Geotechnical and Geological Engineering

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 155–166 | Cite as

Essential Findings in Pressuremeter Theories

Original paper


The pressuremeter, used for in situ soil testing, has undergone significant development both in its technical applications and in the interpretation methods employed for a range of parameters. Several methods have been developed to evaluate the undrained strength of a soil using a pressuremeter. Test results based on these methods show distinctive discrepancies. Different methods for evaluating the limit pressure are also presented. The values of these limit pressure evaluations vary based on the evaluation method used. In any given test, the limit pressure results also affect the values deduced for undrained shear strength. The discrepancies in the undrained shear strength values exceeded 80 % for the same test when evaluations were made with different interpretation methods. Because of the large discrepancies in the results of the undrained shear strength when using different analysis methods, the Gibson and Anderson method is recommended as being most reliable in deducing undrained shear strength values from pressuremeter tests, particularly for use in the design of foundations.


Pressuremeter Limit pressure Shear strength Interpretation 


  1. Abed Y (2014) Identification of granular soils strength and stiffness parameters by matching finite element results to PMT data. Int J Comput Methods. doi: 10.1142/S0219876213420012 Google Scholar
  2. Alzubaidi R (2014) Different results in pressuremeter theories. Geotech Geol Eng 32(4):965–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amar S, Jézéquel JF (1972) Essais en place et en laboratoire sur sols cohérents: comparaison des résultats. Bulletin de Liaison des Ponts et Chaussées 58:97–108Google Scholar
  4. Clerk B, Carter J, Wroth C (1979) In-situ determination of consolidation characteristics of saturated clays. In: Proceedings of 7th European conference SMFE, vol 2. Brighton, pp 207–212Google Scholar
  5. Frikha W, Bouassida M (2014) Prediction of stone column ultimate bearing capacity using expansion cavity model. In: Proceeding of the ICE-ground improvementGoogle Scholar
  6. Gibson RE, Anderson WF (1961) In-situ measurement of soils properties with the pressuremeter. Civ Eng Publ Works Rev 56:615–618Google Scholar
  7. Kayabasi K (2012) Prediction of pressuremeter modulus and limit pressure of clayey soils by simple and non-linear multiple regression techniques : a case study from Mersin, Turkey. Environ Earth Sci 66(8):2171–2183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ladanyi B (1972) In situ determination of undrained stress–strain behavior of sensitive clays with pressuremeter. Can Geotech J 9(3):313–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Marsland A, Randolph MF (1977) Comparison of the results from pressuremeter tests and large in situ plate test in London clay. Geotechnique 27:217–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McKinlay D, Shwaik R (1983) Pressuremeter measurement of consolidation rate in glacial till. In: International symposium on soil and rock investigation by in situ testing, vol 2. Paris, pp 341–268Google Scholar
  11. McKinley DG, Tomlinson M, Anderson WF (1974) Observation on the undrained strength of glacial till. Geotechnique 24(4):503–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ménard L (1957) Mesures in situ des propriétés physiques des sols. Annales des Ponts et Chaussées 3:357–376Google Scholar
  13. Monnet J (2007) Numerical validation of an elastoplastic formulation of the conventional limit pressure measured with the pressuremeter test in cohesive soil. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133(9):1119–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Palmer AC (1972) Undrained plane-strain expansion of cylindrical cavity in clay; simple interpretation of pressuremeter test. Geotechnique 22:451–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Van Wambeke A, d’Hericourt J (1975) Coubed pressiometriques inverses: méthode d interpretation de lessai pressiometrique. Soils–Soils 25:15–25Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Civil Engineering Department, College of EngineeringUniversity of SharjahSharjahUAE

Personalised recommendations