The Unload-Reload Pressuremeter Test: Olivier COMBARIEU Yves Canépa

The unload-reload pressuremeter test
Olivier COMBARIEU
Laboratoire rgional des Ponts et Chausses, Rouen
Yves CANPA
Laboratoire rgional des Ponts et Chausses de lEst Parisien, Melun
Introduction
The standardized testing procedure to perform a Mnard pressuremeter test (AFNOR, 2000) involves a
step by step loading of the soil, until the pressuremeter limit pressure p is reached. About ten loading
increments are generally required to achieve this.
The pressure-volumetric curve is used to compute the Mnard pressuremeter modulus, denoted by EM,
which is determined on the quasi-linear part of this curve within an interval defined by two specific pressure values (p1 et p2), the first of which is roughly equivalent to the horizontal earth pressure at-rest p0,
and the second to the pressuremeter creep pressure pf.
The modulus EM is frequently used to estimate the displacement of geotechnical structures: for vertically
and/or horizontally loaded foundations, flexible earth retaining structures, and even as a first assessment
for embankment lying on compressible soil.
These calculations, which are specific to the Mnard pressuremeter, combine theoretical and empirical
elements. The main expressions that are proposed (for settlement of footings and piles, etc.) have been
compared with the displacement measured in loading tests conducted on real structures. Among the
works which can be mentioned are researches conducted by Louis Mnard and his associates (Mnard
and Rousseau, 1962; Mnard and Lambert, 1966) during the 1960s, and then some years later observations on structures (Bru et al., 1973) and trials conducted by the Laboratoire des Ponts et Chausses
(LPC) (Canpa and Depresles, 1990).
Although simpler expressions, i.e. for calculating the settlement of shallow foundations (Canpa, 1990),
are able to provide equally good results, the formulae proposed by Mnard have been considered sufficiently accurate for the justification of usual structures and have been taken up in the French regulatory
texts (fascicule 62, 1993), the main difficulty being the determination of a relevant modulus for the problem in question.
In this context, it is worth mentioning that the pressuremeter modulus EM is very sensitive to the quality
of the boring in which the pressuremeter probe is inserted (as is, to a lesser extent, the limit pressure p).
Originally, boring conducted with a hand auger (in fine soils) with considerable precautions (for example, injecting slurry into the borehole if necessary in order to support its walls) was considered to be the
technique that disturbed the soil the least. This boring procedure, which is unusable in many soils and
very limiting in the case of deep investigations, has largely been abandoned in favour of faster equipment
and therefore less costly execution, which is however considered by some to be destructive for the soil.
The large range of boring tools and machines has encouraged studies of how the boring mode affects the
characteristics obtained for the main types of soil and the development of recommendations, first of all
incorporated in the LPC test procedures and then in the French standard NF P 94-110-1.
However, good practice is not always followed (see Annex 1), and it must be admitted that some of the
values for the EM modulus (and the limit pressures p) that are to be found in geotechnical investigation
reports are completely unacceptable and underestimate the properties of the soil. This is a disservice to
the pressuremeter method, which is of great value and whose usefulness in the context of calculating the
settlement of shallow foundations was stated by R. Frank in the general report he presented in Florence
ten years ago (Frank 1991).
BULLETIN DES LABORATOIRES DES PONTS ET CHAUSSES - 233 - JULY-AUGUST 2001 - RF. 4381 - PP. 37-67
37
It is also important to bear in mind that even when the tests are well performed, the measured Mnard
modulus corresponds to an average modulus for the pressure range po pf. While this is acceptable
for some calculations (for example, estimating the settlement of small foundations under service loads),
the Mnard modulus cannot be applied blindly to any problem. In particular, it is clear that in the case
of displacements associated with small soil deformations (typically less than 1%), the Mnard pressuremeter modulus EM cannot be considered to be indicative of the behaviour of the soil.
Finally, we should bear in mind that design methods based on linearly elastic soil behaviour models
are becoming more prevalent, in particular because of increasing use of finite element computation
codes. To the extent that these are used in a reasonable manner, that is to say on condition that a suitable
elastic modulus is applied, the validity of these techniques has been demonstrated by forecasts and
measurements on structures, as is the case for the pressuremeter method. Furthermore, with the reservation mentioned above, they are permitted by the new standards (Eurocode 7, for example, AFNOR,
1996).
In practice, the elastic moduli that are used are drawn directly from the results of laboratory tests (for
example, undrained shear tests using the triaxial apparatus), or, as is frequently the case on economic
grounds or because of an inability to extract undisturbed samples, derived from in-situ tests (seismic and
pressuremeter tests in France, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) or Cone Penetration Test (CPT) in other
countries) on the basis of theoretical and empirical formulae when the test measures a modulus of strain
(seismic, pressuremeter tests) or, if not, on the basis of exclusively empirical formulae (SPT, CPT, etc.).
In no case is a clear account given of the domain of application of these moduli or, even less, of the validation of the calculations.
Usefullness of a cyclic pressuremeter test

The points we have raised above have led to the Deformations (%)
reintroduction of cyclic Mnard pressuremeter
tests. There is nothing new about the principal
involved, in fact Louis Mnard introduced this pro- 20
1 : elastic phase
cedure as early as 1962 (unloading and reloading
2 : quasi elastic phase
are performed during expansion of the probe). He
3 : unloading elastic phase
4 : plastic phase
gave the name alternating modulus Ea to the 15
pressuremeter strain modulus measured over the
cycle and mentioned that this modulus is practically
identical to the elastic modulus or microstrain mod10
ulus denoted by E. He suggested use of this modulus to characterize the behaviour of soils under
vibratory equipment (Mnard and Lambert, 1966).
3
5
In Figure 1 we have reproduced the original diaEa
gram from the article by Mnard and Rousseau
(1962) which could profitably be read or reread.
E
E
Stress
This diagram shows an idealized test conducted
0
p
p
under conditions which differ from those that apply
f
1
2
4
to the current practice. It is possible, however, to
Fig. 1 - Cyclic pressuremeter test
approximate these conditions, as the development
(after Mnard and Rousseau, 1962).
of self-boring pressuremeters has made it possible
to insert probes with practically no disturbance to
the soil. As a result, it is possible to obtain volumetric strain-stress curves which are identical to those
shown in Figure 1.
Theoretical studies of the expansion of spherical and cylindrical cavities in an elastic-perfectly plastic
soil (Wroth, 1982; Mestat, 1993a; Mestat, 1993b; Monnet and Khlif, 1994), have provided additional
support for Mnards ideas, notably the two analyses conducted by Mestat which in the context of the
validation of the CSAR-LCPC computation codes (Mestat, 1994), provided full analytical equations
for an unloading-reloading cycle for cylindrical expansion in an elastic-perfectly plastic material which
complies respectively with the Mohr Coulomb and Tresca plasticity criteria (respectively for a frictional
soil as in Fig. 2 and for a purely cohesive soil as in Fig. 3). These analyses are of considerable interest
38
Fig. 2 - Expansion of a cylindrical cavity in an elastic-perfectly

plastic formation, Mohr Coulomb criterion (after Mestat, 1993b).
P (kPa)
4
F
B
3
Key: Radial displacement on the abscissa;

Radial stress on the ordinate
N.B.: the path OA is linear elastic;
the path AB is elastic-perfectly plastic;
the path BC is linear -elastic;
the path CD is elastic-perfectly plastic;
the path DE is linear elastic;
the path EF is elastic-perfectly plastic;
1
A
C
D
0
0
0,25
0,50
0,75
1,00
1,25
1,50
1,75
u(r1) (mm)
as they show clearly the elastic nature of the unloading-reloading curves over large ranges of stress,
which makes it possible to estimate the elastic modulus of the soil by theoretical means.
As the rheological models used were fairly simple in comparison with the complex behaviour of real soil
(nonlinear elasticity, dilatancy, confinement, creep), it is obvious that it is slightly more complex to
derive a modulus for an unloading-reloading cycle in a real pressuremeter test.
These factors nevertheless allow us to assume that
it is possible to measure a strain modulus over an
unloading-reloading cycle during pressuremeter
expansion which is characteristic of the behaviour
of soils undergoing small deformations, and that it
would be possible for a whole range of problems,
to use a modulus of this type directly for the calculations that assume a linear elastic behaviour of
the soil.
We should also mentioned the hope that some
researchers have expressed that a cyclic test will
be able to partially eradicate the effects of soil disturbance. It is true that some other geotechnical
test procedures (plate bearing test, deep foundation loading test, oedometer test, etc.) include an
unloading-reloading phase and the deformation
behaviour measured during this loop is exploited.
In the rest of this paper, we will unfortunately see
that this academic hope has proved sterile and that
soil appears to remember the disturbance to
which it has been subjected.
P (kPa)
3
2,5
1,5
0,5
0
0
5
6
u(r1) (mm)
Fig. 3 Expansion of a cylindrical cavity in an elastic-perfectly

plastic formation, Tresca criterion (after Mestat, 1993a).
The network of Laboratoires des Ponts et Chausses (LPC) has conducted various experimental studies
of the feasibility of cyclic Mnard pressuremeter testing. These were conducted on in situ soils and have
dealt with the following topics:
the unload-reload pressuremeter test procedure,
the effect of the boring mode on the parameters obtained,
39
the accuracy of the cyclic modulus measurements,

the Ecyclic/EM ratios obtained for the main categories of soil,
application of the cyclic pressuremeter modulus to the design of structures.
This paper reports the results obtained by the Rouen and East Paris Laboratoires Rgionaux des Ponts et
Chausses (LRPC) with regard to the first four of these points.
Selection of the test procedure

Selection of the test procedure was influenced by the desire to conduct the cyclic pressuremeter tests
with the same equipment that is used for standard pressuremeter tests, while at the same time logging
pressure and volume.
The measurement devices were those in existence when the tests were conducted (APAGEO and GEOMATECH prototype). The measurement uncertainty stated by the manufacturers was 0.5 cm3 for volumes and 1% for pressure.
The study essentially concerned the unload-reload procedure (starting pressure pc, range of the cycle
pc pd and the number of steps of pressure during the cycle).
In view of the uncertainty with regard to the volume measurements, it was desirable that the range of the
deformations be as large as possible. It was also necessary for the operator in the field to be able to decide
easily on the pressure at which to start the cycle. These considerations, in combination with theoretical
data (Mestat, 1993a and b) concerning the amplitude of the elastic phases during unloading*, caused us
to start the cycle at a pressure pc close to the creep pressure pf and to unload until a pressure of
pd was reached such that po < pd < pc/2. Reloading was then conducted step by step until the limit pressure or the maximum possible pressure was obtained.
There was unanimous agreement among the geotechnical engineers who performed this type of test as
regards the test procedure. However there was some debate about the type of unloading procedure:
should the soil be decompressed rapidly, in a single step, which is what we recommend (on the
grounds that uncertainty with regard to measurements means it is impossible to obtain reliable intermediate moduli)?,
or should stepped unloading be performed following a path which is the inverse of initial loading
(and with the same duration)?.
The above two unloading modes were applied at a site near Paris in an overconsolidated saturated clay
(green plastic Romainville Lower Sannosian clay with wL = 60 to 80; IP between 30 and 50; d = 15 to
16 kN/m3).
Twenty-four tests, incorporating an unloading-reloading cycle and using a probe with a flexible membrane and a diameter of 63 mm, were conducted in eight pressuremeter boreholes (P1 to P8) that had
been bored with a continuous flight auger in dry conditions. All the boreholes were located near a core
sample sounding, within an area measuring 3 m 3 m, and the tests carried out at three different depths.
Four tests for each unloading mode were performed at each depth.
Figure 4 shows two standard curves that were obtained, one (see Fig. 4a) with several steps during the
unloading phase from pc to pd (test L), the other (see Fig. 4b) with a continuous unloading phase (test R).
Table 1 sets out the test procedure used for each test.
The pressuremeter characteristics (p, pf, EM) were determined for each test in accordance with the procedures laid down in the AFNOR standard NF P 94-110. Two cyclic moduli were also calculated:
an unloading secant modulus pc pd denoted by Ed;
a reloading secant modulus pd pc denoted by Er.
The results of all the tests conducted are given in Annex 2. Table II sets out for each unloading mode
and each different depth the following results: the mean values (m), standard deviations () and coefficients of variation (cv = /m) obtained for the standardized pressuremeter characteristics (EM, p), the
cyclic characteristics (Ed, Er) and the ratios Er/EM, Ed/EM and EM/p.
* pc-pd 2 cu in the case of a purely cohesive soil and pc-pd pc.(2.sin)/(1 + sin) in the case of a purely frictional soil.
40
Fig. 4 - Unload-reload pressuremeter tests Raw results.
v (cm3)
500
v (cm3)
500
Boissy - Sounding P1 - Z = 1,6 m
400
400
300
300
200
200
100
100
0
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
p (MPa)
Boissy - Sounding P4 - Z =1,6 m
0,2
a. Type L test stepped unloading.
0,4
0,6
0,8
p (MPa)
b. Type R test rapid unloading.
TABLE I
Unload-reload pressuremeter tests Boring modes used
Depth (m)
BOREHOLES
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
1.6 2.0
2.6 3.0
3.6 4.0
Note: Rapid unloading is denoted by R and stepped unloading by L.
TABLE II
Unload-reload pressuremeter tests Results obtained at each depth

p
(MPa)
EM
(MPa)
Er
(MPa)
Er/EM
Ed/EM
EM/p
Standard deviation
0.65
0.16
8.37
3.27
z = 1.6 m 2 m
34.25
35.50
5.58
22.48
4.36
1.94
4.86
2.82
12.54
2.23
cv
0.25
0.39
0.16
0.63
0.45
0.58
0.18
Mean
Standard deviation
0.85
0.09
9.08
1.62
z = 2.6m 3m
35.15
35.04
7.95
8.21
3.91
0.87
3.92
0.85
10.74
1.47
cv
0.11
0.18
0.23
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.14
Mean
Standard deviation
cv
0.73
0.04
0.05
7.36
0.93
0.13
z = 3.6m 4m
24.48
24.12
6.04
3.34
0.25
0.14
3.29
0.35
0.11
3.32
0.64
0.19
10.03
0.98
0.10
Mean
Ed
(MPa)
41
In addition, Tables IIIa and IIIb give, for both unloading modes, the measured mean values, the standard
deviations and the coefficients of variation for each depth and throughout the thickness of the clay formation.
Lastly, Figures 5a and 5b set out the values of the cyclic moduli measured using test procedure R (rapid
unloading) and L (slow unloading by steps) versus the modulus EM..
In spite of the fact that little data is available (four tests for each depth and each procedure), these Tables
and Figures elicit several remarks. First of all, we can observe that the secant moduli Er and Ed are three
to five times higher than the Mnard pressuremeter moduli EM and have values of the order of 25 to
40 MPa. In other terms, the volumetric changes during the unloading-reloading phases are very low (3
to 5 cm3 per cycle)*.
When the Er and Ed results obtained with the two unloading modes are compared, no significant differences as a result of rapid unloading are apparent (see Fig. 5a and 5b). Lastly, it is noteworthy that the
two test procedures lead to similar dispersions (cv = 0.2 to 0.3) which are of the same order of magnitude
as those observed for the modulus EM during standard tests (see Table III).
TABLE IIIa
Rapid unloading (Type R) - Results obtained at each depth and for the entire layer of clay
p
(MPa)
EM
(MPa)
Mean
Standard deviation
cv
0.65
0.16
0.25
Mean
Standard deviation
cv
Ed
(MPa)
Er
(MPa)
Er/EM
Ed/EM
EM / p
8.64
3.26
0.38
z = 1.6 m 2 m
31.10
29.47
4.74
6.74
0.15
0.23
4.00
2.41
0.60
3.94
1.36
0.34
13.02
2.05
0.16
0.85
0.10
0.11
8.76
1.35
0.15
z = 2.6 m 3 m
29.66
30.63
5.10
5.08
0.17
0.17
3.62
1.18
0.33
3.46
0.88
0.25
10.33
1.41
0.14
Mean
Standard deviation
cv
0.74
0.05
0.07
7.15
0.84
0.12
z = 3.6m 4m
21.04
24.36
2.20
3.98
0.10
0.16
3.40
0.26
0.08
2.96
0.36
0.12
9.60
0.51
0.05
Mean
Standard deviation
cv
0.75
0.13
0.18
8.18
2.04
0.25
3.67
1.43
0.39
3.46
0.96
0.28
10.98
2.03
0.18
Entire layer (z = 1.6 m 4 m)

27.27
6.01
0.22
28.15
5.65
0.20
Conclusions about the test procedure

The unload-reload test procedure
The results obtained in an overconsolidated clay, together with uncertainties about volume measurements ( 0.5 cm3), show that it is unrealistic to expect to calculate reliable intermediate moduli over
small ranges of pressure (p/10). It therefore seems pointless to incorporate loading steps within the
cycle in order to measure this type of modulus.
However, the mean modulus over an unloading-reloading loop with a minimum pressure range of the
cycle of p/2 to p/4, can be measured with an accuracy that is satisfactory, that is to say similar to that
of the Mnard pressuremeter modulus EM.
Questions are nevertheless raised about how the mode of unloading (slow or rapid) affects the results,
particularly in the case of clayey materials.
* V 2.66.Vs.(pc-pd)/E 10 cm3 over the range pc-pd, that is to say approximately 3 to 5cm3 on average per cycle which
ever modulus is measured (with available equipment, the current test procedure consists of (ten loading stepsages to reach p)
and (pc-pd)/Ecyclic ratios 1/300 to 1/500).
42
TABLE IIIb
Stepped unloading (Type L) - Results obtained at each depth and for the entire layer of clay
p
(MPa)
EM
(MPa)
Mean
Standard deviation
cv
0.64
0.19
0.29
Mean
Standard deviation
cv
Ed
(MPa)
Er
(MPa)
Er/EM
Ed/EM
EM / p
8.11
3.76
0.46
z = 1.6 m 2 m
37.40
41.53
4.86
32.21
0.13
0.78
4.72
1.63
0.34
5.78
3.81
0.66
12.06
2.61
0.22
0.84
0.11
0.13
9.40
2.01
0.21
z = 2.6 m 3 m
40.63
39.45
6.43
8.92
0.16
0.23
4.20
0.42
0.10
4.39
0.58
0.13
11.16
1.61
0.14
Mean
Standard deviation
cv
0.72
0.03
0.04
7.57
1.09
0.14
z = 3.6m 4m
27.92
23.89
6.98
3.16
0.25
0.13
3.18
0.42
0.13
3.69
0.69
0.19
10.46
1.21
0.12
Mean
Standard deviation
cv
0.74
0.14
0.19
8.36
2.44
0.29
Entire layer (z = 1.6 m 4 m)

35.31
34.96
7.92
19.36
0.22
0.55
4.03
1.13
0.28
4.62
2.24
0.48
11.22
1.85
0.17
Fig. 5 - Unload-reload pressuremeter tests. Cyclic modulus versus pressuremeter modulus.
Ed (MPa)
Er (MPa)
60
60
Cycle R
Cycle R
Cycle L
50
Cycle L
50
Er = 2,5 EM
Ed = 2,5 EM
Er = 5 EM
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
Ed = 5 EM
0
0
10
a. Reloading modulus Er.
15
EM (MPa)
10
15
EM (MPa)
b. Unloading modulus Ed.
The tests conducted show that there is no discernable difference between the two procedures we have
investigated when measurement uncertainty is taken into account. In view of the conventional way in
which moduli are calculated there is no advantage for the testing procedure to select a stepped unloading
phase (the also same applies to reloading but to a lesser degree).
We still need, of course, to consider the relevance and usefulness of mean cyclic modulus measurements.
However, this is a different matter. To measure the unloading modulus under very low volumetric
43
changes, the test procedure and equipment would need to be modified (it would probably be necessary
conduct tests at a constant rate of strain and/or use probes with a greater expansion capability, of the
order of between 1,500 and 2,000 cm3 in order to reduce measurement uncertainty).
To conclude, in order to determine the cyclic modulus with a sufficient degree of accuracy using the
equipment that is in normal use, the modulus in question should be determined over the complete range
of the cycle. In this case, rapid decompression of the soil is sufficient. It is this procedure which was
adopted for a possible standardized test (XP P 94-110-2) using existing equipment.
Data logging devices
As has been seen above, the contraction and expansion of the pressuremeter cell during a loadingunloading loop is very limited (a few cubic centimetres between two consecutive loading steps at the
most). Consequently, volume measurements must be as accurate as possible.
For the same reasons, the loading relationship p = f(t) must also be monitored during the test as must the
following aspects:
variation in the pressure applied to the soil during a loading step,
loading step duration,
pressure difference between the guard cells and the measuring cell.
Automatic logging of pressure and volume measurements are therefore an important factor for the quality of cyclic pressuremeter tests. In addition to the devices used in the tests described in this paper, new
equipment is also available on the market.
All the manufacturers state measurement uncertainties of at least (0.5 cm3 for volume and (1% for pressure.
This equipment has been designed to collect the data of a Mnard pressuremeter test (NF P 94-110-1).
The pressure and volume sensors seem to be satisfactory for cyclic tests. The following points must, nevertheless, be considered (and if necessary the data acquisition software should be modified accordingly):
ability to access raw pressure and volume measurements, not just the rounded-off values that are displayed,
logging of gas and water pressure read-offs, at least at the start and end of each loading step, and
above all during the soil decompression phase,
recording of pressure and volume at least at 1 s 15 s 30 s 60 s after the start of a step of pressure.
These requirements have, moreover, been included in the most recent version of the standard for the
pressuremeter test (NF P 94-110-1 and NF P 94-110-2).
Test procedure and calculation of the unload-reload pressuremeter modulus
To conclude, the recommended procedure is as follows:
start cycle at pc pf p/2,

range of cycle: p/4 p p/2 or in practice p pc/2,
rapid decompression of soil (with monitoring of the pressure in the guard cells and measuring cell),
step by step reloading phase,
volume and pressure read-offs at 1 s, 15 s, 30 s et 60 s at least.
It is also recommended to characterize the loading-unloading cycle by means of a single conventional

cyclic modulus Ec which corresponds to the mean modulus of reloading Er that is determined between
pd and pc using the formula given below
Ec = 2.66.p.V/V
where
p = pc pd,
V = Vc Vd,
V = Vs + (Vc Vd)/2,
Vs: volume of the measuring cell,
Vc, Vd: corrected volume corresponding to corrected pressures pc and pd.
This is the procedure which was applied for the cyclic tests described below.
44
Influence of the boring mode on the cyclic modulus Er

Good quality boring, as has already been stated, is essential for the quality of the standard pressuremeter
test. A wide variety of factors determine the quality and reliability of the parameters measured by the
pressuremeter. Boring tools, the length of the boring passes and boring parameters all affect soil disturbance and influence the test results i.e. the limit pressure p and the modulus EM (the latter being generally more affected than the former). It is therefore essential to comply with the recommendations
which are reproduced in Annex 1 in order to obtain results which are indicative of real soil behaviour
and be able to use pressuremeter-based design methods.
One of the reasons a loading cycle was conducted during the tests was to investigate to what extent the
cycle was able to overcome the dispersion exhibited by EM values and provide much lower dispersion
for the modulus Er, irrespective of whether the mode of boring was acceptable or not.
For the tests described below, we therefore varied the boring techniques, from the one we have termed
the reference method (hand auger) to methods which are highly disruptive and obviously prohibited.
The Rouen LRPC conducted measurements in three soils (silt, very plastic clay, river sand).
Silt
The soil in question was aeolian low plasticity silt. This is a very common geological formation in Normandy, as it covers all the plateaux. The site which overlooks Le Havre (Le Mont Gaillard) has a layer
of between 4 and 5 metres thick of this silt, whose density increases with depth, as we know from previous studies in the area. Below the silt the soil becomes very much more dense and structured and contains flint.
Three boring modes were tested, with one borehole for each mode; each was located at the summit of an
equilateral triangle with sides of 2 metres.
Mode 1 (HA). Hand auger in dry conditions, with a diameter of 63 mm.
The borehole, with a total length of 6 m, was bored by lengths of 1 m at a time, each metre requiring five
or six auger passes. Silt was therefore extracted, with practically no disturbance of the wall of the cavity: This was the reference boring mode. A pressuremeter test was performed after each meter was bored.
Mode 2 (CFA). Continuous flight auger in dry conditions with a diameter of 63 mm, according to
the following procedure which minimized reaming of the cavity:
boring from 0 to 2.5 m with two pressuremeter tests performed at depths of 2 m and 1 m,
boring from 2.5 to 4.5 m with a pressuremeter test performed at a depth of 3 metres,
boring from 4.5 to 5.5 m, with a pressuremeter test performed at a depth of 5 metres.
This is the most frequently used boring mode in soil of this type.
Mode 3 (DTS). Three-blade desagregating tool with a diameter of 64 mm in a single pass, from 0
to 5 m, followed by subsequent conduct of pressuremeter tests, from bottom to top.
The results obtained are gathered together in Annex 3.1 (Tables IIIa to IIIc). Figures 6a and 6b show the
effect of the mode of boring on the values of the Mnard pressuremeter modulus EM and the cyclic
reloading modulus Er.
The Tables given in Annex 3.1 and Figure 6 elicit the following remarks:
In general, the hand auger provides the highest modulus values. On average, the EM and Er values
from the continuous flight auger (CFA) are 1.5 times lower than those from the hand auger
(EM = 10.8 MPa, Er = 33 MPa as opposed to EM = 7 MPa and Er = 20.4 MPa for the flight auger). The
desagregating tool (DTS), with a single 5 m metre boring pass leads to greater dispersion among results,
which vary from being slightly higher to very much lower than those obtained with the hand auger.
Irrespective of the boring mode, the Er/EM ratios remain at about 3. This shows that the unloadingreloading cycle does not re-create an Er modulus which is independent of the mode of boring, and therefore does not eradicate the effect of disturbance.
It should also be noted that the number of tests conducted was very small and that the density of the silt
increases considerably with depth, as illustrated by the limit pressure p profiles (fig. 6d).
45
Fig. 6 - Effect of the boring mode on the strain modulus Silt.
10
15
EM (MPa)
20
20
MODE 1 (HA)
MODE 2 (CFA)
MODE 2 (CFA)
MODE 3 (DTS)
Depth z (m)
Depth z (m)
Er (MPa)
60
MODE 1 (HA)
1
40
MODE 3 (DTS)
5
a. Mnard pressuremeter modulus EM.
b. Cyclic modulus Er.
Er / EM
1
0,5
pl (MPa)
1,5
MODE 1 (HA)
MODE 2 (CFA)
MODE 1 (HA)
1
MODE 2 (CFA)
MODE 3 (DTS)
Depth z (m)
Depth z (m)
MODE 3 (DTS)
5
c. Er /EM ratio
d. Limit pressure p.
Very plastic clay

The formation consisted of black Albian clay, known as Gault clay, located below the water table (the
site is at Callengeville, in the exhumed and eroded anticlimal fold of the Pays de Bray in the dpartement
of Seine Maritime). The homogeneous zone of this geological horizon was tested by using seven very
closely spaced boreholes, placed about 2 metres apart.
Seven boring modes were employed (Table IV), ranging from the hand auger without soil disturbance
and with 1m passes (mode 1) to direct driving of the probe (mode 7), protected by a slotted tube, which
is an absolutely prohibited method.
46
Fig. 7- Effect of boring mode on strain modulus Clay.
EM (MPa)
10
20
30
40
Depth z (m)
Depth z (m)
Er (MPa)
0
10
MODE 1 : HA 1m pass
MODE 2 : CFA 1m pass
MODE 3 : CFA 1 pass
MODE 4 : ROTOP 1m pass
MODE 5 : DTS 1 pass
MODE 6 : DTS 1m pass
MODE 7 : DST
11
10
30
40
10
MODE 1 : HA 1m pass
MODE 3 : CFA 1 pass
MODE 5 : DTS 1 pass
MODE 7 : DST
11
12
20
12
a. Mnard pressuremeter modulus EM.
Er / EM
Er / EM
1
10
10
Em (MPa)
Depth z (m)
20
10
MODE 1 : HA 1m pass
11
MODE 1 : HA 1m pass
MODE 3 : CFA 1 pass
MODE 5 : DTS 1 pass
MODE 7 : DST
12
c. Er/EM ratio.

30
MODE 3 : CFA 1 pass

MODE 5 : DTS 1 pass
MODE 7 : DST
40
d. Er/EM versus EM.
Tables IVa to IVg in Annex 3.2 set out all the results from each boring mode. Figures 7a and 7b show
how the boring mode affected the values of the Mnard pressuremeter modulus EM and the cyclic reloading modulus Er. Figures 7c and 7d show change in the Er/EM ratios, with depth z and EM respectively.
47
TABLE IV
Boring modes used in the clay
Mode 1: Hand Auger, metre by metre (HA)
Mode 5: Desagregating tool, in a single pass (DTS)
Mode 2: Continuous flight auger, metre by metre (CFA)
Mode 6: Desagregating tool metre by metre (DTS)
Mode 3: Continuous flight auger, in a single pass (CFA)
Mode 7: Driven slotted tube (DST)
Mode 4: Rotary percussion, metre by metre (ROTOP)
The highly destructive nature of modes 5 and 6 (desagregating tool without percussion) is apparent. This
provides very low EM modulus values, with limit pressures also being considerably affected (Table IV
Annex 3). In spite of Er/EM ratios which are higher than those obtained with the hand auger (approximately 4 in one case and 2 in the other), the cycle does not completely eradicate soil disturbance and
the Er values remain below those obtained with recommended boring modes.
Direct driving (mode 7) leads to very high EM modulus values in comparison with the hand auger mode
and to an Er/EM ratio equal to 1, which is lower than the values of between 2 and 4 obtained with boring
modes 2, 3, 4 or even 1. At first sight, the cycle would seem to attenuate the effect of disturbance. In
reality, however, the considerable increase in pore pressures that occurs when the probe is driven is
doubtless partly responsible for this result.
In the case of modes 2, 3, 4 and 1, the values of EM (and to a lesser degree, those of Er) are relatively close
together. It should be noted that the Er modulus values obtained with mode 1, which is the most carefully
performed (reference boring method), are slightly lower than those obtained with modes 2, 3 and 4.
River sand
These tests were conducted at Honfleur on the southern bank of the Seine, and involved a thick layer
(about 15 m) of fine sand which lies underneath silty alluvium. This sand is below the water table and
the tests were conducted at depths of 6, 7 and 8 metres (Fig. 8).
Four boring modes were tested, with two boreholes per mode:
Mode 1 (HA): hand auger with injection of bentonite slurry, by means of successive passes of 1m
with conduct of a pressuremeter test after each pass,
Mode 2 (CFA): continuous flight auger with slurry circulation, by means of successive passes of 1
m with conduct of a pressuremeter test after each pass,
Mode 3 (CFA): continuous flight auger with slurry circulation, by means of a single boring pass and
with conduct of the pressuremeter tests from the bottom of the borehole to the top,
Mode 4 (ROTOP): rotary percussion drilling; by means of successive 1 m passes and conduct of a
pressuremeter test after each pass.
The results of these tests are summarized in Tables VIa to VIe in Annex 3.3. Of the twenty-four tests
that were conducted, three were at a depth of eight metres and were not taken into account, in view of
the very high limit pressures that were measured. These tests involved much more dense layers of sand
in the lower part of the tested formation (1.35, 1.70 and 1.70 MPa).
Although statistical analysis is made impossible by the small number of tests, we can nevertheless
observe that in general the boring modes have a considerable influence on the Er measurements, even if
the dispersion with regard to the cyclic modulus seems lower than that for the pressuremeter modulus
EM and the limit pressure p.
Conclusion with regard to the effect of the boring mode
The tests conducted in the cavities that used the various techniques, whether accepted or prohibited,
show that an unloading-reloading cycle does not eradicate the effect that the soil disturbance of the wall
of boreholes has on the modulus values derived from a pressuremeter test. In fact, the dispersion of Er
values, when all boring modes are considered, is similar to that obtained for the modulus EM.
Although this conclusion is open to question in view of the small number of tests conducted at each depth
and for each boring mode, given the current state of knowledge it nevertheless seems necessary when
conducting cyclic pressuremeter tests to ensure the boring equipment is correctly selected and that boring is correctly performed. We therefore recommend that the rules laid down for borings in the case of
standardized pressuremeter tests be followed (Annex 1).
48
Fig. 8 - Effect of boring mode on strain modulus Sand.
EM (MPa)
10
Depth z (m)
MODE 1 : HA 1m pass
MODE 3 : CFA 1 pass
MODE 4 : ROTOP 1m
10
a. Pressuremeter modulus Mnard EM.
10
20
30
40
Er (MPa)
50
1,5
pl (MPa)
2
Depth z (m)
MODE 1 : HA 1m pass
9
Depth z (m)
0,5
MODE 1 : HA 1m pass
9
MODE 3 : CFA 1 pass
MODE 3 : CFA 1 pass
MODE 4 : ROTOP 1m
MODE 4 : ROTOP 1m
10
10
c. Limit pressure p.
Accuracy of cyclic modulus measurements

Once the test procedure had been fixed and the influence of boring techniques studied, the East Paris
LRPC investigated the repeatability of cyclic modulus measurements at three sites in the Greater Paris
Region. The tests were conducted at former LPC experimental sites and three soils of different types
with different characteristics were tested:
Fontainebleau sand (at Bourron-Marlotte),
Brie plateau silt (at Jossigny),
Senonian chalk (at Chatenay-sur-Seine).
Fifteen tests were conducted at each site. These were located 1.5 m apart within a rectangle measuring
6 m 3 m. The borings were conducted either with a hand auger (silt) or a flight auger (sand and chalk)
49
and the tests performed at a same depth on each site ( 1 m at Bourron-Marlotte and Jossigny, 1.5 m
at Chatenay-sur-Seine).
Tables which set out the main results are to be found in Annex 4. The characteristics of the tested soils
and the dispersion in the measurements of the pressuremeter modulus EM and the cyclic modulus Er are
given below.
Fontainebleau sand
This is a marine formation (Stampian stage) consisting of fine quartzous sand with grains of practically
the same size. Outcrops occur essentially in the South of the Paris Region. The main characteristics of
this material (particle size distribution, density) are given in Table V.
TABLE V
Characteristics of the tested Fontainebleau sand Bourron-Marlotte

Particle size
d 60
C U = -------- = 1.47
d 10
d50 = 0,27
( d 30 ) 2
C C = ---------------------------- = 1
( d 60 d 10 )
Unit weight
Shear strength
s = 26.44 kN/m3
dmin = 13.64 kN/m3
emax = 0.94
dmax = 16.83 kN/m3
emin = 0.615
+ 0.2
= 16.1 0.2 kN/m 3

+ 1.5
' = 40.5 1.5 degr

+5
c' = 0 0 kPa
The modulus dispersions of the pressuremeter tests performed are set out on Figures 9a and 9b.
Brie plateaux silts
This is a recent formation (plio-pleistocene) which is to be found the Brie plateau and elsewhere. This
silt (Stampian stage) consists of very fine particles ((80 m) but nevertheless contains few clay particles
(passing a 2 m sieve). Its main characteristics are set out in Table VI.
The detailed results from the tests are given in Annex 4. Figures 10a and 10b show the observed modulus
dispersions.
TABLE VI
Mean characteristics of the silt Jossigny
VI a Identification parameters (0.9 1.5 m)
% weight not passing
Atterberg limits
(0.2 mm)
(80 m)
(2 m)
wL
wP
1%
4%
75 %
35
24
s
(kN/m3)
26.5
VI b Laboratory shear strength measured on saturated samples using the triaxial apparatus
cu
(kPa)
'
(degr)
c'
(kPa)
38
32
12
VI c Mean in-situ characteristics

Pressuremeter test (NF P94-110)
50
Field Vane test (NF P94-112)
Soil layer
p
(MPa)
Pf
(MPa)
EM
(MPa)
su (pic)
(MPa)
sr (rsiduel)
(MPa)
0 1.5 m
0.43
0.16
5.7
0.092
0.064
0 3.5 m
0.52
0.22
6.6
0.094
0.067
Fig. 9 - Repeatability of results Fontainebleau sand (Bourron-Marlotte).
EM (MPa)
40
Fontainebleau sand
Mean : 27,1 MPa
Standard deviation : 6,4 MPa
cv = 0,23
35
Er (MPa)
Fontainebleau sand
350
Mean : 205 MPa

Standard deviation : 56 MPa
cv = 0,26
300
30
250
25
200
20
150
15
100
10
5
50
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Test number
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Test number
a. Pressuremeter modulus EM.
Fig. 10 - Repeatability of results Silt (Jossigny).
EM (MPa)
8
7
Brie plateau silt
Er (MPa)
Brie plateau silt
30
Mean : 4,4 MPa

cv = 0,23
25
Mean : 19 MPa
cv = 0,21
6
20
5
4
15
3
10
2
5
1
0
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Test number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Test number
51
Senonian chalk
This is a carbonated Upper Cretaceous rock with a calcium carbonate content of 98%. At the Chatenay-sur-Seine site, its consistency is that of a paste in which are embedded, locally, harder blocks of the
order of a few decimetres in size.
The laboratory shear characteristics of this chalk are unknown, as it is very difficult or even impossible
to extract undisturbed samples. The pressuremeter characteristics of the experimental site are given in
Table VII.
Figures 11a and 11b give the modulus dispersions that were observed during the cyclic pressuremeter test
investigation. It should be noted that on several occasions, the cyclic modulus could not be calculated due
to the fact that a significant volumetric change was not measured during the unloading-reloading loop.
TABLE VII
Mean pressuremeter characteristics of the chalk Chatenay-sur-Seine
Soil layer
p
(MPa)
pf
(MPa)
EM
(MPa)
0 1.5 m
1.61
0.67
19.8
03m
1.48
0.60
19.4
Fig. 11 - Repeatability of results Chalk (Chatenay-sur-Seine).
EM (MPa)
30
25
Senonian chalk
Mean : 12,6 MPa

Standard deviation : 6,4 MPa
cv = 0,54
Er (MPa)
180
160
Senonian chalk
Mean : 67,1 MPa
Standard deviation : 37
7,4 MPa
cv = 0,56
140
20
120
100
15
80
10
60
40
5
20
0
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Test number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Test number
Conclusions about the repeatability of cyclic modulus measurements

From the Tables in Annex 4 and Figures 9 to 11 it can be seen that, generally, the repeatability of the
cyclic modulus results is the same as that of the Mnard pressuremeter modulus EM. For example, irrespective of which soil is tested, the coefficient of variation (cv = /m) is similar to or lower than that
obtained for EM. We can therefore consider that performing an unloading-reloading loop leads to the
same cyclic modulus dispersion factor as is obtained for EM during the conduct of a standardized pressuremeter test. Moreover, the order of magnitude of the coefficient of variation cv is of interest. Its value
52
is 0.2 for Fontainebleau sand and Brie plateau silt, for both p, and Er. It is slightly higher (cv 0,5) in
the chalk formation for EM and Er. This is due to the heterogeneous nature of this layer which consists
of blocks set in a softer matrix. It should nevertheless be noted that the dispersion of p is low in all cases
(cv (0,2) because of the applied deformations (R/R0 (40% for p; R/R0 (5% for EM) and the volume
of soil that are loaded during a pressuremeter test.
Representative values of Er/EM and Er/p

Two LRPCs, those of Rouen and Melun, conducted tests at sites in Normandy and the Greater Paris
Region (Combarieu et al., 1995; Canpa, 1996). In view of the uncertainties with regard to the measured
values that have been discussed above, in order to determine representative values of the Er/EM and Er/p
ratios, only those derived from tests for which a minimum volumetric increase of 2 cm3 was measured
(over the range of pressure pcr pd where Er was calculated) were considered.
Table VIII summarizes the mean values obtained for the tested soils (after elimination of the boreholes
that were conducted to investigate the effect of soil disturbance, and performed with a boring mode
which is not recommended by current standards).
Table IX gives the order of magnitude of the ratios Er/EM and Er/p which were obtained for the different
soil types investigated (sand, clay, intermediate soils). The Er/p ratio seems to be of particular interest.
Justification of the results and application of the cyclic pressuremeter modulus

This section of the paper examines the representativeness of the measured cyclic pressuremeter modulus.
It is interesting to compare the results obtained on site with theoretical results, particularly for the E/p
ratio. This comparison has been made for both cohesive and frictional soils.
Cohesive soil
In the case of purely cohesive soils, with linearly elastic and plastic behaviour, the relationship between
the ultimate limit pressure (denoted by pu what follows in order to avoid confusion with the pressuremeter limit p) and the shear modulus G of the soil is written as follows (Combarieu, 1995):
G
p u p 0 = c u 1 + n ----- ,
c u
p u p 0
or
------------------- 1
cu
cu
G
------------------- = ------------------- e
p u p 0
p u p 0
where
cu is the undrained cohesion,
p0 is the horizontal earth pressure at the test depth.
The following expression relates the conventional limit pressure p (doubling of the initial cavity diameter) and the shear modulus G of the soil:
G
p p 0 = c u 1 + n ------------ ,
2c
u
p p0
or
----------------- 1
cu
cu
G
----------------- = 2 ----------------- e
p p0
p p0
p p0
----------------- 1
cu
cu
E
or alternatively ----------------- = 5,32 ----------------- e
with = 0.33
p p0
p p0
53
TABLE VIII
Cyclic pressuremeter tests
Summary of the results obtained by the Rouen and Melun LRPCs
Wind blown silt at

Le Havre (1)
Gault Clay (2))
River sand (3)
Romainville clay(4)
Fontainebleau sand (5)
Plateau Brie silt

le-de-France (6)
Senonian chalk at
Chatenay-sur-Seine (7)
p (MPa)
EM (MPa)
Er (MPa)
Er/EM
EM / p
Er/ p
Mean
0.74
8.70
25
2.91
11.7
33.8
Standard deviation
0.24
3.57
11.5
0.53
2.0
8.60
cv
0.32
0.41
0.46
0.18
0.17
0.25
Mean
0.75
7.1
19.4
2.74
9.4
25.6
Standard deviation
0.07
2.2
7.6
0.65
2.2
8.8
cv
0.09
0.3
0.39
0.23
0.24
0.34
Mean
0.81
5.1
28.4
5.96
6.4
35.1
Standard deviation
1.40
1.35
7.7
2.1
1.8
7.1
cv
0.17
0.26
0.27
0.35
0.28
0.20
Mean
0.74
8.70
25
2.91
11.7
33.8
Standard deviation
0.24
3.57
11.5
0,53
2.0
8.60
cv
0.32
0.41
0.46
0.18
0.17
0.25
Mean
2.62
27.1
205
7.5
10.3
77.9
Standard deviation
0.53
6.4
56
1.6
1.1
19.3
cv
0.20
0.23
0.25
0.21
0.11
0.25
Mean
0.46
4.4
19
4.5
9.5
41.2
Standard deviation
0.06
1.0
0.9
1.7
6.2
cv
0.13
0.23
0.21
0.21
0.18
0.15
Mean
0.74
12.6
67.1
5.4
16.5
88
Standard deviation
0.15
6.4
37.4
2.4
6.0
34
cv
0.20
0.51
0.56
0.44
0.37
0.40
(1) This recapitulative table takes into account the three boring modes carried out.
(2) This table considers only modes 1, 2, 3, 4 which give similar results
(3) Mode 3 (a single boring pass) gave low results and was not taken into account.
(4) All types of tests (rapid and stepped unloading) were taken into account.
(5) (6) (7) All the tests have been taken into account.
TABLE IX
Unload-reload pressuremeter tests
Typical characteristic ratios Er/EM and Er/ p
Soil
Er/EM
Er/ p
2.5 3.5
25 45
Silt
3 4.5
35 45
Sand
6 7.5
35 80
Chalk
5.5
80
Stiff overconsolidated clay
Figure 12a compares the theoretical results, given by the above relationship, with the experimental data
obtained at the clay sites (Romainville clay and Gault clay) and the Brie silt site. Figure 12b compares
the measured Er modulus values with the theoretical modulus values E derived from the measured limit
pressure and the cohesion values obtained from laboratory tests or measured in situ. As can be seen, in
general the use of the cyclic modulus Er as an elastic modulus provides a good approximation of the theoretical pressuremeter expansion results.
54
Fig. 12 - Pressuremeter theory Cohesive soils.
E/pl* ou Er/pl*
100
E calculed (MPa)
100
Theoretical
Green clay
Green clay
Gault clay
Gault clay
75
Brie silt
Calculed = measured
75
Brie silt
50
50
25
25
0
0
8
pl* /cu
a. E/p versus p/cu.
25
50
75
100
Er measured (MPa)
b. Comparison between the calculated modulus E

and the measured modulus Er.
However, this conclusion cannot be extended to displacement calculations for geotechnical structures,
as the soil deformation generated by structures can be very different from those associated with the
cyclic modulus (R/R0 10-2) measured during a conventional pressuremeter test*.
Purely frictional soil (c = 0)
In the case of a purely frictional soil, in an isotropic elastic-perfectly plastic soil model with dilatancy,
the limit pressure p is expressed as follows (Combarieu, 1995):
m()
G(z)
p ( z ) = a ( ) z --------------------------------------------------2 z a() m()
where
a() = max [1; K0.(1 + sin)],
sin ( 1 + sin )
m ( ) = -------------------------------------------- ;
1 + sin
in which
is the angle of internal friction,
is the angle of dilatancy,
E
G is the shear modulus, G = ------------------------,
2 (1 + )
is the unit weight of the soil,
K0 is the coefficient of earth pressure at rest.
* Use of the cyclic modulus Er as an elastic modulus for displacement calculations for various geotechnical structures is
another differnet problem. In this case, it is necessary to compare the displacement calculation of structures and their real
behaviour while giving an account of the calculation method used in each case. This is not covered by this paper.
55
We therefore have:
1
-1
p --m
G
----- = 2 m -----------------
a z
p
or alternatively:
1
-1
p --m
E
with = 0.33
----- = 5.32 m -----------------
a z
p
Figure 13a is a plot of the theoretical relationship E/p versus (p/.z) for a friction angle range
(37 degrees 43 degrees) which corresponds to laboratory measurements of the Honfleur sand*.
This diagram also shows the experimental results for Er/p which were measured taking hydrogeological
conditions into account (water table at a depth of 1.5 m) and using the unit weights ( = 18 kN/m3 above
the water table and 19,5 kN/m3 below the water table) reported by Combarieu (1995).
Fig. 13 - Pressuremeter theory Purely frictional soils.
E/pl or Er/pl
100
E calculed (MPa)
100
Theoretical 37
Theoretical 43
River sand
75
River sand
calculed = measured
75
50
50
= 40
25
25
a() = 1 et = - 30
0
0
10
15
a. E/p versus (p/z).
20
pl / z
25
50
75
100
E r measured (MPa)
b. Comparison between the calculated modulus E

and the measured modulus Er.
As can be seen, the Er/p ratios are between 25 and 50 and lie within the range of the theoretical E/p
curves obtained using the relationship given above. In Figure 13b, the measured modulus Er is compared
with the theoretical modulus E derived from the mean internal angle of friction of river sand. Here too,
there is good agreement between the cyclic modulus Er and the theoretical elastic modulus.
Lastly, it should be noted that when p(z) = .z.p (which is practically the case for purely frictional
soils), the ratio E/p is constant, which is replicated experimentally for the EM/p ratios.
Conclusions
The execution of a large number of cyclic pressuremeter tests with the Mnard apparatus, with the addition of an unloading-reloading loop to the standardized procedure, has led us to the following conclusions:
performing the unloading phase by steps does not allow us to obtain reliable intermediate deformation modulus results with the equipment used for standard pressuremeter tests;
* Whose in-situ cohesion can be assumed to be nil, unlike other sands such as the Fontainebleau sand, for example.
56
the mean (secant) modulus over one cycle that is determined with the procedure described in this
paper is little affected by rapid unloading;
as long as the recommended test procedure is followed, the dispersion factors for the mean cyclic
modulus are similar to those for the conventional pressuremeter modulus EM;
including an unloading-reloading cycle in the pressuremeter test procedure does not provide a means
of salvaging an incorrectly performed test. In particular, disturbance of the borehole walls which
affects the value of the modulus EM also affects the value of the modulus Er calculated from the reloading curve;
the comparisons we have conducted (in particular those concerning the Er/p ratio) with the theoretical cavity expansion expressions derived from an elastic-perfectly plastic soil model, appear to validate
some knowledge that has been derived from the pressuremeter tests, that is to say that the EM/p and
Er/p ratios remain constant with depth in the case of a homogeneous formation;
the values of these ratios nevertheless depend on the nature and density of the soil. It is therefore preferable to measure the modulus Er directly by means of a cyclic pressuremeter test rather than to derive
its value on the basis of correlation with the pressuremeter modulus EM,;
lastly, it should be remembered that this study is part of a larger research project that concerns the
determination of the shear modulus of soil with reference to its deformation and the calculation of the
displacement of geotechnical structures. For this reason, application of the cyclic pressuremeter modulus
to the design of structures has not been covered in this paper. At this stage, we can nevertheless state
that, as long as certain conditions are satisfied, the use of the cyclic modulus instead of Youngs modulus
gives good results and is quite adequate for calculating the displacement of certain types of geotechnical
structure. Encouraging calculations have already been performed and validated. A future paper will deal
with this topic.
REFERENCES
Norme franaise NF P94-110-1, Essai pressiomtrique Mnard, Partie 1: Essai sans cycle, AFNOR, janvier 2000,
43 pages.
Norme franaise XP ENV 1997-1, Calcul gotechnique Partie 1: Rgles gnrales, AFNOR, dcembre 1996,
112 pages.
BRU J.-P., BAGUELIN F., GOULET G., JZQUEL J.-F., Prvision de tassement au pressiomtre et constatation, Proc. VIIIe Congrs international de Mcanique des sols et des travaux de fondation; tome 1.3, Moscou, 1973,
pp. 25-31.
CANPA Y., Fondations superficielles, Facteurs empiriques de portance et de tassement, Pressiomtre normal,
Sujet de recherche 1.17.02.0, mai 1990.
CANPA Y., DEPRESLES D., Catalogue des essais de chargement de fondations superficielles sur sites par les
LPC (1978 -1990), Sujet de recherche 1.17.02.0, dcembre 1990.
CANPA Y., Essais pressiomtriques avec cycle de dchargement-rechargement. Influence du mode opratoire,
Sujet de recherche 2.24.05.4 de la commission technique 24, Mcanique des sols, roches et fondations, 1996.
COMBARIEU O., Lessai pressiomtrique et la rsistance au cisaillement des sols, Bulletin de liaison des laboratoires des Ponts et Chausses, 196, mars-avril 1995 pp. 43-51.
COMBARIEU O., CANPA Y., Essais pressiomtriques Mnard avec boucle de dchargement-rechargement.
Analyse des procdures et des rsultats dessais, Sujet de recherche 2.24.19.3 et 2.24.02.4 de la commission technique 24, Mcanique des Sols, roches et fondations, 1995.
Fascicule 62 Titre V, Rgles techniques de conception et de calcul des fondations des ouvrages de gnie civil, Ministre de lquipement, du logement et des transports, 1993.
FRANK R., Quelques dveloppements rcents sur le comportement des fondations superficielles, Xe Congrs
europen de Mcanique des sols et des travaux de fondation, Florence, 1991, 28 pages.
MNARD L., ROUSSEAU J., Lvaluation des tassements. Tendances nouvelles, Sols Soils, 1, 1962, pp. 13-30.
MNARD L., LAMBERT Ph., tude exprimentale dun massif de fondation soumis des vibrations, Sols Soils,
17, 1966, pp. 9-30.
MESTAT Ph., Analyse thorique dun cycle dchargement-rechargement dans le problme de lexpansion dune
cavit cylindrique dans un matriau lastoplastique de Tresca, rapport interne, LCPC, janvier 1993.
57
MESTAT Ph., Analyse thorique dun cycle dchargement-rechargement dans le problme de lexpansion dune
cavit cylindrique dans un matriau lastoplastique de Mohr-Coulomb, rapport intene, LCPC, janvier 1993.
MESTAT Ph., Validation du progiciel CSAR-LCPC en comportement mcanique non linaire, vol. 1: Fondations superficielles et tunnels, tudes et recherches des laboratoires des Ponts et Chausses, Srie Gotechnique,
GT 58, juin 1994.
MONNET J., KHLIF J., tude thorique de lquilibre lasto-plastique dun sol pulvrulent autour du pressiomtre, Revue franaise de gotechnique, 73, 1994, pp. 3-12.
WROTH C.P., British experience with the self-boring pressuremeter, Proc. 1st Symp. Pressuremeter and its Marine
Applications, Paris; Colloques et sminaires 37, Ed. Technip, 1982, pp. 143-164.
58
ANNEX 1
Drilling techniques for pressuremeter boreholes (NF P 94-110-1)
TABLE I
Recommendations laid down in the standard NF P 94-110-1 (Table C1 p 34)
Preboring mode
Soil type
Rotary drilling*
Soil
displacement
Driving and other
HA
HAS/CFAS
CFA
DTS
CD
ROTOP
DS
VDS
STDT
DST/TWS
Sludge and soft clay
O
TWCS
Medium stiff clay
Stiff clay, stiff marl

Silt:
above ground water table
below ground water table
Loose sand:
above ground water table
below ground water table
O*
Medium dense sand and

dense sand
Coarse soils: gravel, cobbles, boulder clay, etc.
Weathered rock
Soft rock
O+
O+
Key:
R: Recommended
O: Tolerated
-: Not tolerated
: Unsuitable
* Rotation speed < 60 rpm, tool diameter (1.15 d s
+ Where necessary, a preliminary boring may be performed in small diameter (d t < ds)
Slurry circulation (pressure < 500 kPa, outflow < 15 l/min).
When boring is conducted by rotary drilling, the pressure (measured at the top of the driving rods) transmitted to the drilling tool must be less
than 200 kPa.
With specific care (for example keeping slurry level in casing higher than ground water table level, carry out the tests while going down,
adding a guard tube at the toe of the slotted tube).
HA
Hand auger (spoon)
HAS/CFAS Auger with slurry circulation
CFA
Continuous-flight auger (in dry conditions)
DTS
Desagregating tool (drag bit) with slurry circulation
CD
Core drilling
ROTOP
Rotary percussion
DS
Driven sampler
VDS
Vibro driven sampler
STDT
Slotted tube with inside desagregating tool
DST
Driven slotted tube
TWS
Thin wall sampler
TWCS
Thin wall core sampler
59
ANNEX 2
Cyclic pressuremeter tests Influence of the test procedure
TABLE II
Unloding-reloading test procedure
Summary of results (Green Romainville clay at Boissy-Saint-Lger)
BOREHOLE P1
z
p
pf
EM
Ed
Er
(m)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
1.6
2.6
3.6
0.74
0.79
0.73
0.42
0.43
0.44
9.5
6.8
6.8
39.1
31.2
24.3
EM / p
p /pf
Er/EM
Ed/EM
Mode
41.5
36.3
25.9
12.8
8.6
93
1.8
1.8
17
4.4
5.3
38
4.1
4.6
36
L
R
L
EM / p
p /pf
Er/EM
Ed/EM
Mode
BOREHOLE P2
z
p
pf
EM
Ed
Er
(m)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
1.7
2.7
3.7
0.51
0.75
0.68
0.32
0.43
0.43
5.2
8.5
6.2
30.2
39.5
18.2
39.0
40.6
22.0
10.2
11.4
9.2
1.6
1.7
1.6
7.5
4.8
3.5
5.8
4.6
2.9
R
L
R
EM / p
p /pf
Er/EM
Ed/EM
Mode
BOREHOLE P3
z
p
pf
EM
Ed
Er
(m)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
2
3
4
0.4
0.75
0.68
0.30
0.43
0.44
3.4
9.0
6.5
39.4
22.2
23.4
14.6
24.0
19.6
8.6
12.0
9.5
1.3
1.7
1.5
4.2
2.7
3.0
11.5
2.5
3.6
L
R
L
EM / p
pl/pf
Er/EM
Ed/EM
Mode
BOREHOLE P4
z
p
pf
EM
Ed
Er
(m)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
1.6
2.6
3.6
0.81
0.99
0.76
0.41
0.56
0.43
11.8
12.0
7.1
37.7
50.0
22.2
25.6
50.9
24.1
14.6
12.2
9.4
2.0
1.8
1.8
2.2
4.2
3.4
3.2
4.2
3.1
R
L
R
EM / p
p /pf
Er/EM
Ed/EM
Mode
BOREHOLE P5
z
p
pf
EM
Ed
Er
(m)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
.1.7
2.7
3.7
0.83
0.95
0.74
0.42
0.62
0.44
12.3
9.4
8.3
40.9
33.9
38.3
86.8
31.7
23.5
14.9
9.9
11.2
2.0
1.5
1.7
7.0
3.4
2.8
3.3
3.6
4.6
L
R
L
EM / p
p /pf
Er/EM
Ed/EM
Mode
BOREHOLE P6
z
p
pf
EM
Ed
Er
(m)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
1.9
2.9
3.9
0.51
0.79
0.73
0.31
0.42
0.43
6.6
9.7
7.0
26.5
36.0
23.3
23.9
36.8
21.3
12.8
12.3
9.6
1,6
1.9
1.7
3.6
3.8
3.0
4.0
3.7
3.3
R
L
R
EM / p
p /pf
Er/EM
Ed/EM
Mode
BOREHOLE P7
z
p
pf
EM
Ed
Er
(m)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
1.6
2.6
3.6
0.6
0.91
0.74
0.40
0.64
0.45
7.2
9.8
8.7
30.2
31.2
25.7
23.2
30.5
26.6
11.9
10.8
11.8
1.5
1.4
1.6
3.2
3.1
3.0
4.2
3.2
2.9
L
R
L
EM / p
p /pf
Er/EM
Ed/EM
Mode
14.5
8.8
10.3
1.7
1.7
1.8
2.7
4.0
3.6
2.7
5.0
2.5
R
L
R
BOREHOLE P8
60
p
pf
EM
Ed
Er
(m)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
2
3
4
0.76
0.83
0.8
0.43
0.48
0.43
11.0
7.3
8.3
30.0
36.9
20.5
29.5
29.5
30.0
ANNEX 3
cyclic pressuremeter tests Influence of boring mode
SILT
TABLE IIIa
Silt Hand auger Mode 1
Depth
(m)
p
(MPa)
EM
(MPa)
Er
(MPa)
Er/EM
EM / p
Er/ p
0.39
5.20
17.00
3.27
13.30
43.60
0.71
9.00
30.00
3.33
12.70
42.40
0.91
11.70
28.00
2.40
12.90
30.10
1.20
17.50
57.00
3.26
14.60
47.50
(rejected) 5
1.74
37.00
93.30
2.52
21.30
53.60
Mean
0.80
10.80
33.00
3.06
13.37
40.90
TABLE IIIb
Silt 63 mm Continuous flight auger Mode 2
Depth
(m)
p
(MPa)
EM
(MPa)
Er
(MPa)
Er/EM
EM / p
Er/ p
0.42
4.30
14.00
3.25
10.20
33.30
0.75
7.00
21.00
3.00
9.30
28.00
0.80
7.00
17.50
2.50
8.75
21.90
0.75
9.70
29.00
3.00
12.93
38.70
(rejected) 5
1.85
22.50
80.00
3.55
12.20
43.20
Mean
0.68
7.00
20.40
2.94
10.30
30.47
TABLE IIIc
Silt Three blades desagregating tool 64 mm Mode 3
Depth
(m)
p
(MPa)
EM
(MPa)
Er
(MPa)
Er/EM
EM / p
Er/ p
0.47
6.00
15.00
2.50
12.75
31.90
0.80
11.00
26.00
2.36
13.75
32.50
0.73
7.00
27.50
3.92
9.60
37.70
1.00
9.00
18.80
2.09
9.00
18.80
Mean
0.75
8.20
21.80
2.72
11.28
30.22
TABLE IIId
Silt Results from all tests
p
(MPa)
EM
(MPa)
Er
(MPa)
Er/EM
EM / p
Er/ p
Mean
0.74
8.70
25.00
2.91
11.72
33.84
Standard deviation
0.24
3.57
11.5
0.53
2.00
8.60
cv
0.32
0.41
0.46
0.18
0.17
0.25
61
CLAY
TABLE IVa
Clay Hand Auger, metre by metre Mode 1
Depth
(m)
p
(MPa)
EM
(MPa)
Er
(MPa)
Er/EM
EM / p
Er/ p
9.3
0.85
7.6
15.5
2.0
8.9
18.2
10.3
0.66
10.1
2.0
7.6
15.3
Mean
0.75
6.3
12.8
2.0
8.3
16.8
TABLE IVb
Clay Continuous flight auger metre by metre Mode 2
Depth
(m)
p
(MPa)
EM
(MPa)
Er
(MPa)
Er/EM
EM / p
Er/ p
9.3
0.81
9.3
24.2
2.6
11.5
29.9
10.3
0.7
5.4
16.3
3.0
7.7
23.3
Mean
0.75
7.4
20.2
2.8
9.6
26.6
TABLE IVc
Clay Continuous flight auger in a single pass Mode 3
Depth
(m)
p
(MPa)
EM
(MPa)
Er
(MPa)
Er/EM
EM / p
Er/ p
8.3
0.8
10.5
36
3.4
13.1
45.0
9.3
0.79
7.5
26.7
3.6
9.5
33.8
10.3
0.66
13
3.2
19.7
Mean
0.75
7.3
25.2
3.4
9.6
32.8
TABLE IVd
Clay Rotary percussion, metre by metre Mode 4
Depth
(m)
p
(MPa)
EM
(MPa)
Er
(MPa)
Er/EM
EM / p
Er/ p
8.3
0.68
6.5
17.5
2.7
9.6
25.7
9.3
0.71
5.6
18
3.2
7.9
25.3
10.3
0.81
9.5
16.5
1.7
11.7
20.4
Mean
0.73
7.2
17.3
2.5
9.7
23.8
TABLE IVe
Clay Desagregating tool in a single pass Mode 5
62
Depth
(m)
p
(MPa)
EM
(MPa)
Er
(MPa)
Er/EM
EM / p
Er/ p
8.3
0.46
1.7
7.2
4.2
3.7
15.6
9.3
0.48
2.7
12
4.4
5.6
25.0
10.3
0.56
1.6
10.8
6.8
2.9
19.3
Mean
0.5
10
5.1
4.1
20
TABLE IVf
Clay Desagregating tool, metre by metre Mode 6
Depth
(m)
p
(MPa)
EM
(MPa)
Er
(MPa)
Er/EM
EM / p
Er/ p
8.3
0.55
2.3
9.3
4.0
4.2
16.9
9.3
0.68
4.2
10
2.4
6.2
14.7
10.3
0.62
4.6
15.3
3.3
7.4
24.7
Mean
0.62
3.7
11.5
3.2
5.9
18.8
TABLE IVg
Clay Driven slotted tube Mode 7
Depth
(m)
p
(MPa)
EM
(MPa)
Er
(MPa)
Er/EM
EM / p
Er/ p
8.3
0.88
37.0
25
0.7
42.0
28.4
9.3
0.86
17.5
23.6
1.3
20.4
27.4
10.3
0.97
22.5
23.5
1.0
23.2
24.2
Mean
0.90
25.7
24
28.5
26.7
TABLE IVh
Clay Results from all tests
Depth
(m)
p
(MPa)
EM
(MPa)
Er
(MPa)
Er/EM
EM / p
Er/ p
Mean
0.7
8.7
17.4
11
2.9
23.8
Standard deviation
0.14
8.7
7.4
9.1
1.4
7.4
cv
0.20
1.00
0.43
0.83
0.48
0.31
SAND
TABLE Va
Sand Hand Auger, pass of one metre Mode
Depth
(m)
p
(MPa)
EM
(MPa)
Er
(MPa)
Er/EM
EM / p
Er/ p
0.93
5.3
25.7
4.88
5.7
27.8
0.69
5.1
24.7
4.88
7.4
36.1
0.73
4.9
26.4
5.35
6.8
36.4
0.89
6.5
40.3
6.23
7.3
45.5
Mean
0.81
5.4
29.3
5.3
6.8
36.4
63
TABLE Vb
Sand Continuous flight auger, passes of one meter Mode 2
Depth
(m)
p
(MPa)
EM
(MPa)
Er
(MPa)
Er/EM
EM / p
Er/ p
0.68
5.1
16.9
3.29
7.6
25
0.92
5.4
29.1
5.39
5.9
31.8
0.68
7.4
21.6
2.91
11
32
0.94
2.6
27.8
10.61
2.8
29.7
0.90
6.3
26
4.16
29.1
Mean
0.82
5.4
24.3
5.3
6.9
29.5
TABLE Vc
Sand Continuous flight auger, single pass Mode 3
Depth
(m)
p
(MPa)
EM
(MPa)
Er
(MPa)
Er/EM
EM / p
Er/ p
0.43
1.7
9.2
5.40
21.6
0.74
3.8
33.9
8.87
5.2
46.1
0.72
6.1
21.8
3.59
8.5
30.5
0.58
4.4
21.2
4.79
7.7
36.9
0.79
4.9
31
6.37
6.2
39.5
0.65
23.8
5.95
6.2
36.9
Mean
0.65
4.2
23.5
5.8
6.3
35.3
TABLE Vd
Sand Rotary percussion, passes of one meter Mode 4
Depth
(m)
p
(MPa)
EM
(MPa)
Er
(MPa)
Er/EM
EM / p
Er/ p
0.78
3.8
21.7
5.71
4.9
28
1.04
6.6
42.6
6.44
6.4
41.2
0.85
5.2
38.7
7.39
6.2
45.8
0.58
3.6
19.5
5.38
6.3
33.9
0.64
30
10.04
4.7
47.2
0.95
5.2
35.3
6.80
5.5
37.4
Mean
0.80
4.6
31.3
5.7
38.9
TABLE Ve
Sand Results from all tests
Depth
(m)
p
(MPa)
EM
(MPa)
Er
(MPa)
Er/EM
EM / p
Er/ p
Mean
0.76
4.8
27
5.9
6.4
35.2
Standard deviation
0.15
1.4
8.1
1.7
7.3
cv
0.20
0.29
0.30
0.34
0.27
0.21
64
ANNEX 4
Cyclic pressuremeter tests Repeatability of tests
SAND
TABLE VI
Fontainebleau sand Complete results
Test
number
p
(MPa)
EM
(MPa)
Er
(MPa)
Er/EM
EM / p
Er/ p
Ed
(MPa)
Ed/EM
2.08
21.4
10.3
2.38
31.1
273
8.8
13.0
114
3.0
35.7
193
5.4
11.9
64.3
625
17.5
3.05
33.9
270
8.0
11.1
88.5
376
11.1
2.8
26.6
179
6.7
9.5
63.9
413
15.5
2.42
22.8
124
5.4
9.4
51.2
276
12.1
3.22
29.1
178
6.1
9.0
55.3
420
14.4
2.38
22.8
204
8.9
9.6
85.7
275
12.1
2.3
21.5
218
10.2
9.3
94.8
248
11.5
10
2.1
21.2
159
7.5
10.1
75.7
184
8.7
11
2.35
26.0
211
8.1
11.1
89.4
501
19.3
12
3.2
36.0
332
9.2
11.3
103.8
474
13.1
13
3.8
37.7
210
5.6
10.2
55.3
374
9.9
14
2.05
19.3
172
8.9
9.4
83.9
293
15.2
15
2.18
21.3
142
6.6
9.8
65.1
203
9.5
Mean
2.62
27.1
205
7.5
10.3
77.9
359
13.1
Standard deviation
0.53
6.4
56
1.6
1.1
19.3
128
3.2
cv
0.20
0.23
0.25
0.21
0.11
0.25
0.36
0.24
65
SILT
TABLE VII
Brie plateau silt Complete results
Test
number
p
(MPa)
EM
(MPa)
Er
(MPa)
Er/EM
EM / p
Er/ p
Ed
(MPa)
Ed/EM
0.46
4.2
20.6
4.9
9.1
44.7
35.8
8.6
0.46
4.5
18.4
4.1
9.8
40
31.5
7.0
0.45
4.1
19
4.6
9.1
42.2
26.6
6.5
0.45
4.1
21.6
5.2
9.2
48
37.1
9.0
0.43
5.0
14.6
2.9
11.6
34
20.5
4.1
0.45
4.0
14.4
3.6
8.8
32
18.4
4.6
0.51
5.0
25.1
5.0
9.8
49.2
52.4
10.4
0.48
6.8
19.9
2.9
14.2
41.5
27.3
4.0
0.47
3.4
17
5.0
7.3
36.1
36.3
10.5
10
0.48
3.6
19.9
5.5
7.5
41.5
29.4
8.2
11
0.51
4.6
24
5.2
9.1
47.1
28.9
6.3
12
0.52
5.1
24.5
4.8
9.8
47.1
36.4
7.2
13
No test performed
14
0.28
2.3
12.4
5.3
8.3
44.3
23.9
10.3
15
0.49
4.5
14.4
3.2
9.3
29.4
21.6
7.8
Mean
0.46
4.4
19
4.5
9.5
41.2
30.4
7.2
Standard deviation
0.06
1.0
0.9
1.7
6.2
8.8
2.3
cv
0.13
0.23
0.21
0.21
0.18
0.15
0.29
0.32
SENONIAN CHALK
TABLE VIII
Senonian chalk Complete results
Test
number
p
(MPa)
EM
(MPa)
Er
(MPa)
Er/EM
EM / p
Er/ p
Ed
(MPa)
Ed/EM
0.96
28.4
72.1
2.5
29.6
75
97.0
3.4
0.65
10.2
31.7
3.1
15.7
49
37.3
3.6
0.57
13.0
65.7
5.1
22.6
115
0.55
6.0
51.5
8.6
10.9
94
0.72
17.7
0.66
7.6
102.7
13.5
66
24.5
64.6
8.5
11.6
98
SENONIAN CHALK
TABLE VIII
Senonian chalk Complete results
Er
(MPa)
Er/ p
Ed
(MPa)
Ed/EM
65
99.7
11.0
24.1
154
226.2
9.4
18.3
56
97.1
6.7
16.5
88
110.0
8.0
2.4
6.0
34
62.1
3.7
0.44
0.37
0.40
0.56
0.47
Test
number
p
(MPa)
EM
(MPa)
0.85
8.4
0.81
9.1
0.68
11.1
16.4
10
0.86
10.4
12.0
11
0.88
12.2
13.9
12
1.00
24.1
153.9
6.4
13
0.79
14.5
44.6
3.1
14
0.54
8.0
14.9
15
0.63
7.6
12.1
Mean
0.74
12.6
67.1
5.4
Standard deviation
0.15
6.4
37.4
cv
0.20
0.51
0.56
Er/EM
EM / p
9.8
53.0
5.8
11.2
67

The Unload-Reload Pressuremeter Test: Olivier COMBARIEU Yves Canépa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Unload-Reload Pressuremeter Test: Olivier COMBARIEU Yves Canépa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Unload-Reload Pressuremeter Test: Olivier COMBARIEU Yves Canépa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The unload-reload pressuremeter test

Usefullness of a cyclic pressuremeter test

Fig. 2 - Expansion of a cylindrical cavity in an elastic-perfectly

Key: Radial displacement on the abscissa;

Fig. 3 Expansion of a cylindrical cavity in an elastic-perfectly

the accuracy of the cyclic modulus measurements,

Selection of the test procedure

Fig. 4 - Unload-reload pressuremeter tests Raw results.

Boissy - Sounding P1 - Z = 1,6 m

Boissy - Sounding P4 - Z =1,6 m

a. Type L test stepped unloading.

b. Type R test rapid unloading.

Note: Rapid unloading is denoted by R and stepped unloading by L.

Unload-reload pressuremeter tests Results obtained at each depth

Entire layer (z = 1.6 m 4 m)

Conclusions about the test procedure

Entire layer (z = 1.6 m 4 m)

Fig. 5 - Unload-reload pressuremeter tests. Cyclic modulus versus pressuremeter modulus.

a. Reloading modulus Er.

b. Unloading modulus Ed.

To conclude, the recommended procedure is as follows:

start cycle at pc pf p/2,

It is also recommended to characterize the loading-unloading cycle by means of a single conventional

Influence of the boring mode on the cyclic modulus Er

Fig. 6 - Effect of the boring mode on the strain modulus Silt.

b. Cyclic modulus Er.

d. Limit pressure p.

Very plastic clay

Fig. 7- Effect of boring mode on strain modulus Clay.

b. Cyclic modulus Er.

MODE 2 : CFA 1m pass

MODE 3 : CFA 1 pass

d. Er/EM versus EM.

Mode 5: Desagregating tool, in a single pass (DTS)

Mode 2: Continuous flight auger, metre by metre (CFA)

Mode 6: Desagregating tool metre by metre (DTS)

Mode 3: Continuous flight auger, in a single pass (CFA)

Mode 7: Driven slotted tube (DST)

Mode 4: Rotary percussion, metre by metre (ROTOP)

Fig. 8 - Effect of boring mode on strain modulus Sand.

MODE 2 : CFA 1m pass

MODE 2 : CFA 1m pass

MODE 3 : CFA 1 pass

MODE 3 : CFA 1 pass

c. Limit pressure p.

Accuracy of cyclic modulus measurements

Characteristics of the tested Fontainebleau sand Bourron-Marlotte

= 16.1 0.2 kN/m 3

' = 40.5 1.5 degr

VI c Mean in-situ characteristics

Field Vane test (NF P94-112)

Fig. 9 - Repeatability of results Fontainebleau sand (Bourron-Marlotte).

Mean : 205 MPa

a. Pressuremeter modulus EM.

b. Cyclic modulus Er.

Fig. 10 - Repeatability of results Silt (Jossigny).

Brie plateau silt

Brie plateau silt