The new French standard for the application of

Eurocode 7 for deep foundations

Roger Frank, Ecole des ponts

Sébastien Burlon, IFSTTAR

1
 Outline

Introduction – Aspects of pile design following

Eurocode 7 (EN 1997-1)
1 – Table of contents of NF P 94-262 (July 2012)
2 – Bearing capacity from PMT and CPT
(assessment of ‘model factors’ γR;d )
3 – Displacement under axial loads and under transverse
load (PMT "t-z" and « "p-y" methods)
Conclusions/Prospective
- 
2

- 
Bearing capacity of piles according to Eurocode 7

(compressive/tensile « resistance »)
The design shall be based on :
a) on the results of static load tests
b) empirical or analytical calculation methods
validated by static load tests in comparable
situations
c) results of dynamic load tests whose validity
has been demonstrated by static load tests in
comparable situations
d) the observed performance of a comparable
pile foundation (to be supported by site
investigation and ground testing).
Designing pile foundations with Eurocode 7 :

* importance of static pile load tests

* an innovative approach to pile capacity
taking account of number of load tests
or number of soil profiles (through the ξ
values)
* importance of assessing serviceability
of structures through displacement
calculation
 Actions due to ground displacement :

* the design values of the strength and

stiffness of the moving ground should
usually be upper values
* the ground displacement is treated as an
action and an interaction analysis is carried
out (e g : transverse thrusts)
or
* an upper bound of the force transmitted by
the ground is introduced as the design
action (e g : negative friction).
French standard for the Application of Eurocode 7
july 2012

6
 NF P 94-262 : Table of contents

15 sections and 19 annexes (98 pages +108 pages)

Main sections:
-  combinations of actions and action effects
-  ultimate compressive resistance (bearing capacity)
-  ultimate tensile resistance
-  resistance to transverse loadings
-  structural resistance (concrete and steel properties
for piles)
-  overall stability
-  verifications of serviceability limit states
7
 NF P 94-262 : Table of contents
Normative annexes:
-  values of partial factors
-  bearing capacity and tensile resistance:
from PMT and CPT results
Informative annexes:
-  types of piles
-  soil categories
-  static pile load tests and bearing capacity
-  negative friction (downdrag)
-  transverse behaviour
-  (axial) group effect
-  horizontal soil displacement
-  axial stiffness (settlement of piles)
-  movements of foundations
8
-  provision for bridges
 2. Bearing capacity from PMT and CPT
(assessment of ‘model factors’ γR;d )

- 
- 

9
Background for establishing a ‘model factor’ γRd
Eurocode 7 - Part 1 ‘Geotechnical design – General
rules (2004), Section 7 :

- requires that the validity of calculation methods be

demonstrated by static load tests in comparable
situation

- advocates the introduction of an explicit ‘model

factor’ γRd (applied to the calculation model) when
designing piles from ground test results

10
The database of IFSTTAR (LCPC)

11
12
13
 Pile distribution by class and soil type
with PMT profiles (Burlon et al, Géotechnique, June 2014 )
Pile class Pile group
Soil type Total
Cl Cl
Cl 3 Cl 4 Cl 5 Cl 6 Cl 7 Cl 8 G1 G2
1 2

Silt and clay

10 13 8 18 9 4 8 0 70 67 3
% CaCo3 < 30%

Sand and gravel 4 8 14 14 5 1 4 3 53 48 5

Chalk 4 0 4 9 1 2 4 0 24 21 3

Marl and limestone-

8 1 3 0 0 1 3 4 20 15 5
marl

Weathered rocks 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 4 3

Total 30 22 29 41 15 8 19 10 174 155 19

14
Pressuremeter method : base resistance
qp = qo + kp (ple - po)

15
 Pressuremeter rules : shaft resistance
qs =α f sol and qs ≤ qsmax

0,4 ≤α ≤ 3,8 and qsmax vary according to soil type and pile category
200
Clay and Silt
Sand and Gravel
175
Chalk
Marl and Calcareous Marl
150 Weathered Rock

125
fsol [kPa]
sol

100
f

75

50

25

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
pl* [MPa]

16
17
 Valeurs en kPa

N° Abréviation Technique de mise en œuvre Argile

% CaCO3 < 30% Sols Marne et
intermédiaires Calcaire- Roche altérée
Craie ou fragmentée
Limon Sols
intermédiaires Sable Grave Marneux

1 FS ## Foré simple (pieux et barrettes) 90 90 200 170 200

2 FB ## Foré boue (pieux et barrettes) 90 90 200 170 200

3 FTP Foré tubé (virole perdue) 50 50 50 90 ___
4 FTR Foré tubé (virole récupérée) 90 90 170 170 ___
FSR, FBR, PU Foré simple ou boue avec
5 ## rainurage ou puits 90 ___ ___ ___ ___
Foré tarière continue simple
6 FTC, FTCD rotation ou double rotation 90 170 200 200 200
7 VM Vissé moulé 130 200 170 170 ___
8 VT Vissé tubé 50 90 90 90 ___
Battu béton préfabriqué ou
9 BPF**, BPR** précontraint 130 130 90 90 ___
Battu enrobé
10 BE** (béton – mortier – coulis) 170 260 200 200 ___
11 BM** Battu moulé 90 130 260 200 ___
12 BAF** Battu acier fermé 90 90 50 90 ___
13 BAO** # Battu acier ouvert 90 50 50 90 90
14 HB** # H battu 90 130 50 90 90
15 HBi** H battu injecté IGU ou IRS 200 380 320 320 320
16 PP** # Palplanches battues 90 50 50 90 90
17 M1 Micropieu type I ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
18 M2 Micropieu type II ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
19 PIGU, MIGU Pieu ou micropieu injecté (type III) 200 380 320 320 320
18
20 PIRS, MIRS Pieu ou micropieu injecté (type IV) 200 440 440 440 500
 Pressuremeter rules – 134 tests
(no injected piles; no chalk)
Distribution function of limit load (Burlon et al, Géotechnique, June 2014 )

Moy : 0.93
Mediane: 0.95
COV: 0.20
Quantile for 1.15:
88 %

γRd1 = 1.15

19
Rc;cal/Rc;mes
 Piles distribution by class and soil type
for CPT profiles

Pile class Pile group

Soil type Total
Cl 1 Cl 2 Cl 3 Cl 4 Cl 5 Cl 6 Cl 7 Cl 8 G1 G2

Silt and clay

4 3 3 3 1 2 3 1 20 19 1
% CaCo3 < 30%

Sand and gravel 0 2 3 6 0 0 0 3 14 11 3

Chalk 2 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 7 7 0

Marl and limestone-

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
marl

Weathered rocks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 7 5 6 12 1 3 4 4 42 38 4

20
CPT rules : base resistance
qp = qo + kc qce

Values of kc (for De/B > 5)

21
 CPT rules: shaft resistance
qs =α f sol and qs ≤ qsmax
0,2 ≤α ≤ 2,25 and qsmax vary according to soil type and pile category
200
Clay and Silt

175 Intermediate Soil

Sand and Gravel

150

125
fsol [kPa]

100

75

50

25

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
qc [MPa] 22
23
 Valeurs en kPa

N° Abréviation Technique de mise en œuvre Argile

% CaCO3 < 30% Sols Marne et
intermédiaires Calcaire- Roche altérée
Craie ou fragmentée
Limon Sols
intermédiaires Sable Grave Marneux

1 FS ## Foré simple (pieux et barrettes) 90 90 200 170 200

2 FB ## Foré boue (pieux et barrettes) 90 90 200 170 200

3 FTP Foré tubé (virole perdue) 50 50 50 90 ___
4 FTR Foré tubé (virole récupérée) 90 90 170 170 ___
FSR, FBR, PU Foré simple ou boue avec
5 ## rainurage ou puits 90 ___ ___ ___ ___
Foré tarière continue simple
6 FTC, FTCD rotation ou double rotation 90 170 200 200 200
7 VM Vissé moulé 130 200 170 170 ___
8 VT Vissé tubé 50 90 90 90 ___
Battu béton préfabriqué ou
9 BPF**, BPR** précontraint 130 130 90 90 ___
Battu enrobé
10 BE** (béton – mortier – coulis) 170 260 200 200 ___
11 BM** Battu moulé 90 130 260 200 ___
12 BAF** Battu acier fermé 90 90 50 90 ___
13 BAO** # Battu acier ouvert 90 50 50 90 90
14 HB** # H battu 90 130 50 90 90
15 HBi** (identical to pressuremeter)
200 380
H battu injecté IGU ou IRS 320 320 320
16 PP** # Palplanches battues 90 50 50 90 90
17 M1 Micropieu type I ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
18 M2 Micropieu type II ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
19 PIGU, MIGU Pieu ou micropieu injecté (type III) 200 380 320 320 320
24
20 PIRS, MIRS Pieu ou micropieu injecté (type IV) 200 440 440 440 500
 CPT rules – 31 tests
(no injected piles; no chalk)
1.00
0.95
Moy : 0.86
0.90
0.85
Mediane: 0.80
0.80 COV: 0.34
0.75 Quantile for 1.18:
0.70
0.65
85 %
0.60
0.55
F62TV - 31 essais
0.50
0.45 DTU - 31 essais

0.40
B&G - 31 essais - Etape 4
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
γRd1 = 1.18
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.40
2.50
2.60
2.70
Rc Rc ;m 25
 Design value of the compressive (or tensile)

capacity from ground test results

‘Model pile’ procedure :
Rd = Rk/γR = Rmod/(γR;d1* ξ *γR)
with ξ a correlation factor
‘Alternative’ procedure (‘ground model’) :
Rd = Rk/γR = Rmod/(γR;d1*γR;d2*γR)
with γR;d2 = 1,1
Resistance factor (Design Approach 2 - all cases, in
compression) : 

γR = 1,1 26
Model coefficient γRd;1 for PMT method
(and γRd;2 = 1,0 or 1,1)

γR ;d1 γR ;d1
Compression Tension
All piles,
excepted injected
piles and piles 1,15 1,4
embedded in
chalk
Piles embedded
in chalk,
1,4 1,7
excepted injected
piles
Injected piles 2,0 2,0 27
Model coefficient γRd;1 for CPT method
(and γRd;2 = 1,0 or 1,1)

γR ;d1 γR ;d1
Compression Tension
All piles, excepted
injected piles and
1,18 1,45
piles embedded in
chalk
Piles embedded
in chalk, excepted 1,45 1,75
injected piles
Injected piles 2,0 2,0
28
 3. Displacement under axial loads
(PMT "t-z" method )
t-z curves from Ménard pressuremeter modulus EM
(Frank & Zhao, 1982)

for fine grained soils :

kτ = 2.0 EM/B and kq = 11.0 EM/B
for granular soils :
kt = 0.8 EM/B and kq = 4.8 EM/B
29
1st example : cased screw pile in Ypresian clay (Belgium)

30
31
 2nd example : CFA pile in silt and clay (Northern
France)
B = 0.5 m ; D = 12 m
EM(MPa) pLM(MPa)
0 10 20 30 40 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0
0 0

2 EM moyen 2

4 EM-Forage100 4
EM-Forage-10
6 6
EM-Forage20
z(m)

z(m)
8 8
pLM moyen
10 10
pLM-Forage100
12 12
pLM-Forage10
14 14
pLM-Forage20
16 16

32
 Charge en tête / vertical load (kN)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0

déplacement / settlement (mm) 10

15

20

Pieu test/pile tested

25 (Bustamante M. et Gianeselli L.)
Antoinet et al.
30 Bahar et al.

35 Robas et Kuder

Said et al.
40
Mecsi

45 Monnet

50 33
 Behaviour under transverse loads
("p-y"method )
Examples of "p-y" curves from PMT results

Short duration Long duration

with Kf = 2ESM
18 18
EsM = EM --------------------------------------------- or EM --------------------------
4(2,65 B/Bo)α Bo/B + 3α 4(2,65)α + 3α

EsM = Ménard subgrade reaction modulus 34

g(z) method transverse thrusts

d 4y
EI ---- + P(y - g) = 0
dz4
35
Pile of Provins (1974)

36
(Bigot, Bourges and Frank, 1982) 37
38
 Conclusions/Summary
The recent PMT rules for piles have just elaborated in France
(new standard for piles, compatible with Eurocode 7, 2012).

They have been fully calibrated against the databank of more

than 170 full scale static load tests on instrumented piles.

These full scale tests were mainly conducted at the occasion of

real projects/case studies.

The corresponding CPT rules have also been calibrated (but

there are much less data, of course).

39
 Conclusions/Prospective

l  In accordance with Eurocode 7 the calculation

methods are based on the results of full scale load
tests on piles

l  The important role of displacements of foundations

of structures is fully recognised (more than the
safety with regard to soil failure ?…)

l  Are we ready to base our SLS verifications solely

on displacement assessments? … and is the
structural engineer ready himself/herself?
40
 Thank you for your attention !

Acknowledgments:

41