PROOF COPY [GT/2004/023974] 001709QGT

1 Numerical Validation of an Elastoplastic Formulation

PR
2 of the Conventional Limit Pressure Measured
with the Pressuremeter Test in Cohesive Soil
O
3

Jacques Monnet1
OF
4

5
6 Abstract: An elastoplastic pressuremeter theory for cohesive soil has been used in the design of construction, such as retaining walls,
7 slope stability, or foundation engineering. This theory takes into account the plasticity along the vertical and horizontal planes and allows
CO

8 for the determination of the conventional limit pressure. We compute here the conventional limit pressure using the Plaxis program to
9 check the validity of the theoretical results. First, we present the theory used for the interpretation of the pressuremeter test in cohesive
10 soil and its extension to the conventional limit pressure, which is defined as the pressure at the borehole wall for a volume increase ⌬V
11 equal to the initial volume of the borehole. One of the main results is the theoretical expression of the conventional limit pressure. This
PY

12 volume variation is linked to a radial strain of 冑2 − 1. This conventional limit pressure can be directly measured with the pressuremeter,
13 whereas the theoretical limit pressure is expressed as an infinite expansion and cannot be directly measured. Then, we validate this theory
14 by using finite elements, and determine the conventional limit pressure with the Tresca standard model of Plaxis, which is compared to
15 the theoretical expression. Conclusions are drawn on the validity of this new theory which allows the measurement and the control of the
[G

16 shearing modulus and shear strength of the natural soil.

17 DOI: XXXX
T/

18 CE Database subject headings: Pressuremeters; Elasticity; Plasticity; Shear strength; Validation; Cohesive soils.
19
20
20

soils such as medium or stiff clays, this process creates a reason- 42

21 Introduction
ably good test hole 共Clough et al. 1990兲; however, it is more 43
04

22 The pressuremeter is a well-known apparatus 共Ménard 1956兲. It is difficult to accomplish the desired objective in cohesionless soils, 44
23 widely used nowadays for foundation engineering 共Ménard 1975; soft clays, or soils with gravels. In countries like the United States 45
24 Gambin 1979; Amar et al. 1991; Clarke 1996兲 with mostly em- 共U.S.兲, it is becoming more common to supplement the drilling 46
/0

25 pirical rules 关for example, DTU 13.12 共AFNOR 1988兲; French process by pushing a slotted tube for the final length where the 47
26 Standard NF P 94-110-1 共AFNOR 2000兲; French Standard XF P test will be conducted. This method is described in the ASTM 48
94-110-2 共AFNOR 1999兲兴. The initial borehole disturbance 共1987兲 standard, but produces an unknown disturbance around the 49
23

27
28 共Prapaharan et al. 1990; Whittle and Aubeny 1992; Aubeny et al. borehole. 50
29 2000; Silvestri 2004兲, the strain rate expansion 共Prapaharan et al. One of the main reasons for the development of the self-boring 51
1989兲, and the reduced probe length 共Houlsby and Carter 1993; pressuremeter test 共SBPM兲 is to create an opening for the test 52
97

30
31 Shuttle and Jefferies 1995兲 have been previously studied. Jefferies with minimum disturbance 共Wroth and Hughes 1973兲. However, 53
the process of boring with the present SBPM is not efficient, and 54
32 and Shuttle 共1995兲 have analyzed the undrained expansion of the
is subject to problems in very dense soils, particularly in the pres- 55
33 pressuremeter in clay with a finite element method 共FEM兲 pro-
4]

ence of gravels or other large particles. Experimental results on 56

34 gram and an elastoplastic behavior model of soil, and have used it
soft soils with SBPM have been compared to MPM 共Baguelin et 57
35 to find the disturbance correction needed by the overpushed test.
al. 1978兲 at a number of different sites. It appears that the self- 58
36 In the present theoretical study, we assume no influence of the
00

boring pressuremeter measures higher pressures than the MPM at 59

37 disturbance effect and a probe, which is close to 6 cm diameter
the same relative deformation of the probes. The difference be- 60
38 and 45 cm length.
tween the two tests is larger when the soil is more compressible. 61
39 The conventional approach for the Ménard pressuremeter test
17

40 共MPM兲 involves drilling a hole with a rotary or auger bit so that

41 the resulting hole is close to the diameter of the instrument. In
Behavior of Cohesive Soil 62
around the Pressuremeter 63
09

1
Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, L3S-R, Joseph Fourier
Univ., 38041, Grenoble, France. E-mail: [email protected] The commonly used methods for interpreting the pressuremeter 64
Note. Discussion open until February 1, 2008. Separate discussions measurements can be found in a few state of the art articles 共Cas- 65
QG

must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by

san 1978; Ladanyi 1995; Benoit 1995; Clarke 1997; Yu 2004兲. 66
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos- The stress-strain relation may be derived from the pressuremeter 67
sible publication on December 27, 2004; approved on February 4, 2006. curve 共Baguelin et al. 1972; Ladanyi 1972; Palmer 1972; Wood 68
This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental and Wroth 1977兲. It is then necessary to use a numerical deriva- 69
T

Engineering, Vol. 133, No. 9, September 1, 2007. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090- tion of the pressuremeter curve and numerical integration to infer 70
0241/2007/9-1–XXXX/$25.00. the shearing stress and the stress path. The influence of the per- 71

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2007 / 1

PROOF COPY [GT/2004/023974] 001709QGT

PROOF COPY [GT/2004/023974] 001709QGT
72 meability in a linear elastoplastic soil and of the geometry of the
73 probe has been previously studied 共Nahra and Frank 1986兲 by the
74 numerical expansion of a cylindrical cavity. The well-known
75 theory of undrained behavior 共Baguelin et al. 1972兲 has been used
PR
76 共Prapaharan et al. 1989兲 to investigate the pressuremeter expan-
77 sion as a function of the undrained shear strength, which varies
78 with the strain rate.
79 Most studies point out the influence of several factors: the
O
80 cutting shoe 共Aubeny et al. 2000兲; the undrained shear strength;
81 the dimension of the probe 共Houlsby and Carter 1993兲; the re-
82 molded annulus linked to the preboring phase 共Sayed and Hamed
OF
83 1988; Jefferies and Shuttle 1995; Prapaharan et al. 1990兲; and the
84 unloading of the soil prior to the expansion of the probe 共Silvestri
85 2004兲.
86 The stress-strain behavior of the cohesive soil is assumed to
CO
87 follow either a linear elasticity relation 共Gibson and Anderson
88 1961; Silvestri 2003兲, a hyperbolic elastoplastic relation 共Silvestri
89 2004兲, or a power law 共Bolton and Whittle 1999兲. This leads to
Fig. 1. Plastic areas around the pressuremeter probe inferred by
90 the undrained shear strength, or to the theoretical loading curve. A
numerical analysis
PY

91 linear elastoplastic condition is used 共Houlsby and Withers 1988兲

92 to obtain the theoretical unloading curve of the pressuremeter. A
93 theoretical stress-strain time-dependent relationship is assumed
94 共Prévost 1979兲 under undrained conditions to derive the material Wroth 1977兲 between the vertical stress ␴z and the circumferen- 132
95 stress-strain curve. tial stress ␴␪, in the area between radii rb and rc 共external radius 133
[G

96 In this study, the theoretical analysis is chosen for its ability to of both plastic areas兲. An elastic area extends beyond radius rc. 134
97 describe the pressuremeter test from beginning to end with only a
98 few parameters, when numerical analysis with sophisticated mod-
Equilibrium Condition
T/

135
99 els needs many mechanical parameters, which cannot be precisely
100 fitted. As a matter of fact, on a pressuremeter curve, which is In the horizontal and vertical planes the equilibrium of an element 136
of soil is given by 137
20

101 computed with an eight parameters model, only one or two pa-
102 rameters can be fitted, while six or seven other parameters must
103 be assumed 共Cambou and Bahar 1993兲. ␴r − ␴␪ + rd␴r/dr = 0; d␴z/dz = ␥ 共2兲 138
The elastoplasticity is the general frame of this study, because
04

104
105 it covers the complete range from small reversible displacements
106 to large irreversible displacements. The present approach devel- Equilibrium in the First Plastic Area 139
107 oped from a previous study 共Monnet and Chemaa 1995兲 may be
/0

This plastic area is located between radius ra, where the pres- 140
108 considered as following the elastoplastic method 共Gibson and suremeter probe applies the pressure p and radius b. The Tresca 141
109 Anderson 1961; Silvestri 2003兲 extended to the determination of Eq. 共1兲 is used to find the difference between the radial stress ␴r 142
23

110 the conventional limit pressure, which is influenced by the equi- and the circumferential stress ␴␪. It can be used in the horizontal 143
111 librium in the vertical plane. The pressuremeter test is considered equilibrium Eq. 共2兲 to obtain a first-order differential Eq. 共3兲 144
112 as an in situ shearing test. It measures soil deformability and which is integrated in Eq. 共4兲 between the radii r 共current兲 and ra 145
97

113 shear resistance of the soil and can be carried out in any type of 共borehole兲 146
114 soil without sampling.
2cu + rd␴r/dr = 0 共3兲 147
4]

115 Hypothesis

116
117
We assume, at low stress level, a test with elastic behavior 共Ba-
guelin et al. 1978兲. Numerical results with a constitutive model
ln 冉冊
r
ra
=
1
2cu
共p − ␴r兲 共4兲
00

148
118 共Cambou and Bahar 1993兲 show that the test can be assumed to
119 be an undrained one with a permeability lower than 10−10 m / s. In the same area, the flow rule equation 关Eq. 共1兲兴 gives the 149
120 We assume standard plasticity for a high level of shearing and ratio between the radial plastic strain d␧rp and the circumferential 150
17

121 positive stress in compression. The Tresca relation gives the fail- plastic strain d␧␪p. It can be integrated as follows in Eq. 共5兲 where 151
122 ure of the soil between the maximum compressional stress ␴1 and C1⫽constant: 152
123 the minimum compressional stress ␴3, with the associated flow
09

124 rule and the scalar ␰ d␧␳p/d␧␪p = − 1; ␧rp = − ␧␪p + C1 共5兲 153
As the elastic part of the strain is considerably smaller than the 154
125 F共␴兲 = 共␴1 − ␴3兲 − 2cu ; d␧ p = ␰ · dF共␴兲/d␴ 共1兲
plastic strain, it can be neglected. The effect of this simplification 155
QG

126 Three different areas of soil are considered from the borehole is significant for high shear strength and low elastic stiffness 共Yu 156
127 wall to the infinite radius 共Fig. 1兲. Plasticity appears in the first and Houlsby 1991兲, but the practice of engineering shows that 157
128 zone between the radial stress ␴r and the circumferential stress hard soils behave with high shear strength, which is balanced by 158
129 ␴␪. This first plastic area extends between the radius ra 共borehole high elastic stiffness. Soft soil low elastic stiffness is balanced by 159
T

130 wall兲 and rb 共external radius of the first plastic area兲. For a cohe- low shear strength. This is a reasonable common assumption also 160
131 sive soil plasticity may appear in the vertical plane 共Wood and used by other authors 共Hughes and Wroth 1971; Gibson and 161

2 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2007

PROOF COPY [GT/2004/023974] 001709QGT

PROOF COPY [GT/2004/023974] 001709QGT
162 Anderson 1961兲. It leads to a first-order differential equation as previously found 共Gibson and Anderson 1961兲. Such a relation 199
163 which is integrated between the radius of the borehole ra and the leads to the unique and accurate determination of the shear 200
164 radius r strength cu by the slope of the straight line between the variables. 201
165 du/dr = − u/r + C1 共6兲
PR
Global Equilibrium with Only One Plastic Area 202

冤 冥
ua

冉冊
2 − C1 The continuity of stress between the two different areas gives a 203
r 1 ra null constant C1. The general equilibrium condition between 204
ln = ln 共7兲
O
ra 2 u stress and strain is 205
2 − C1

冋册 冋 册 冋 册
166 r
OF
ua 1 K0␥z cu
167 Combining Eqs. 共4兲 and 共7兲, we obtain the first plastic area ln = p− − 1 + ln 共15兲 206
168 equilibrium
ra cu cu 2G

冤 冥
ua C1 The proportionality between the axial strain at the borehole wall 207
−
CO
ra 2 1 and the pressure applied by the pressuremeter is also obtained. 208
ln = 共p − ␴r兲 共8兲 The difference between the two cases is linked to the value of the 209
u C1 cu
− radial stress for the radius of the external area of plasticity rc. In 210
169 r 2
the second case 共failure between r-␪ only兲, the value of the radial 211
stress must be larger than the vertical stress ␴rc ⬎ ␴z and a condi-
PY

212
tion between K0 and cu is derived 213
170 Equilibrium in the Second Plastic Area

171 In the second plastic area, the vertical stress ␴z⫽main stress; and cu
172 the circumferential stress⫽minor stress in the Tresca criterion. As K0 艌 1 − 共16兲
␥z 214
[G

173 the vertical stress is a constant equal to ␥z, we obtain the constant
174 value of the circumferential stress using Eq. 共9兲, which is put into
175 Eq. 共2兲 and leads to the relation Eq. 共10兲
Conventional Limit Pressure 215
T/

176 ␴z − ␴␪ = 2cu 共9兲

In the two cases, we obtain the conventional limit pressure plM 216
with the assumption that the volume of the probe is double the 217
20

rb 共2cu − ␴z + p0兲 initial one. The radial strain at the borehole wall is then equal to
= 共10兲 218
177 rc cu 冑2 − 1. The main interest of this conventional pressure is that it 219
can be directly measured with the pressuremeter test, which is not 220
04

178 The plasticity condition shows that the radial stress is interme-
179 diate between the vertical stress ␴z and the circumferential stress the case of the theoretical limit pressure obtained by an extrapo- 221
180 ␴␪ 共Fig. 1兲 so that the radial strain d␧r is not concerned by the lation for an infinite expansion of the cavity. 222
181 flow rule and can be integrated with constants C3 and C4
/0

Two Plastic Areas 223

182 ␧r = du/dr = C3; u = C3r + C4 共11兲 This particular value of the radial strain is put into Eq. 共14兲 and 224
23

183 With respect to Eqs. 共10兲 and 共11兲, we obtain the second plastic we obtain the conventional limit pressure 225

冉 冊
184 area equilibrium
2G共冑2 − 1兲 + cu
u − C4 共2cu − ␥z + ␴rc兲 pIM = ␥z + cu ln 共17兲
97

C3r
= = 共12兲 共1 − K0兲␥z + cu 226
185 C3rc uc − C4 共2cu − ␥z + ␴r兲
186 An elastic area is assumed beyond the larger plastic radius. This relation is quite different from the Ménard experimental cor- 227
4]

relations proposed by the European Regional Technical Commit- 228

tee 共Amar et al. 1991兲 229
187 Global Equilibrium with Two Plastic Areas
00

188 The continuity of stress between the three different areas yields plM = 5.5cu + K0␥z if plM − K0␥z ⬍ 300 kPa
189 for C1, the value 共18兲
plM = 10共cu − 25兲 + K0␥z if plM − K0␥z ⬎ 300 kPa 230
cu
17

C1 = − 共13兲
190 G The Ménard relation was an experimental result on many pres- 231
suremeter tests at mean depth. Theoretical considerations show 232
191 We obtain the general equilibrium condition between stress that the shearing takes place between the radial stress ␴r and the 233
09

192 and strain, which is the general form of the pressuremeter equa- circumferential stress ␴␪, which lie in the horizontal plane. For a 234
193 tion with two plastic areas cohesive soil, the plasticity condition shows that the level of 235

冋 ua C1
册1 ␥z ␥z
冋 C1
册 shearing is independent of the mean stress. For the pressuremeter 236
QG

194 ln − = p + ln 共1 − K0兲 − 共14兲 test, the mean stress is proportional to the vertical stress and the 237
ra 2 cu cu 2G 2
level of shearing must be independent to ␴z. Eq. 共17兲 shows that 238
195 The value of coefficient C1 is usually close to a hundredth of the net conventional limit pressure 共difference between the con- 239
196 the radial strain. This is very small and can be neglected. Eq. 共14兲 ventional limit pressure and the horizontal pressure at rest兲 is not 240
T

197 shows a linear relation between the logarithm of the radial strain linked to a particular value of the vertical stress. Theoretical Eq. 241
198 at the borehole wall and the pressure applied by the pressuremeter 共17兲 and Ménard Eq. 共18兲 fit this condition. 242

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2007 / 3

PROOF COPY [GT/2004/023974] 001709QGT

PROOF COPY [GT/2004/023974] 001709QGT
PR
O OF
CO
Fig. 2. Linear transformation of the pressuremeter relationship for a Fig. 4. Evolution of the shear strength measured by the pressuremeter
test at 22 m depth in the plastic clay of Paris in the plastic clay of Paris

243 One Plastic Area

PY

between the pressure and radial strain after the creep pressure. 263
244 The particular value of the radial strain is put into Eq. 共15兲 to
245 infer the conventional limit pressure. It appears that the net con-
The higher the shear strength, the higher the theoretical curve. 264
246 ventional limit pressure 共difference pIM − p0兲 is also independent
The accurate fitting of the theoretical and experimental curves on 265
247 of the vertical stress
the unloading-reloading cycle and beyond means that both shear 266

冋 冉 冊册
modulus and undrained shear strength are adapted to the level of 267
[G

2G共冑2 − 1兲 vertical stress assumed. The initial difference between the theo- 268
248 pIM = K0␥z + cu 1 + ln 共19兲 retical and experimental curves 共Fig. 3兲 is linked to the drilling 269
cu
disturbance of the borehole and to the unloading of the soil before 270
T/

the probe is placed at test level. The variability of this natural clay 271
exhibits an evolution of the shear strength 共Fig. 4兲 versus the 272
20

249 Application of the Method for a Geotechnical depth of the test. This figure shows, except for the test at 14 m 273
250 Campaign in Paris depth, an increase of the shear strength with depth. 274
The shape of the pressuremeter curve is often considered to be 275
the result of a variation of the shear strength 共Prapaharan et al.
04

251 Some pressuremeter tests were carried out in the Sparnacien layer 276
252 in Paris. This layer is an overconsolidated plastic clay. One bore- 1989兲. However, if we simulate a pressuremeter test with a finite 277
253 hole was drilled and cyclic pressuremeter tests 共MPM兲 were car- element program and the linear elastoplastic model of Plaxis, a 278
ried out at every meter. The slope measurement 共Fig. 2兲 of the smooth curve is obtained with an apparent shearing modulus 279
/0

254
255 linear relationship between the pressure and the logarithm of the which decreases from its maximum initial value to the end of the 280
256 radial strain at the borehole wall gives the shear strength using test. This phenomenon is mainly linked to the progressive in- 281
23

257 Eq. 共14兲. The shearing modulus of the soil is obtained from an crease of the plastic volume zone around the pressuremeter probe 282
258 elastic analysis of the unloading-reloading cycle. These values are
259 put into Eq. 共14兲 to draw the theoretical pressuremeter curve over
97

260 the experimental one 共Fig. 3兲. The control of Young’s modulus is Table 1. Values of the Mechanical Parameters Used in the Numerical
261 made by the correct fitting over the unloading-reloading se- Analysis
262 quence, while the shear strength is checked by the relationship
G ␴z cu E
4]

Parameter 共MPa兲 K0 共kPa兲 共kPa兲 共MPa兲 ␯

␴z 13.3 0.667 100–300 100 40 0.499
One zone
00

␴z 13.3 0.667 300–600 100 40 0.499

Two zones
G 3–67 0.667 250 100 10–200 0.499
17

One zone
G 3–67 0.4 250 100 10–200 0.499
09

Two zones
cu 13.3 0.667 250 100–700 40 0.499
One zone
QG

cu 13.3 0.667 600 80–200 40 0.499

Two zones
K0 13.3 0.65–1.0 250 100 40 0.499
One zone
K0 13.3 0.3–0.55 250 100 40 0.499
T

Fig. 3. Control of the stress strain parameters for a test at 22 m depth

in the plastic clay of Paris Two zones

4 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2007

PROOF COPY [GT/2004/023974] 001709QGT

PROOF COPY [GT/2004/023974] 001709QGT
PR
O OF
CO
PY

Fig. 5. Boundary conditions of the finite element analysis

283 and can be shown by the increase of the plastic strain when each. The mesh is refined close to the borehole to have a correct 301
284 unloading-reloadings are made at different levels of stress. numerical evaluation of the radial stress in the plastic area. The 302
[G

left limit is the borehole wall placed at 3 cm from the axis to 303
simulate a 6 cm diameter borehole. No horizontal displacement is 304
285 Numerical Validation of the Elasto-Plastic Theory allowed above the pressuremeter probe, but vertical displace- 305
ments are allowed. The right limit is placed at a radius of 5 m
T/

306
286 The theoretical expressions of the conventional limit pressure in from the axis with a horizontal at rest pressure and displacements 307
287 the cohesive soil depend on the vertical stress, the coefficient of allowed in both directions. The lower limit is the horizontal plane, 308
20

288 pressure at rest, the shearing modulus, and the shear strength. We which intersects the probe at its midlength with vertical displace- 309
289 use the finite element program Plaxis 共Brinkgreve and Vermeer ments not allowed. The upper limit is a horizontal plane located 310
290 1998兲 with the Tresca model to compute the value of the conven- 2 m above the midlength of the probe. The boundary conditions 311
04

291 tional limit pressure, which is compared to the results of the are shown in Fig. 5. To simulate a test deeper than 2 m, a vertical 312
292 theory. The model used is elastoplastic with a constant shearing stress is applied at the top of the mesh 共load B兲. The pressureme- 313
293 modulus and five parameters 共Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, ter applies a radial stress 共load A兲 at the lower part of the borehole 314
/0

294 undrained shear strength, no friction, and no dilatancy angle兲. The with an imposed stress at each loading step. The elements are 315
295 method used for the validation is a variation of only one param- smaller close to the borehole 共cluster 1兲 than far from it 共cluster 316
296 eter when the other ones stay constant. The evolution of the 2兲. The L / D ratio is 7.5 which is adapted to the dimension of the 317
23

297 numerical conventional limit pressure is compared to the value apparatus, which is commonly used. 318
298 obtained from the theoretical expression. The values of the me- The deformed mesh of the FEM analysis 共Fig. 6兲 is close to a 319
299 chanical characteristics are shown in Table 1. The mesh is com- parabolic shape. The cavity has a length 共Lt兲 larger than the length 320
97

300 posed of 9,199 nodes with 1,013 triangular elements of 15 nodes of the measurement cell 共Lmes兲. We decided to compare the maxi- 321
4]
00
17
09
QG
T

Fig. 6. Deformed mesh of the finite element analysis

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2007 / 5

PROOF COPY [GT/2004/023974] 001709QGT

PROOF COPY [GT/2004/023974] 001709QGT
PR
O OF

Fig. 7. Influence of the vertical stress ␴z on the conventional limit Fig. 9. Influence of the K0 coefficient on the conventional limit
pressure with one plastic zone
CO
pressure in a test with one plastic zone

322 mum horizontal displacement 共at the point placed on the horizon-
depend on the vertical stress, with an overestimation around 7%. 346
323 tal plane at midheight of the probe兲 with the prescribed displace- There is no significant difference about the influence of the ver- 347
PY

324 ment of the conventional limit pressure and the mean tical stress between the theory and Mérelations. 348
325 displacement, which is given by

326
冋
umean_a = umax_a 1 −
2
Lmes
3L2
册 共20兲
Influence of the Coefficient of Pressure at Rest K0 349
[G

The coefficient of pressure at rest K0 should increase the horizon- 350

327 For the standard dimensions of the probe defined in the French tal pressure at rest, and consequently, the conventional limit pres- 351
328 Standard NFP 94-110 共AFNOR 2000兲, the total length of the pres- sure. This evolution is determined by the theory for one and two 352
plastic areas 共Figs. 9 and 10兲 with an underestimation of about
T/

329 suremeter is 45 cm, the length of the measurement cell is 21 cm, 353
330 and the diameter is 6 cm. The correction factor applied to the 6%. It can be seen that the relation proposed by Ménard yields a 354
331 maximum radial displacement is found equal to 0.927, and the larger difference than the Plaxis results with a difference in the 355
20

332 limit pressure is chosen for a maximum calculated borehole strain range. 356
333 of 共冑2 − 1兲 / 0.927.
Influence of the Shearing Modulus 357
04

334 Influence of the Vertical Stress The conventional limit pressure is the value of the pressure linked 358
335 The theory takes into account the vertical stress as the intermedi- to a volume of the probe which is twice the initial one. If the soil 359
/0

336 ate stress between the radial and the circumferential stresses. It is stiffer for a given pressure, the deformation of the soil should 360
337 shows that shearing takes place mainly in the horizontal plane. be smaller and should reach twice the initial volume for a high 361
For cohesive soil, the net conventional limit pressure 共difference value of the pressure. On the reverse side, for a soft soil and a 362
23

338
339 plM − p0兲 is independent of the vertical stress as shown by Eqs. given pressure, the deformation of the soil should be larger and 363
340 共17兲 and 共19兲. The vertical stress is an additive factor into the should reach twice the initial volume for a low value of the pres- 364
341 theoretical conventional limit pressure so that its increase yields sure. This evolution is described by the theory, and it can be seen 365
97

342 an equivalent increase of the conventional limit pressure. The 共Figs. 11 and 12兲 that the shearing modulus has an increasing 366
343 FEM 共Figs. 7 and 8兲 shows the same variation of conventional influence on the conventional limit pressure. As the shearing 367
344 limit pressure with an underestimation of about 8%. The Ménard modulus increases, the conventional limit pressure goes up. Fur- 368
4]

345 Eq. 共18兲 assumes that the net conventional limit pressure does not thermore, the theory predicts with a precision of about 14% the 369
00
17
09
QG

Fig. 8. Influence of the vertical stress ␴z on the conventional limit

T

Fig. 10. Influence of the K0 coefficient on the conventional limit

pressure in a test with two plastic zones pressure in a test with two plastic zones

6 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2007

PROOF COPY [GT/2004/023974] 001709QGT

PROOF COPY [GT/2004/023974] 001709QGT
PR
O OF

Fig. 13. Influence of the undrained shear strength cu on the

Fig. 11. Influence of the shearing modulus G on the conventional conventional limit pressure in a test with one plastic zone
CO
limit pressure in a test with one plastic zone

Conclusion 391
PY

370 conventional limit pressure obtained by the Plaxis program. The We have presented the numerical validation of a theory for the 392
interpretation of the pressuremeter test, which takes into account 393
371 correlative relation of Ménard 关Eq. 共15兲兴 predicts no influence of
the vertical and the horizontal elastoplastic equilibriums around 394
372 the shearing modulus on the conventional limit pressure and is in
the pressuremeter. The control of the elastic modulus is made by 395
373 contradiction with the numerical results. The new theory im-
the comparison between the experimental and theoretical slopes 396
[G

374 proves the interpretation of the pressuremeter test by making

of the unloading-reloading sequence of the test. This method al- 397
375 Young’s modulus a parameter of the limit pressure. lows a precise measure of the elastic modulus with the pres- 398
suremeter probe. 399
T/

376 Influence of the Shear Strength

The theory takes into account the three-imensional states of 400
stress around the pressuremeter, the plasticity which occurs be- 401
The shear strength acts as a resistance factor against the deforma- tween the radial stress and the circumferential stress, and the plas- 402
20

377
378 tion of the soil, and when the shear strength increases the conven- ticity which takes place between the vertical stress and the cir- 403
379 tional limit pressure increases also. This is shown by the theory of cumferential stress. It shows that the linearity between the radial 404
the expansion of the pressuremeter probe with a conventional stress and the logarithm of radial strain at the borehole wall al- 405
04

380
381 limit pressure, which is a function of the shear strength. This lows the measurement of the shear strength. The value obtained 406
382 variation is also obtained by the finite element analysis made by can be controlled by the comparison between the theoretical and 407
383 Plaxis. It can be seen 共Figs. 13 and 14兲 that the evolution of the experimental pressuremeter curves and by the comparison be- 408
/0

384 limit pressure lies in the same range as the numerical results with tween the theoretical and the experimental conventional limit 409
385 a mean difference of 70 kPa on the limit pressure. This validates pressures. 410
23

386 the theory for the variation of the shear strength. On the other The theory depends on four mechanical parameters for the 411
387 hand, the correlative relation of Ménard yields an increasing dif- conventional limit pressure 共vertical stress, shearing modulus, 412
388 ference with the numerical results of Plaxis and largely underestes shear strength, and coefficient of pressure at rest兲. The numerical 413
97

389 the shear strength as the shear stress increases with a mean dif- calculation of the pressuremeter test by the Plaxis software has 414
been made by varying one of these variables, while the other ones 415
390 ference of 360 kPa.
remained unchanged. The theory shows the same variation with 416
4]
00
17
09
QG
T

Fig. 12. Influence of the shearing modulus G on the conventional Fig. 14. Influence of the undrained shear strength cu on the
limit pressure in a test with two plastic zones conventional limit pressure in a test with two plastic zones

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2007 / 7

PROOF COPY [GT/2004/023974] 001709QGT

PROOF COPY [GT/2004/023974] 001709QGT
417 each variable as the numerical results and a close agreement with the 4th Int. Symp. on Pressuremeters, Sherbrooke, Balkema, 䊏125– 476
418 Plaxis. This allows its validation within the range of variation of 139. 477
419 the four variables identified. Bolton, M. D., and Whittle, R. W. 共1999兲. “A nonlinear elastic/perfectly 478
plastic analysis for plane strain undrained expansion tests.” Geotech- 479
PR
nique, 49共1兲, 133–141. 480
Brinkgreve, R. B. J., and Vermeer, P. A. 共1998兲. Plaxis: Finite element 481
420 Notations code for soil and rock analyses, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Nether- 482
lands. 483
421 The following symbols are used in this paper: Cambou, B., and Bahar, R. 共1993兲. “Utilisation de l’essai pressiométrique 484
O
422
423 c ⫽ shear strength; pour l’identification de paramètres intrinsèques du comportement du 485
424 E ⫽ Young’s modulus; sol.” Revue Française de Géotechnique, 63, 39–50. 486
OF
425 EM ⫽ Ménard modulus; Cassan, M. 共1978兲. Essais in situ en mécanique des sols, Eyrolles, Paris. 487
426 G ⫽ shear modulus; Clarke, B. G. 共1996兲. “Pressuremeter testing in ground investigation. Part 488
I: Site operations.” Geotech. Eng., 119, 96–108. 489
427 K0 ⫽ coefficient of at rest pressure;
Clarke, B. G. 共1997兲. “Pressuremeter testing in ground investigation. Part 490
428 p ⫽ pressure applied at the borehole wall; II: Interpretation.” Geotech. Eng., 125, 42–51. 491
⫽
CO
429 pf creep pressure; Clough, G. W., Briauld, J. L., and Hughes, J. M. O. 共1990兲. “The devel- 492
430 plM ⫽ conventional limit pressure; opment of pressuremeter testing.” Proc., 3rd Int. Symp. on Pres- 493
431 p0 ⫽ horizontal pressure at rest; suremeters, 䊏 London, 25–45. 494
432 ra ⫽ borehole radius; Gambin, M. 共1979兲. “Vingt ans d’usage du pressiométre en Europe.” 495
rb ⫽ external radius of first plastic zone;
PY

433 Proc., Congrès Européen de Mécanique des Sols et des Travaux de 496
434 rc ⫽ external radius of second plastic zone; Fondation 䊏. 497
435 u ⫽ radial displacement at radius r; Gibson, R. E., and Anderson, W. F. 共1961兲. “In situ measurement of soil 498
436 ua ⫽ displacement at the borehole wall ra; properties with the pressuremeter.” Civil Eng., 䊏䊏, 䊏䊏䊏–䊏䊏䊏. 499
437 ub ⫽ displacement at radius rb; Houlsby, G. T., and Withers, N. J. 共1988兲. “Analysis of the cone pres- 500
[G

438 uc ⫽ displacement at radius rc; suremeter test in clay.” Geotechnique, 38共4兲, 575–587. 501
439 umax_a ⫽ maximum displacement at the borehole wall Houlsby, G. T., and Carter, J. P. 共1993兲. “The effects of pressuremeter 502
geometry on results of tests in clay.” Geotechnique, 43共4兲, 567–576. 503
440 ra, at the midlength of the probe;
Hughes and Wroth. 共1971兲. 504
T/

441 umean_a ⫽ mean displacement at the borehole wall ra, Jefferies, M. G. 共1988兲. “Determination of horizontal geostatic stress in 505
442 along the length of the measurement cell; clay with self-bored pressuremeter.” Can. Geotech. J., 25, 559–573. 506
443 ␯ ⫽ Poisson’s ratio; Jefferies, M. G., and Shuttle, D. A. 共1995兲. “Disturbance does not prevent
20

507
444 ␥ ⫽ total unit weight; obtaining reliable parameters from SBP tests in clay.” The pres- 508
445 ␧␪ , ␧r , ␧z ⫽ circumferential, radial, vertical strain; suremeter and its new avenues, Proc., of the 4th Int. Symp. on Pres- 509
446 ␧1 , ␧2 , ␧3 ⫽ principal strain; suremeters, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 177–183. 510
04

447 ␪,r,z ⫽ circumferential, radial, vertical coordinates; Ladanyi, B. 共1972兲. “In-situ determination of undrained stress-strain be- 511
448 ␴␪ , ␴r , ␴z ⫽ circumferential, radial, vertical stresses; haviour of sensitive clays with the pressuremeter.” Can. Geotech. J., 512
449 ␴rc ⫽ radial stress at radius rc; J.9, 313–319. 513
/0

450 ␴␪c ⫽ circumferential stress at radius rc; and Ladanyi, B. 共1995兲. “A brief history of pressuremeter.” The pressureme- 514
451 ␴1 , ␴2 , ␴3 ⫽ principal stress. ter and its new Proc., 4th Int. Symp. on Pressuremeters, avenues, 515
3–23. 516
23

Ménard, L. 共1956兲. “An apparatus for measuring the strength of soils in 517
place.” M.S. thesis, Univ. of Illinois. 518
452 References Ménard, L. 共1975兲. “The interpretation of pressuremeter test results.” Sols 519
97

Soils, 26, 䊏䊏䊏–䊏䊏䊏. 520

453 AFNOR. 共1988兲. “Règles pour le calcul des foundations superficielles.” Monnet, J., and Allagnat, D. 共2002兲. “Design of a large soil retaining 521
454 DTU-13-12, 䊏, France. structure with pressuremeter analysis.” Geotech. Eng., 155共1兲, 71–78. 522
455 AFNOR. 共1999兲. “Essai pressiométrique Ménard. Partie 2: Essai avec Monnet, J., Allagnat, D., Teston, J., Billet, P., and Baguelin, F. 共2005兲.
4]

523
456 cycle.” French Standard XF P 94-110-2, 䊏, France. “Le rôle de la reconnaissance pressiométrique dans la conception de 524
457 AFNOR. 共2000兲. “Essai pressiométrique Ménard. Partie 1: Essai sans la foundation du viaduc en arc précontraint du Crozet.” Proc., Symp. 525
458 cycle.” French Standard NF P 94-110-1, 䊏, France.
ISP5 Pressio 2005, 䊏 529–540. 526
Amar, S., Clarke, B. G. F., Gambin, M., and Orr, T. L. L. 共1991兲. “The
00

459
Monnet, J., and Chemaa, T. 共1995兲. “Etude théorique et expérimentale de 527
460 application of pressuremeter test results to foundation design in Eu-
l’équilibre élastoplastique d’un sol cohérent autour du pressiomètre.” 528
461 rope.” European Regional Technical Committee 4, Pressuremeters, Rev. Franç. Géotechnique, 73, 15–26. 529
462 Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1–24.
17

Nahra, R., and Frank, R. 共1986兲. “Contributions numériques et analy- 530

463 ASTM. 共1987兲. “Standard test method for pressuremeter testing in soils.” tiques à l’étude de la consolidation autour du pressiomètre.” Research 531
464 D4719, Annual book of ASTM standards, 䊏, West Conshohocken, Pa. Rep. LPC No. 137, Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées, Paris. 532
465 Aubeny, C. P., Whittle, A. J., and Ladd, C. C. 共2000兲. “Effects of distur- Palmer, A. C. 共1972兲. “Undrained plane-strain expansion of a cylindrical 533
09

466 bance on undrained strengths interpreted from pressuremeter tests.” J. cavity in clay: A simple interpretation of the pressuremeter test.” Geo- 534
467 Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 126共12兲, 1133–1144. technique, 22共3兲, 451–457. 535
468 Baguelin, F., Jezequel, J. F., Lemée, E., and LeMéhaté, A. 共1972兲. “Ex- Prapaharan, S., Chameau, J. L., Altschaeffl, A. G., and Holtz, R. D. 536
QG

469 pansion of cylindrical probes in cohesive soils.” J. Soil Mech. and 共1990兲. “Effect of disturbance on pressuremeter results in clay.” J. 537
470 Found. Div., 98共11兲, 1129–1142. Geotech. Engrg., 116共1兲, 35–53. 538
471 Baguelin, F., Jezequel, J. F., and Shields, D. H. 共1978兲. The pressuremeter Prapaharan, S., Chameau, J. L., and Holtz, R. D. 共1989兲. “Effect of strain 539
472 and foundation engineering, Trans Tech. Publication, Clausthal, rate on undrained strength derived from pressuremeter tests.” Geo- 540
473 Germany. technique, 39共4兲, 615–624. 541
T

474 Benoit, J. 共1995兲. “Advances in pressuremeter technology with specific Prévost, J. H. 共1979兲. “Undrained shear tests on clays.” J. Geotech. 542
475 reference to clays.” The pressuremeter and its new avenues, Proc., of Engrg. Div., 105, 49–64. 543

8 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2007

PROOF COPY [GT/2004/023974] 001709QGT

PROOF COPY [GT/2004/023974] 001709QGT
544 Sayed, M. S., and Hamed, M. A. 共1988兲. “Pressuremeter test and distur- 556
and A. N. Schofield, eds., Thomas Telford, London, 742–768.
545 bance effects.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 114共5兲, 631–637. Wood, D. M., and Wroth, P. C. 共1977兲. “Some laboratory experiments 557
546 Shuttle, D. A., and Jefferies, M. G. 共1995兲. “A practical geometry correc- related to the results of pressurementer tests.” Geotechnique, 27共2兲, 558
547 tion for interpreting pressuremeter tests in clay.” Geotechnique, 181–201. 559
548 45共3兲, 549–554.
PR
Wroth, C. P., and Hughes, J. M. O. 共1973兲. “An instrument for the in-situ 560
549 Silvestri, V. 共2003兲. “Assessment of self-boring pressuremeter tests in
550 sensitive clay.” Can. Geotech. J., 40, 362–387. measurement of the properties of soft clays.” Proc., 8th Int. Conf. 561
551 Silvestri, V. 共2004兲. “Disturbance effects in pressuremeter tests in clay.” SMFE, 䊏 487–494. 562
552 Can. Geotech. J., 41, 738–759. Yu, H. S. 共2004兲. “In situ soil testing: From mechanics to interpretation.” 563
O
553 Whittle, A. J., and Aubeny, C. P. 共1992兲. “The effects of installation Proc., ISC-2 on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterisation, 564
554 disturbance on interpretation of in-situ tests in clays.” Proc., Int. 䊏 3–38. 565
OF
555 Wroth Memorial Symp. on Predictive Soil Mechanics, G. T. Houlsby Yu and Houlsby. 共1991兲. 566
CO
PY
[G
T/
20
04
/0
23
97
4]
00
17
09
QG
T

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2007 / 9

PROOF COPY [GT/2004/023974] 001709QGT