Advertisement

An Improved Technique for Prebored Pressuremeter Tests

  • Zubair Masoud
  • Ammad Hassan KhanEmail author
Geotechnical Engineering Technical Note
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

The prebored pressuremeter (PBP) test results depend on the quality of borehole, including its diameter, verticality, effectiveness of cleaning, and degree of wall disturbance. The true elastic modulus cannot be reasonably determined using the cavity pressure-strain curves measured in a borehole of poor quality. In this research, a stainless-steel casing (SSC) was devised to improve the quality of borehole. SSC of 1 to 4 m length was conjugated with a mechanical drilling system (MDS). At a test site, an auger and the MDS with or without the SSC were attempted to drill boreholes for the PBP tests. Among the three techniques, the MDS with SSC produced the reliable values of the initial elastic modulus at a low strain range (0.003% to 0.089%).

Keywords

prebored pressuremeter borehole cavity pressure strain mechanical drill system elastic modulus 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amar, S., Clarke, B. G. F., Gambin, M., and Orr, T. L. L. (1991). “The application of pressuremeter test results to foundation design in Europe.” European Regional Technical Committee 4, Pressuremeters, University of London, UK, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
  2. ASTM D1452 (2000). Standard Practice for Soil Exploration and Sampling by Auger Borings, D1452, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.Google Scholar
  3. ASTM D1586 (2000). Standard Test Method for Penetration Test and Split Barrel Sampling of Soil, D1586, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.Google Scholar
  4. ASTM D4719 (2000). Standard Test Methods for Prebored Pressuremeter Testing in Soils, D4719, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.Google Scholar
  5. ASTM D5778 (2012). Standard Test Method for Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone Penetration Testing of Soils, D5778, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.Google Scholar
  6. Baguelin, F., Jezequel, J. F., and Shields, D. H. (1978). The pressuremeter and foundation engineering, Trans Tech Publications, Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany.Google Scholar
  7. Chung, S. G. and Kweon, H. J. (2013). “Oil-operated fixed piston sampler and its applicability.” J. of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, vol. 139, no. 1, pp. 134–142, DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chung, S. G, Lee, J. M., Kweon, H. J., and Singh, V. K. (2017). “Penetration behaviors and sample quality of hydraulically activated fixed-piston samplers.” J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, vol. 143, no. 3, pp. 1–12, DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke, B. G. (1993). “The interpretation of pressuremeter tests to produce design parameters.” Proc. Wroth Memorial Symp. On Predictive Soil Mechanics, St. Catherine’s College, Oxford, UK. pp. 75–88.Google Scholar
  10. Clarke, B. G (1995). Pressuremeters in geotechnical design. Blackie Academic & Professional, Chapman and Hall Glasgow, London, U.K.Google Scholar
  11. Finn, P. S., Nisbet, R., and Hawkins, P. (1984). “Effect of disturbance on parameters derived from selfboring pressuremeter tests in sand.” Géotechnique, vol. 34, pp. 81–97, DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1984.34.1.81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ladanyi, B. (1995). “A brief history of pressuremeter.” Proc. Pressuremeter and its New Avenues, Roterdam: A.A. Balkema, pp. 5–23.Google Scholar
  13. Masoud Z., Akbar A., and Khan A. H. (2013). “High quality and cost effective drilling system for prebored pressuremeter testing.” Soils and Foundations, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 903–909, DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2013.10.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Newman, R. L. (1991). “Interpretation of data from self-boring pressuremeter tests for the assessment of design parameters in sand.” Tech. Sem. Pressuremeters for Design in Geotechnics, Soil Mechanics Ltd., UK, No. 3.Google Scholar
  15. Tarnawski, M. (2004). “The perfect Menard pressuremeter curve.” Archives of Hydro-Engineering and Environmental Mechanics, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 387–402.Google Scholar
  16. Vinod, K. S. and Chung, S. G. (2013). “Determination of deformation modulus for lower sands in Nakdong River Delta.” Marine Georesources & Geotechnology, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 290–307, DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2012.743635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Civil Engineers 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SOILCON Geotechnical Engineering LaboratoriesLahorePakistan
  2. 2.Dept. of Transportation Engineering & ManagementUniversity of Engineering and TechnologyLahorePakistan

Personalised recommendations