CHAPTER 2

PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Geotechnical engineering relies, in most of the cases, on empirical observations and

experience. One of the main reasons for relying upon observed results is that there are
practical restrictions involved in extracting quality soil samples and performing
laboratory testing. Another reason for the continued reliance on the observed results is the
inability to obtain exact and repeatable strength properties of soil and rock at a reasonable
cost. In order to solve these issues, geotechnical engineers have been trying to develop the
in-situ testing procedures. The main limitation to the in-situ testing is the selection of an
appropriate device that can provide reliable engineering parameters with least disturbance
to soil. Over the last half century, a lot of research has been carried out towards
developing new in-situ soil testing devices and data analysis procedures around the world.
These devices include cone penetrometers, pressuremeters, dilatometers etc. have been
developed with the aim to obtain better quality soil parameters.

This chapter presents state-of-the-art literature available on the various types of

pressuremeters, data analyses, interpretation and applications in geotechnical engineering.

2.2 DEFINITION OF A PRESSUREMETER

A pressuremeter is basically a cylindrical probe with an expandable flexible membrane. A
uniform hydraulic or gas pressure can be applied to the walls of the test pocket through
the membrane to get the ground response curve, viz., applied pressure versus expansion
of the membrane. The ground response curve can be interpreted to obtain fundamental
soil properties and design parameters, such as strength, stiffness and in-situ horizontal
stress. Figure 2.1 describes the definition of a pressuremeter. The probe is lowered to the
test depth with drill or cone rods. The test section of the probe is connected with a cable
to the control unit at the surface. This control unit includes a pressure supply regulator
and a data logger. The pressuremeter test is the only test that can give directly values of
in-situ horizontal stress, stiffness and strength (Clarke, 1996).

15
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

Control cable/hose Data logger

Drill rod Probe lowered into test pocket
Test control

Borehole
(a)

Guard cell

Test section

Guard cell

(b)
Test module
Probe

Test section
Test pocket
Test pocket larger diameter
than probe

Figure 2.1 The definition of a pressuremeter Figure 2.2 Types of prebored pressuremeters
(a) a tricell probe (b) a monocell

Probe drilled into test pocket Probe pushed into test pocket

Test pocket
Test pocket same larger diameter
diameter as probe than probe due
to friction reducer

Friction reducer

Self-boring head
External cone for full displacement

Figure 2.3 Self-boring pressuremeter Figure 2.4 Full-displacement pressuremeter

16
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

2.3 HISTORY OF THE PRESSUREMETER

The roots of the pressuremeter extend back to Kogler, who developed the first preboring
pressuremeter in Germany in 1933. Owing to the limitations of the available materials,
Kogler could achieve only partial success. However, Louis Ménard, a French engineer,
made significant advances in the pressuremeter device, its analysis and its acceptance.
Therefore, Ménard is referred to as the father of the pressuremeters. The pressuremeter,
he developed was patented in 1955. Since then there have been many advances; not only
in the development of the equipment but also in the analysis of results, as described in the
following articles.

2.4 TYPES OF PRESSUREMETERS

Pressuremeter probes are grouped on the bases of their method of installation (pre bored,
self-bored or pushed in) and method of measuring displacement (volume or radial). Based
on their method of installation, pressuremeters can be divided into following different
types:

(i) Pre-bored pressuremeter (PBPM)

This pressuremeter is lowered into the pre-bored test pocket and test is performed. This
PMT requires test pocket diameter slightly greater than the diameter of the probe. If a
stable test pocket can be drilled, any ground condition can be tested using this
pressuremeter. PBPMs are the most common group of pressuremeters and their versions
have been in commercial use since 1958.
The expansion of the membrane can be monitored at the surface using either
displacement transducer(s) (radial displacement type) or volume change transducers
(volume displacement type).

The original Ménard pressuremeter is a volume displacement type tricell probe (Figure
2.2a). The central cell is allowed to expand while the outer cells, also called guard cells,
are provided to ensure the true cylindrical expansion of the central cell. In the 1950’s, the
OYO Corporation of Japan developed a single-cell or monocell in which expansion was
measured through displacement transducers (Figure 2.2b).

17
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

(ii) Self-boring pressuremeter (SBPM)

A self-boring pressuremeter (SPBM) creates its own test pocket in the ground. The probe
of this pressuremeter is headed by a sharp rotating cutter shoe, which removes enough
soil to accommodate the volume of the pressuremeter. During boring the instrument is
pushed slowly into the ground. The pushing is halted when the centre of the membrane
reaches the test level. These probes can be used in any soil provided the gravel content is
small, and in some weak rocks (Clarke, 1996).

The SBPMs were developed both in France (Jézéquel et al., 1968) and in the UK (Wroth
& Hughes, 1973). Both probes have a single-cell but use different expansion
measurement systems. The French SBPM has a volume measuring system, while the UK
probe uses displacement transducers. Figure 2.3 describes the principle of this SBPM.

(iii) Pushed-in pressuremeter (PIPM)

This pressuremeter (PIPM) is pushed into a soil, thus creating a disturbed zone around the
pocket during installation and can only be used in soils in which it is possible to push a
static-cone penetrometer. Reid et al. (1982) developed the first PIPM developed primarily
for offshore use. In 1988, Huang et al. developed another PIPM for on land use. In both
cases, a thick walled tube is pushed into the soil. The displaced soil enters the tube and is
withdrawn with it after the test. The membrane is inflated by oil and the measurement of
pressure and the volumetric strains are made.

(iv) Full-displacement pressuremeter (FDPM)

The idea of mounting a pressuremeter probe behind a cone penetrometer to enable tests to
be performed as a part of the cone penetration test operations was initiated in the early
1980’s in both France and Canada. However, these devices being large in diameter
required special equipment for their installation and were superceded by devices of
smaller diameter. The membrane is protected by a Chinese lantern. A friction reducer is
used to reduce the shear between the soil and the probe. This implies that at the start of a
test the membrane may not be in contact with the ground.

The first pressuremeter of this type was developed by Withers et al. (1986). It is headed
by a 15 cm2 solid cone, which is pushed into place by displacing the ground, as shown in
Figure 2.4. It measures the inflation pressure and the circumferential strain at three

18
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

locations 120° apart at the centre of the membrane. The instrument is inflated by Nitrogen
gas or oil when used for offshore operations (Withers et al. 1986). The latest Fugro device
(Zuidberg & Post, 1995) has been further simplified for easier assembly and better control
of the tests but the basic design has remained unchanged.

Based on the method of installation, the FDPM can be grouped with pushed-in
pressuremeters.

Apart from the Ménard pressuremeter, modern pressuremeters are single-cell and have
either a volume or radial displacement measuring system. Table 2.1 presents details of
commercially available pressuremeters in the UK indicating the group to which they
belong, their displacement measuring system and the ground in which they can operate.

2.5 SELECTION OF A PRESSUREMETER

The selection of a pressuremeter mainly depends on the condition of ground under
investigation and the required design parameters. Figure 2.5 provides guiding principles
for selecting a suitable type of pressuremeter based on these factors.

2.6 MERITS AND LIMITATIONS OF PRESSUREMETERS

Every equipment has certain merits and limitations when used for the determination of
the desired parameters. Likewise pressuremeters also have some merits and limitations.
Some of the merits and limitations are given below (Akbar, 2001):

Merits
• Any ground condition can be tested provided an appropriate type of pressuremeter is
used.

• The similarity between the expansion of the pressuremeter membrane and that of a
cylindrical cavity allows the use of available close form solutions for the determination
of pressuremeter parameters.

• The basic soil parameters, such as shear modulus, non-linear stiffness profile, total
horizontal stress and undrained shear strength for clays or angle of internal friction for
sands, can be determined by pressuremeters.

• The pressuremeter can also provide design parameters directly (Ménard test).

19
 CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

Table 2.1 Some details of commercially available pressuremeters in the UK (From Clarke, 1996)

Group Name Pressure Strain Diameter Total Expanding L/D Displacement Ground conditions
capacity capacity mm length length mm measurement
MPa % m system
Prebored Ménard pressuremeter 4 53 74 6.5 volume All soils
GC
Ménard pressuremeter 20 53 74 6.5 volume Weak to moderately
GB strong rocks
Oyo Elastometer 100 10 12 66 520 7.4 one diameter Stiff clays, dense sands
and weak rocks
Oyo Elastometer 200 20 66 520 7.4 one diameter Weak to moderately
strong rocks
High pressure 20 25 73 1.5 455 6.1 three diameters Weak to moderately
dilatometer strong rocks
Self-bored Cambridge self-boring 4.5 15 84 1 500 6 three radii All soil containing little
pressuremeter or no gravel
Weak rock self-boring 20 10 73 1 400 5.5 three radii Hard clays, very dense
pressuremeter sands and weak rocks
Pushed-in Cone pressuremeter 4.5 50 44 1 450 10.3 three radii All soil amenable to
static cone penetrometer
testing

20
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

Pressuremeter

Probe Pre-bored Self-bored Pushed-in

Pressure capacity low to medium high low to medium high low to medium

Ground conditions all soils rock soils containing weak rock soils in which a cone
little or no can be pushed

Test type Ménard stress/strain stress/strain stress/strain

design stress-strain
parameters curve
Parameters Em, pL

σh by strength from strength σh directly strength from σh from

iteration limit pressure from loading unloading correlations
from and unloading curve curve and and unloading
loading curve correlations curv
Gur from
unload/reload
cycle

Figure 2.5 Guidelines for the selection of a pressuremeter (From Clarke, 1996)

21
CHAPTER 2 RESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

• These devices can be used as ground profiling tools, as a control test for ground
improvement and to calibrate other devices.

Limitations
• The pre-boring technique influences the soil properties adjacent to the test pocket. This
technique may not be used in soils where the chances of borehole collapse are present.
Repeatable results are difficult to produce using the PBPM. Careful control of the
procedure can produce repeatable results; however, application of the data is usually
empirically based (Withers et al., 1986).
• The SBPM was developed with the aim to minimise ground disturbance. This instrument
provides soil properties of high quality; however, a lot of skill and experience is needed
for the operation of the SBPM. Moreover SBPMs cannot be used in difficult ground
conditions such as soils containing gravels and hard rocks.
• The cross-sectional area of the PIPMs requires a large reaction force for pushing in
cemented soils, hard clays and dense sands. The design of the tube of the PIPMs does not
allow their use in all types of soils and the boundary conditions at the start of the test can
vary (Withers et al., 1986).
• The FDPM is a relatively small pressuremeter, produces repeatable disturbance and is
operator independent. Owing to same diameters (43.7 mm) of the pressuremeter and the
cone, the rubber membrane experiences ground friction during pushing of instrument into
the ground. This friction force between the membrane and the ground can damage the
membrane or can pull the membrane out of the contracting ring. The membrane therefore
requires some sort of protection such as Chinese lantern.

2.7 THE SUITABILITY OF PRESSUREMETERS TO GROUND CONDITIONS

Table 2.2 gives a summary of the suitability of pressuremeters in various ground conditions.
PBPMs can be used in any type of soil or rock in which the borehole remains stable with or
without mud. SBPMs are applicable in grounds having little or no gravels and in weak rocks.
PIPMs and FDPMs can be used in grounds where it is possible to push a cone. It means
dense sands, hard clays, gravely soils and rocks are not suitable for cone pressuremeters.
Since the probe supports the test pocket wall during installation, the test pocket wall stability

22
CHAPTER 2 RESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

is not critical in case of SBPMs and FDPMs. However, care is required for ensuring the
stability of a borehole.

Table 2.2 The applicability of pressuremeters to ground conditions (From Clarke, 1995)

Ground type PBPM SBPM PIPM

Soft clays A A A
Stiff clays A A A
Loose sands B with support A A
Dense sands B with support B C
Gravels C by driving N N
Weak rock A B N
Strong rock A N N
A: very good; B: good; C: moderate; N: not possible
2.8 CALIBRATIONS
In order to convert pressuremeter test data to applied pressure and strain and to correct for
system or membrane compliance, different types of calibrations are carried out. Table 2.3
presents the recommended frequency and relevance of the calibrations for the three groups of
pressuremeters (Clarke, 1996).

The calibrations of displacement and pressure transducers are carried out in laboratory by
comparing their voltage output with measured values of displacement and pressure
respectively. All radial displacement type probes contain transducers. Any hysteresis and
non-linearity for the transducers is checked during calibration to establish a confidence level
on the accuracy of the test results.

The membrane stiffness is obtained by inflating the probe in air. The pressure required to
inflate a membrane in air is referred to as the membrane stiffness. The membrane stiffness is
deducted from the applied pressure during a test in order to obtain the correct pressure at the
membrane/soil interface. This calibration applies to all pressuremeter tests and is carried out
whenever a membrane is replaced.

23
CHAPTER 2 RESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

Table 2.3 Frequency and relevance of calibrations (From Clarke, 1996)

Calibration Pre-bored Self-bored Frequency Additional calibrations Relevance

and
Volume Radial pushed-in Soft ground Most ground Strong ground
Max. pres. Max. pres. Max. pres.
1 MPa 4 MPa 20 MPa
Transducers if fitted Yes yes 1. start and finish of project 1. any change in the transducers critical critical critical
2. regular intervals during 2. change to the lead connecting the
project. probe to the surface
3. following damage to probe which
involves thorough cleaning and
drying.
System yes No no 1. start and finish of project 1. change to the lead connecting the important important critical
compliance 2. regular intervals during probe to the surface.
project. 2. change to the control unit.
Membrane yes Yes yes 1. start and finish of project critical important not important
stiffness 2. regular intervals during
project
3. every time a membrane is
replaced.
Membrane yes Yes yes 1. start and finish of project unnecessary not important critical
compression 2. regular intervals during
project.
3. every time a membrane is
replaced.
Membrane no Yes yes not important not important critical
thining
Zero yes Yes yes 1. prior to lowering into critical critical critical
borehole

24
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

Membrane compression is a change in the thickness of a membrane due to pressure and as it

expands. The changes in both cases are small and are only significant for tests in rocks using
displacement type probes. Calibration for the membrane thinning is necessary (in rocks) as
the transducers measure the movement of the inner surface of the membrane, which is
different from that of the outer surface.

Calibrations for the system compliance, membrane compression and thinning for volume
displacement type probes are carried out by pressurizing the probe in a metal cylinder. It
represents the volume change that occurs in the supply line (hose), testing equipment and
probe as the pressure is increased.

2.9 INSTALLATION
Installation is the process by which a test pocket is created in order to install a pressuremeter
probe and perform the test. Installation technique can considerably affect the shape of a test
curve and the quality of the interpreted design parameters. Undoubtedly, the installation
technique should be consistent and should be designed in such a manner that either it creates
minimum disturbance or produces repeatable disturbance to the surrounding ground. The
installation techniques for different types of pressuremeters are discussed below:

a) Installation technique for PBPM

A pocket for a PBPM can be created using different techniques but the best technique is that
which removes all material and minimizes disturbance to the pocket wall (Clarke, 1996). The
borehole should be designed according to the size of the pressuremeter to be employed. The
design criteria include pocket size, minimum disturbance during drilling and removal of drill
rods and drill bit. The probe diameter has to be smaller than the pocket diameter to enable it
to be lowered into place (Clarke, 1995). As a guide, the ratio of the diameter of the pocket to
that of the probe must not be greater than 1.10 (Mair and Wood, 1987). American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) recommends the ratio between 1.03 and 1.20 (Briaud and
Gambin, 1984). The borehole can be drilled using either shell and auger techniques or rotary
techniques (Clarke, 1996). It is recommended that the probe should be lowered down the hole
within 15 minutes of completing the drilling (Mair and Wood, 1987 so that conditions remain
undrained.

25
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

b) Installation technique for SBPM

An SBPM pocket is drilled in soft to stiff clay using an internal bit driven by rotating inner
rods. Mud is pumped down the inner rods to flush the cuttings back through the annulus
between the inner and outer rods to the surface where they are collected in a settling tank. The
mud pressure, speed of advance and cutter position are adjusted by the operator to ensure that
the SBPM replaces the ground as the probe advances. Although as the stiffness of the clay
increases it becomes more economical to use a separate rig to advance the borehole between
test locations. A separate rig is always recommended when using an SBPM in sands due to
potential borehole collapse (Clarke, 1996).

c) Installation technique for FDPM

A FDPM is pushed into the ground using a cone truck or a pushing rig or a jack. The ground
reaction is achieved by placing ground anchors into the ground for a pushing rig or a purpose
built reaction frame for the jack. The reaction force can also be obtained by placing the dead
weight on the purpose built reaction frame. The FDPM probe is fixed with the pushing rig or
the jack to push it into the soil up to the desired test level. A FDPM can be used in any soil in
which it is possible to push a static cone penetrometer without damaging the cone.

Some of the points, which should be kept in mind alongwith the previous discussion on
installation, are briefly described below:

• The minimum test spacing in a borehole should be one meter to ensure that no
disturbance is produced to the ground by the previous test above.

• It is common to specify tests at particular horizons to obtain a profile of ground

parameters. The centre of the expanding section should be at least half a metre plus half
the length of the expanding section below the base of the borehole to minimize the
effects of the borehole on a test curve.

• The standard pushing rate for a FDPM is 2 cm/s using a standard cone truck.

2.10 TEST PROCEDURE

A test is defined as the application of pressure to a pocket wall. A pressuremeter test can be
performed as either

26
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

• Stress-controlled test or

• Strain-controlled test

A true stress-controlled test is one in which a pressure increment is maintained for 60 to 120
seconds (Clarke, 1996). All pressuremeter tests are stress-controlled, but it is possible to
expand a membrane at an almost constant strain rate with small increments of pressure. This
is the procedure mostly employed when testing with an SBPM or a FDPM. The rate of strain
is 1%/min. and 5%/min. for the SBPM and the FDPM respectively (Clarke, 1996). The tests,
however, remain stress-controlled prior to the on-set of yield, unloading to yield in extension
and during an unload-reload cycle. This permits a better control at lift-off and prevents creep
effects prior to unload-reload and final unloading (Howie et al., 1990; Clarke, 1996). Tests in
rocks and tests using volume displacement type pressuremeter probes tend to be stress-
controlled.

The importance of the rate of strain can not be denied during a strain-controlled test as it
influences the test results. The undrained shear strength, su increases about 15% for every ten
times increase of strain rate for pressuremeter strain path (Penumadu et al. 1988). A high
strain rate test can affect the clay strength due to its viscous behaviour, whereas a too slow
test can result in partial drainage. The test procedure to be adopted is necessarily a
compromise (Houlsby & Withers, 1988).

Ménard test is a special stress controlled test used to obtain design properties directly from
volume displacement tricell pre-bored probes. The probe is lowered into the prebored pocket
and expanded in about ten to fourteen equal stress increments until the volume of the pocket
is approximately doubled in size. Each increment is maintained for one minute with readings
of volume being recorded at 15 s, 30 s and 1 min after applying the increment.

Shear modulus is determined from the unload-reload cycle by restricting it within a stress
range so that failure in extension does not occur. For clay, this stress range will typically be
equal to its undrained shear strength; while for sand it will be around 40% of the effective
pressure at the start of unloading. An unload-reload cycle can be excluded from a test if
strength is the only parameter required, as it is determined from the latter part of the loading
curve or from the unloading curve.

27
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

A pressuremeter test is continued to the maximum average cavity strain required which
should be less than the strain capacity of the probe. However, a test can be stopped earlier for
one of the following reasons (Clarke, 1996):

(a) The maximum pressure capacity of the probe is insufficient to yield the ground. This is
frequent when rocks are tested.

(b) The membrane bursts because of damage caused either during installation, during a test
by discontinuities in the ground, or by expansion up into the annulus between the
pocket wall and drill rods.

(c) The oil capacity runs out because of non-uniform expansion.

(d) The test pocket created is too large.

2.11 INTERPRETATION OF PRESSUREMETER DATA

The analyses of the pressuremeter test data can be carried out to determine three main soil
parameters: in-situ total horizontal stress, stiffness or shear modulus and strength. Table 2.4
presents different methods for the determination of these parameters. These methods are
discussed below.

2.11.1 Horizontal Stress, σho

Horizontal stress is defined as the in-situ geostatic stress. Its determination is subjective since
it depends on selecting a single point on a test curve. Several methods are available to
identify that point but all these techniques are based on assumptions. Figure 2.6 gives the
position of the horizontal stress for all the three types of pressuremeters. The available
methods include:

(a) The lift-off method.

(b) Methods based on shear strength.

(c) Methods based on test procedure.

(d) Fitting functions to the test curve.

(e) Empirical correlations with other data.

28
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

The detailed description of each method can be seen in Clarke (1995). Since ground
disturbance is least only in case of SBPM, the horizontal stress can be determined directly
from this test. For PBPM and FDPM probes, σho can be determined using the above-
mentioned methods.

Applied pressure

FDPM test

PBPM test

SBPM test

σh σh
po
FDPM ao

SBPM ao

PBPM ao

Displacement or volumetric strain

Figure 2.6 Typical curves and positions of the reference datum, ao for the three types of
pressuremeters (After Clarke, 1995)

Houlsby et al. (1988) have proposed a correlation presented in Table 2.4 to estimate σho for
clays using FDPM probe. However, they are not sure about the reliability of values
estimated from the method.

Yu et al. (1996) proposed a technique to estimate σ′ho in normally consolidated sands using
Jaky’s expression for the coefficient of earth pressure at rest: Ko = 1-sinφps. Table 2.4 gives
an equation to evaluate angle of internal friction, which may be used to determine Ko. Using
this Ko, the effective horizontal stress (σh) can be estimated using the basic correlation σh = Ko
σv , where σv is the vertical effective stress.

29
 CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

Table 2.4 Commonly used methods to interpret pressuremeter tests (From Clarke, 1996)
Soil type Parameter Probe Method Reference Equation
All soils and Gur or Gu or Gr All probes Unload-reload cycle 0.5 (dp/dεc)
rocks
Clay σh PBPM Curve fitting Marsland and Randolph (1977)
σh SBPM Directly from curve
Logarithmic model Gupta (2000) pL = σh+su+suln[4I2r/(4Ir-1)]
σh FDPM Unloading curve Houlsby and Withers (1988) pL − su[1+ln(G/su)]
Gu or Gr v εc All probes Unload-reload cycle Muir Wood (1990)
su PBPM Modified limit pressure Amar et al. (1975) (plm−σh)/(5.5 to 15)
su SBPM Latter part of loading curve Windle and Wroth (1977) (p−σh) = su[1+ln(G/su)+ln(∆V/V)]
su FDPM Unloading curve Houlsby and Withers (1988) p = pL−2su[1+ln{sinh(εmax−ε)/sinh(su/G)}]
Sand σh PBPM, Not recommended Ghionna et al. (1995) Ko = [a (pL-uo)/σ 'vo] [(1+2Ko)/3]b/[(qc-uo)/ σ 'vo]b
FDPM Nutt (1993) (pL−σh)/σ'h = 1.98 + 19.1Dr
σh SBPM Directly from curve
Gu or Gr v εc All probes Unload-reload cycle Bellotti et al. (1989)
φ' PBPM Not recommended Ménard plm = b 2(φ'−24)/4 b = 1.8 for wet and 3.5 for dry
sand and 2.5 on average
φ' SBPM Latter part of loading curve Hughes et al. (1977) sin'φ = s/[1+(s-1)sin'φcv]
φ' FDPM Unloading curve Schnaid & Houlsby (1992) φ' = 1.45[(qc−σh)/( σ'h)]+26.5
Dr = 1/3 [(qc−σh)/(σ'h)]+10
Houlsby & Nutt (1993) (pL−σh)/σ'h = 2.21 + 19.35Dr
(qc−σh)/(pL−σh) = 3.80 + 9.84Dr
Ghionna et al. (1995) φ'tc = 33.4 – 50.78ξo
Yu et al. (1996) φps = [14.7/ln(G/σ'vo)]*(q'c/pL) +22.7
ψ SBPM Latter part of loading curve Hughes et al. (1977) sinψ = s+(s−1)sinφ'cv
For definition of symbols, refer to the list of symbols.

30
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

2.11.2 Shear Modulus, G

The pressuremeter is an ideal test for determining the ground stiffness (Clarke, 1996). The
shear modulus is best obtained from any pressuremeter test curve where the soil behaves
elastically. Although the initial part of the pressuremeter test curve shows elastic behaviour
but it depicts the stiffness of the disturbed ground because of disturbance during the probe
installation. The best elastic behaviour in a pressuremeter test curve is that of the unload-
reload cycle if the stress range is insufficient to cause yield in extension (Clarke, 1995). Two
techniques are available to determine the average shear modulus from the unload-reload
cycle. Firstly, the average secant stiffness is estimated by fitting a line to all the data
comprising the unload-reload cycle, as shown in Figure 2.7a. The shear modulus is half of the
slope of the best-fit line. This modulus represents the average stiffness of elements of ground
radiating from the probe at the effective stress at the point of unloading, (Clarke, 1997). This
method can be used for any type of pressuremeter in any ground condition (Clarke, 1995).
The shear modulus may also be determined from the slope of single line drawn between the
two apexes of the loop (Houlsby & Schnaid, 1994). However, as per their observation this
method overestimates the stiffness values in the tune of 20-30% in comparison to the method
when all data points between the two apexes are considered.

A more pertinent shear modulus value can be obtained by selecting the data over a specified
strain range. A cavity strain range between 0.1% and 0.2% should be selected as this range
represents typical average strains in the ground beneath or adjacent to a structure (Clarke,
1996). The slope is determined from either the unloading part of the cycle, selecting the
maximum cavity strain as the origin or from the reloading portion with minimum cavity
strain as the origin (Figure 2.7a). The reloading portion estimates more consistent values
(Clarke, 1993).

Gupta (2000) has described a procedure to determine moduli at various percentages of yield
strength for the SBPM. This practice is often used in the interpretation of laboratory tests as
well but Houlsby & Nutt (1993) do not consider this practice appropriate for the
interpretation of pressuremeter tests.

31
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

Definition of shear modulus from an unload-reload cycle

Gur - secant modulus from whole cycle

Gu - secant unload modulus measured from maximum cavity strain, εcmax, in the cycle
Gr - secant reload modulus measured from minimum cavity strain, εcmin , in the cycle
Gu0.2% - secant unload modulus measured over εcmax and (εcmax-0.2%)
Gr0.2% - secant reload modulus measured over εcmin and (εcmin +0.2%)

(a) Start of unloading (b)

Non-linear profile
Applied pressure

Gur Gu
or
Gr
Gr Maximum cavity
strain
∆εc

Gu

Cavity strain Unload-reload

Minimum cavity
cycle
strain

Figure 2.7 The selection of shear moduli from an unload-reload cycle showing (a) unload
and reload moduli and (b) the non-linear stiffness profile (After Akbar, 2001)

In clays, the effective stress does not change once yield occurs but, during an unload/ reload
cycle modulus varies with the strain. In the case of sands, with expansion of membrane the
effective stress increases resulting in an increase in shear modulus. In both cases, a non-linear
stiffness profile can be obtained from an unload-reload cycle simply by taking a secant using
the maximum or minimum cavity strain as an origin (Figure 2.7b).

2.11.3 Undrained Shear Strength, su

Different methods are available for the determination of undrained shear strength of clays
using different pressuremeters. These methods do not provide same strength (Wroth, 1984).
For SBPM, the post peak strength is obtained from the latter part of the loading curve
considering soil as a perfectly plastic model as shown in Figure 2.8. For PBPM, the shear
strength is taken as a factor of the limit pressure, pL, the pressure required to double the cavity

32
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

size (Table 2.4). A summary of correlations developed by various researchers between pL and
su, for PBPM are given in Table 2.5.

Best-fit straight line to data replotted as pressure vs. ∆V/V = s u

3 5 00 3000

Applied pressure, kPa

Applied pressure, kPa

3 0 00 2 9 50
2500 2900
2000
2850
1 5 00
Pressure curve 2 8 00
1000
2 7 50
500
0 2 7 00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 -2.8 -2.6 -2.4 -2.2 -2 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4

Cavity strain, % ln (volumetric strain)

Figure 2.8 Derivation of undrained shear strength from a SBPM test in clay assuming linear
elastic perfectly plastic clay (From Clarke, 1997)

Houlsby et al. (1988) outlined a technique for the determination of the undrained shear
strength from the unloading part of the FDPM curve as shown in Figure 2.9. This method
simultaneously provides shear modulus, G and in-situ horizontal stress, σho; though
determining σho by this method is not reliable (Houlsby et al., 1988). As per the procedure,
the cavity expansion pressures are plotted against {-ln[{(m+1)/2}(εm-ε)]} values for the final
unloading part of the curve. Value of m is taken equal to 1 for cylindrical expansion and 2
for spherical expansion, ε = the cavity strain at any pressure and εm = the maximum strain
reached in that test. σho is determined by identifying the mid point between the limit pressure
(pL) and the intercept of the trend line over the plastic unloading part. The slope of the line is
2su (2+m)/3, which reduces to 2su for cylindrical expansion. The abscissa of the intersection
of the limit pressure and the plastic unloading line is 1+ln (Ir), where Ir is the rigidity index (=
G/su). So with known values of 1+ln (Ir) and su, G can be determined. The modulus of
elasticity, E and the Poisson’s ratio, υ are related to shear modulus by:

E
G= (2.1)
2(1 + ν )

If υ is known, E can be determined.

33
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

Table 2.5 Empirical relations between undrained shear strength and net limit pressure
(After Clarke, 1995)
su Clay type Reference
(plm – σh)/k k= 2 to 5 Ménard (1975)
(plm – σh)/5.5 Soft to firm clays
(plm – σh)/8 Firm to stiff clays Cassan (1972), Amar and Jézéquel (1972)
(plm – σh)/15 Stiff to very stiff clays
(plm – σh)/6.8 Stiff clays Marsland and Randolph (1977)
(plm – σh)/5.1 All clays Lukas and LeClerc de Bussy (1972)
(plm – σh)/10+25 Amar and Jézéquel (1972)
(plm – σh)/10 Stiff clays Martin and Drahos (1986)
plm /10+25 Soft to stiff clays Johnson (1986)
Applied pressure

1+ln(Ir )

Limit pressure
Applied pressure

FDPM curve σho ing

oad
unl 2su
stic
Pla

Cavity strain -ln[1.5( ε max -m-ε)]

ε)]
-ln[{(m+1)/2}(ε

Figure 2.9 Derivation of shear strength, shear modulus and horizontal stress from FDPM
curve by Houlsby and Withers (1988) method

2.11.4 Angle of Shearing Resistance, φ'

Hughes et al. (1977) provides a method for the determination of the peak angle of shearing
resistance for dense sands using the latter part of an SBPM test curve. The procedure is
presented in Figure 2.10. Initially the slope of the latter part, s, of the curve is determined and
value of the angle of shearing resistance at constant volume, φ'cv, is selected from the Table
2.6 for the soil type. Then the angle of shearing resistance is evaluated using the relationship
given in Table 2.4. As φ'cv is not critical in determining φ', Clarke (1996) recommends a
value of 35° to be used. Angle of dilation can also be determined using the relation given in
Table 2.4 using the values of s and φ'cv.

34
 CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

It is not possible to determine the angle of shearing resistance directly from PBPM and
FDPM tests due to large installation ground disturbance. Mair & Wood (1987) recommend
that PBPM test data should not be used to evaluate φ', however, a correlation proposed by
Ménard for the purpose is presented in Table 2.4.

Best-fit straight line to data replotted as ln(pressure) vs. ln(εc)

5000 8.5

ln (effective applied pressure)

8.4
Applied pressure, kPa

4000

8.3
3000
8.2
2000
Slope is function
8.1
of angle of shearing
resistance
1000
7.9

0 8.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 -3.6 -3.4 -3.2 -3.0 -2.8 -2.6 -2.4
Cavity strain ln (current strain)

Figure 2.10 The determination of angle of shearing resistance from SBPM tests in sand (After
Clarke, 1997)

Table 2.6 Typical values of φ'cv (after Robertson and Hughes, 1986)
Soil type φ'cv (Degrees)
Well-graded gravel-sand-silt 40
Uniform coarse sand 37
Well-graded medium sand 37
Uniform medium sand 34
Well-graded fine sand 34
Uniform fine sand 30

35
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

For FDPM, Houlsby and Nutt (1993) proposed two equations presented in Table 2.4, which
relate relative density, limit pressure and cone resistance. These equations require that there is
no excess pore pressure and ambient pore pressure is known. The relative density can be
determined using these equations if limit pressure and cone resistance are known from in-situ
testing. The angle of shearing resistance can be determined using correlation proposed by
Bowles (1996) between φ' and Dr, given as:

φ ′ = 28 + 15Dr (in degrees) (2.2)

Yu et al. (1996) proposed a technique, presented in Table 2.4, for the determination of the
angle of internal friction of sands from the FDPM data. This technique requires the values of
the cone tip resistance, the pressuremeter limit pressure and the shear modulus. The shear
modulus to be used in the equation can be estimated from an unload-reload cycle as described
earlier.

2.11.5 Overconsolidation Ratio, OCR

The excess pore pressure generated during a pressuremeter test in clay depends on the OCR
(Clarke, 1995). During the installation of a piezocone and a DMT, Mayne & Bachus (1988,
1989) developed a relation between the effective preconsolidation pressure, p'c and the excess
pore pressure, ∆u given below:

4∆u
pc′ = (2.3)
M ln(G / su )

⎡ 6 sin φ ′ ⎤
where M is the critical state parameter = ⎢ ⎥.
⎣ 3 − sin φ ′ ⎦

The excess pore pressures developed during a pressuremeter test in clay is

⎡
s
⎣⎝ u ⎠ V
(
⎤
⎦
)
s u ln ⎢⎛⎜ G ⎞⎟ ∆V ⎥ and at the limit pressure this term reduces to s u ln⎛⎜ G ⎞⎟ , therefore, the
⎝ su ⎠
equation 2.3 takes the form:

4su
p c′ = (2.4)
M

2.12 FACTORS AFFECTING INTERPRETATION OF PRESSUREMETER TESTS

The following factors can influence pressuremeter test results (Clarke, 1995):

36
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

1. The installation of the pressuremeter affects the initial size of cavity and the properties
of the surrounding ground.

2. The probe may not be vertical.

3. The vertical stress may not be the intermediate stress once yield has occurred.

4. The horizontal stress may not be uniform.

5. The ground may not behave as a continuum, especially if discontinuities are present.

6. The ground may not be homogeneous (either vertically or radially).

7. Drainage can occur during a test.

8. Ground properties are test rate dependent.

9. The expansion of the cavity may not be cylindrical.

10. The probe dimensions do not conform to those of a theoretical pocket.

The detailed description of the above items can be seen in Clarke (1995).

2.13 DESIGN APPLICATIONS OF PRESSUREMETERS RESULTS

For the last half a century or so pressuremeter interpreted parameters have been used
increasingly in geotechnical design of various civil engineering structures (Clarke, 1995).
There are two different methods of design, viz., direct and indirect. The direct method, being
the mostly used, is based on the philosophy that performance of full-scale foundations can be
associated with parameters determined from empirical correlations based on theory. The
indirect methods are based on the mechanical behaviour of the ground; employ mechanical
properties in theoretically derived formulae modified by observation. Both methods are
included in Eurocode No.7: Geotechnical Design.

The Ménard method belongs to the direct method of design, the main applications of which
are:

37
 CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

Table 2.7 Parameters obtained from pressuremeter tests and their potential quality (From Clarke, 1995)

Parameter Clay Sand Gravel Rock

Soft Stiff Loose Dense Weak Strong
Probe PBPM SBPM FDPM PBPM SBPM FDPM PBPM SBPM FDPM PBPM SBPM FDPM PBPM PBPM SBPM PBPM
σh A CE C A CE B C C
su BE A BE BE A BE CE B CE
c' B
φ' B B CE A CE CE A CE CE B
Gi A A A A B
Gur A A A A A A A A A A A A C A A A
pL BE A BE BE A BE CE A CE CE A CE CE CE B CE
Ch B A A B A A

A - excellent; B - good; C - possible; E - empirical

σh total horizontal stress

su undrained shear strength
c' cohesion
φ' angle of shearing resistance
Gi initial shear modulus
Gur secant shear modulus from an unload-reload cycle
pL limit pressure
Ch coefficient of consolidation

38
 CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

Table 2.8 Correlations of PMT data with SPT, CPT and Laboratory data
Data type Parameter Soil type Correlation Reference
PMT~SPT pL, N Sandy silty clay
p L = 29.45 N Cor + 219.7 Yagiz et al. (2008)

where pL is in units of kPa.

pL, qc Clay
qc = 3 p L Wieringen (1982)

where qc and pL are in units of kPa.

q c = 15(tan φ ′)
pL, qc, φ' Sand 1.75 Wieringen (1982)
pL
where qc and pL are in units of kPa and φ' in degrees.
pL, qc Dense sand
q c p L = 10
PMT~CPT
Loose sand
qc p L = 5
Silt
q c pL = 6 Schmertmann (1977)
Insensitive clay
qc p L = 3
Very sensitive clay
q c p L = 1.5
PMT Gur, su Clay
Gur = 40s u Wong and Hwang (1977)
where Gur and su are in units of MPa.
N, Dr Sand
Dr = 25(σ vo
′ ) −0.12(N) 0.42 Yoshida et al. (1988)

where Dr is in % and σvo in kPa.

N, φ'
φ ′ = 3.5( N )0.5 + 20
Sand Muramachi (1974)

SPT where φ' is in units of degrees.

N, su Very soft to very stiff clays
su = 6.64 N Terzaghi and Peck (1967), Parcher and Means (1968)

Tschebotarioff (1973)
Very soft to stiff clays su = 7.86 N
where su is in units of kPa.

qc, Dr Sand
Dr = −74 + 66 log q c (σ vo
′ ) [ 0.5
] Jamiolkowski et al. (1988)

where qc and σ'vo are in units of ksf.

CPT
qc, φ'
φ ′ = 29 + 2.5(q c )0.5
Sand Meyerhof (1976)

where qc is in units of MPa.

For definition of symbols, refer to the list of symbols.

39
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

• Determination of bearing capacity and settlement of shallow foundations.

• Design of axially loaded piles.

• Design of horizontally loaded piles.

• Design of ground anchors.

The indirect method of design uses the in-situ stress, stiffness and strength in either design
rules or numerical methods. The stresses and mechanical properties that can be obtained from
pressuremeter tests and their potential quality for use in design are listed in Table 2.7.

2.14 CORRELATIONS OF PMT DATA WITH SPT AND CPT DATA

Some of the soil parameters required for design purposes can be directly obtained by
interpreting the pressuremeter ground response curve as discussed earlier in section 2.11.
However, other design parameters of interest can be determined by using available
correlations between PMT data and other in-situ testing equipments data. A problem using
these correlations could be that they are site specific and may not be applicable locally;
therefore a user should use them cautiously (Bowles, 1996). A care is therefore highly
required for use of different correlations. Table 2.8 presents the correlations of PMT, SPT,
CPT data along with their sources and soil type.
2.15 FULL-DISPLACEMENT CONE PRESSUREMETER
The general information pertaining to different pressuremeters including their operation, test
procedures, interpretation of data and correlations of PMT data with other in-situ testing
devices and laboratory data is presented in articles 2.1 to 2.14. However, the main focus in
this research work was the full-displacement (cone) pressuremeter (for the reasons described
in Chapter 1) originally designed by Withers et al. (1986). Akbar (2001) developed
Newcastle Full-Displacement Pressuremeter (NFDPM) with some modification to Withers et
al. design. The NFDPM has been further modified during this research. The following
sections describe Withers et al. (1986) and Akbar (2001) cone pressuremeters in detail. The
modified version of NFDPM is presented in chapter-3.

2.15.1 The Withers et al. (1986) Full-Displacement Cone Pressuremeter

This pressuremeter was developed at Cambridge In-situ to specifications prepared by Fugro
for offshore testing, as the other versions of the pressuremeters in the market were not cost-
effective for this purpose. Another aim was to enable tests to be performed as part of the cone

40
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

penetration test operation. The cone penetration test equipment (CPT) alone has proven
outstanding device for soil profiling and soil strength estimation but it does not give reliable
estimate of stiffness. The pressuremeter device, on the other hand, is well suited for
measuring both soil stiffness and the strength parameters (Houlsby & Withers, 1988; Houlsby
& Nutt, 1993, Yu et al. 1996, Powell & Shields, 1995, 1997). The cone pressuremeter, due to
the soil disturbance during its insertion into the ground, was not aimed to provide information
on in-situ stress and if it can be obtained, it may be regarded as a bonus (Houlsby & Nutt,
1993).

Figure 2.11 shows a cut away view of the full-displacement cone pressuremeter probe. The
overall length of the membrane is 448 mm. The outside diameter of the probe (with
membrane and Chinese lantern on) is the same as that of the 15 cm2 piezocone (43.7 mm)
mounted in front of it. The Chinese lantern is used to secure the membrane. The L/D ratio of
the probe is about 10. The minimum distance between the centre of the membrane and the
conical tip is 930 mm, which can be increased using spacers.

The circumferential strain is measured at three locations 120° apart at the middle of the test
section through strain-gauged springs. The springs move with the membrane and the output
signals from the gauges are recorded (after being amplified) using a data logger. Using the
calibration data, the change of the gauges output can be converted into the radial expansion of
the membrane. The inflation pressure, pore pressure (when fitted to the probe) and the
piezocone signals (passed independently through the probe) are also recorded at the surface.
The instrument was designed to withstand 10 MPa inflation pressure, with 20 tonnes pushing
and extraction forces. The radial expansion capacity that can be measured with the strain-
gauged springs is 50%, which is more than the limit of other Pressuremeters (Table 2.1).

Figure 2.12 shows the set-up of the FDPM prototype testing. The installation, test procedure
and the data interpretation have already been described. However, the theory behind the
FDPM data interpretation is explained below:

41
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

Contraction ring Connection to

amplifier sub

Chinese lantern

Membrane clamping
ring

Membrane

Arm cover sleeve

224 mm
Strain gauged spring

3 strain sensingarms
at 120o spacing
705 mm
Instrument body
224 mm

930 mm to cone tip

Membrane

Membrane clamping
ring

Chinese lantern

Contraction ring
43.7 mm
Connection to cone
spacer and cone

Figure 2.11 Details of full-displacement (cone) pressuremeter (After Withers et al., 1986)

42
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

Since the insertion of the cone pressuremeter subjects the soil to a more complex stress
history, the analysis procedure is not straightforward. However, Teh (1987) proved that the
stress distribution far behind the cone tip is similar to the distribution created by the
expansion of a cylindrical cavity from zero initial radius. Houlsby & Withers (1988),
therefore, consider the use of the simpler cylindrical cavity expansion theory justified,
provided that the bottom of the pressuremeter section is located more than about 10 diameters
behind the cone tip. The high L/D ratio compared to the other pressuremeters also reduces the
errors in the modelling of the expansion and contraction phases of the test by cylindrical
theory (Houlsby & Withers, 1988).

Houlsby & Withers (1988) have illustrated the changes occurring in the soil at various radii
during the FDPM installation, expansion and contraction, as shown in Figure 2.13. Before the
pressuremeter installation, three points A, C and E are located as shown in Figure 2.13(a),
where point A is initially on the centre-line of the pressuremeter. After installation of the
probe, point A moves to a radius Ri; the pressuremeter radius [Figure 2.13(b)]. Figures
2.13(c) and (d) show the location of point A after expansion and contraction phases at radii Re
and Rc respectively.

Point C lies within the plastic zone after the probe installation [Figure 2.13(b)] and remains in
the same zone after maximum pressuremeter expansion [Figure 2.13(c)]. Its radius at
maximum expansion is rce, which becomes rcc after the pressuremeter has been contracted to
dimension Rc [Figure 2.13(d)]. Point C with radius rcc lies on the elastic-plastic boundary.

Point E is initially at radius reo and remains in the elastic zone after the probe installation. At
maximum expansion, it lies on the elastic-plastic boundary with radius ree [Figure 2.13(c)].

The installation of the cone pressuremeter expands the cavity from zero initial diameter to a
finite size, which is further increased by 50% during the pressuremeter expansion. This
necessitates the use of large strain theory to analyse the pressuremeter data. Since the rigidity
index (Ir = G/su) of clay will typically be large (i.e. greater than 30), it implies that the strain
to the onset of plasticity is small, which justifies the use of small strain solution for the elastic
region (Houlsby & Withers, 1988). Gibson & Anderson (1961) have also used such a
combination of large and small strain analysis in the plastically and elastically deforming
regions.

43
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

Push head Electric/hydraulic hose

Cone rods
conducting hose

Standard cone rod

Cone rod adaptor

Amplifier housing 720 mm

Contracting ring
705 mm

Pressuremeter
module

Contracting ring
400 mm

Cone spacer
Cone

Figure 2.12 Set-up of FDPM for prototype testing

In summary, pressuremeter expansion [Figure 2.13(c)] deforms the material between A and E
plastically during expansion, while the material outside E remains elastic. After the
contraction phase [Figure 2.13(d)], the material outside E remains elastic, that between E and
C has been loaded plastically and unloaded elastically, and the material between C and A has
been loaded plastically, and then unloaded adequately so that reverse plasticity (yielding in
extension) has occurred.

44
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

A C E
(a)
reo

A C E
Ri

(b)

A C E
Re rce ree

(c)

A C E
Rc
rcc

(d)

Figure2.13
Figure 2.36The
The stages
stages of
ofcone
conepressuremeter test:test:
pressuremeter (a) in-situ condition,
(a) in-situ (b) after(b)
condition, pressuremeter
after pressuremeter
installation,(c)
installation, (c) at
at maximum
maximum pressuremeter expansion,
expansion, (d) (d) during pressuremeter
during pressuremeter contraction contraction.
(After Houlsby and
(After Houlsby
Withers, 1988) and Withers, 1988).

t t

E D C B A

E
su

su

σho s D s
su

(b) A B C
(a)

Figure
Figure 2.37
2.14 Stressstates
Stress statesaround
around the
the cone
conepressuremeter:
presuremeter:(a)(a)atatmaximum
maximumexpansion,
expansion, (b)
(b) during
during contraction
contraction (After(After Houlsby
Houlsby and Withers,
and Withers, 1988)
1988)

45
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

The positions of the stress points in Figure 2.13 are further elaborated by Houlsby & Withers
(1988) on a plot of shear stress t = (σr-σθ)/2 against normal stress s = (σr-σθ)/2. This is shown
in Figure 2.14 for the cylindrical expansion case. During elastic behaviour of a soil, s remains
constant while t remains constant during plastic behaviour. The stress states at maximum
expansion are shown in Figure 2.14(a), where the material inside E is deforming plastically,
while the material outside E remains elastic.

After contraction, the stress points move to the locations as shown in Figure 2.14(b). It is
evident from the figure that all the points first unload elastically and then those points inside
C unload plastically.

This theoretical study made by Houlsby & Withers (1988) forms the basis for their analysis
of the unloading part (contraction phase) of the cone pressuremeter curve provided that the
unloading should have commenced after very large expansion strains (∆R/Ri > 20 to 30%)
had been imposed on the soil. This is to load that soil mass far from the probe, which has not
been loaded during its installation. The unloading behaviour of that material should not have
any effect of probe installation. This is the reason for a large strain capacity into the FDPM
design.

Houlsby & Withers (1988) analysis for clays (cylindrical, plane strain) can be summarized as
below:

• The expansion occurs at constant pressure

p L = σ ho + su (1 + ln I r ) (2.5)

• Initial unloading is at slope 2G

• Plastic unloading occurs along the curve

⎧⎪ ⎛ ⎡ 1 ⎤ ⎞⎫⎪
p = p L − 2 su ⎨1 + ln (sinh[ε max − ε ]) − ln⎜⎜ sinh ⎢ ⎥ ⎟⎟⎬ (2.6)
⎪⎩ ⎝ ⎣ I r ⎦ ⎠⎪⎭

where,

pL = expansion limit pressure

46
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

p = pressuremeter pressure

σho = in-situ horizontal stress

su = undrained shear strength

Ir = rigidity index = G/su

G = shear modulus

ε = pressuremeter strain

εc = pressuremeter strain at maximum expansion.

Since sinh(ε) ≅ ε for small values of ε, equation 2.6 can be used to construct Figure 2.9 to
determine the shear modulus, undrained shear strength and in-situ horizontal stress as
described earlier.

The FDPM has the following advantages and disadvantages (Akbar, 2001):

Advantages
• The soil disturbance due to insertion of the probe is repeatable and operator
independent. An analysis based on cavity expansion theory is possible to apply to
determine the strength and stiffness.

• The use of cone makes the installation of the probe easy, thus saving time and money.

• The CPT and pressuremeter experience together can help improving correlation of soil
strength and stiffness. The combined results can provide a better understanding of the
soil stratigraphy, strength and stiffness.

• The lateral load deformation response of the soil is measured directly. This information
is useful for the design of laterally loaded piles.

• It can measure the pore pressure with piezocone.

47
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

Disadvantages
• The insertion of the probe causes large soil disturbance, thus changing the soil
properties and in-situ stress state. The determination of in-situ stress by any method
remains empirically based and subjective.

• The probe is sophisticated with three displacement transducers, a pore pressure

transducer and transducer for cone signals.

• The membrane has to be secured using a Chinese lantern. While the use of a Chinese
lantern makes the probe assembling difficult, it can also get filled with dirt at any time,
thus affecting the performance of the probe.

2.15.2 Newcastle Full Displacement Pressuremeter (NFDPM)

Akbar (2001) developed the NFDPM during his Ph.D. at the University of Newcastle,
Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK. The main body of the probe of the NFDPM is made of high
strength stainless steel. Its diameter is 44.4 mm with a 420 mm long test section (L). With the
membrane in place, the outer diameter of the probe (D) is 48.2 mm. The L/D ratio is therefore
8.7. The diameter of the cone used is 50.8 mm (surface area = 28.5 cm2). Thus, the cone
creates a cavity with a diameter about 5% greater than that of the probe. The oversize cavity
helps in two ways during the probe installation in the ground. The dragging force on the
membrane due to friction with the soil is reduced; thus preventing the ends of the membrane
from being pulled out of the clamping ring. It can also be pushed safely through a soil
containing gravel. This eliminates the use of the Chinese lantern as well, thus making its
assembly simpler and cost-effective. A match of the probe diameter and that of the cone,
therefore, makes it possible to test any soil including gravely soils and glacial tills.

Figure 2.15 presents a view and a cross-section of the main body (part 1) along with some
accessories of this probe. Figure 2.16 shows a picture of the prototype NFDPM. The main
body has a 115 mm long and 10 mm wide slot in the middle (part 5 in Figures 2.15 a) for the
expansion arms assembly (Figure 2.17). A longitudinal hole of 8 mm diameter (7 in Figure
2.15 b) is drilled from one end (the end to which the hydraulic coupling is connected) up to
the central slot. This hole houses the transducer wires and transmits the pressurised gas,
which inflates the membrane. The radial grooves (8 in Figure 2.15 b) and longitudinal
grooves have been machined to allow the dry nitrogen gas (N2) pressure to reach everywhere

48
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

Cone rod adapt er

f it s here
S lot f or arm s assem bly
t o f it (5)
Conical t ip fit s here M ain body
(1)

A
A

(a) A cut-away viewv iew

(a) A cut-away Hole f or guide s crew (9)
M em brane Clam ping
(2) nut (4)
S pot f ac e of
c lam ping nut M em brane Hole f or pin Clam ping ring
not shown (3)
Radial
grooves (8) S lot f or guide
screw (10)

240 115 240

420
Longit udinal
hole, dia. 8 m m
(7)
(b) Section at A-A
(b) S ection (perpendicular
at A-A (perpendiculartotothe
the paper)
paper)

Figure 2.15 The Newcastle full-displacement pressuremeter probe (After Akbar, 2001)

49
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

underneath the membrane simultaneously. This allows the whole length of the membrane to
expand uniformly under uniform soil conditions around the probe.

Limited in-situ testing was carried out with the Newcastle full-displacement pressuremeter
(NFDPM). The subsoils at the test sites were soft to firm clays, glacial till and sand. A brief
description of different sites is presented below (Akbar, 2001):

1) Newburn Riverside
This site is located on the north bank of the river Tyne between Lemington and Newburn,
about 7 km west of Newcastle University. The site consists of soft clay, being the floodplain
of the river Tyne and is overlain by about 2 m of made ground. PMT testing up to a depth of
9.5 m, keeping test interval of 1 m, was carried out at this site.

2) Birtley Brick Pit site

This site consists of firm to stiff glacial laminated clay and is located next to the Redland
Brick factory in Birtley, Gateshead, about 10 km from Newcastle University. A total depth of
8 m was explored at this site using the NFDPM.

3) Stella Gill expansion site

This site is located in Stella Gill Industrial Estate; Pelton Fell in Chester-Le-Street about 15
km from Newcastle University. The site consists of boulder clay, which is defined as an
unstratified and irregular mixture of boulders, cobbles, gravels, sand, silt and clay of glacial
origin, (also known as ‘glacial till’). Only one PMT test (1.6 m) could be conducted due to
limited reaction force.

4) Blyth beach sand dunes

Blyth town is located along the North-sea coast, about 20 km north of Newcastle University.
The testing was carried out on the sand dunes located along the beach. NFDPM in-situ testing
up to depth of 3 m was carried out at this site.

The new pressuremeter worked well at all the sites. The data obtained were processed using
current pressuremeter theories. Akbar (2001) concluded the following on the basis of the
testing carried out with the NFDPM:

50
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

Clamping
Hydraulic nuts (4)
fitting

Rubbermembrane(2)
Cone

Clamping
rings (3)

Figure 2.16 A photograph of the assembled NFDPM (From Akbar, 2001)

Hall effect Magnet 1 Arm 1 Hair spring

transducer (HET)

Hole for pin

44.4 mm
(pivot)

Magnet 2 Seat for Arm 2

HET
(a) At zero expansion of membrane
66 mm

(b) Maximum limit of arms expansion

Figure 2.17 The expansion arms (After Akbar, 2001)

51
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

1. NFDPM proved robust enough to test dense/hard soils and sensitive enough to test soft
soils.

2. The expansion measurement system is simple, robust and shows repeatable and non-
hysteretic calibrations. The test operation and control are also simple as the pressure
and cavity expansion can be monitored in engineering units on the computer screen
during a test.

3. The applied pressure-cavity expansion curve data can be analysed using current cavity
expansion theories to determine the strength and stiffness of soils. The results obtained
compare well with those from other instruments.

4. Due to the limited amount of test data generated, any relationship could not be
established between the pressuremeter data and the drained shear strength of sands.

The amount of testing was inadequate to ascertain full confidence in the robustness of the
test probe and Akbar (2001) recommended to do more testing for this purpose.

2.15.3 Comparison of the FDPM and the NFDPM

The analysis of the FDPM presented in section 2.15.1 shows that although the soil is
disturbed during probe installation, yet the unload-reload cycle and unloading portion of the
pressuremeter ground response curve can be analysed to find out strength and stiffness of the
soils. The results compare well with those from other sources (Houlsby & Withers, 1988).
The design parameters of sand can also be determined from this pressuremeter data using
Van Wieringen’s (1982) correlation discussed earlier.

With these developments in mind and to benefit from the existing experience, the NFDPM
was designed with a much simpler and robust system (Akbar, 2001) to yield a similar stress-
strain curve, as does the FDPM. The NFDPM uses a dummy cone instead of a piezocone.
The expansion is measured at the centre of the probe using a single transducer rather than
three. There is no pore pressure measurement provision. The cone diameter is larger than the
probe diameter to allow its use in all soils without damaging the membrane.

The expansion measurement system in the NFDPM can record the cavity strain to about 44%
of its original size, which is close to that for the FDPM (50%) and more than the minimum
specified (20%-30%) by Withers et al. (1986). The NFDPM stress-strain curve can, therefore,
be analysed in the same way as that from the FDPM.
52
CHAPTER 2 PRESSUREMETERS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

2.16 SUMMARY
Three types of pressuremeters are available in the industry; namely pre-boring (PBPM), self-
boring (SBPM), and full-displacement pressuremeter (FDPM). The type of ground to be
tested and the design parameters required make the bases for the choice of the pressuremeter
type.

Some ground disturbance can not be avoided while testing with any type of pressuremeter.
The ground disturbance is at maximum level with the FDPM, at moderate level with the
PBPM and least with the SBPM. However, in the case of the FDPM, since the deflated
diameter (due to the installation method) remains constant every time, the amount of
disturbance created during its installation is always the same in similar soils, which reduces
the level of uncertainty.

Pressuremeter data can be interpreted to determine shear modulus, undrained shear strength,
angle of shearing resistance and horizontal in-situ stress values of subsurface soils.

In-situ total horizontal stress can be directly determined from a SBPM test curve provided the
disturbance to the test pocket during its installation has been minimum. With other
pressuremeters, there are a number of techniques to estimate its value; however, the selection
of any method is subjective.

Since the Newcastle full-displacement pressuremeter was designed to work in the same way
as the FDPM developed by Withers et al. (1986), the analysis procedures developed for it can
be applicable to the NFDPM as well.

53