Effect of Disturbance on Pressuremeter Results in Clays
Publication: Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 116, Issue 1
Abstract
The installation of the pressuremeter probe in the ground causes disturbance to the adjacent soil, resulting in the formation of an annular zone of remolded soil around the probe. In the conventional pressuremeter test, disturbance is caused by temporary unloading of the borehole until the probe is inserted and inflated. In this study the disturbance was modelled by (1) Assuming a remolded annulus of soil around the probe; and (2) considering initial unloading and reloading of the cavity wall. A parametric study was conducted by varying the thickness of the remolded zone and the amount of initial unloading. The results indicate that the error in the undrained strength due to initial unloading can be higher than that due to the remolded zone. The modulus is affected by both the unloading and the size of the disturbed annulus. Further, an examination of field data indicates that strain‐softening soils are affected most by the disturbance caused by initial unloading of the cavity wall.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Anderson, W. F., and Pyrah, I. C. (1986). “Undrained strength and deformation parameters from pressuremeter test results,” The pressuremeter and its marine applications, STP 950, Amer. Soc. Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pa.
2.
Baguelin, F., et al. (1972). “Expansion of cylindrical probes in cohesive soils.” J. Soil Mech. and Foundations Div., ASCE, 98(11), 1129–1142.
3.
Baguelin, F., Jezequel, J. F., and Shields, D. H. (1978). The Pressuremeter and Foundation Engineering. Trans. Tech. Publication, Clausthal, Germany.
4.
Baguelin, F., Frank, R. A., and Nahra, R. (1986). “A theoretical study of pore pressure generation and dissipation around pressuremeter.” The pressuremeter and its marine applications, STP 950, Amer. Soc. Testing and Materials, 169–186.
5.
Baligh, M. M. (1985). “The strain path method.” J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 111(9), 1108–1136.
6.
Benoit, J., and Clough, G. W. (1986). “Self‐boring pressuremeter tests in soft clay.” J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 112(1), 60–78.
7.
Battaglio, M., et al. (1981). “Interpretation of self‐boring pressuremeter tests in clays.” Proc., 10th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Foundation Engrg., Vol. 2, Stockholm, Sweden, 433–438.
8.
Broms, B. B. (1980). “Soil sampling in Europe: State‐of‐the‐art.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 106(1), 65–98.
9.
Denby, G. M. (1978). “Self boring pressuremeter study of the San Francisco bay mud,” thesis presented to Stanford University, at Stanford, Calif., in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
10.
Duncan, J. M., and Seed, H. B. (1966). “Strength variation along failure surfaces in clay.” J. Soil Mech. and Foundation Engrg. Div., ASCE, 92(6), 81–104.
11.
Duncan, J. M., and Dunlop, P. (1969). “Behavior of soils in simple shear tests.” Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Foundation Engrg., Mexico City, Mexico, Vol. I, 101–109.
12.
Eden, W. J., and Law, K. T. (1980). “Comparison of undrained shear strength results obtained by different test method in soft clays,” Canadian Geotech. J., 17(3), 369–381.
13.
Fahey, M., and Randolph, M. F. (1984). “Effect of disturbance on parameters derived from self boring pressuremeter tests in sand.” Geotechnique, London, England, 34(1), 81–97.
14.
Ghionna, V. N., et al. (1981). “Performance of self‐boring pressuremeter in cohesive deposits.” Report No. FHWA/RD‐81/174, Federal Highway Administration.
15.
Huang, A. B. (1986). “Laboratory pressuremeter experiments in clay soils,” thesis presented to Purdue University, at West Lafayette, Ind., in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
16.
Jamiolkowski, M., et al. (1985). “New developments in field and laboratory testing of soils.” Theme Lecture, 11th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Foundation Engrg., San Francisco, Calif., Vol. 1, 57–153.
17.
Jamiolkowski, M., and Lancellotta, R. (1977). “Remarks on the use of self‐boring pressuremeter in three italian clays.” Revista Trimestrate, XI(3), 153–171.
18.
Ladanyi, B. (1972). “In situ determination of undrained stress‐strain behavior of sensitive clays with the pressuremeter.” Canadian Geot. J., 9(3), 313–319.
19.
Ladanyi, B. (1977). “Discussion on 'undrained stress‐strain‐time behavior of clays' by J. H. Prevost.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 103(8), 933–934.
20.
Ladd, C. C., et al. (1980). “Evaluation of self‐boring pressuremeter tests in Boston blue clay.” Report No. FHWA/RD‐80/052.
21.
Ladd, C. C., and Varallyay, J. (1965). “The influence of stress system on the behavior of saturated clays during undrained shear.” Contract Report No. 3‐101, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
22.
Law, K. T., and Eden, W. J. (1982). “Effects of disturbance in pressuremeter tests.” Proc. ASCE Conf. on Updating Subsurface Samplings of Soils and Rocks and their In Situ Testing, Santa Barbara, Calif., 291–303.
23.
Levadoux, J. N., and Baligh, M. M. (1980). “Pore pressures during cone penetration in clays.” Dept. of Civ. Engrg. Report, R80‐15, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
24.
Palmer, A. C. (1972). “Undrained plane strain expansion of a cylindrical cavity in clay: A simple interpretation of the pressuremeter test.” Geotechnique, 22(3), 451–457.
25.
Prapaharan, S. (1987). “Effects of disturbance, strain rate, and partial drainage on pressuremeter test results in clay,” thesis presented to Purdue University, at West Lafayette, Ind., in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
26.
Prapaharan, S., Chameau, J. L., and Holtz, R. D. (1989). “Effect of strain rate on undrained strength derived from pressuremeter tests.” Geotechnique, London, England, 39(4).
27.
Prevost, J. H. (1978). “Anisotropic undrained stress‐strain behavior of clays.” J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 104(8), 1075–1090.
28.
Prevost, J. H. (1979). “Undrained shear tests on clay.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 105(1), 49–64.
29.
Schmertmann, J. H. (1975). “Measurement of in situ shear strength.” State of the Art Report, Proc., ASCE Specialty Conf. on In Situ Measurements of Soil Properties, ASCE, Vol. 2, Raleigh, N.C., 57–138.
30.
Windle, D., and Wroth, C. P. (1977). “In situ measurements of the properties of stiff clays.” Proc., 9th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Foundation Engrg., Vol. 1, Tokyo, Japan, 347–352.
31.
Wood, D. M., and Wroth, C. P. (1977). “Some laboratory experiments related to the results of pressuremeter tests.” Geotechnique, London, England, 27(2), 181–201.
32.
Wroth, C. P. (1982). “British experience with the self‐boring pressuremeter.” Proc., Symp. on the Pressuremeter and Its Marine Applications, Paris, France.
33.
Wroth, C. P. (1984). “The interpretation of in situ soil tests, 24th Rankine Lecture,” Geotechnique, London, England, 34(4), 449–489.
34.
Wroth, C. P., and Hughes, J. M. O. (1974). “Development of a special instrument for the in situ measurement of the strength and stiffness of soils.” Proc., ASCE Specialty Conf. on Subsurface Exploration for Underground Excavation and Heavy Construction, ASCE, Henniker, New Hampshire, 295–311.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 116 • Issue 1 • January 1990
Pages: 35 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 ASCE.
History
Published online: Jan 1, 1990
Published in print: Jan 1990
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.