Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of undrained shear strength by pressuremeter and other tests, and numerical assessment of the effect of finite probe length in pressuremeter tests

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is a wide body of research reported in the literature which compare the undrained shear strength determined from various field and laboratory tests. The pressuremeter testing equipment and the related design techniques have been continuously refined. However, the undrained shear strength (S u) determined from the pressuremeter test (PMT) is generally higher than that obtained from other field or laboratory tests. In this study, numerical methods to consider the effects of length to diameter ratio (L/D) of the pressuremeter probe, and the procedural implications of soil disturbance and testing depth on the undrained shear strength determined from the PMT were investigated and possible correction factors depending on L/D ratio were established. In addition, in order to compare the variations in undrained shear strength of a clayey material with depth and testing method, a lightly overconsolidated and highly plastic clay, called “Eymir Lake clay” near Ankara (Turkey), was selected as the material of the study, and its values of undrained shear strength (S u), which were determined by PMT, field vane shear (FVT), conic penetration test (CPT), and laboratory tests, were compared. Based on the numerical analysis results, the correction factors depending on the L/D ratio of the conventional probes were suggested. The correction factors ranged from 0.83 to 0.96 for L/D ratios of 5.3 to 11, respectively, and they were determined to be independent of the rigidity values ranging from 25 to 200. It was also shown that overestimation of S u is independent of depth. In addition, due to very low permeability values of the Eymir Lake clay, it is concluded that for soils with coefficients of permeability lower than 10−10 m/s, partial drainage around the pressuremeter probe is unlikely. Based on the comparison among the results from laboratory and different field tests, the values of S u determined from the theoretical Palmer’s solution are higher than those from CPT, FVT, and CU tests. If the correction for L/D ratio is applied to the values of S u determined from the Palmer’s solution, S u from pressuremeter approaches S u obtained from FVT; however, there is still a slight overestimation in S u obtained from PMT. This overestimation is probably due to the differences in the mode of failure and the presence of a disturbed zone around the pressuremeter probe. However, S u determined from the PMT by empirical methods is close to those determined from CPT, FVT, and CU tests.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akyurek B, Duru M, Sutcu YF, Papak I, Saroglu F, Pehlivan N, Gonenc O, Granit S, Yasar T (1997) Geological maps of Turkey with 1. 100.000 scale, No.55 Ankara region. General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration, Department of Geological Researches, Ankara (in Turkish)

  • Amar S, Jézéquel JF (1972) Essais en place et en laboratoire sur sols cohérents: comparaisons des resultants. Bull Liaiso Lab Ponts Chaussées 58:97–108

    Google Scholar 

  • ASTM (1994a) Standard test method for performing electronic friction cone and piezocone penetration testing of soils: annual book of ASTM standards. ASTM Publications, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • ASTM (1994b) Standard test method for field vane shear test in cohesive soil: annual book of ASTM standards. ASTM Publications, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • ASTM (1995) Standard test method for consolidated undrained triaxial compression test for cohesive soils: annual book of ASTM standards. ASTM Publications, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • ASTM (1998) Standard test method for direct shear test of soils under consolidated drained conditions: annual book of ASTM standards. ASTM Publications, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • ASTM (1999) Standard test method for unconsolidated-undrained triaxial compression test on cohesive soils: annual book of ASTM standards. ASTM Publications, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • ASTM (2000) Standard test method for pressuremeter testing in soils: Annual Book of ASTM Standards: annual book of ASTM standards. ASTM Publications, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • ASTM (2001) Test method for one-dimensional consolidation properties of soils: annual book of ASTM standards. ASTM Publications, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • ASTM (2007) Standard Test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index of soils (D4318): annual book of ASTM standards. ASTM Publications, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • ASTM (2010) Standard Test methods for particle size analysis of soils (D422-63): annual book of ASTM standards. ASTM Publications, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Aubeny CP, Whittle AJ, Ladd CC (2000) Effects of disturbance on undrained strengths interpreted from pressuremeter tests. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 126(12):1133–1144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baguelin F, Jézéquel JF, Mée Le, Le Mehaute A (1972) Expansion of cylindrical probes in cohesive soils. J Soil Mech Found Div 98(11):1129–1142

    Google Scholar 

  • Baguelin F, Jézéquel JF, Shields DH (1978) The pressuremeter and foundation engineering. Trans Tech Publications, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakışkan I (1978) Shear strength of two clays in the Ankara region. MSc thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara

  • Benoit J, Clough GW (1986) Self boring pressuremeter tests in soft clay. J Geotech Eng 112(1):60–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjerrum L (1972) Embankments on soft grounds. Proceeding specialty conference on performance of Earth and Earth-supported structures, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, ASCE, pp 11–14

  • Bowles JE (1996) Foundation analysis and design, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Cao LF, Teh CI, Chang MF (2001) Undrained cavity expansion in modified cam clay I, theoretical analysis. Geotechnique 51(4):323–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Centre D’Etudes Ménard, 1975. Interpretation and application of pressuremeter test results to foundation design, Sols-Soils No: 26

  • Clarke BG (1995) Pressuremeters in geotechnical design. Blackie Academic & Professional, Great Britain

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins IF, Yu HS (1996) Undrained cavity expansion in critical state soils. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 20:485–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denby GM (1978) Self-boring pressuremeter study of San Fransisco Bay Mud. PhD thesis, University of Stanford

  • Ferreira RS, Robertson PK (1992) Interpretation of undrained self-boring pressuremeter test results incorporating unloading. Can Geotech J 29:918–928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flac (2002) Fast lagrangian analysis of continua users guide. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc, Minnesota

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson RE, Anderson WF (1961) In-situ measurement of soil properties with the pressuremeter. Civ Eng Pub Wks Rev 56(658):615–618

    Google Scholar 

  • Head KH (1986) Manual of laboratory testing: Volume 2 Permeability, shear strength and compressibility tests. Pantech Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Houlsby GT, Carter JP (1993) The effects of pressuremeter geometry of the results of tests in clay. Géotehnique 43(4):567–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houlsby GT, Withers NJ (1988) Analysis of the cone pressuremeter test in clay. Geotechnique 38(4):575–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO (1999) 13320-1, Particle size analysis–laser diffraction method, Part 1 General principles. Switzerland, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Komornik A, Frydman S (1969) A study of in situ testing with pressuremeter. Proceedings of the conference organized by the British Geotechnical Society in London, pp 145–154

  • Ladanyi B (1972) In-situ determination of undrained stres-strain behaviour of sensitive clays with the pressuremeter. Can Geotech J 9:313–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law K, Eden WJ (1982) Effects of disurbance on pressuremeter tests. Proceedings ASCE conference on updating subsurface samplings of soils and rocks and their in situ testing, Santa Barbara, CA, pp 292–303

  • Lunne T, Kleven A (1981) Role of CPT in North Sea foundation engineering. In: Norris GM, Holtz RD (eds) Cone penetration testing and experience. Proc. session sponsored by Geotechnical Engineering Division at Amer Soc Civ Engrs National Convention, St. Louis (Missouri), pp 76–107

  • Mair RJ, Wood DM (1987) Pressuremeter testing. Ciria Butterworths, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshland A, Randolph MF (1977) Comparisons of the results from pressuremeter tests and large in situ plate tests in London Clay. Géotechnique 27(2):217–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ménard L (1956) An apparatus for measuring the strength of soils in place. MSc thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana

  • Nadai A (1950) Theory of flow and fracture of solids, vol 1. McGraw-Hill, NewYork

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer AC (1972) Undrained plain strain expansion of a cylindrical cavity in clay: a simple interpretation of the pressuremeter test. Géotechnique 22:451–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penumadu D, Skandarajah A, Chameau JL (1998) Strain–rate effects in pressuremeter testing using a cuboidal shear device: experiments and modeling. Can Geotech J 35:27–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prapharan S, Chameau L, Altschaeffl AG, Holtz RD (1990) Effect of disturbance on pressuremeter results in clays. J Geotech Eng 116(1):35–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prevost JH (1979) Undrained shear tests on clay. J Geotech Eng 105(1):49–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Prevost JH, Hoeg K (1975) Analysis of pressuremeter in strain softening soil. J Geotech Eng 101(8):717–732

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyrah IC, Anderson WF, Pang LS (1988) Effects of test procedure on constant rate of strain pressuremeter tests in clay. Proceedings of 6th conference numerical methods in geomechanics, Innsbruck, pp 647–652

  • Silvestri V (1998) On the determination of the stress–stain curve of the clay from the undrained plain–strain expansion of hollow cylinders: a long forgotten method. Can Geotech J 35:360–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windle D, Wroth CP (1977) The use of a self-boring pressuremeter to determine the undrained properties of clays. Ground Eng 10(6):37–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Wroth CP (1984) The interpretation of in situ soil tests. Géotechnique 34(4):449–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wroth CP, Hughes JMO (1973) An instrument for the in situ measurement of the properties of soft clays. Proceedings of 8th international conference SMFE, Moscow, pp 487–494

  • Yeung SK, Carter JP (1990) Interpretation of the pressuremeter test in clay allowing for membrane end effects and material non-homogeneity. Pressuremeters, proceedings of the symposium on pressuremeters, British Geotechnical Society, pp 199–208

  • Yurtseven E (2006) Determination of nitrate and phosphate contaminant transport parameters of the hydrogeologic units between Mogan and Eymir lakes (Ankara). MSc thesis, Hacettepe University, Department of Geological Engineerimg, Division of Haydrogeology (in Turkish, unpublished)

Download references

Acknowledgments

The support provided by Zemar Corporation through the cone penetration tests is gratefully acknowledged. The authors also acknowledge the anonymous reviewers for their critical and constructive comments that lead to significant improvements in the article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Technology, Gazi University, Besevler, Ankara, Turkey

    Nihat Sinan Isik

  2. Department of Geological Engineering, Hacettepe University, Beytepe, 06800, Ankara, Turkey

    Resat Ulusay

  3. Department of Geological Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

    Vedat Doyuran

Authors
  1. Nihat Sinan Isik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Resat Ulusay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vedat Doyuran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Resat Ulusay.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Isik, N.S., Ulusay, R. & Doyuran, V. Comparison of undrained shear strength by pressuremeter and other tests, and numerical assessment of the effect of finite probe length in pressuremeter tests. Bull Eng Geol Environ 74, 685–695 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-014-0649-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-014-0649-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation