcements de sols par inclusions rigides. Thèse de doctorat,
université Grenoble I Joseph-Fourier, soutenue le 5 septembre 2008.
CUR ± Design guideline for piled embankments. CUR 226, 2010.
EBGEO ŷ Empfehlung für den Entwurf und die Berechnung von Erdkörper mit Bewehrungen als
Geokunststoffen. In: Bewehrte Erdkörper auf punkt- oder linienförmigen Traggliedern. Deutsche
Gesellschaft für Geotechnik e.V., (German Geotechnical Society), Ernst & Sohn, (Kapitel 9), 2010.
Glandy M., Frossard A. ± « -XVWLILFDWLRQ G¶XQH IRQGDWLRQ VXSHUILFLHOOH VXU XQ VRO UHQIRUFp
G¶LQFOXVLRQV ». $QQDOHVGHO¶,%73, n° 1, 2002, p. 45-53.
Hewlett W.J., Randolph M.A. ± ³Analysis of piled embankments´. Ground Engineering, April 1988,
p. 12-18.
ISO/TR 20432 ± Lignes directrices pour la détermination de la résistance à long terme des
géosynthétiques pour le renforcement des sols, 2007.
Jenck O. ± Le renforcement des sols compressibles par inclusions rigides verticales. Modélisation
physique et numérique. Thèse de Doctorat, INSA Lyon, 29 novembre 2005.
Lawson C.R. ± ³Serviceability limits for low-height reinforced piled embankments´. Proceedings
GeoEng 2000, Melbourne, Australia. Lancaster: Technomic Publishing Co.
NF EN 1997-1, Eurocode 7 ± Calcul géotechnique. Partie 1 : Règles générales. (indice de classement
P 94-251-1) avec son annexe nationale (indice de classement P 94-251-2).
NF P 11-213, DTU 13.3 - Dallages - Conception, calcul et exécution, 2007.
NF P 94-262 ± Justification des ouvrages géotechniques - 1RUPHV G¶DSSOLFDWLRQ QDWLRQDOH GH
O¶(XURFRGH- Fondations profondes.
NF P 94-270 ± Calculs géotechniques Ouvrages de soutènement, Remblais renforcés et massifs en sol
cloué, 2009.
Nordic handbook ± Guidelines for reinforced soils and fills, Nordic geosynthetic group, rev. B,
october 2005.
Okyay U.S. ± Étude expérimentale et numérique des transferts de charge dans un massif renforcé par
inclusions rigides. Application à des cas de chargements statiques et dynamiques. Thèse de
doctorat, INSA Lyon, 24 novembre 2010.
Pecker A. ± Capacity design principles for shallow foundations in seismic areas. Keynote lecture, XIth
European conference on earthquake engineering, Paris, 1998.
Salençon J. ± Calcul à la rupture et analyse limite. Presses des Ponts, 1983.
Schlosser F. ± « Analogies et différences dans le comportement et le calcul des ouvrages de
soutènement en terre armée et par clouage des sols ». $QQDOHVGHO¶,7%73 n° 418, 1983.
SETRA ± Traitement des sols à la chaux et/ou aux liants hydrauliques (GTS). Application à la
réalisation des remblais et des couches de forme. Guide technique, 2000.
SETRA-LCPC ± Réalisation des remblais et des couches de forme (GTR). Guide technique,
1992 (révisé 2000).
Justifications Summary 243

CHAPTER 6
Geotechnical investigations
1. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING MISSIONS DEDICATED TO REINFORCING

COMPRESSIBLE SOILS BY MEANS OF RIGID INCLUSIONS
This document serves to define, with reference to the NF P94-500 Standard on geotechnical
missions, the set of preliminary geotechnical designs (G1) and detailed designs (G2), with the
objective of reinforcing compressible soils by means of rigid inclusions. It details the scope of
geotechnical investigations required during the various study phases.
Note: Throughout this chapter, the notations used to represent geotechnical

parameters will be defined in the table included in the Appendix to the
Recommendations section.
1.1. Geotechnical site feasibility study (G11)
This study is solely intended to broadly define the geological and geotechnical characteristics
of the project setting, typically without necessitating more in-depth geotechnical surveys. In
general, such a study only includes an analysis of pertinent documentation, a non-exhaustive
list of which is provided below:
± Geological study;
± Hydrogeological study;
± Geotechnical databases: geotechnical consulting engineers, Infoterre, archives, publications,
etc.;
± Site inspection, survey of soils and neighboring zones;
± Natural Risk Prevention Plan (French acronym: PPR);
± Documentary evaluations;
± Environmental constraints.
The report generated from this initial study defines a draft preliminary geological and
geotechnical model that describes foundation soil compressibility. This model must expose
the various risks inherent in the predicted settlements of structures in terms of execution
difficulty, costs and scheduling; it must also propose a range of feasible technical solutions.
1.2. Preliminary geotechnical design (G12)
The purpose of this preliminary geotechnical design is to provide the basis for a preliminary
design of the structure by adopting the set of geotechnical hypotheses for consideration and
identifying the general construction guidelines. In relying on the outcome of a technical-
economic study, this stage provides a choice of solutions that address the constraints imposed
by the Project Owner and Engineer, e.g. maximum settlements, differential settlements,
construction schedule. Upon completion of this G12 study, the Project Owner and Architect
select the approach that best satisfies their technical and economic constraints.
Geotechnical investigations 245

This preliminary geotechnical design must also comprise the geotechnical surveys needed to
specify the geotechnical data described in detail in Chapter 4; these investigations may
include:
±Geophysical surveys;
± Geological boreholes with sample extraction;
± In-laboratory identification testing;
± Laboratory tests to determine mechanical parameter values;
± In situ testing campaigns;
± Hydrogeological investigations.
The report produced on this preliminary design is to establish the definitive

geological/hydrogeological/geotechnical model; moreover, it provides a series of dimensional
sketches of the various solutions, with an emphasis on settlements. In some cases, this report
may reach the conclusion that the project structure does not require any improvements or
reinforcement, notably should the estimated site settlements remain compatible with the
structure¶s stability and serviceability.
This G12 report is to set forth a schedule of additional surveys, depending on the potential
feasible solutions, to be conducted during the detailed geotechnical design phase (G2).
1.3. Detailed geotechnical design (G2) specific to a rigid inclusion-based reinforcement

project
From a general perspective, this detailed design offers an approximation of quantities /

schedules/execution costs for the project¶s geotechnical structures, and a list of the
consequences of residual geological risks incurred relative to each of the various feasible
techniques, as input to the Project Owner¶s decision-making process.
Keep in mind that the contents of this design, as described in the present section, are specific
to reinforcement projects involving rigid inclusions.
During the ³Design´ phase, this study must serve as the basis, depending on constraints
imposed by the Project Owner and Engineer, for defining:
± Type of inclusions;
± Inclusion mesh pattern;
± Inclusion length;
± Thickness and implementation criteria relative to the transfer platform.
Within this framework, a campaign of additional geotechnical investigations is planned for

the purpose of determining the values of all parameters input into the design and
dimensioning calculations for the reinforcement solution by rigid inclusions; this campaign
features:
± Cone penetration tests, piezocone tests to complete the lithographic sections and determine
the over-consolidated zones;
± Shear characteristics: cuF¶M¶GHULYHGIURPWULD[LDOWHVWLQJ
± Determination of cu using a vane test;
± Compressibility characteristics: V¶p, ROC, e0, Cc and Cs, Cv, kv under various stress levels,
ck, CDe;
± Testing: installation of piezometers and subsequent monitoring, in order to identify the
amplitude of water table fluctuations over time.

2. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ESTABLISHING THE GEOTECHNICAL
SURVEY PROGRAM
The scope of application of this guide encompasses geotechnical surveys of relatively soft
soils intended to resist loads caused by the surface foundations of buildings (ground slab, rafts
and footings), reservoirs, embankments and linear structures, as well as the inclusion
embedment layer.
The first objective of these geotechnical investigations is to produce the entire set of
calculation parameters to evaluate structural displacements (settlements and potential
horizontal displacements) of the site¶s natural soils. These calculation results must then
establish, depending on project constraints, the best suited reinforcement technique. In some
cases, the conclusion may be drawn that it is not necessary to reinforce the soils. The second
objective is to derive the values of parameters necessary to design the reinforcement elements,
which in this case would be rigid inclusions.
The geotechnical survey program must take into account the three following elements:
± The type of structure to be built: the type and characteristics of structures as well as all
eventual project constraints (threshold settlement values, construction timeline, etc.) are to be
defined in accordance with the NFP 94-500 Standard; the responsibility for furnishing these
elements lies with both the Project Owner and Engineer;
± The geological, hydrogeological and geotechnical setting: a preliminary survey is required
based on the available elements, namely:
- site inspection: unbuilt land, existing structures, underground pipes, accessibility of the
worksite for construction equipment;
- a documentary search (e.g. geological maps, subsoil databases, relevant theses, natural
risk prevention plans, previous studies);
- land survey of parcels bordering the project;
± The Geotechnical Zone of Influence: zone of interaction with the project, presented both in
plane view (existing structures) and in depth (pipelines, streets and utility lines, etc.).
The results of surveying campaigns are presented in Tables 6.1 to 6.3, in accordance with the
conditions stipulated in the Recommendations on the consistency of geotechnical surveys for
building construction issued by the USG organization.

248
Table 6.1: ASIRI geotechnical survey program.
Geology and stratigraphy

Projectinfor
Objectives Mesh pattern Type Depth
mation
Geological Buildings: Geophysics:
model x Fora surface area < electrical array or vertical electrical sounding
2.500 m2: three Seismic refraction
Litho- soundings
stratigraphic Geological soundings:
sections of soft x + one additional Cored boreholes (see Note 2) well suited to
layers soft soils, basis for soil stratigraphy and At least 3 meters beneath
sounding per
identification the base of the last soft
increment of
layer influenced by the
Project 2.500 m2
Destructive soundings: project, with certainty
layout plan
that soil characteristics
Linear structures: x pit
are improved further
see Note 1 below. x continuous auger
beyond
x destructive boreholes with recording of
boring parameters
Mechanical soundings: cone penetration tests,

as a complement for soil stratigraphy and
identification (see Note 2).
Note 1: The survey campaign may be organized by dividing the targeted alignment or zone into basic meshes containing the same soundings and tests. Figures VI.1 and VI.2
depict an example of cutting an alignment into meshes with length 4L, where the value of L should lie in a range between 50 and 250 m, depending on the site and soil
variability. For a linear structure, the boreholes must be located on the alignment axis as well as on two lines running some 30 or 50 meters on both sides of the axis. The
density of survey data points relates to soil variability and needs to be adapted to satisfy project consistency.
Note 2: All geotechnical investigations must contain at least one reference cored borehole. Based on this reference, the surveying campaign may be complemented by
examining destructive soundings. Cone penetration tests will make it possible to identify the various soils by calibration on the cored borehole; in the case where the
penetrometer is equipped with a friction coupling (CPT), as well as a pore pressure measurement device (piezocone or CPTU), the series of abacuses shown in Figures VI.3
through VI.5 offer valuable assistance.

Figure 6.1: General geotechnical surveying.
(Design/execution of embankments on soft soils, SETRA/LCPC technical guide, 2000).
Figure 6.2: Detailed geotechnical surveying.

(Design/execution of embankments on soft soils, SETRA/LCPC technical guide, 2000).
Figure 6.3: Soil identification abacus according to the cone penetration test (CPT).
(Douglas and Olsen, 1981).

Figure 6.4: Soil identification abacus according to both the CPT and CPTU tests
(Robertson et al., 1986).
Figure 6.5: Soil identification abacus according to the standardized CPT and CPTU parameters
(Douglas and Olsen, 1981).

Geotechnical investigations
Hydrogeology
Project information Objectives Mesh pattern Type Depth
x Low, high and exceptional water table 1 piezometer per every x Closed piezometers Water table and
2
levels: EB, EH, EE 3,000-m surface area (CPI) deeper
x Historical record of water table variations increment, in order to x The piezocone is groundwater
(see Note 1) more closely match the able to provide an aquifers, if
x Prediction of water table variations historical study estimation of necessary.
Project layout plan
Permeability horizontal kh.
x Water analyses, if necessary (corrosion, x During oedometric
aggressiveness / concrete binder) testing, it is possible to
measure the vertical
permeability kv.
Note 1: The determination over time of water table raising and lowering is important for its contribution to soil over-consolidation.
251
252
Geotechnical
Project information Objectives Mesh pattern Type Depth indication
x Service loads x Identifications of soft For a surface area < In situ tests (see Note 1) x For vane tests (every
x Embankment heights layers 500 m2: two soundings Cone penetration and piezocones 0.50 m):over the entire
x Construction timeline Classification: NFP11- vane tests compressible layer
x Service startup 300; GTR 92 Fora surface area of Pressure meters thickness
schedule x Rate of excess pore between 500 m2and 10,000 x For pressuremeters,
pressure dissipation m2 : Identification tests (Note 2) CPT and cored
Project constraints: x Precise knowledge of ± one sounding per every Ud, Us¸, U, wn, wl, wp VBS, Ip, and boreholes: 7 diameters
x Maximum allowable the soft thicknesses 500 m2, with a minimum MO (Note 3) and 3-m minimum
settlement x Failure parameters of three soundings below the inclusion
x Maximum allowable x Compressibility ± minimum distance Compressibility tests (Note 4) base, or at the stop for
differential settlements parameters between soundings (1-day) oedometric tests and the CPT.
= 40 m. eventually (7-day) creep tests for
x Residual settlements
following acceptance of organic soils.
the structure V¶p(Note 5), OCR, e0, Cc and Cs
(Notes 6-8), Cv (Note 9), kv (Note
ZIG (Geotechnical zone 9)under different stresses, ck (Note
of influence) 10), CH(Notes 10 and 11).
Shear tests:
Triaxial tests UU, CD or CU+u,
with the exception of the box
shear apparatus
M¶DQGF¶Note 12), cu (Notes 13
and 14), and Ocu (Note 15).

Note 1: The cone penetration and pressuremeter tests will serve to justify the load-bearing
capacities of rigid inclusions. On the other hand, these tests cannot reliably estimate either the
consolidation settlement or creep settlement of soft soils, and even less reliably the settlement
durations. Use of a pressure meter may prove acceptable for relatively incompressible
unsaturated soils, whose settlement periods may be considered of short duration.
Note 2: The first identification testing campaign objective is to classify and then qualify the
soils (highly plastic clay, peat, etc.). The second objective consists of correlating these
identification parameters with both the shear and compressibility parameters, in order to
complete the project database (wn, with Cc/(1 + e0), M¶ZLWK,p).
Note 3: Benchmark values for the physical parameters of compressible soils.
Table 6.4: Benchmark values of compressible soils.
Us Ud
Designation e wn (%) wL Ip MO (%)
(Mg/m3) (Mg/m3)
Soft clays 2.6-2.7 0.9-1.8 1.2-2 30-100 20-80 15-50
Muck 2.4-2.7 0.7-1.5 1.5-3 60-150 80-180 2-10
Peat 1.4-2 0.1-0.5 3-10 200-1,000 10-100
Note 4: Oedometric testing is critical for estimating primary and secondary (creep)
settlements as well as their predicted durations.
Note 5: Preconsolidation pressure

The determination of preconsolidation pressure V'p is an essential, yet very delicate, step. An
indication of the degree of over-consolidation (ROC = V¶p /V¶v0) may be obtained from
soundings using the cone penetration and piezocone tests (Fig. 6.6).
For a normally consolidated clay, the theoretical variation of qtvs. depth can be plotted, with
adequate knowledge of the relation between cu and V¶v0 or between cu and qt (see Note 13),
and then compared to the qt values recorded by the cone penetration or piezocone. This
comparison of the two values displays whether the soil is over-consolidated or instead nearer
the normally consolidated state. Figure 6.6 provides an example for a homogeneous clay,
which is distinctly over-consolidated at the top and then very slightly over-consolidated
throughout its depth.

Figure 6.6: Indication of the degree of over-consolidation based on qt vs. depth.
Note 6: Compressibility
'e
CS
Recompression index: ' lg V V' on the unloading-reloading cycle
'e
CC
Compression index: ' lg V V' on the initial loading
Oedometric tangent modulus for a stress V¶v, in the normally consolidated domain, vs. Cc (or
in the over-consolidated domain vs. Cs):
2. 3 V v '
Eoed V v' 1 e
Cc or C s
Oedometric secant modulus, Eoed, over a stress interval V¶v1, V¶v2,: quotient of the variation in
V¶v divided by the volumetric variation over this same interval:
'V v '

Eoed V v' 1 ,V v' 2
'e
1 e1
Note 7: Correlations relative to compressibility

x Between compression index Cc and liquid limit wL:
Table 6.5 provides two correlations that vary according to the sites where they were
established.
Table 6.5: Determination of Cc on the basis of wl.
Site Correlation Reference

Clays with low or average
Cc = 0.009 (wL-10) Terzaghi and Peck (1948)
sensitivity
Marine Rio de Janeiro clay Cc = 0.013 (wL-18) Ortigao (1975)
x Between the compressibility factor Cc/(1 + e0) and natural water content wn (Fig. 6.7):

Figure 6.7: Range of Cc/(1 + e0 ) values vs. wn for normally consolidated, non-organic clays
(Lambe and Whitman 1969, western U.S. soils).
x Between compression index Cc and natural water content wn (Fig. 6.8):
Figure 6.8: Correlations for Bordeaux clays- Cc and Cs = f(wn) (A. Marache et al., 2009).
Note 8: Benchmark values for compression index Cc and compressibility factor Cc/(1 + e0).
Table 6.6: Benchmark values for the compressibility parameters of compressible soils.
Type of soil e0 Cc Cc/(1 + e0)

Soft clays 1.2-2 0.3-1 0.15-0.3
Muck 1.5-3 0.7-1.6 0.25-0.4
Peat 3-10 2-10 0.4-0.8
Note 9: Consolidation coefficient

According to Terzaghi¶s theory of consolidation, the vertical consolidation coefficient
depends on both vertical permeability kv and the odometric modulus Eoed, as related by the
following expression:

kv Eoed
cv
Jw
This relation can also be written as a function of Cc within the normally consolidated domain
and, by extension, within the over-consolidated domain vs. Cs for a stress V¶ DV FORVH DV
possible to the stress imposed on the soil by the structure to be built:
± in the over-consolidated domain:V¶V¶p
k 1 e
cv 2.3 v V'
Cs J w
± in the normally consolidated domain:V¶!V¶p
k 1 e
cv 2.3 v V'
Cc J w
This coefficient depends on the vertical effective stress V¶YHUWLFDOSHUPHDELOLW\FRHIILFLHQWNv

(expressed in m/s), as well as on soil compressibility Cc/(1 + e).
The variation in permeability kv is correlated with the variation in void ratio e (Fig. 6.9) by
means of the following relation:
§k · e e0
lg ¨¨ v ¸¸
© k v0 ¹ ck
'e c k 'lgk
Figure 6.9: Permeability coefficient kv variation curve vs. void index e.

Determination of both ck and lg kv0.
Note 10: Characterization of vertical creep

x CD: Rate of secondary consolidation:
'H
'H H0
CD
' lg t ' lg t

x CDe: Creep index:
'e
CDe CD 1 eo
' lg t
Note 11: Benchmark values of the ratio CDe/Cc.
Table 6.7: Benchmark values for the creep parameters of compressible soils.
Type of soil CDe/Cc

Soft clays 0.03-0.05
Muck 0.03-0.05
Peat 0.05-0.10
Note 12
Let us recall herein the principles of triaxial testing, as described in the NF P 94-070 and NF
P 94-074 Standards issued in October 1994.
For soils sheared in the normally consolidated domain F¶ | 0; the angle of friction will be
derived at the critical state M¶NC = M¶crit (on the load face) and will remain indistinguishable
from the angle of friction at the peak (Fig. 6.10).
For soils sheared in the over-consolidated domain, if the deformation is limited and less than
that of the yield stress (beneath the yield surface), then the values will be set at the peak
(Fig. 6.10), resulting in: M¶SC = M¶peak DQGF¶SC F¶peak. In the over-consolidated domain, stress
paths all lead onto the ³ellipse´. The path ends are therefore not aligned; however, the curve
will generally be linearized in order to calculate M¶peak DQG F¶peak. It can be observed in
Figure 6.10 that the determination of M¶peak DQG F¶peak requires considerable skill and is less
reliable than the calculation performed in the normally consolidated domain.
¶
Figure 6.10: Example of the determination of M DQGF¶LQERWKWKHQRUPDOO\FRQVROLGDWHGDQG over-
consolidated domains for a Romainville green plastic clay (Josseaume and Azizi, 1991).

Figure 6.11: Curves representing the deviator and excess pore pressure vs. axial strain during
undrained tests conducted on normally consolidated and over-consolidated saturated clays.
For a given clay, the angle of friction M¶drops with the plasticity index value. Several
correlations can be identified, among which let us cite Fahri¶s (1970) corresponding to French
clays:
8
tan M ' 0.21
Ip 6
Note 13: Correlations relative to the undrained cohesion cu

x Based on the standardized strength measured using the cone penetration test, qc or qt and cu
(Eurocode EC7-2):
± Cone penetration
cu = (qc ± ıv0)/Nk
Nk must be determined at the project site.
Generally, the value of Nk is set at: 15 < Nk< 17.
± Piezocone
cu = (qt ± ıv0)/Nkt
Nkt must once again be determined at the project site.
Its value typically lies between 15 < Nkt< 20.
x Based on the plasticity index, Ip:

For normally consolidated clays: on any given site, Skempton proposed (Fig. 6.12):
cu = (0.11 + 0.0037 Ip) V¶v0

Figure 6.12: Values of the ratio cu/V¶v0vs. plasticity index IP.
Note 14: Classifications and benchmark values of cu, qc, EM and pl.
x According to Terzaghi (Table 6.8).
Table 6.8: Values of cu vs. clay consistency.
Clay consistency cu (kPa))

Very soft < 12
Soft 12-25
Firm 25-50
Stiff 50-100
x According to the Recommendations on gravel columns:

highly compressible soils, organic soils: cu< 20 kPa or qc< 300 kPa.
x According to Houÿ 1986: see Table 6.9 below:
Table 6.9: Values of pl and EM.
Type of soil EM (MPa) pl (kPa)

(using a probe with very low
inertia)
Muck 0.2-1.5 20-150
Soft clay 0.5-3 50-300
Note 15: Increase in undrained cohesion by means of consolidation

Structural calculation procedures should never introduce the parameters Mcu and ccu, which
have absolutely no physical meaning; the only purpose of Mcu is to express the rise in cu vs.
consolidation stress within the normally consolidated domain.
Ocu is the cu gain factor as a function of the increase in consolidation stress. Its value is
obtained directly in either the Lambe diagram (Fig. 6.13) or the Mohr diagram (Fig. 6.14):
sin M CU
tan Ocu
1 sin M CU

Figure 6.13: Figure 6.14:
Determination of Ocu in the Lambe diagram. Determination of Ocu in the Mohr diagram.
For very recent soils, e.g. marine clay, for which it can generally be considered that the entire
layer is normally consolidated, short-term cohesion cu rises linearly with depth beginning
from zero at the surface (Fig. 6.15).
For most soils, we obtain: cu = 0.25 to 0.35 V¶v0 for clays, and cu = 0.5 V¶v0 for peat.
For over-consolidated soils at the surface (e.g. subsequent to water table level variations that
over-consolidate, by means of suction, the soil slice through which the water table is
fluctuating during drying-rewetting cycles), it can be concluded that cohesion exhibits a near-
constant value in the over-consolidated soil thickness, before increasing proportionally with z
(Fig. 6.15).
Figure 6.15: Evolution of the value of cu vs. depth.

References
Eurocode 7-1 - Calcul géotechnique. Partie 1, Règles générales, juin 2005.

Eurocode 7-2 - Calcul géotechnique. Partie 2, Reconnaissance des terrains et essais.
septembre 2007.
Leroueil S., Magnan, J.-P., Tavenas F. - Remblais sur argiles molles. 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, GHYMAC.
Georisk 2009.
NF P 11-213-1 - DTU Dallages 13.3 : Conception, calcul et exécution, mars 2005.
NF P 11-300 (ou GTR 1992) - Guides techniques, fascicules 1 et 2. Réalisation des remblais
et couches de forme. SETRA, LCPC, septembre 1992.
NF P 94-500 -0LVVLRQVG¶LQJpQLHULHJpRWHFKQLTXH&ODVVLILFDWLRQHWVSpFLILFDWLRQV, décembre
2006.
« Recommandations sur la consistance des investigations géotechniques pour la construction
GHEkWLPHQWVGHO¶USG ». Le Moniteur (cahier détaché n° 2 du 16-12-2005, n° 5325).
SETRA-LCPC - Études et réalisation des remblais sur sols compressibles. Guide technique,
novembre 2000.
SETRA-LCPC - Traitement des sols à la chaux et/ou aux liants hydrauliques, application à la
réalisation des remblais et des couches de forme. Guide technique, janvier 2000.
Geotechnical investigations Summary 261

CHAPTER 7
Execution conditions
1. COORDINATION WITH GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING MISSIONS
To ensure high structural quality, the following steps are necessary and pertain to all elements
of the rigid inclusion system: embankments, inclusions, capping layers or platforms, rebar,
excavation pits, earthworks, foundations:
± Definition by the Prime Contractor of the various target objectives: maximum settlements,
loading intensity, schedule restrictions, ground slab thickness, etc.;
± Completion by a certified Engineer of the geotechnical project design (type G2);
± Execution of the works by a Contractor assigned oversight of the execution plan and
geotechnical monitoring (type G3);
± Completion by a qualified Structural Engineer of the geotechnical construction supervision
task (type G4), for the purpose of managing all external controls, especially technical
interfaces among the various works involved in the project;
± Assignment, through an organization certified by the competent administrative authority, of
a technical control mission intended to provide risk prevention assistance.
Prior to the involvement of the Contractor, either the Project Owner or Engineer will have
completed all of the preliminary information requests regarding concessionary agreements.
Moreover, the soil reinforcements, like any other technique related to geotechnical works,
require supervising the works execution, in addition to monitoring and maintenance steps in
accordance with the prescriptions set forth in Eurocode 7, Section 4.
The purpose of this chapter is to define the execution steps and procedures relative to:
± The working platform;
± Rigid inclusions (inclusion layout, production, low cut-off);
± Pile caps or head extensions;
± Load transfer platforms (type, thickness, implementation);
± Eventual geosynthetic reinforcement included in the platforms.
Let¶s point out that these various elements may in fact be installed by different contractors, a
situation that necessitates excellent interface management.
It should also be recalled that a series of execution designs are mandatory, in order to:
± Validate appropriateness of the technique given the type of soil and working environment;
± Verify the means and methods deployed in light of the targeted results, in terms of
performance, output rate and schedule;
± Refine the design of the rigid inclusion solution selected during the project's geotechnical
study phase, by taking into account the full set of execution parameters, including geometric
and mechanical characteristics of the rigid inclusion, specific points implying adaptation of
the inclusion grid pattern, characteristics of the load transfer platform (this study process must
be conducted according to the principles outlined in Chapter 5);
± Develop a layout showing the location of inclusions based on the set of technical data
validated by the Engineer;
Execution conditions 263

± Adjust the works phasing plans according to the program of the other contractors;
Propose technical solutions that allow managing environmental constraints, geotechnical
hazards and execution-related risks (e.g. discovery during the execution phase of underground
or buried structures not detected by previous investigation surveys);
± Present a method statement submittal for rigid inclusions, with their location, the different
stages of the process and a quality control plan.
2. CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORKING PLATFORM
2.1. Role of the working platform
A working platform is typically constructed before the rigid inclusion works. This platform
allows the transport of the rigid inclusion installation equipment during all weather
conditions.
The characteristics of such a platform must be adapted to actual execution conditions (type of
equipment, ease of circulation on the site, etc.). Moreover, platform execution may give rise
to an acceptance that guarantees the safety of onsite construction vehicles.
This working platform can be part of the load transfer platform but must be controlled by
specific tests described in this Chapter. In this case, the working platform must undergo an
acceptance procedure to verify the achievement of the specified performances.
Furthermore, upon completion of the rigid inclusions, this working platform is typically
affected by subsequent jobsite operations, which may undermine the integrity of previously
installed rigid inclusions (whether reinforced or not).
2.2. Works after rigid inclusion execution
Both during and after soil reinforcement measures, precautions need to be taken in order to
avoid damage to the inclusions (which in general have not been steel reinforced) as well as of
the capping layer.
The risks of damage to the upper part of a rigid inclusion may appear in the following cases:
± Circulation of construction vehicles either directly above or in the vicinity of rigid inclusion
heads;
± Insufficient platform bearing capacity with regards to the circulation of construction
vehicles;
± Installation of utility lines (water, gas, electricity, etc.) either between or in alignment with
the rigid inclusion mesh;
± Earthworks involved in excavating the footing pits;
± Restoration of the working platform subsequent to soil reinforcement works in order to
proceed with localized material purging;
± Restoration of the working platform by running binder treatment equipment (using lime,
cement);
± Second compaction of the working platform and installation of an additional capping layer
extending to the underside of the structure.

2.3. Construction principles
In the general case, any excavation pit or material excavation beneath the finished level of the
unreinforced inclusion heads is not recommended. Should such excavations prove necessary
for the project, e.g. in order to perform utility line purging or lay trenches, then it would be
appropriate to establish a set of prescriptions aimed at reconstituting the initial mechanical
performance and preserving the integrity of the inclusions.
When the rigid inclusion heads are stopped at the platform surface level, a minimum amount
of time to obtain sufficient strength, must be allotted between the production of inclusions and
the earthworks stage. For columns with mortar, cement or grout, this period must be validated
by testing on samples, relative to both the setting and strength increase of the inclusion
material.
Remark: This transition period can be as long as 1 week for inclusions produced
in situ.
Whenever the working platform is incorporated into the load transfer platform, it is necessary
to verify that the transfer platform has not been deteriorated or polluted.
Remark: Given these constraints, it would be preferable to stop the inclusions

slightly below the upper level of the working platform.
In pursuing with installation operations, a minimum thickness of 25 cm must be ensured

between the rigid inclusion heads and the zone of re-compaction. The two following
configurations then become feasible:
± The inclusion head is situated at the level of the working platform, in which case it is
necessary to add material over 25 cm so as to isolate the inclusion heads prior to compaction;
± The inclusion head is positioned more than 25 cm below the stripped surface level of the
working platform, then re-compaction can be initiated from the working platform.
Whenever the rigid inclusions are not reinforced, the earthworks performed between
inclusions must abide by the following precautions:
± Stable excavation pits over the short term without any contribution from the inclusions;
- reminder: need for soil retaining system beyond an excavation pit vertical distance of
1.30 m if an individual needs to enter the excavation; under all circumstances, specific
regulatory criteria must be respected for human safety.
- in the case of a sloped embankment, the slope must not intercept the inclusions;
± Carefully completed earthworks around each inclusion prior to low cut-off.
3. EXECUTION PHASE FOR RIGID INCLUSIONS
3.1. Review of execution techniques
Rigid inclusions may be installed by means of either soil extraction or soil displacement
techniques; these methods have been sorted into five main categories as follows:
± Bored rigid inclusions with soil extraction;
± Bored rigid inclusions with soil displacement;
± Cast-in-place vibro-driven or driven rigid inclusions;
± Prefabricated vibro-driven or driven rigid inclusions;

± Rigid inclusions installed by incorporating a binder with the soil (treated soil columns, jet
grouting, etc.).
Moreover, rigid inclusions may be distinguished by their component material: mortar,

concrete, grout, steel, or even wood.
From a general standpoint, all pile and micropile execution methods would be applicable for
installing rigid inclusions (see Appendix A: Standard NF P 94-262).
The inclusions that mix a binder with the soil constitute a special subcategory of inclusions
produced in situ, particularly as regards control procedures.
For a detailed description of each of these implementation techniques, the interested reader is
referred 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 P 94-262 for pile and micropile-related techniques;
± Standard NF EN 12 716 for techniques on soil-cement columns derived by ³jet grouting´;
± Standard NF EN 14 679 for the execution of treated soil columns.
3.2. Material-related requirements
The rigid inclusion component material exhibits a much higher deformation modulus than that
of any soil layers and a specific strength independent of the level of confinement capable of
being provided by the surrounding soil. In addition to the mechanical characteristics taken
into consideration in the design calculations, requirements related to the following must also
be verified:
± Execution: resistance to leaching, workability of these materials;
± Durability: corrosion, attacks from chemical and bacteriological agents.
3.3. Description of the execution methods
Among the aspects or criteria playing a role in the choice of execution method, let's cite the
following (non-exhaustive list):
± Borehole stability;
± Risk of false-refusal;
± Stability of a column with fresh material;
± Creation or not of excavations;
± Vibrations and nuisances;
± Possibility of reinforcing the inclusion;
± Recording of execution parameters;
± Rate of output;
± Maximum lengths and diameters;
± Strength of the embedment layer;
± Aggressiveness of the soil and water;
± Site accessibility of the inclusion execution equipment;
± Local means;
± Phasing constraints related to the method employed (scheduling plan).

3.3.1. Bored rigid inclusions with soil extraction
3.3.1.1. Simple bored, bored with casing or bored with slurry
The process of simple bored inclusion can only be used in a soil that allows ensuring borehole
stability, which in general refers to a cohesive soil that more often lies above the groundwater
table.
The drilled cased technique or slurry drilled is employed to produce an inclusion whenever
borehole stability cannot be ensured. The concreting step must take place with protection
from a casing or the tremie pipe; it is still necessary however to verify that the lateral soil
pressure is sufficient to contain the weight of the column of fresh material following
extraction of the temporary casing.
3.3.1.2. Installation by continuous flight hollow auger
The technique involving a hollow auger allows for the pressurized injection, along the auger's
central axis, of a material (mortar / concrete mix) in a continuous manner throughout the tool
rise motion. This process could be effective when soil conditions are "unstable", including
beneath the reinforcement layer.
3.3.1.3. Installation by micropile technique
The micropile execution techniques may also be used to install rigid inclusions.
3.3.2. Bored rigid inclusions with soil displacement
This category of inclusions are introduced according to the boring with displacement
processes, which moreover requires the use of specially designed tools for this purpose, i.e.
auger or screw tools with a reverse pitch in the displacement part.
The inclusions are installed practically without any excavation using a hollow tool that
enables concreting the inclusions by their tip. The hydraulic composite (either concrete or
mortar), introduced via the web of the screw, is set within the soil cavity throughout the tool
rise; it must be easily pumped and is often added under slight pressure.
In certain types of soils (e.g. loose soils), the displacement may also lead to ground
compaction between the inclusions and moreover improve friction along the shaft.
3.3.3. Cast-in-place vibro-driven or driven rigid inclusions
3.3.3.1. Cast, driven or vibro-driven inclusions
This process consists of lowering into the soil a hollow metal tube, closed at the tip by either a
locking plate or a valve, by means of vibro-driving or pile-driving using a hydraulic or diesel
gravity hammer.
The tube is lowered until reaching a predetermined height or else a predefined refusal
criterion. The concreting step takes place inside the tube, which is then extracted from the
soil. This is a process of soil displacement without the need for excavation.

³Vibro Concrete Column´ type inclusions
The ³Vibro Concrete Column´ (or VCC) type inclusions offer a specific execution process.
The implementation protocol calls for introducing into the soil a vibrating needle along the
lines of that used to create stone columns. The inclusion is then built by incorporating
concrete or mortar as the tool rises.
In a cohesive soil, the characteristics of these inclusion types only differ slightly from the
characteristics of bored inclusions with displacement.
In fine-grained soils, the load-bearing capacity of the inclusion may be improved by means of
soil compaction thanks to the vibrator set inside the instrument used to install the inclusion.
3.3.4. Prefabricated vibro-driven or driven rigid inclusions
Prefabricated inclusions may be driven into the soil by means of a vibrator or with the
assistance of a pile driving hammer.
3.3.4.1. Wood inclusions
Use of wood inclusions probably represents the oldest method for reinforcing foundation
soils. In some countries and for special cases, this method is still being applied. Let's note a
variation in the quality of inclusions in terms of both geometry and strength depending on the
wood quality. In zones where the groundwater table is lowered, it must be ensured that the
inclusions always remain completely submerged in order to avoid their deterioration.
For smaller loads (less than 500 kN) and anchorage lengths limited to 12 m, this method can
be used, albeit with certain precautions; its applications are mainly devoted to temporary
reinforcement works.
Inclusions are set into place by means of a pile-driving technique. In order to facilitate
inclusion penetration and avoid their damage, special precautions must be taken: steel tip at
the inclusion base, steel strip around the inclusion head, pre-boring step, etc.
3.3.4.2. Metal inclusions
Prefabricated metal inclusions are typically ³H´-shaped profile sections or tubes not filled
with concrete.
Execution constraints must be taken into account during inclusion implementation, while
corrosion-related risks are to be incorporated into the design.
Metal inclusions are relatively robust and may be installed using machinery with a high
embedding capacity.
3.3.4.3. Concrete inclusions
Precast ³concrete´ inclusions can be used for a wide range of loads, with designs varying
according to geometry and compressive strength of both the concrete and reinforcements.
Concrete inclusions may or may not be reinforced and moreover are laid out either in a single
length or in several jointed and welded segments.

3.3.5. Inclusions produced by mixing a binder with the soil
Inclusions produced by mixing a binder with the soil yield columns of stabilized soil that,
given the level of mechanical performance typically obtained, can resemble rigid inclusions.
This mix may be derived by means of various techniques: mechanical, hydraulic, with or
without air, etc. The primary techniques employed are as follows:
± Jet grouting;
± Soil mixing (via either a dry or wet process);
± Treated soil trench.
The objective of these soil treatment methods is to mix hydraulic binders into the soil in order
to improve its mechanical characteristics by generating rigid or semi-rigid columns. Both the
modulus of elasticity and simple compressive strength depend heavily on the type of ground
configuration and binder contents; they often amount to between 5 and 10 times less than
their counterpart values for concrete. All soils may be treated; however, soil treatment using a
high content of organic matter, sulfates or nitrates must undergo a preliminary study (see the
Soil Treatment Reference Guide, Standard NF P 94 100).
3.4. Summary of the inclusion methods
Table 7.1 lists a sampling of characteristics from the main types of inclusions catalogued,
whether they be of a technical (vibrations, noise, excavation) or mechanical nature.
Table 7.1: Sample characteristics of the main types of inclusions catalogued.
Type of inclusion Vibrations Noise Excavation Estimated long-term modulus

(in MPa)
Pre- wood yes yes no 10,000-15,000
fabricated metal (steel) yes yes no 210,000
concrete yes yes no 10,000-20,000 (1)
(2)
Drilled by yes yes no
percussion
Vibro-driven yes no shallow
Simple bored no no yes Mortar: 5,000 - 10,000
Driven, Concrete C15: 9,000
hammered Drilled cased or no no yes Concrete C25: 11,000
Fabricated and bored sludge drilled
in situ Bored with a no no yes
continuous auger
Bored with no no shallow
displacement
Treated Soil mixing no no shallow Variable: 250 - 9,000 (3)
soil Jet grouting no no variable 500 - 1,000 * compressive strength
columns
1
depends on the type of concrete and reinforcement; 2depends on the type of grout; 3depends on the type of
binder and soil.
3.5. Description of the works
This description is produced by the Engineer within the scope of the contract¶s Special
Technical Clauses, and then detailed by the Contractor as part of the technical specifications.
These two documents must serve to define the following elements:
± Diameter of the rigid inclusions;

± Depth of the rigid inclusions or their embedment within a load-bearing layer, in compliance
with the project design computations (the stop criterion must be subsequently defined at the
time of calibrating the workshop when construction starts up);
± Maximum working stress of the rigid inclusions and compressive strength (fc28) of the
material used in the case of a binder-containing material (concrete, mortar, grout, soil-binder
mix, etc.);
± The inclusion mesh underneath the ground slab or embankment, and the thickness of both
the working platform and capping layer forming the load transfer platform;
± The layout of inclusions underneath soil blocks and footings, and the layouts adopted at the
soil block-inclusion interface in the case of moments or horizontal forces;
± The procedure of cutting the rigid inclusions underneath the soil blocks;
± Pile cap dimensions, if applicable;
± Characteristics and performance of the reinforcement layer, if applicable.
3.6. Means and methods
The Contractor describes within a technical execution procedure both the human resources
and equipment scheduled for implementation in order to achieve the predefined objectives:
± Worksite supervision: composition of the worksite supervisory team, references of the site
foreman;
± The execution team: composition of the team, which in general features 3 members for
small jobs (1 site foreman, 1 drill operator, 1 pump operator);
± The execution method, as ultimately described in the previous section, in specifying the
type and volume of excavation material to be removed;
± The number and type of production workshops, their power rating (torque for an auger,
frequency and amplitude for a vibro-hammer, etc.), the maximum working depth, providing
The possibility to justify the output rates relative to job scheduling;
± The resources selected for manufacturing and transporting the component material;
± Transport onto the worksite when introducing ready-mix materials;
± Onsite production in the case of installing an in situ mixing unit;
± Transport onto the worksite: concrete pump or loader when using dry concrete.
The control plan appended to the execution procedure summarizes, for each implementation
phase, the acceptance criteria, as well as the type, frequency, resources and manager of the
corresponding control measures.
3.7. Inclusion execution drawings
When the inclusion design studies and execution drawings lie outside the Engineer¶s mission,
these elements are typically established by the Contractor, in conjunction with the execution
studies produced by other site actors and then validated by the Engineer and control bodies;
they indicate:
± The layout of the inclusion grid pattern with dimension benchmarks;
± Distinctive signs of the various inclusions: reinforced or unreinforced, inclusions beneath
the structure and beneath the ground slab;
± The cross-section view beneath the ground slab revealing: the working platform, the
inclusion surface, details of the load transfer platform;
± A sketch of the cross-section view underneath the soil blocks, revealing: the lower block
surface, and the load transfer platform dimensions.

3.8. Site preparation
Prior to the Contractor's entry on the worksite to execute the inclusions, the Project Owner or
Engineer will have ensured completion of:
± Access paths and tracks compatible with the vehicles proposed by the Contractor;
The identification and eventual shutdown of both the aboveground and underground utility
lines;
± The removal of eventual vestiges;
± A working platform according to the Contractor¶s specifications with 2 m of overhang
compared to the inclusion footprint;
± Location of the primary structural axes projected using the offset chair technique, with the
location of each inclusion remaining the Contractor¶s responsibility, as laid out in the
execution plan.
3.9. Works execution
During execution of the works program, the site foreman is to collate the following
information:
± Site location verification;
± Progress of the works;
± Quality of the materials delivered;
± Execution parameters.
This set of information is typically transmitted on a weekly basis during jobsite meetings.
3.10. Construction specifications
3.10.1. Minimum diameter
For inclusions not reinforced, with mortar, grout or concrete and executed in situ without
relying on a micropile type technique, the typical minimum diameter is equal to 250 mm.
Smaller-diameter non-reinforced inclusions are only feasible following a detailed examination

of consequences related to: inclusion slenderness, offset, verticality flaws, parasitic bending
loads, risks of constriction, and difficulties in controlling integrity.
3.10.2. Theoretical cross-section and diameter
For inclusions bored with or without displacement, the nominal diameter is that of the boring
tool.
For inclusions driven with a lost plate, the nominal diameter would be the tube diameter and
not the plate diameter.
For inclusions driven with a valve, the cross-section and equivalent diameter must be selected
to represent the footprint obtained after concreting without exceeding the tube dimensions.
For other techniques (e.g. jet-grouting), the cross-section and equivalent diameter are verified
following stripping or another specific control step.
The cross-section of prefabricated inclusions is the one guaranteed by the supplier.

3.10.3. Mesh configuration
3.10.3.1. Minimum mesh size
The distance between inclusions must be established to avoid any impact on the diameter and
integrity of the adjacent inclusions.
In an extensive network, a minimum center-to-center distance of 3 (shaft) diameter lengths is

recommended for inclusions executed in situ without soil displacement, and this distance
increases to 4 diameters for inclusions executed with soil displacement. In such cases, no
specific controls are typically practiced to ensure inclusion integrity.
For a group of localized inclusions, the same minimum spacing is recommended. Should it
prove impossible to respect these recommendations, it would be necessary to verify the
integrity of inclusions already installed in the vicinity along with the absence of significant
movement in both the soil and the fresh material composing these inclusions.
Other values can also be adopted by altering the inclusion execution phasing (e.g. waiting for
material setting before executing the adjacent inclusion) and/or in planning a specific control
program (involving integrity, monitoring of the platform or inclusion head lifting).
For some applications, these minimum spacing distances may be neglected if non-
displacement techniques are used to, for example, install secant inclusion walls by means of
soil mixing, jet grouting or bored inclusion approaches, etc.
Remark: This minimum spacing criterion may influence the footing size and
therefore must be taken into account as of the design phase.
3.10.3.2. Maximum mesh size
The maximum mesh size cannot exceed:

± For an inclusion head or pile cap diameter of less than 0.5 m: 3 m or a 9 m2 cross-section;
± For any larger diameter: 6 times the inclusion head diameter.
For the special case of inclusions underneath an embankment supporting a pavement, the
clear span of pile caps or inclusion heads, as calculated along the diagonal for square or
rectangular meshes, must not exceed twice the embankment height (Fig. 7.1).

Figure 7.1: Platform thickness criterion vs. type of mesh.
Remark: This criterion may be extended to the case of medium to stiff soils (e.g. a
total expected settlement on natural ground of less than 5% of the embankment
height).
The use of reinforcements (geosynthetics, steel fabric mat) acting in tension may serve to
increase this spacing or reduce the pile cap diameter, provided justification of the differential
settlements.
3.10.4. Number, minimum distances and installation offset of inclusions
3.10.4.1. Inclusions underneath a ground slab or raft
When placed under distributed loads, inclusions are installed at their theoretical axis. The
tolerated axis offset is less than or equal to 20 cm in distance and 2% in inclination.

At the border of the structure, it is necessary to lay out a row of inclusions around the edge of
the ground slab if it has become separated from the peripheral grade beam. The axis of this
row must remain at a distance from the ground slab edge of no more than one-fourth of the
spacing.
3.10.4.2. Inclusions underneath footings
3.10.4.2.1. General principles
As a general rule, it is imposed that inclusions are laid out on at least two parallel axes, i.e.:
± Along the x-axis once Mx/Q > B/6;
± Along the y-axis once My/Q > L/6.
Figure 7.2: Forces applied at the footing.
The minimum distance from the bare part of the inclusion (or pile cap, if present) to the edge
of the footing equals 15 cm, when taking into account the execution tolerance.
It is to be recalled that the design presented in Chapter 5, Section 4.2.3, entitled ³Calculation
of the transfer limit on inclusions heads at the edge of the structure´, accounts for the distance
between the bare part of the inclusion and the edge of the footing.
In the case of soils with especially low shear strength, in general it would be prudent to set an
upper overhang at the minimum value of 15 cm, in order to ensure better platform
confinement around the inclusions heads and thereby enhance inclusion efficiency.
The execution tolerance in all directions must not exceed 10 cm.
The inclination tolerance equals 2% in all cases.
3.10.4.2.2. Inclusions under isolated footings
The number of inclusions under a given footing depends on both the allowable stress and
settlement.
Remark: Within a given structure, it is entirely realistic to find some footings with
reinforced underlying soil while others resting on natural soil have been slightly
loaded. For such a situation to be authorized, settlements must remain

homogeneous (e.g. secondary frame support of sheathing on industrial hangar,
studs).
The minimum width of the isolated footings is set at:

Min (60 cm; 15 cm + inclusion diameter + platform thickness)
For footings installed on a single inclusion, the following additional conditions are imposed:
± Total vertical load on the support limited to 150 kN at the serviceability limit state (SLS)
and to 200 kN at the ultimate limit state (ULS);
± Verification that the load applied onto the support may be fully absorbed by the isolated
inclusion, assumed to be directly loaded at the head;
± Moments contributed by the structure less than the criteria announced in Section 3.10.4.2.1;
± An execution tolerance lowered to 5 cm;
± For an execution tolerance of between 5 and 10 cm, the offset of the reaction created by the
inclusion relative to the downward loads must be compensated by an offset opposite the soil
reaction under the footing. This step entails verifying that the stress being exerted on the soil
due to this offset remains acceptable (Fig. 7.3).
Figure 7.3: Soil reaction compensating for the inclusion offset.
Remark: For soil blocks laying on a network of inclusions, the installation

tolerances may be proposed and justified by the Contractor; they will then be
submitted for approval to both the Inspection Office and Project Engineer.
3.10.4.2.3. Inclusions under strip footings
The minimum width of continuous footings is set at:

Min (60 cm; 15 cm + inclusion diameter + platform thickness)
The layout pattern in staggered rows is recommended in order to avoid the consequences of
an eventual offset correlated with the execution tolerances.
3.10.4.3. Inclusions crossing a thick layer of soft soils
For all scenarios (ground slab, embankment, footings), a more extreme verticality tolerance
than that for piles (2% for piles according to the application EC7 Standard) may be imposed

upon completion of the design studies for a number of situations (longer inclusions with small
diameters and placed in soft soils) relative to the parasitic bending capable of being caused,
even under a vertical load.
4. PREPARATION OF THE INCLUSION HEAD
4.1. General principles
4.1.1. Cut-off of cement, mortar or grout inclusion
The cut-off operation refers to adjusting the level of the inclusion head. The heads of cement,
mortar or grout columns have to be set to an appropriate elevation while the material is fresh.
The inclusion head can stop on the surface of the working platform, but the elevation can also
be located below the working platform (i.e. low cut-off).
The leveling step may be performed in one of several ways, depending on an array of
parameters (e.g. depths, tolerances required, type of soils, reinforcement layer elevation,
inclusion diameter):
± Either by halting the casting operation;
± Or by manual or mechanical excavation (using valves) of inclusion material before setting;
± Or by mechanical excavation of the soil and inclusion material before setting until reaching
the specified elevation (ditching bucket);
± Or by drilling in the fresh mortar until the specified elevation.
Figure 7.4: Manual adjustment of the inclusion head elevation in fresh concrete.
If possible, a cut-off of the inclusion head at the same elevation as the platform surface is
preferred.

Remark: Stopping the casting operation or excavating below the water table is
strictly prohibited.
4.1.2. Cutting of inclusions
The cutting operation designates preparation of the inclusion head installed on the hardened
material so as to reach the intact material at the required level.
This cutting step must be carried out over at least 10 cm, in order to verify the quality of the
inclusion head material.
The earthworks contractor must exercise great vigilance when conducting works adjacent to
the inclusions, both before and after this cutting step.
Inclusion cutting typically entails:

± A hand-held jackhammer;
± Performing sawing;
± The assistance of concrete spreaders;
± Use of a chemical cutting system: after a wait time of at least 7 days to allow for setting,
this process makes it possible to excavate all at once and then remove the pieces of extra
inclusions without fearing a degradation of the inclusions already installed.
Use of hydraulic rock breakers is strictly forbidden.
It is not necessary to cut off the inclusion when the leveling technique employed yields high-
quality inclusion heads.
In the case of a low level that lies beneath the footing, the inclusion is systematically cut over
at least 10 cm as a means of verifying the quality of the material composing the head.
Figure 7.5: Chemical cut-off for the head inclusions below the raft level.

Figure 7.6: Low head inclusion elevation due to a basement excavation.
4.2. Elevation tolerance
An execution tolerance must be defined according to the type of structure and production
constraints.
In the case where the lower inclusion levels are determined with the aim of incorporating all
or part of the working platform into the load transfer platform, the following criteria must be
satisfied (Fig. 7.7):
± It is not recommended to perform this leveling beyond a depth of 30 cm in order to allow
for a high-quality compaction of the material located above the leveled surface;
± The cut-off inclusion level (including tolerance) must be positioned above the lower level of
the working platform;
± It is necessary to cut the rigid inclusions if the inclusion head elevation exceeds by more
than 5 cm the required horizontal plane, as per the design.
Figure 7.7: Execution tolerance to be taken into account on both sides of

the required design elevation level.

4.3. Execution of pile caps or ³expanded heads´
Should the design call for using pile caps or expanded heads, it would be necessary to limit
their equivalent diameter to three times the equivalent diameter of the inclusions.
These elements can be either cast in place or prefabricated. Depending on their geometry and
applied loads, they may or may not be reinforced with steel bars.
When a cast-in-place option is selected, the inclusion execution procedure must incorporate
this implementation step.
5. PLATFORM IMPLEMENTATION
In this section, the term ³load transfer platform´ refers to the embankment layer located
between the inclusion head and the structure.
The platform execution and control methodology differs depending on the type of
implementation planned underneath large-sized foundations (raft, ground slab) or else in a
localized manner under small-sized isolated foundations.
It is also possible to incorporate all or part of the working platform into the load transfer
platform under certain conditions.
In all cases, the construction specifications must be established such that:

± The minimum characteristics provided in Section 6.4 above the inclusion head are obtained
over its entire thickness;
± The introduction of compaction controls becomes feasible;
± Earthworks below the inclusion elevation are forbidden (given the major risk of shearing the
inclusions).
Figure 7.8: Implementation of a granular platform at the base of the earthworks.

5.1. Reconstitution of the working platform in the event of a low inclusion elevation
5.1.1. Untreated granular pad incorporated into the platform
The working platform must be closed above the inclusion heads by a sandy or sandy gravel
and easily-compacted material, with a surplus volume. The shear strength characteristics of
this material must be equivalent to those of the granular platform. The platform is then once
again compacted to form the base of the load transfer platform.
5.1.2. Platform treated with hydraulic binders (cement or road binder)
Except when special measures are implemented, a working platform treated with hydraulic
binders cannot be easily reworked once the inclusions have been installed; in this case, it is
preferable to refrain from incorporation into the platform and instead cut-off the inclusion at
this platform's upper level.
5.1.3. Lime-treated platform
A working platform treated with lime proves easier to rework once the inclusions have been
executed (delayed material strength increase) and, hence, easier to integrate into the load
transfer platform should its characteristics and homogeneity meet requirements. In this case, it
is essential to ensure and verify the consistency of execution tolerances for the various
operations: inclusion leveling elevation and thickness of the reprocessing step.
5.2. Location of a platform under large-sized foundations (ground slab or raft)
These construction specifications are inspired from the specifications issued for implementing
the capping layer underneath the ground slab, as intended in the DTU Technical Guideline
13.3.
It must be ensured that the platform has been well compacted and remains free from pollution
(cuttings, equipment traffic on the platform) over its entire height, especially at the base
where it is exposed to the heaviest loads above the inclusion heads.
5.3. Implementation of a platform underneath a small-sized foundation
Placement of a platform beneath a small-sized foundation is only possible provided the

excavation pit walls are stable or retained and moreover at the time of its installation, the
water table is below the earthworks base.
For very deep excavation pits, special measures need to be designed to guarantee pit stability
and human safety.
This platform may be built before or after installation of the inclusions.
In all cases, it would be necessary for the implementation methods to guarantee platform
compaction quality over its entire thickness.
The choice of a treated soil platform might, under certain conditions, lead to overcoming the
set of compaction difficulties.

The effective management of interfacing among the various project actors requires that all
execution constraints be fully understood by the Engineer as of the design stage.
Under certain conditions, it could be recommended to conduct a preliminary full-scale test.
5.3.1. Platform installation after inclusion execution
The inclusions may be installed from a high elevation platform with a low cut-off at the
theoretical platform base. This installation consists of excavating down to the inclusion head,
then installing and compacting the load transfer layer, before casting the footing (Fig. 7.9).
Figure 7.9: Platform executed after installation of the inclusions.
Figure 7.10: Preliminary mechanical Figure 7.11: Final manual earthworks

earthworks. with eventual cuts.

It sometimes proves necessary to excavate below the inclusion leveling elevation (e.g. as
required by the design or when the low soil bearing capacity limits the densification of the
load transfer layer (see Fig. 7.12)). In this case, it is necessary for the inclusions to be steel
reinforced over a sufficient height, extending a minimum of 4 times the maximum inclusion
diameter or exposed height.
Figure 7.12: Need for steel reinforcement of the upper part of the inclusion to allow for earthworks
below the inclusion heads.
5.3.2. Platform installation prior to inclusion execution
It is possible to create the excavation pit, fill it with platform material and compact the filled
pit before installing the inclusions (Fig. 7.13). The cut-off is then conducted into fresh
concrete at the required elevation.
As a next step, excavation cuts are performed to a depth 30 cm above the leveling elevation. It
is in fact not recommended to perform earthworks leveling beyond 30 cm above the point of
inclusion leveling in order to ensure a high-quality compaction of both the material and the
footprint.
The earthwork leveling is once again compacted prior to implementation of the potential
additional platform and concreting of the footing.

Figure 7.13: Platform set-up prior to inclusion production.
5.4. Minimum characteristics of the material used as a platform
5.4.1. Untreated materials
Shear strength characteristics are critical in the presence of rigid inclusions. It is preferable to
implement a high friction angle material.
Shear strength characteristics are, in general, justified either by a testing campaign dedicated
to the project or by tests reported on the product fact sheet or in reference to a database.
Remark: The shear strength values to be taken into account are those
corresponding to the level of compaction potentially obtained on the project site.
5.4.1.1. Underneath the ground slab, raft, embankment or pavement
The following materials are eligible for use, according to the DTU Technical Guideline 13.3
on Ground slabs (Section A.2.2.1.1).
Table 7.2: Materials eligible for use in capping layers (DTU Guideline 13.3).
Soil classification according to Classification symbol according to the Technical

Standard NF P 11-300 guide for embankment and subgrade construction
(GTR 92)
Sandy and gravelly soils with non-clayey B11, B31
fines and coarse elements
Soils containing non-clayey fines and C1B1, C1B3, C2B1, C2B3, C1B4, C2B4
coarse elements after elimination of the 0/d fine fraction
Water-insensitive soils D1, D2, D3 (except for D32)
Chalks R11
Miscellaneous limestone blocks R21, R22
Siliceous rocks R41, R42
Igneous and metamorphic rocks R61, R62

Shear strength characteristics are determined by means of testing; otherwise, reference is
made to Standard NF P 94 270 (Reinforced embankments and nailed soil walls), in which the
friction angle varies between 30° and 36° depending on the particle size distribution criteria
set forth in Standard NF EN 14475 (³Reinforced embankments´ execution standard).
Moreover, higher shear strength values, identical to those of the platform under the footings,
may be adopted provided they are associated with the material and degree of compaction
defined in Section 6.4.1.2 for footings.
The minimum characteristics and means of control are those listed in Table 7.3, which has
been extracted from the Earthworks guide for building platforms and industrial facilities in
the presence of water-sensitive soils (2009).
Table 7.3: Minimum characteristics and means of control.

Minimum required values (corresponding to a platform quality grade PF2)
Tests Standards Values Reference

Static loading Plate NF P 94-117.1
Dyna-plate NF P 94-117.2
Dynamic EV2 03D GTR Guide
Load-bearing
loading
capacity meter
Static loading Westergaard NF P 94-117.3 Kw 03DPHWHU DTU 13.3
d 0 mm
(granular subgrade
Deflection Benkelman Catalogue of
layer)
under a 13- Beam or pavement
NF P 98-200 d PP
ton axle deflectograph structures
(treated subgrade
layer)
Remark: In the case of hydraulic binder-treated layers, the deflection

measurement is more relevant than the plate test.
5.4.1.2. Underneath footings
The materials available to compose the platform underneath a footing are the same for ground
slab production, with the exclusion of chalk, the B11 materials and fine-grained materials
treated exclusively with lime.
The shear strength characteristics are justified by tests either specific to the project or reported
in the product fact sheet or in reference to a database.
In the absence of shearing tests, it may be possible to consider a 40° friction angle for crushed
materials and 38° for rounded materials, provided the distribution layer is composed of a
thickness well adapted to the supporting soil quality, with the following minimum
characteristics:
± Class D1, D2, D3 or R (except for chalk), depending on the GTR92 guide (or NFP 11-300
standard);
± With LA < 35, MD < 30, and LA + MD < 60;

Remark: LA: Los Angeles test, Standard NF EN 1097 2; MD: Micro-Deval test,
Standard NF EN 1097 1
± Compacted to at least 95% of the OMP (Optimum density of Modified Proctor compaction
test).
In terms of compaction, a minimum of 95% OMP is recommended in all cases.
5.4.2. Treated materials
The strength of treated materials must be compatible with the loading transmitted in the
platform.
An assessment of the treatment ability must be conducted according to Standard NF P 94 100.
Remark: The cohesion durability assumed in the design calculations must be

guaranteed throughout the structural life cycle.
5.5. Minimum thickness
The minimum thickness is set equal to 40 cm under a raft or ground slab, and at 30 cm under
a footing. This thickness must be raised should it fail to meet the compactness criteria sought
at the layer bottom.
5.6. Platform overhang in the presence of footings
A minimum platform overhang relative to the space occupied by the footing is necessary in
order to ensure platform compaction quality over its entire thickness underneath the footing.
This overhang is greater than or equal to half the platform thickness, with a 30-cm minimum.
5.7. Eventual incorporation of a reinforcement layer
5.7.1. General remarks
The load transfer platform may be reinforced by installing one or more geosynthetic layers or
a steel fabric mat.
The reinforcement layers and their positioning must be chosen on the basis of the type of
product, the component materials (i.e. type of polymers for geosynthetics), their mechanical
or design characteristics, their evolution over time and the physicochemical aggressiveness of
the contact soil or water.
The set of specifications relative to the reinforcement layers are the same as those listed in
Standard NF P 94 270: ³Retaining structures, reinforced embankments and nailed soil
blocks´, as complemented by the following considerations:
± The specifications focusing on geosynthetics and the interaction with embankments must be
indicated in accordance with Standard NF EN 13251: ³Geotextiles and geotextile-related
products-Characteristics required for use in earthworks, foundations and retaining structures´;

± Within the scope of the EC Marking campaign, and in compliance with Standard NF EN
13251, the adopted characteristics must be expressed by the material producer in the form of
an average value and the corresponding tolerance value(s) at the 95% confidence level.
Durability-related information must be provided in accordance with the directives set forth in
Appendix B (normative) of Standard NF EN 13251.
5.7.1.1. Types of geosynthetics
The geosynthetics applied in these contexts may be:

± Reinforcement geotextiles, either woven or knitted, ideally placed at the base of the load
transfer platform or embankment;
± Or reinforcement geogrids, preferably placed in the thickness of the load transfer platform
granular layer.
A reinforcement geogrid might also be installed on the load transfer platform base, at the
interface with the supporting soil, yet it would be necessary to combine the eventual geogrid
with a separation geotextile in order to avoid contaminating the granular layer by the fine-
grained soil.
5.7.1.2. Component material
The component polymer must be compatible in durability terms with the embankment
material. The polymers used to produce embankment reinforcements are mainly polyester (or
polyethylene terephthalate, PET), polypropylene (PP), along with other polymers like
polyaramide (pAR) and polyvinyl alcohol (PVA).
These polymeric components are chosen depending on the chemical characteristics of the
materials (pH, etc.) in contact with the reinforcement, including water when applicable.
The minimum requirements have been defined in Standard NF EN 13251.
5.7.1.3. Required characteristics
The design characteristics of geosynthetics for the purpose of reinforcement are as follows:
± Its long-term tensile strength, as determined based on short-term tensile strength (as per
Standard NF EN ISO 10319, see Fig. 7.14) and on the isochronous creep curves (as per
Standard NF EN 13431, Fig. V7.15);
± Its stiffness, which most often is expressed based on tensile strength at a given level of
deformation (e.g. at 2%, 3%, 5% or 10%);
± Its interaction coefficients at the interfaces with materials in contact with the geosynthetic
reinforcement layer.

Figure 7.14: Curves derived from a tensile test conducted according to Standard NF EN ISO 10319.
Figure 7.15: Isochronous creep curves.
5.7.2. Layout drawings and installation guide
5.7.2.1. Installation and connection of the geosynthetic reinforcement layers
The general guidelines, applicable to earthen structures reinforced by geosynthetic layers,

give rise to a number of practical implementation rules, the most essential of which will be
discussed below. These rules serve to complement those previously mentioned in Standard
NF G 38060: ³General recommendations for the acceptance and implementation of
geotextiles´.

The platforms receiving the reinforcement layers must be compacted, leveled and cleared of
all angular elements or other component capable of damaging the layers (by either punching
or tearing) during the steps of their spreading, positioning and pre-tensioning.
The direct contact between the geosynthetics and inclusion heads must be avoided in order to
minimize the risks of perforation and tearing along the edges and in the corners. A level of
protection can be provided by a few-centimeter layer of fine-grained material (whether sand
or gravel) or else a punching-resistant geosynthetic material.
The reinforcement layers are spread on the platform, then cut along the length or ultimately
deployed by means of prefabricated panels. The compliance of the layer's mechanical
anisotropy with the direction of the forces the layer will be required to absorb in the structure,
is to be verified in accordance with the indications included in the execution drawings.
Figure 7.16: Layout of geosynthetic layers displaying a mechanical anisotropy under an embankment.
The geosynthetic layers must be placed so as to prevent any folds while facilitating an initial
pretensioning during embankment installation.
The circulation of construction vehicles directly on top of the geosynthetics needs to be

prohibited. An initial protective layer containing at least 20 cm of materials is necessary to
allow for the circulation of construction site vehicles or equipment.
5.7.2.2. Longitudinal overlap and end protection of the reinforcement layer
To the extent possible, reinforcement overlap in the direction of the forces to be absorbed
must be avoided.
Otherwise, the layouts that ensure reinforcement continuity between adjacent layers are
shown on the following drawings according to the justifications provided in the design
calculation.
In the case of reinforcement by two perpendicular layers on the same level, the longitudinal
overlap between two adjacent layers must be at least 30 cm.

Figure 7.17: Transverse and longitudinal overlap between geosynthetic layers under an embankment.
5.7.2.3. Anchorage elements
To prevent geosynthetic layers from sliding, especially along the outer boundary of the rigid
inclusion zone, an anchorage device should be assembled in order to absorb the forces
calculated during the design stage.
This anchorage may be produced in accordance with one of the following layouts:
x Simple anchorage (Fig. 7.18): the reinforcement layer is installed flat and extends beyond
the footprint zone for inclusions with length La, as calculated during the design stage. This
length takes into account: the tensile force to be absorbed, the characteristics of materials in
contact with the reinforcement layer, and the embankment thickness within the anchorage
zone;
Figure 7.18: Simple anchorage of the geosynthetic layer.

x Anchorage with a trench cut and cover (Fig. 7.19): A trench is cut beyond the inclusion
zone to allow anchoring the reinforcement layer with a cover;
Figure 7.19: Anchorage of the geosynthetic layer by means of a trench cut and cover method.
x Anchorage with a geosynthetic layer wrapped around (Fig. 7.20).
Figure 7.20: Anchorage of the geosynthetic layer wrapped around.

6. INTERACTION WITH THE OTHER PROJECT COMPONENTS (ROADS AND
UTILITIES, STRUCTURAL WORKS)
It is incumbent upon the Project Engineer to develop a set of procedures and specific interface
management phasing between the earthworks and rigid inclusion components, in order for the
load transfer platform covering the rigid inclusions to be completed without damaging the
inclusion heads while at the same time respecting the thickness and characteristics defined in
the rigid inclusion design.
In the case of in situ material treatment, the thicknesses of material layers are to be established
so as to avoid deteriorating the heads of rigid inclusions as construction machinery rolls on
top of these layers. In most cases, such coordination requires a certain waiting time between
installation of the rigid inclusions in a given zone and platform availability for the other
works components.
A leveling operation should be required for the lower inclusion elevations under the working
platform, and then the platform leveling operation using periodic fill and repeat compaction of
the entire platform must be conducted separately from the additional platform construction.
Special measures (undercutting, shoring, propping, inclusion integrity verifications) must be

taken into account in the event of excavation work subsequent to the inclusion installation
(passing utility lines, building pits or other works below grade).
References
FNTP, FFB, EGF-BTP, SBTF, USG, Syntec Ingénierie - Guide pour la réalisation des
terrassements des plates-IRUPHV GH EkWLPHQWV HW G¶DLUHV LQGXVWULHOOHV GDQV OH FDV GH VROV
VHQVLEOHVjO¶HDX, décembre 2009.
NF EN 1097 2 -Essais pour déterminer les caractéristiques mécaniques et physiques de
granulats - Partie 2 : Méthodes pour la détermination de la résistance à la fragmentation,
juin 2010.
NF EN 1097 1 - Essais pour déterminer les caractéristiques mécaniques et physiques des
granulats -3DUWLHGpWHUPLQDWLRQGHODUpVLVWDQFHjO¶XVXUHPLFUR-Deval), août 2011.
NF EN 1536 - Exécution des travaux géotechniques spéciaux. Pieux forés, octobre 2010.
NF EN ISO 10319 - Géosynthétiques. Essai de traction des bandes larges, août 2008.
NF EN 12699 - Exécution de travaux géotechniques spéciaux. Pieux avec refoulement de sol,
mars 2001.
NF EN 12716 - Exécution des travaux géotechniques spéciaux. Colonnes, panneaux et
structures de sol-ciment réalisés par jet, octobre 2001.
NF EN 13251 - Géotextiles et produits apparentés.&DUDFWpULVWLTXHVUHTXLVHVSRXUO¶XWLOLVDWLRQ
dans les travaux de terrassement, fondations et structures de soutènement, septembre 2001.
NF EN 13431 - Géotextiles et produits apparentés. Détermination du comportement au fluage
en traction et de la rupture au fluage en traction, novembre 2000.
NF EN 14199 - Exécution des travaux géotechniques spéciaux. Micropieux, septembre 2005.
NF EN 14475 - Exécution de travaux géotechniques spéciaux. Remblais renforcés, janvier
2007.

NF EN 14679 - Exécution de travaux géotechniques spéciaux. Colonnes de sol traité. Version
corrigée, septembre 2005.
NF G 38060 - Textiles. Articles à usages industriels. 5HFRPPDQGDWLRQV SRXU O¶HPSORL GHV
géotH[WLOHVHWSURGXLWVDSSDUHQWpV0LVHHQ°XYUH6SpFLILcations. Contrôle des géotextiles
et produits apparentés, juin 1994.
NF P 11-300 - Exécution des terrassements. Classification des matériaux utilisables dans la
FRQVWUXFWLRQ GHV UHPEODLV HW GHV FRXFKHV GH IRUPH G¶LQIUDVWUXFWXUHV URXWLqUHV, septembre
1992.
NF P 94-100 - Sols : reconnaissance et essais. Matériaux traités à la chaux et/ou aux liants
hydrauliques.(VVDLG¶pYDOXDWLRQGHO¶DSWLWXGHG¶XQVRODXWUDLWHPHQW, août 1999.
NF P 94-262 - Justification des ouvrages géotechniques. 1RUPHV G¶DSSOLFDWLRQ QDWLonale de
O¶Eurocode 7. Fondations profondes, mai 2011.
NF P 94-270 - Calcul géotechnique. Ouvrages de soutènement. Remblais renforcés et massifs
en sol cloué, juillet 2009.

CHAPTER 8
Controls and instrumentation
1. INTRODUCTION
In order to guarantee high structural quality, and in accordance with the NF P94-500 Standard
on geotechnical project missions, it is necessary for all geotechnical structures (embankments,
inclusions, load transfer platforms, reinforcement layers, earthworks, foundation structures,
etc.) to respect the following steps:
± Definition by the prime contractor of project-specific criteria: allowable settlements, load
intensity, task scheduling, etc.;
± Execution by a certified Engineer of the (G2) draft geotechnical design, and (G4)
geotechnical works supervision;
± Achievement of the works by a qualified contractor, assigned the (G3) geotechnical works
planning and monitoring;
± Execution of a technical control mission with the aim of contributing to risk prevention,
assigned to a body certified by the competent administrative authority.
Moreover, soil reinforcements, like any other technique related to geotechnical works, require
effective works execution supervision, monitoring and maintenance according to the
prescriptions set forth in Eurocode 7, Section 4.
The tests and controls pertaining to soil reinforcement works through the introduction of rigid
inclusions encompass all or some of the following tests:
±Static loading tests on an isolated inclusion, which may be either failure loading tests or
load-bearing capacity and deformation tests;
± Static loading tests on a group of inclusions;
± Information tests;
± Shaft integrity controls;
± Implementation controls;
± Load transfer platform controls;
± Geotextile or geogrid controls.
2. STATIC LOADING TESTS ON AN ISOLATED INCLUSION IN COMPRESSION
These tests are to be conducted in accordance with the NF P 94-150 Standard, as

complemented by the set of protocols defined hereafter.
2.1. Failure loading tests
This round of tests is not to be performed systematically. When run, these tests feature
objectives in numbers that are:
± Either set by the Engineer,
± Or determined by the contractor.
This type of test is intended to:

± Validate the set of design parameters that define the rupture load;
Controls and instrumentation 293

± And ultimately optimize the project relative to:
- actual soil characteristics,
- and/or the specific technique employed.
Each of these tests is carried out on a single inclusion not incorporated into the structure:
± The number of tests is defined based on the various geotechnical zones previously identified
on the given project;
± The minimum test load must be determined on the basis of both the assumed inclusion
geometry (diameter, length, material strength) and geotechnical parameters; this load is
derived from terms specific to the tip Rb and the shaft friction Rs, as evaluated depending on
the use profile;
± The characteristic load-bearing values (Rb;k and Rs;kDUHGHGXFHGIURPFRHIILFLHQWVȟ1 and
ȟ2, as defined in Eurocode 7 with respect to the number of such tests;
± The material strength of these inclusions, which has been taken into account to determine
the actual test load, must be high enough when conducting the test.
Remark:
Let¶s highlight that upon conducting these tests, no negative skin friction is
mobilized.
In some cases, it may be beneficial to distinguish the tip term Rb from the shaft
friction term Rs. It then becomes necessary to either install dedicated inclusion
instrumentation or else place several inclusions of various lengths (see Fig. 8.1).
Figure 8.1: Results of loading tests conducted on inclusions of various lengths (Chelles experiment).
2.2. Load-bearing and deformation control tests
This test is carried out on an inclusion that may be integrated into the structure.
Such a test serves to identify both the settlement vs. load curve and the creep load of the
inclusion.
From a practical perspective, the machine producing the inclusions can also perform the
function of reaction block. For project sites lasting no longer than 1 week, the inclusions
intended for testing would need to be made from a material with admixtures that enable
accelerating its strength.

2.2.1. Test load value
2.2.1.1. Design load
The design load Qmax equals the maximum load inside the inclusion at the level of the neutral
plane in a serviceability limit state (SLS) situation. This load is the sum of the head load Q
and negative skin friction (FN) from the inclusion head to the neutral plane (Fig. 8.2).
Figure 8.2: Distribution of forces in the inclusion by taking into account the negative skin friction and
neutral plane position.
2.2.1.2. Case where the inclusions only serve to reduce settlement (Domain 2)
Generally speaking, these cases pertain to ground slabs, rafts or embankments, or else to
footings whose stability at the ultimate limit state (ULS) is provided without requiring an
inclusion.
The test load equals the design load Qmax increased by the negative skin friction FN.
A test conducted using this maximum load is called a ³quality test´.

2.2.1.3. Case where inclusions provide structural stability at the ULS (Domain 1)
These cases generally pertain to footings whose stability at the ULS cannot be ensured
without introducing an inclusion.
The test load is equal to: Dq u Q + 2 DFN FN, where Dq = 1.5 and DFN = 1.5.
(with Q being the load at the inclusion head).
A test performed with this maximum load is called a ³load-bearing capacity test´.
2.2.1.4. Value of FN
FN is evaluated via the following relation: qs x inclusion perimeter x neutral plane depth.
± qs must be the highest value per layer from among:
± The maximum positive skin friction value expected for this type of inclusion depending on
the type and composition of the soil being crossed;
± The maximum negative skin friction value output by the computation model;
± The value obtained by the test defined in Section 2.2.2.
Remark: To interpret the value derived for FN, another solution consists of
neutralizing the shaft friction above the neutral point during the test.
2.2.2. Estimation of friction in soft soil
A compression test on a ³short´ inclusion conducted over the height of the soft soil layer
serves to estimate the skin friction value within this layer.
Remark: The inclusion length is typically equal to the depth of the neutral point.
According to this configuration, the contribution of the tip effect is small, which
justifies the compression test for its ease of implementation.
2.2.3. Test frequency
Loading tests are mandatory.
It is acceptable to opt not to conduct loading tests for small-sized projects (with a total
cumulative length of less than 2,000 lm for instance).
In this case, the geotechnical type verifications (GEO) are carried out with an additional
reduction factor of 1.5. This factor is applied to the characteristic values of tip resistance and
shaft friction below the neutral plane.
This point addresses the verifications described in the following sections of Chapter 5:
± 1.1.3: Alternative verification of bearing capacity SLS;
± 1.2: Ultimate limit state ULS;
± 4.1: Inclusion behavior.
Remark: A similar reduction factor of 1.5 related to material strength is already

included in the k3 coefficient values given in Table 5.2 when no static loading test
is performed.

The frequency of these tests is set according to the prescriptions listed in Table 8.1, with at
least 2 tests per independent structure and/or per designated homogeneous geotechnical zone.
Table 8.1: Testing frequency.
Number of inclusions Frequency of tests on inclusions Frequency of tests on inclusions

required for load-bearing not required for load-bearing
capacity at the ULS capacity at the ULS
(Domain 1) (e.g. case of settlement
reduction)
(Domain 2)
Between 1 and 600 1 per group of 75 1 per group of 150
Between 601 and 2,000 1 per additional group of 150 1 per additional group of 300
Beyond inclusion number
1 per additional group of 250 1 per additional group of 500
2,001
Remark: Each individual group corresponds to a homogeneous geotechnical

zone.
2.2.3.1.Example
Below is an example of a structure containing 1,100 inclusions uniquely devoted to settlement

reduction, with 800 inclusions required for the load-bearing capacity at the ULS:
± Domain 2: settlement reduction: 1,100 inclusions, 6 tests:
4 until reaching 600, then 2 from 601 to 2,000, i.e. for 6 tests in all;
± Domain 1: load-bearing capacity: 800 inclusions, 10 tests:
8 until reaching 600, then 2 from 601 to 800, i.e. for a total of 10 tests.
2.2.4. Test procedure
An initial loading cycle is introduced with a load equal to 10% of the test load and being
maintained for a period of 15 minutes. After unloading, the maximum test load is reached by
increments of 20%, thus proceeding in five steps. Settlements are measured using at least 3
measurement points, distributed evenly over the plate installed on the inclusion head, at the
following 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 stages.
Over the course of the loading stages, it is authorized to proceed to the next stage provided
displacement remains less than 0.02 mm/min on at least two consecutive measurements, with
a minimum 15-minute interval. Otherwise, the entire stage, i.e. 1 hour, must be allocated.
A prediction of the loading curve is to be furnished as part of the execution study, using the
same computation models as those applied to the project design, yet in accounting for positive
skin friction (as estimated in Section 2.2.2) from the top of the inclusion and in considering
the case of an isolated inclusion.
The results of these tests must then be compared with this prediction:
± Test results are deemed satisfactory if the measured settlements do not exceed the
theoretical settlement by more than 20%. Otherwise, the results would have to be examined in
coordination with the Engineer¶s mission;

± If settlements are found to be significantly less, the eventual impact on structural design
parameters should be assessed.
3. INFORMATION TESTS
Information tests are conducted before the ³general site´ production adjacent to representative
boreholes of each zone considered to be ³homogeneous´ from a geomechanical perspective.
These tests are to be completed and compared with results obtained from tests carried out
when producing the inclusions.
These information tests are intended to:

± Verify that the anticipated depths as well as the geometric characteristics are feasible using
the designated equipment;
± Adjust inclusion length whenever possible to identify the anchorage layer;
± Control for material consistency (concrete or mortar), whether delivered or produced onsite.
The inclusions developed during these tests become an integral part of the project soil
improvement steps. With the project Engineer's approval, other information tests may be
undertaken in order to establish correlations between the various project zones, should their
importance be considered necessary.
These tests are also intended to determine the execution and concreting parameters for
inclusions, on an as needed basis. Information tests are to be customized for each individual
mode of inclusion execution, which will be discussed in detail below.
Remark: It is highly recommended to perform these tests in the presence of both

the Engineer¶s representative and the soil engineering consultant.
If such is not the case and should an anomaly appear when conducting these
information tests (e.g. noncompliant soil strength values, inclusion either too short
or too long relative to the boreholes, considerable loss of concrete), the Project
Owner, Project Engineer and geotechnical specialist (soil engineering firm) must
be immediately notified in order to issue a ruling on the adaptation or
optimization of the geotechnical structure proposed by the developer.
Moreover, these tests must be written up in a report by the project developer, with
distribution to all project actors as expeditiously as possible.
3.1. Inclusion-driving method
This technique pertains to either metal or prefabricated concrete inclusions directly driven or
to inclusions made of concrete cast inside a driven closed steel tube.
During inclusion installation, a pile-driving test sheet is established, consisting of:

± Inclusion identification number and type;
± Date and time of the beginning and end of the driving operation;
± Type of drop hammer used (single-acting, double-acting, diesel, etc.);
± Weight of the striking mass and the mass being struck (e.g. rigid inclusion, follower pile,
pile helmet), as well as the driving energy;

± The number of hammer strikes necessary in order for the inclusion to penetrate a given
length, typically 10 cm. This reading is taken over the entire penetration length in the soil by
indicating the height(s) the hammer drops or the driving energy;
± Elastic refusal at the end of the driving operation;
± Refusal during the final three rounds of 10 strikes of the drop hammer;
± Any incidents during the driving operation (obstacles interfering with penetration,
displacements of neighboring inclusion heads, interruptions to the driving process, etc.);
± The concrete volumes ultimately introduced (for the inclusions cast in place).
From this test sheet, the driving plot can be derived as follows (Fig. 8.3).
Figure 8.3: Example of an inclusion-driving plot.
In the case of a driven tube, keep in mind that the tube's base is composed of either a lost plate
or a valve.
In the case of concrete inclusions implemented inside a casing, both the driving curve and
concreting curve need to be provided for each test. Any eventual loss of concrete must be
reported. The tube lifting (extraction) speed would also need to be indicated.
3.2. Boring with or without soil displacement
The boreholes are monitored and described in borehole data sheets.
Whenever the drilling technique so allows, a detailed soil cross-section must be established by
specifying, to the extent possible, the color, type texture, odor and humidity of the soil in
order to verify whether the soils being crossed are in fact those described by the surveying
campaign.
Alternatively, a continuous parameter recording is produced so as to offer the opportunity to

generate a summary geotechnical cross-section, in addition to ensuring that the required
inclusion embedment is achieved. These parameters shall be displayed in real time during
execution of the inclusion.
Moreover, should drilling be of the ³simple´ type (see section on the modes of inclusion
execution), then it would be necessary to ensure excavation wall stability prior to the
concreting step.

During concreting, the injection pressure (should the technique so allow), the volume of
concrete set into place and the pumping rate need to be specified. Any overconsumption or
under-consumption and eventual loss of concrete must also be notified.
During execution of the borehole, an execution fact sheet is produced (Fig. 8.4), detailing:
± Identification number and type of pile;
± Date and time of the beginning and end of the drilling operation;
± Characteristics of the various boring tools employed (drill bit, valve, hammer grab, auger,
etc.), along with the eventual associated casing;
± Drilling parameter recording curves, should the technique implemented yield such curves,
which if available are to be completed with any observation entry aiding the step of
identifying the crossed layers (i.e. indices collected during execution);
± Description of characteristic samples for each soil layer crossed, as the technique allows;
± Any boring-related incidents (rockslides, cavities, accidental loss of drilling fluid, water
inflow/seepage, etc.);
± Concreting curve (Fig. 8.5) should the technique so allow, or else concreting parameter
recordings.
Figure 8.4: Example of curves recording drilling and concreting parameters.

Figure 8.5: Example of concreting curve (when the technique so allows).
3.3. Driven inclusions
The driving step may be carried out by either a jacking + rotation combination or else jacking
+ vibration.
This step provides a series of driving parameters (penetration speed, pressure on the driving
tool, turning torque or vibrational frequency) and concreting parameters (tube extraction
speed, volume of concrete placed, pumping rate and diameter calculated based on
incorporated volume).
Any eventual anomaly in concrete consumption must be specified.
During inclusion installation, an execution data sheet is established that features:

± Identification number and type of inclusion;
± Date and time of the beginning and end of the driving operation;
± Characteristics of the various tools used and the casings;
± Any drilling incidents (rockslides, cavities, accidental loss of drilling fluid, water
inflow/seepage, etc.);
± The volumes of concrete placed.
3.4. Vibro-driven inclusions
The purpose is to output the set of vibro-driving parameters (penetration speed, pressure on
the testing tool, vibrational frequency) and concreting parameters (speed of tube extraction,
volume of concrete placed, pumping rate, diameter calculated based on incorporated volume).
Any eventual anomaly in concrete consumption upon execution must be indicated, along with
any eventual incidents on the fresh concrete of neighboring inclusions.
During inclusion production, an execution fact sheet is generated, covering the following:
± Identification number and type of inclusion;

± Date and time of the beginning and end of the vibro-driving operation;
± Curves presenting recordings of vibro-driving parameters, as permitted by the technique.
These curves are complemented by any observation aiding the identification of layers crossed
(indices collected during execution),
± Characteristics of the various tools implemented and the casings;
± Any incidents (sinkholes, water inflow/seepage, premature refusal, etc.);
± The volume of concrete placed.
4. SHAFT CONTROL TESTS
4.1. Structural integrity
Verification of the structural integrity of a concrete inclusion consists of conducting a test

involving reflection or impedance.
These tests are mandatory.
The only exception is dedicated to the ³Domain 2´ inclusions on operations of more minor
importance (e.g. threshold on the order of 2000 linear meters).
These tests are conducted according to the NF P 94-160-2 Standard (reflection-based method)
and the NF P 94-160-4 Standard (impedance method).
7KHIUHTXHQF\SUDFWLFHGIRUWKLVWHVWLQJFDPSDLJQHTXDOVIRULQFOXVLRQVIURP³'RPDLQ
´ ZLWK D PLQLPXP RI LQFOXVLRQV ZKHUHDV WKLV IUHTXHQF\ FKDQJHV WR IRU LQFOXVLRQV
IURP³'RPDLQ´ZLWKDPLQLPXPRI
Remark: These tests are not considered as ³reinforcement control´ from the
standpoint of the National Application Standard of Eurocode 7 (NFP 94-262:
Deep foundations).
4.2. Diameter (isolated inclusion / inclusion group)
Inclusion diameter verification, when the inclusion has been cast in place, must be
systematically performed upon the initiation of each project at a rate of 1 inspection per group
of 500 inclusions or 5,000 linear meters placed.
The inclusion is executed in the immediate vicinity of the project footprint. Once the concrete
has been set, the inclusion is released over its maximum possible height and then ultimately
extracted over this same height. Its diameter or circumference is then measured and any
variation in diameter or circumference requires a specific analysis.
Remark: A variation in diameter or circumference may be due to:

± The execution method, causing excessive soil disturbance;
± A pumping pressure either too strong or too weak;
± A soil either too stiff or too soft;
± Hydrogeological conditions.
Level by level, these variations in diameter or circumference must be taken into
account in the design, for increases in excess of 30% or for any kind of decrease
(Fig. 8.6).

Figure 8.6: Incorporation of the variations observed in the measured diameter.
4.2.1. Inclusions with nominal diameter equal to that of the tool
Without controlling for the inclusion diameter, a reduction coefficient applied to the tool
diameter equals 1.10.
4.2.2. Other cases
Under this heading would fall for example: inclusions executed using the footprint of a
vibrator equipped with an airlock (stone column with grout injection, inclusion of the Vibro
Concrete Column type), hammered inclusions, and/or jet grouting.
Without controlling the diameter, the nominal diameter will be limited to the tool diameter
increased by at most 10%, except in the case of jet grouting.
In these cases of jet grouting, it is necessary to verify the actual diameters obtained.
4.3. Mechanical characteristics of the component material
4.3.1. Compressive strength tests
The mechanical characteristics of the component material of inclusions can be verified by

compressive strength tests at both 7 and 28 days, with a minimum of:
± 1 sampling (6 specimens) every 100 m3 of material placed;
± 1 sampling (6 specimens) every 3 days;
± 2 samplings (12 specimens) per jobsite.
For some techniques (jet grouting, soil mixing), these samplings may be performed at the
column head upon completion of the execution step.

4.3.2. Material consistency tests
Concrete should be supplied by a truck mixer. The contractor would perform at least two
fresh concrete slump tests on each delivery truck batch (one test prior to placement, a second
one during the placement step).
In the case of concrete supply using an onsite mixing plant, concrete slump tests will be
conducted at a rate of one test per each batch of 10 m3 produced.
4.3.3. Inclusion head quality
When the leveling technique employed allows guaranteeing a high-quality inclusion head
along with an acceptable degree of precision, the cutting-off step is no longer necessary and a
simple visual inspection proves sufficient.
5. CONTROL OVER INCLUSION IMPLEMENTATION AND ELEVATION

(BOTH DURING AND AFTER EXECUTION)
The controls required during execution, as performed by the contractor as part of an internal
control protocol, cover all inclusions on the project site.
These controls pertain to inclusion implementation and give rise to a ³layout of executed
inclusions´ to be transmitted to the Project Engineer. This layout document precisely
indicates all inclusions deliberately executed beyond the allowed tolerances (due to
encountering obstacles, added or removed inclusions).
For inclusions located under a structural footing, the systematic acceptance of both the
number and position of these inclusions is carried out by the subsequent works specialty
(earthworks and/or structural engineering) based on this ³layout of executed inclusions´. The
acceptance step is recorded in a report that must then be transmitted to the Project Engineer
for validation.
As long as execution deviations remain less than the implementation tolerances defined in
Chapter 7, then it shall be considered that these deviations exert no impact on the behavior of
the structure lying on top of the inclusions.
With regard to execution deviations exceeding implementation tolerances, it must be verified

that the structure is able to absorb the additional induced forces.
5.1. Under a footing
For inclusions executed with a cutting-off, the upper leveling of the inclusions before cutting-
off must be systematically recorded so as to avoid breaking when conducting earthworks and,
moreover, must at least reach the theoretical leveling elevation increased by 20 cm (to ensure
material quality at the final cutting-off elevation).
Remark: These upper leveling elevations before the cutting-off have been
indicated on the as-built drawing forwarded to the Project Engineer for input into
the subsequent earthworks design.

The elevation readings after the cutting-off, along with inclusion implementation, must be
systematically controlled.
5.2. Under the ground slab, raft and embankment
In the case of a low leveling elevation, the elevation readings following the ultimate cutting-
off step and inclusion implementation must also be systematically controlled.
In these cases, it must be verified that the leveling surface does not extend below the base of
the working platform.
6. QUALITY AND THICKNESS CONTROL OF THE LOAD TRANSFER

PLATFORM
6.1. Thickness
Each of the contractors and subcontractors involved on a project site must provide a set of as-
built drawings with elevation readings for the project structures, in accordance with the firm's
execution monitoring requirement. The reconciliation of these level recordings with the
design parameters is performed by the Project Engineer as part of the assigned task of
providing geotechnical supervision services for project execution.
Total thickness must be verified at least by means of simple comparison between the leveling
of the working platform performed after reprofiling (see Chapter 7) and the leveling
introduced following execution of the transfer platform. To control the load transfer platform
thickness above the inclusion heads, the leveling of inclusion heads after an eventual cutting-
off step must also be taken into account.
The leveling measurement frequencies are defined in the works contract documents. As a
default value, the following recommendations have been issued:
± For extended structures (e.g. raft, ground slab, embankment):
- a minimum of 3 points,
- a leveling point, at a rate of:
- 1 every 400 m², until reaching a surface area of 2,000 m2,
- 1 every 1,000 m² beyond the 2,000 m² threshold;
± Under a footing:
- 1 leveling point in alignment with each footing.
Remark: In the case of inclusions executed by soil displacement within a

saturated clayey soil with a dense mesh pattern, it would be necessary to control
the eventual lifting of the working platform before building the load transfer
platform.
6.2. Quality
Load transfer platform quality must be controlled in alignment with the inclusion as well as in
between inclusions. The load transfer platform material must be the target of identification
and compaction controls.

6.2.1. Identification tests
The identification tests to be carried out pertain to the following parameters:

± Material origin;
± Material classification, as intended by the GTR92 guideline (NF P 11-300);
± Particle size distribution curve;
± Hardness characteristics: LA, MDE and LA+MDE;
± Shear strength tests (c, I).
Remark: For the case of natural gravel of the D1, D2, D3 and R types, shearing strength tests
may be waived, with values adopted from Section 6.4.1 of Chapter 7.
6.2.2. Compaction control
³Road´ type tests are recommended; these feature: density measurements (to be compared
with the Modified Proctor optimum density), plate bearing tests, CBR or IPI.
Remark: The minimum values (EV2 and/or density) targeted are those defined in
the chapter on Execution (Chapter 7) or else those defined in the design, should
they be more stringent.
Should the load transfer platform thickness exceed 80 cm, then the pressuremeter or static
penetrometer may be used to control compaction.
Both the type and number of tests must be set forth in the project contract. The contents of the
subsequent sections are intended as an aid when drafting works contracts.
6.2.2.1. Under structures with distributed loads (slab, raft, embankment or pavement)
LCPC type Plate bearing tests (Standard NF P 94 117-1 to -3) are preferred for this
application.
The number of such tests is specified in reference to the rules specific to the given structure
(DTU 13.3, GTR documents).
As a default frequency, the following value is recommended: the minimum number is set
equal to 3 tests, plus 1 additional test for every 2,000 m2.
6.2.2.2. Under the footing
When access conditions on the upper part of the load transfer platform complicate running
plate tests, then density tests are to be favored; testing frequency: 1 for every 10 footings
(with a minimum of 5 per project site).
These density tests must be correlated with the set of tests conducted in alignment with the
plate tests.

7. ADDITIVES FROM THE FAMILY OF GEOSYNTHETICS
A geosynthetic control needs to be undertaken in compliance with both the NF G 38060

Standard and the CEN/TR 15019 recommendation document entitled: Geotextiles and related
products - Worksite controls.
7.1. General remarks
These controls must place priority attention on:

Products delivered to the worksite;
± Assessment of the compliance of load transfer platform materials with standards adopted for
the reinforcement design regarding the risks of geosynthetic damage and durability;
± Verification of handling and storage conditions, which must comply with supplier
recommendations;
± Verification of reinforcement implementation. Product positioning must be compliant with
the layout and supplier recommendations. More specifically, the orientation, direction of
installation and overlaps or junctions must be verified along with the anchorage devices.
7.2. Control upon acceptance of the products delivered to the worksite
This control step is intended to verify the compliance of characteristics for delivered products
with the set of detailed specifications. This step comprises a verification in comparison with
the "product" fact sheet (control of labeling, reinforcement layer marking); this procedure
applies to all batches delivered.
Remark: The supplier must allow the user to identify geotextiles or related
products and provide compliance with requirements set forth in the EN ISO
10320 Standard entitled: Geotextiles and related products - Onsite identification.
7.3. Control of product characteristics after implementation
Product characteristics following implementation can be controlled in the form of a test board,
intended to determine actual damage subsequent to works execution (see the NF P 94-270
Standard).
8. ADDITIVES LIKE METAL LATTICEWORK
Metal latticework is controlled in accordance with the NF P 94-270 Standard relative to

reinforced embankments.
9. INSTRUMENTATION
The results of monitoring measurements must always be evaluated and interpreted; moreover,
such a step normally proceeds in quantitative terms.
This section contains a few fundamental rules for instrumenting a structure on a soil
reinforced by rigid inclusions. These rules are based on experience acquired during the
instrumentation of two full-scale experimentations and several actual structures executed as
part of the ASIRI national project (Fig. 8.7).

The instrumentation-based control of a structure built on a soil reinforced by rigid inclusions
may be performed prior to the actual structural works on a prebuilt block or else directly on
the structure itself. The instruments must be adapted to the given structure, e.g. embankment
or reservoir. Sensors are to be positioned in representative zones, e.g. under the core and at
the foot of the slope for an embankment, under the center and periphery for a reservoir
(Fig. 8.8).
Figure 8.7: Depiction of instrumented structures within the scope of the ASIRI national project.

The type of sensors introduced must be adapted to the settlement being measured, which
tends to be quite small. The sensors used to monitor embankment settlements on soft soils
(settlement balls, settlement plates, etc.) may prove unsuitable due to both their level of
accuracy and their size.
Figure 8.8: Example of sensor implementation.
For a preliminary test block, the number of rigid inclusions must be high enough to ensure
that the measurement is not adversely affected by edge effects:
± In a rectangular mesh configuration for example, sixteen inclusions yield a measurement of
the central mesh under satisfactory conditions (Fig. 8.9a);
± To measure the amount of load transferred onto an inclusion, a 9-inclusion test block would
be sufficient (Fig. 8.9b).
Figure 8.9: Sensor implementation zone determined as a function of the intended result:
a) mesh measurement; b) load transfer on an inclusion.
To ensure that the instrumentation remains efficient and accepted by the various project
actors, it must be designed so as to impede construction phasing as little as possible. Along
these lines, the settlement sensors embedded into the soil are preferred over settlement meter
gauges crossing the structure and capable of either slowing construction progress or being
damaged (Fig. 8.10).

Figure 8.10: a) embedded settlement sensor; b) settlement meter gauges.
Sensor size and measurement range both need to be adapted to the target structure.
The acquisition mode (automatic vs. manual) and frequency (greater over the construction
phase than during service) must take into account the execution phasing.
To protect the load transfer mechanisms from being disturbed by sensor installation, the set-
up step must be integrated within the scope of ³normal´ works phasing.
Remark: The fact of installing the sensors afterwards (e.g. inside a ditch or
excavation) may locally modify material layer properties while interfering with
measurements.
Special attention must be paid to implementing the instrumentation and conducting

earthworks in the vicinity of the sensors:
± In case of a binder-based treatment on the load transfer (mixing) platform;
± During compaction of the load transfer platform;
± During excavation of the pit or trenches.
The instrumentation must at least enable measuring the structural settlement. Other
measurements may prove pertinent as well, i.e.:
± Measurement of load transfer onto rigid inclusions;
± Pore pressure measurement in the soft soil;
± Rigid inclusion settlement measurement;
± Measurement of reinforcement layer deformation on the load transfer platform:
geosynthetics, latticework;
± Ground slab deformation measurement;
± Measurement of both lateral displacements and rigid inclusion angles of inclination at the
foot of the slope in the presence of an embankment or structural perimeter.
9.1. Settlement measurement
The settlement may be measured along the vertical and/or horizontal profiles.
9.1.1. Measurement along a vertical profile
In the case of an embankment on soft soil, it may be worthwhile to measure the vertical
profile of the settlement beginning at the substratum layer and extending to the top of the
embankment. Such a measurement may entail placing a borehole magnetic extensometer,

though its use requires embankment implementation precautions that must be taken into
consideration by the earthworks contractor.
The settlement of soft soil can also be measured using a rod extensometer. This device offers
the advantage of being buried and not interfering with implementation of the structure.
For any instrument placed into vertical boreholes, every assurance must be made that the
sealing grout exhibits a sufficiently low stiffness so as not to alter the measurements.
Reference should be made to the recommendations issued by Peignaud and Chaput (1983).
9.1.2. Measurement along a horizontal profile
For measuring horizontal profiles, the sensors introduced should be equipped with an
appropriate precision and measurement mode; moreover, they should be of a size that does
not modify the behavior of the surrounding medium.
It may be beneficial to measure horizontal profiles at the level of inclusion heads above the
load transfer platform.
Horizontal profiles can be measured either by sending probes into a casing installed ahead of
time (hydrostatic profilometer, horizontal inclinometer) or by measuring the vertical
displacement of isolated sensors laid out in a row (settlement meter gauges, pressure sensor
for the liquid level measurement - called a ³transmitter´, whose operating principle will be
explained in Section 9.1.3 - and settlement meter cells).
The primary advantage of probe-based measurements is that only the casing is lost. On the
other hand, the probe dimensions necessitate a measurement increment; the introduction of
casings requires cutting trenches, to be filled by sand in the transfer platform, which then is
capable of locally modifying the settlement.
In the case of specific structures (e.g. reservoirs), the set-up may be directly inserted into the
raft of the given structure.
This type of measurement also imposes preparing two points to serve as references on both
sides of the profile, whose monitoring must also be extended to the leveling. Lastly, the
precision of both the measurement and its position within the tube is considered
unsatisfactory whenever the expected settlements are small; in addition, the differential
settlement needs to be clearly identified between rigid inclusions and soft soil.
Remark: In light of these difficulties, the settlement measurement protocol laid

out herein may prove complicate to perform.
9.1.3. Point-specific measurements
Settlement meter gauges are inexpensive; their use however causes structural implementation
difficulties along with the need for external intervention in order to perform the
measurements.
The ball-type settlement meter cells are too cumbersome to produce a precise settlement
measurement.

Experience has shown that the use of ³transmitters´ for liquid level measurements (Fig. 8.11)
is the best adapted in terms of precision, space requirements, installation and acquisition:
± These ³transmitters´ are connected in series by means of both a hydraulic line to a reservoir,
filled with antifreeze and fastened onto a support outside the structural footprint, and an
electrical line running to the recording box;
± The reservoir ensures that the system always remains saturated and at constant load;
Each ³transmitter´ measures the pressure variation between its position and the reservoir
level;
± A reference ³transmitter´ is fastened beneath the reservoir and serves to calculate the
settlement of the other transmitters placed underneath the structure. Each ³transmitter´ is
compensated in atmospheric pressure by a capillary running along the electrical cable.
Figure 8.11: Settlement meter cells of the "transmitter" type.
This technique requires taking great precaution both in localizing the benchmark and in
installing the sensors.
Figure 8.11 presents a basic configuration for measuring horizontal profiles at the inclusion
head level and above the load transfer platform using ³transmitters´. A two-reference solution
is preferred should the project site provide a feasible layout.
9.2. Load transfer control
The load transfer operation may be measured through the use of earth pressure cells (sensors)
installed either on the rigid inclusion head, within the rigid inclusion, on the soft soil, or
above and inside the load transfer platform (Fig. 8.12).
Nonetheless, installation on the rigid inclusion head is preferable to that on soft soil, as the
pressure measurement proves to be more reliable when the sensor is placed on a rigid surface;
in this case, it is more effective to use circular sensors of the same diameter as the rigid
inclusion.
The measurement range of sensors positioned on rigid inclusions must be selected under the
hypothesis that the entire load of a mesh lies on top of the inclusion.

Figure 8.12: Position of earth pressure cells used to indicate load transfer.
In the case of inclusions fitted with prefabricated reinforcement cages, it is commonplace to

determine the load applied onto the inclusion indirectly by measuring deformation inside the
inclusion using strain gauges fastened to these cages.
On the other hand, in the case of non-reinforced rigid inclusion instrumentation, this
measurement becomes complicated by the absence of reinforcements for sensor installation.
In this latter case, stress determination within the inclusion requires knowledge of the
modulus value reached by the inclusion material on each and every measurement date.
Remark: This strategy may prove complex when the planned measurement period
is long (with a large number of specimens to be tested over time and an extended
specimen preservation mode).
9.3. Pore pressure measurement in soft soil
When this measurement is deemed pertinent, the changes in pore pressure during both the
construction and service life of the structure may be monitored by means of pore pressure
sensors introduced in the soft soil, under the water table and prior to rigid inclusion execution.
Remark: Whenever sensors are installed before inclusion execution, a precise

inclusion and sensor implementation plan is necessary in order to avoid sensor
damage.
The water table level may be controlled outside the structural footprint using either pore
pressure sensors or several piezometers.
Remark: Water table level monitoring is recommended whenever settlement

measurements are conducted.
9.4. Deformation of horizontal reinforcements
9.4.1. Geosynthetic layers
When the load transfer platform is reinforced by one or more geosynthetic layers, the layer
deformation measurement can yield useful information on how these geosynthetics contribute
to load transfer mechanisms. Conventional methods (deformation gauges, strain gauges) are
difficult to apply here due to sensor encumbrance or connection between the sensor and
geosynthetic layer.

Fiber-optic sensors inserted into geosynthetic layers are capable of measuring the point
deformations or else deformations all along the optical fiber. The use of optical fibers has
yielded excellent results in terms of precision, durability and ease of implementation,
provided a few precautions have been strictly followed during installation (ASIRI Report
2.07.1.01, 2007) (Fig. 8.13).
Figure 8.13: Geosynthetic layers equipped with optical fibers (Geodetect ®).
9.4.2. Metal latticework
As regards metal latticework, the deformation measurements derived using conventional

deformation or strain gauge-type sensors remain well adapted, yet still require following
precautions at the time of installation.
9.5. Lateral displacements and inclination of inclusions
Lateral displacements may be measured by installing vertical inclinometer boreholes in the

soil or placing inclinometers directly into the inclusions. Inclinometer sensors are able to
indicate any inclination variation in the rigid inclusions, localized at the foot of the slope or at
the periphery of the structure.
Figure 8.14: Inclinometer casing positioned at the foot of the slope.
9.6. Measurement acquisition systems
The measurement acquisition system, regardless of its type, may be either automatic or
manual depending on: measurement duration and frequency, types of sensors used, human
resources, and accessibility conditions.
In order to ensure measurement acquisition system durability, it is imperative to adopt a series
of special precautions (e.g. anti-vandalism protection).

References
ASIRI ± « Rapport d¶avancement de Chelles », 2.07.1.03, 2007.

G 38060 ± Textiles. Articles à usages industriels. Recommandations pour l¶emploi des
JpRWH[WLOHVHWSURGXLWVDSSDUHQWpV0LVHHQ°XYUH6SpFLILFDWLRQV&RQWU{OHGHVJpRWH[WLOHV
et produits apparentés, juin 1994.
NF P 94-500 - 0LVVLRQVG¶LQJpQLHULHJpRWHFKQLTXH&ODVVLILFDWLRQHWVSpFLILFDWLRQV.
NF EN 1997-1 (P 94-251-1) - Eurocode 7 Calcul géotechnique. Partie 1 : « Règles
générales ».
NF EN 1997-1/NA (P94-251-1/NA) - Eurocode 7 Calcul géotechnique. Partie 1 : « Règles
générales ». Annexe nationale à la NF EN 1997-1, 2005.
NF EN 1997-2 (P94-252) - Eurocode 7 Calcul géotechnique. Partie 2 : « Reconnaissance des
terrains et essais ».
NF P 94-150-1 - Sols : reconnaissance et essais. Essai statique de pieu sous effort axial.
Partie 1 : « En compression ».
NF P 94-150-2 - Sols : reconnaissance et essais. Essai statique de pieu sous un effort axial.
Partie 2 : « En traction ».
NF P 94-160-2 - 6ROV UHFRQQDLVVDQFH HW HVVDLV $XVFXOWDWLRQ G¶XQ pOpPHQW GH IRndation.
Partie 2 : « Méthode par réflexion ».
NF P 94-160-4 - 6ROV UHFRQQDLVVDQFH HW HVVDLV $XVFXOWDWLRQ G¶XQ pOpPHQW GH IRQGDWLRQ.
Partie 4 : « Méthode par impédanc »e.
NF P94-262 (P94-262) - Calcul géotechnique. Fondations profondes.
NF P 11-300 - Exécution des terrassements : classification des matériaux utilisables dans la
FRQVWUXFWLRQGHVUHPEODLVHWGHVFRXFKHVGHIRUPHG¶LQIUDVWUXFWXUHVURXWLqUHV.
NF P 94 117-1 - Sols : reconnaissance et essais. Déformabilité des plates-formes. Partie 1 :
« Module de déformation statique à la plaque ».
NF P 94 117-2 - Sols : reconnaissance et essais. Portance des plates-formes. Partie 2 :
« Module sous chargement dynamique ».
NF P 94 117-3 - Sols : reconnaissance et essais. Portance des plates-formes. Partie 3 :
« Coefficient de réaction de Westergaard sous chargement statique d¶une plaque ».
NF P 94-078 - Sols : reconnaissance et essais. Indice CBR après immersion ; Indice CBR
immédiat ; Indice portant immédiat. Mesure sur échantillon compacté dans le moule
CBR.
NF P 94-093 - Sols : reconnaissance et essais. Détermination des références de compactage
G¶XQPatériau. Essai Proctor normal ; Essai Proctor modifié.
NF P 11-213-1 (DTU 13-3) - Dallages. Conception, calcul et exécution. Partie 1 : « Cahier
des clauses techniques des dallages à usage industriel ou assimilés ». Homologuée mars
2005.
NF P11-213-1/A1 (DTU 13.3) - Dallages. Conception, calcul et exécution. Partie 1 : « Cahier
des clauses techniques des dallages à usage industriel ou assimilés ». Amendement
homologué mai 2007.
des clauses techniques des dallages à usage autre qu¶industriel ou assimilés ».
Homologuée mars 2005.
NF P 11-213-2/A1 (DTU 13-3) - Dallages. Conception, calcul et exécution. Partie 2 :
« Cahier des clauses techniques des dallages à usage autre qu¶industriel ou assimilés ».
Amendement homologué mai 2007.
des clauses techniques des dallages de maisons individuelles ». Homologuée mars 2005.

NF P 11-213-3/A1 (DTU 13-3) - Dallages. Conception, calcul et exécution. Partie 3 :
« Cahier des clauses techniques des dallages de maisons individuelles ». Amendement
homologué mai 2007.
des clauses spéciales ». Homologuée mars 2005.
NF P94-270 (P94-270) - Calcul géotechnique. Ouvrages de soutènement. Remblais renforcés
et massifs en sol cloué.
Peignaud M. et Chaput D. - « Coulis de scellement d¶appareils de mesures dans les sols ».
Bulletin de liaison des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussées n° 126, 1983, p. 15-20.
Summary

Asiri National Project PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Asiri National Project PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ASIRI National Project

A project database with an exceptional collection of experimental recordings and numerical

ANTEA Group, BALINEAU, BOTTE Fondations, BOTTE Sondages, BOUYGUES TP,

Valuable contributions to this project were also appreciated from:

Figures: Mr. ANIC ANTIC (Terrasol)

English translation: R. SACHS

Aire d’une maille (une inclusion Surface area of a mesh

Aire de la section comprimée Surface area of the compressed

AS Aire du sol compressible Surface area of the soft soil L2 (m²)

Aire de la tête d’inclusion Surface area

Espacement des inclusions Spacing between inclusions

Dimension de référence d’une Reference dimension

Valeur limite de calcul Limiting design value

Valeur maximale de la résis-

Cs Indice de recompression Recompression index (–)

CDe Indice de fluage Creep index (–)

Cohésion (en termes Cohesion (in terms

Coefficient de variation du loga- Coefficient of variation of the log

cu Cohésion non drainée Undrained shear strength ML–1T–2 (Pa)

Cohésion apparente Apparent cohesion

Coefficient de consolidation Coefficient of consolidation

cu Cohésion non drainée Undrained shear strength ML–1T–2 (Pa)

Cohésion apparente Apparent cohesion

Coefficient de consolidation Coefficient of consolidation

D Diamètre d’une inclusion Inclusion diameter L (m)

Diamètre équivalent du fût Equivalent diameter of the shaft

Diamètre nominal du plus gros

Distance horizontale entre l’axe Horizontal distance between the

Dimension à n % (n % des parti- n percent dimension (n% of par-

E Efficacité en terme de charge Load efficiency (–)

Efficacité selon le modèle Efficiency according to the

Efficacité selon le modèle Efficiency according to the

Fraction de la charge totale Proportion of total load to be

Young’s modulus, Modulus of

Module de déformation Apparent deformation modulus

Module tangent du premier Tangent modulus for initial loa-

Eoed Module œdométrique Oedometric modulus ML–1T–2 (Pa)

Valeur de référence du module Reference value of the tangent

Module oedométrique équiva- Equivalent oedometric modulus

Module tangent du premier Tangent modulus for initial loa-

Eoed Module œdométrique Oedometric modulus ML–1T–2 (Pa)

Valeur de référence du module Reference value of the tangent

Module oedométrique équiva- Equivalent oedometric modulus

Module de déformation Apparent deformation modulus

Module de déformation Deformation modulus

Valeur de référence du module

Valeur de référence du module Reference value of the unloa-

e Indice des vides Void ratio (–)

e0 Indice des vides initial Initial void ratio (–)

FN Résultante du frottement négatif Resultant of negative friction MLT–2 (N)

Design value of the compres-

Résistance caractéristique en Characteristic value of the com-

Characteristic value of the com-

Valeur de calcul de la résistance Design value of the shear and

Valeur de calcul de la résistance Design value of the tensile

Characteristic value of the com-

Valeur de calcul de la résistance Design value of the shear and

Valeur de calcul de la résistance Design value of the tensile

Characteristic value of the com-

Valeur caractéristique de la Characteristic value of the ten-

fn Frottement négatif unitaire Negative skin friction ML–1T–2 (Pa)

Taux marginal de report d’effort Marginal load efficiency ratio on

G Module de cisaillement Shear modulus ML–1T–2 (Pa)