Interpretation of Pressuremeter Tests in Sand

Interpretation of pressuremeter tests in sand
Vincenzo Silvestri
Abstract: This paper presents a method to obtain the constitutive relationships of sand from drained self-boring
pressuremeter tests. Plane-strain conditions and Rowes stressdilatancy theory are assumed to hold to determine stress
and finite strain distributions and paths. The proposed method, which has been validated using both calibration
chamber studies and field tests, appears to correctly render the response behaviour of relatively loose to dense sands.
Key words: stressstrain relations, self-boring pressuremeter tests, sands, finite strains, stress distributions, paths.
Rsum: Cet article prsente une mthode qui permet dobtenir les relations constitutives des sols partir dessais
pressiomtriques drains. Des conditions de dformation plane et la thorie de la dilatance de Rowe sont assumes tre
valides afin de dterminer les distributions de contraintes et de dformations finies, ainsi que leurs cheminements. La
mthode propose, qui a t valide laide dessais de calibration en cuve et sur place, semble reproduire
correctement le comportement des sables lches et denses.
Mots cls : relations contraintedformation, essais pressiomtriques autoforeurs, sables, dformations finies, distribu-
tions de contraintes, cheminements.
Silvestri 1165
Introduction
Pressuremeter tests in sand present two main difficulties:
the disturbance caused by the insertion of the probe, and the
derivation of fundamental properties from the pressure
expansion curve. Although the first difficulty was virtually
eliminated by the introduction of the self-boring pressure-
meter (SBP), dealing with the second difficulty has met with
less success.
In the vast majority of the theoretical procedures that have
been developed for the interpretation of pressuremeter tests
in sand, the soil surrounding the cavity is assumed to be de-
formed under conditions of axial symmetry and plane strain.
Gibson and Anderson (1961) presented a method of deter-
mining , the drained plane-strain friction angle, from the
pressuremeter test. Their method is based on the assumption
that the sand behaves perfectly elastically until failure is
reached, and that thereafter the sand continues to deform at a
constant ratio of effective stresses and at constant volume. It
leads to unrealistic values of : it underestimates the value
of when the sand is compacting and overestimates it when
the sand is dilating. Ladanyi (1963) was the first investigator
to take into account volume change by using experimentally
determined stressstrain curves and by assuming that the
volumetric strain was proportional to the shearing strain in
the initial stages of the expansion. Deformation of the sand
during failure was assumed to occur at a constant effective
stress ratio and at constant volume. More recently, Ladanyi
and Foriero (1998), using the same data set as that of
Ladanyi (1963), obtained a numerical solution of the cavity
expansion problem, taking into account large strains and the
variation of the spherical stress on the mobilized shear resis-
tance and the associated volumetric strains. Vesic (1972)
proposed a solution for the general case of spherical and
cylindrical cavities in an infinite soil mass. The effects of
volume change in the sand were accounted for by using the
results of laboratory tests on the same sand at the same den-
sity. The method of Wroth and Windle (1975) requires an
assumption regarding the rate of volume change, and that of
Hughes et al. (1977) assumes the rate of volume change to
be proportional to the friction angle. This concept is based
on the stressdilatancy theory of Rowe (1962). In the
method of Hughes et al., it is assumed that the initial behav-
iour is elastic, until a limiting value of the stress ratio is
reached; the sand is considered to have failed at this stress
ratio value. Thereafter, the sand response changes from elas-
tic to perfectly plastic at a constant value of the stress ratio.
In addition, the elastic deformation in the plastic zones is as-
sumed to be small and therefore is ignored in the analysis.
Jewell et al. (1980) showed that the assumption made by
Hughes et al. regarding the constancy of the rate of volume
change during the expansion process was reasonable for
dense sands but less reliable for loose sands. For this reason,
Robertson (1982) and Robertson and Hughes (1986) devel-
oped empirical correlations to improve the determination of
the friction angle of loose and medium-dense sands. Rowes
theory was also applied to represent the nonlinear nature of
the stress and volume change behaviour during shear. De-
sign charts that incorporate a strain-level correction were
developed for calculating the peak friction angle and maxi-
mum dilation rate.
A simple numerical model based also on Rowes (1962)
dilatancy equation was developed by Manassero (1989), us-
ing a small-strain approach, to obtain the complete stress
and strain paths during a drained SBP test in sand. Salgado
Can. Geotech. J. 38: 11551165 (2001) 2001 NRC Canada
1155
DOI: 10.1139/cgj-38-6-1155
Received June 19, 2000. Accepted June 12, 2001. Published
on the NRC Research Press Web site at http://cgj.nrc.ca on
November 1, 2001.
V. Silvestri. Department of Civil Engineering, cole
Polytechnique, P.O. Box 6079, Station Centre-Ville, Montral,
QC H3C 3A7, Canada (e-mail: vsilvestri@mail.polymtl.ca).
I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj06\T01-045.vp
Monday, October 29, 2001 10:38:38 AM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen
and Byrne (1990) used an elastic-plastic three-dimensional
model and showed that parameters for their model could be
obtained using the method proposed by Manassero. Collins
et al. (1992) obtained solutions for the expansion of cavities
in sand by modelling the material using the critical state the-
ory in which the values of the friction and dilation angles
depend on the deformation history. Fahey and Carter (1993)
used a nonlinear elastic, MohrCoulomb plastic soil model
with an axisymmetric plane-strain finite-element program to
reproduce unloadreload loops in pressuremeter tests in sand.
More recently, Yu (1994) and Ajalloeian and Yu (1998)
analyzed the SBP test using the state parameter approach,
coupled with an elasticplastic strain-hardening (or soften-
ing) soil model, based on the critical state soil mechanics
concept. The state parameter is a quantitative measure of the
state of a sand: it combines the effects of the void ratio and
the effective stress in a unique way (Been et al. 1986). Un-
like the analysis of Hughes et al. (1977), the method of Yu
assumes that the friction and dilation angles are a function
of the state parameter.
The method of interpretation of the SBP test in sand pre-
sented in this paper also makes use of Rowes (1962) stress
dilatancy theory. The shear stress tangential strain relation-
ship is first determined from the equation of equilibrium by
taking into account strains of finite magnitude. Rowes the-
ory is subsequently applied to obtain an expression for the
finite natural shear strain induced around the cavity in the
sand. However, unlike the approaches of Hughes et al.
(1977) and Robertson and Hughes (1986) in which it is
assumed that the angles of friction and dilation are constant
in the plastic zone, the present method, as well as that of
Manassero (1989), assumes that these angles are a function
of shear strain. In addition, instead of first solving by a nu-
merical method the differential equation that relates strain
increments to stresses, as done by Manassero, this equation
was integrated beforehand and then solved numerically.
Moreover, finite strains are considered in the analysis. As
such, the present approach may be considered to expand
upon the methods proposed by Robertson, Robertson and
Hughes, and Manassero.
Proposed method
Let the principal stresses in the radial, tangential, and ax-
ial directions be denoted by
r
,
t
, and
z
, respectively; the
conventional infinitesimal strains in the same directions by
r
,
t
, and
z
; and the corresponding natural strains by
r
=
ln(1 +
r
),
t
= ln(1 +
t
), and
z
= ln (1 +
z
), where tensile
stresses and strains are taken positive.
Consider the case of plane strain for which
z
=
z
= 0,
and since the volume changes under drained conditions, it
follows that
[1]
r t v
+
where
v
= ln(1 +
v
), in which
v
is the conventional
infinitesimal volume change. When strains of finite magni-
tude are considered, it is necessary to distinguish the dis-
tance r of a point in the original unstrained condition and the
corresponding distance r of the same element in the
strained material, and similarly the inner radius a before and
a after the distortion has occurred. The strains
r
and
t
will
depend on two independent variables, namely the distance r
and the volume change
v
.
From the definition of the infinitesimal tangential strain,
t
= (r r)/r, the natural strain
t
is given by
[2]
t t
+

_
,

_
,
ln( ) ln ln 1
1
2
2
r
r
r
r
Combining eqs. [1] and [2] gives
[3]
r v t v

_
,
1
2
2
ln
r
r
Further, since in the case of plane strain the state of strain in
every element is a finite pure shear, the natural principal
shear strain , on account of eq. [3], is
[4]

_
,

t r v
ln
r
r
2
The shear stress tangential strain curve of the sand is
obtained from a knowledge of the expansion curve as fol-
lows. From the equation of equilibrium,
[5] r
r

d
d
r
t r
2
where is the principal shear stress, the radial stress
r
is
[6]
r ho
2
d

r
r
r
where
ho
is the initial total horizontal stress existing in the
ground prior to pressuremeter testing. The integrand in
eq. [6] can be expressed using
t
and as variables. Since,
according to eq. [2],
[7] ( ) r r
2 2 2
e
t
and, because there is volume change, one has

[8] 2 2 1 2

r r r r r r + d d d e
v
v
( )
which, when combined with eqs. [4] and [7], yields
[9]
d d
e
t
r
r
1
This equation represents the finite strain compatibility equa-
tion. Substitution of eq. [9] into eq. [6] gives
[10]

r
t
ho
2
d
e
t

1
0
The tangential stress
t
is obtained by combining eq. [10]
with eq. [5], that is,
[11]

t r
t
ho
d
e
t
+
+ +
2 2
1
2
0
In addition, the pressure p acting at the wall of the cavity,
which is located at r = a, is found from eq. [10] to be
[12] p
ra
t
ho
d
e
ta
2
1
0
2001 NRC Canada
1156 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 38, 2001
where the tangential strain induced at the cavity wall is rep-
resented by
ta

_
,
1
2
2
ln
a
a
The principal shear stress
a
mobilized at the wall of the
cavity is found from eq. [12] and is given by
[13]
a
ta
e d
d
a
_
,
1
2
p
where
a
is the natural shear strain induced at the cavity, and
dp/d
ta
is the slope of the expansion curve. The relationship
between the effective stresses and the strain increments can be
obtained from the stressdilatancy theory of Rowe (1962).
For plane-strain conditions, the relationship is (Hughes et al.
1977; Robertson and Hughes 1986; Manassero 1989)
[14]

r
t
p
cv t
r
d
d
K
where
r
and
t
are effective stresses, and K

p
cv
= (1 + sin
cv
)/
(1 sin
cv
), in which
cv
is the constant-volume effective

friction angle. Application of eq. [14] for r = a gives
[15]

a
p
cv
ra
ta
d
d
_
,
p
K 2
1
1
where p is the effective expansion pressure. Combining
eq. [15] with eq. [13] and noting that d
ra
= d
ta
d
a
from
eq. [4] results in
[16] d e
d
d
a p
cv
p
cv
ta
a

+ K
p
K ( ) ( ) 1 1
p
in which dp = dp, since the pore-water pressure is assumed
to remain constant during drained expansion of the sand. In-
tegration of eq. [16] yields
[17]
a p
cv
p
cv
ta
ho
a
e
d
+

K
p
K
p
( ) ( ) 1 1
p
where
ho
is the initial value of the effective horizontal stress.

Lastly, to obtain the stress distribution around the cavity, it is
necessary to determine the strain distribution by integration
of eq. [8]. This results in
[18] r r r r
a
r
a
r

+ d d
v
( ) 1
or
[19]
( ) ( ) r a r a
r r
a
r

2 2 2 2
2 2

v
d
But, since (r )
2
= r
2
e
t
2
and (a )
2
= a
2
e
ta
2
from eq. [7],
eq. [19] becomes
[20] e e d
t ta
v
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2

+
a
r
a
r r
r r
a
r
Equation [20] gives the relationship between the tangential
strain
t
induced in the soil at a generic distance r as a func-
tion of (i) the relative distance r/a, (ii) the tangential strain
ta
acting at the cavity wall r = a, and (iii) the volume
change experienced by the sand in the cylindrical annulus
limited by r = a and r.
Remarks
(1) When small or infinitesimal strains are considered,
eqs. [13], [17], and [20] reduce, respectively, to
[21]

a
a
ta
d
d
2
p
[22]
a p
cv
a p
cv
ta
ho
d
+

K
p
p
K
p
( ) 1
and
[23]
t ta v
d +
a
r r
r r
a
r
2
2 2
1
It should also be noted that when the volume change is zero,
eqs. [21] and [23] reduce, additionally, to
[24]
a a
a
d
d
p
because
a
= 2
ta
from eq. [4], and
[25]
t ta
a
r
2
2
(2) The solution of the expansion problem proceeds as fol-
lows. The expansion curve is used first to obtain the slope
dp/d
ta
. The shear strain is then obtained using eq. [17]. Ap-
plication of eq. [13] allows calculation of
a
. The effective
stress path followed by a soil element located at the wall of
the cavity is found by using the stress parameters s and t
given by
[26] s
+

ra ta
2
and
[27] t
a
(3) The stress distribution at any distance r from the axis of
the cavity is determined following the calculation of the
strain distribution on the basis of eq. [23] and then by apply-
ing the procedure described in remark 2. It should be also
noted that eqs. [17] (or eq. [22]) and [20] (or eq. [23]) have
to be solved numerically to obtain the stress and strain distri-
butions in the soil.
(4) The effective friction angle, , of the sand is determined
from the stress ratio
[28]

ra
ta
_
,
tan
2
45
2
where
ra
and
ta
are the effective radial and tangential

stresses at the wall of the cavity, respectively.
(5) The angle of dilation is found from the following ex-
pression (Rowe 1962):
2001 NRC Canada
Silvestri 1157
[29]
_
,
_
,
1
]
2
45
2
2
1
tan
tan
tan 45
cv
1
1
1
1
1
90
where
cv
is the effective friction angle at constant volume. It

should be noted that Bolton (1986) gives a much simpler
expression than eq. [29] for as follows:
[30]

cv
0.8
Equations [29] and [30] yield almost identical values for .
(6) To carry out the analyses mentioned in the previous
remarks, a knowledge of
cv
is required. The friction angle

at constant volume is the friction angle mobilized in the sand
when all dilation has ceased. The range of values of
cv
for
most sands usually lies in the range from 30 to 40 (Robert-
son and Hughes 1986). An estimate of
cv
can be made us-

ing the data given by these authors. If a better estimate of
cv
is needed, however, it is necessary to carry out either ring

shear tests or plane-strain drained triaxial tests or even
shear-box tests on loose specimens reconstituted from dis-
turbed samples of sand. To minimize the effect of the curva-
ture of the failure envelope on the value of
cv
, these tests
should be performed under normal stresses that are compati-
ble with those acting in the sand around the pressuremeter
probe.
To obtain the small-strain equivalent of eq. [16], that is,
[31] d
d
d
a p
cv
a p
cv
ta
+

+ K
p
K
p
( ) 1
it is only necessary to combine the equation of equilibrium
(i.e., eq. [5]) with the small-strain version of the strain com-
patibility equation (i.e., eq. [9]), that is,
[32]
d
d
t

r r

and Rowes (1962) relationship (i.e., eq. [14]). It can be shown
easily that eq. [31] is equivalent to eq. [11] of Manassero
(1989), who used a finite difference scheme to solve it. In
the present paper, however, eq. [16] was first integrated to
obtain eq. [17] before obtaining the solution by a numerical
method.
Application of proposed method
The method proposed in this paper has been applied to the
interpretation of pressuremeter tests carried out in a small
number of natural sand deposits of Quebec. To validate the
present approach, however, it was first deemed necessary to
apply the model to well-documented case histories and to
compare the results with those determined by means of other
accepted procedures. There exist in the technical literature
several case histories involving both calibration-chamber
studies and field investigations. Because of a limitation on
space which precluded a more detailed presentation of
results, however, the following studies were retained for
analysis and comparison: (i) the calibration-chamber study
reported by Manassero (1989), and (ii) the field investiga-
tions by Hughes et al. (1977) and Bruzzi et al. (1986).
ENEL-CRIS tests (Bellotti et al. 1982, 1989; Ghionna et
al. 1990; Manassero 1989)
Full-scale pressuremeter tests were performed in a cali-
bration chamber on dry, pluvially deposited Ticino sand and
consisted of two distinct loading stages. In the first stage, the
specimen, which measured 1.2 m in diameter by 1.5 m in
height, was subjected to one-dimensional vertical loading. In
the second stage, pressuremeter tests were carried out under
controlled stress boundary conditions. The SBP probe used
in the ENEL-CRIS study was the Camkometer Mark VIII,
manufactured by Cambridge In-Situ Ltd. Values of
cv
for
Ticino sand were obtained using a ring shear apparatus and
ranged between 32 and 34. Twenty-one pressuremeter tests
were carried out in the sand at a relative density, D
r
, of
between 42.4 and 92.3% and an overconsolidation ratio,
OCR, of from 1.0 to 7.7. However, only test 228 (D
r
= 77%,
OCR = 1.0) and test 222 (D
r
= 46.2%, OCR = 5.5), for
which expansion curves were given, could be analyzed in
detail.
The expansion curve for test 228 is shown in Fig. 1 to-
gether with the stressstrain curve obtained using eqs. [21]
and [22]. The small-strain approach was used to directly
compare the results with those of Manassero (1989). In addi-
tion, it should be noted that the initial horizontal pressure in
the test was 208 kPa.
Figure 2 presents the results obtained using
cv
= 34. Ex-
amination of the various curves shown in Fig. 2 indicates
that the two methods yield comparable results. It appears
that the
v
relationships of Fig. 2a are almost identical.
The data show that the sand, after experiencing a small ini-
tial compression, begins to dilate and reaches
v
at = 18%.
The relationship of Fig. 2b indicates that the shear stress
continually increases and reaches 625 kPa at = 18%. The
effective stress ratio
r
/
t
reported in Fig. 2c attains a peak

value of 8 or = 51.1 at = 3.0%, compared with about 69
or = 45.653.1, also observed at = 3% by Manassero
(1989). On the basis of eq. [29], the maximum dilation angle
is thus equal to 22.8 compared with 12.7, 10, and 13.5
as reported by Manassero and obtained using his method and
2001 NRC Canada
Fig. 1. Expansion curve and derived stressstrain curve for
Ticino sand in test 228.
those of Hughes et al. (1977) and Robertson (1982), respec-
tively.
Unlike the results obtained by Manassero (1989), which
show some scatter due to the numerical derivation procedure
that was used as indicated in Fig. 2c, the results from this
study are smoother because the pressureexpansion curve
was first approximated by a polynomial function before
solving eq. [17] (or eq. [22]). However, Manassero also
showed that curve fitting with a polynomial function of de-
gree 47 considerably minimized numerical instabilities and
resulted in smooth relationships.
The value of 12.7 for the peak dilation angle reported
by Manassero (1989) corresponds, on the basis of eq. [29],
to an effective friction angle of 43.9 or a peak stress ratio
of 5.53. However, because the peak stress ratio
r
/
t
varies
between 6 and 9 according to Manasseros data shown in
Fig. 2c, the deduced peak dilation angle ranges from a
minimum value of 15 to a maximum value of 25.8. Be-
cause this latter value and the value (i.e., 22.8) obtained
using the method proposed herein are quite high, a possible
explanation is that, when the sand is dense, the relative prox-
imity of the outer boundary of the calibration chamber to the
SBP probe unduly affects the pressureexpansion curve and
may lead to higher friction and dilation angles, as pointed
out by Fahey (1980, 1986).
For the values of 10 and 13.5 deduced by Manassero
(1989) on the basis of the methods proposed by Hughes et
al. (1977) and Robertson (1982), respectively, it is important
to recall that these two approaches are based on determina-
tion of the so-called gradient s, that is, the slope of the linear
portion of the log
r
versus log
ta
relationship (Hughes et
al. 1977; Robertson and Hughes 1986). The slope s is re-
lated to the friction angle and the dilation angle . If s is
constant, then both and are unique, provided
cv
is also
constant.
On the basis of the pressureexpansion data reported in
Fig. 1, it was found that the log
r
versus log
ta
relation-
ship became a straight line with a slope s = 0.445 in the
strain interval ranging from
ta
= 1.5% or = 3% until the
end of the expansion process. Using s = 0.445 and
cv
= 34
yields = 40.2 and = 7.7 following the procedure of
Hughes et al. (1977) and = 43 and = 11.3 on the basis
of the procedure described by Robertson and Hughes (1986).
The use of the linear portion of the log
r
versus log
ta
relationship to derive constant values of and is in con-
tradiction with the fact that the stress ratio
r
/
t
and, conse-
quently, the friction angle vary continuously throughout
the shearing process. Indeed, the stress ratio
r
/
t
obtained
in this study decreases from a peak value of 8 or = 51.1
with = 22.8 at = 3% to a value of 4 or = 37 with
2001 NRC Canada
Silvestri 1159
Fig. 2. Stressstrain response for Ticino sand in test 228. The results are compared with those of Manassero (1989).
= 3.7 at = 18%. As a consequence, it appears that the
methods of Hughes et al. and Robertson and Hughes lead to
average rather than peak values for and .
Lastly, the stress path in Fig. 2d shows that the friction
angle mobilized at the end of the test for = 18% was of the
order of 37. Such a stress state is still far away from the
critical state for which =
cv
.
The stress distribution in the sand around the probe was
determined by calculating the tangential strain using eq. [23]
for various values of a/r. The stresses and strains around the
cavity were determined by entering these data into the rela-
tionships of Figs. 1 and 2. These stresses and strains are
reported in Fig. 3 for radial distances up to three times the
radius of the cavity. For the curves shown in Fig. 3a, it
appears that the shear strain decreases considerably as a
function of the radial distance. Figure 3a also shows the
relationship between the shear strain and the radial distance
r obtained when the volume change is neglected. In this
case, the relationship is =
a
(a/r)
2
, as found from eq. [25].
The curves reported in Fig. 3b indicate that the absolute
value of the radial stress decreases substantially more than
that of the tangential stress. In addition, it must be recalled
that the far-field value of both
r
and
t
is equal to
208 kPa as shown in Figs. 1 and 2d and as reported by
Manassero (1989).
The expansion curve for test 222 with D
r
= 46.2% is
reported in Fig. 4 together with the stressstrain curve deter-
mined by means of eqs. [21] and [22]. The value of
cv
for
this test was taken to be 32 as recommended by Manassero
(1989), and the initial horizontal pressure was 150 kPa. The
data were analyzed as previously and the results are pre-
sented in Fig. 5. Examination of the volumetric strain curves
in Fig. 5a shows that the behaviour of the sand is more
dilatant than that deduced from Manasseros data. For the
results reported in Figs. 5b5d, there is good agreement
between the two sets of data. The data in Figs. 5c and 5d
also show that the maximum dilation angle is reached at
= 4% and equals 4.5 for = 35 compared with 2.6,
2.8, and 8 reported by Manassero and obtained using his
own method and those of Hughes et al. (1977) and Robert-
son (1982), respectively.
Self-boring pressuremeter (SBP) test in wash sand
(Hughes et al. 1977)
A series of Camkometer probe tests was conducted in the
wash sand in a number of boreholes. The result of the ex-
pansion test carried out at a depth of 7 m is shown in Fig. 6.
The initial effective horizontal pressure was determined to
be about 20 kPa. In Fig. 6 are also reported the stressstrain
curves determined on the basis of both the present approach
and that of Hughes et al. (1977). Examination of the two
stressstrain curves indicates good agreement. The complete
stressstrain response is presented in Fig. 7. For the volu-
metric relationship shown in Fig. 7a, the sand appears to di-
late only slightly, reaching a value of
v
= 1.3% at = 18%.
The stressstrain response in Fig. 7b is typical of a medium
dense sand, and the stress ratio
r
/
t
in Fig. 7c indicates
that the peak value is about 6.5 or = 45.6 at = 0.3%.
The large strain value of
r
/
t
is 3.7 or = 35 and is
reached at = 17%. Such a value of coincides with that of
cv
reported in the paper. The dilation angle is thus equal

to 13.8 compared with about 8 as found by Hughes et al.
Finally, the stress path reported in Fig. 7d clearly shows the
relatively high angle of friction mobilized quite early in the
test.
Self-boring pressuremeter (SBP) tests in Po River sand
(Bruzzi et al. 1986)
An extensive series of SBP tests using a Camkometer
probe was carried out in the recent alluvial deposits of the
2001 NRC Canada
Fig. 3. Stress and strain distributions in sand around the cavity
for test 228.
Fig. 4. Expansion curve and derived stressstrain curve for
Ticino sand in test 222.
Po River valley. The test performed at a depth of 17.9 m in
borehole 4017 was retained for analysis. The initial effective
vertical and horizontal pressures were determined to be 175
and 79 kPa, respectively. In addition, as the pore-water pres-
sure was 175 kPa, the initial total horizontal pressure was
254 kPa. The average value of
cv
was reported to be 34.

The loading portion of the expansion test is shown in
Fig. 8 together with the stressstrain curve determined by
means of eqs. [21] and [22]. The stressstrain response of the
sand is reported in Fig. 9. It is apparent from the
v
rela-
tionship shown in Fig. 9a that the sand compresses during
shearing, indicating that the relative density of the material is
rather low. Indeed, the standard penetration N measured at
the depth of 17.9 m was 30 blows per 0.3 m, yielding an ap-
proximate value of ranging between 34 and 35. The
stressstrain curve of Fig. 9b indicates that the shear stress
continuously increases as the strain increases and reaches
about 325 kPa at = 18%. The stress ratio
r
/
t
plotted in
Fig. 9c appears to reach a constant value of about 3.5 or =
34 at = 10%. Such a value of
cv
coincides with that re-

ported by Bruzzi et al. (1986). The stress path presented in
Fig. 9d shows a progressively increasing friction angle . It
should be noted that Bruzzi et al. reported two possible val-
ues for : (i) 29.5 based on the approach of Hughes et al.
(1977); and (ii) 35.8 based on the method of Robertson and
Hughes (1986), which compares reasonably well with that
deduced from Figs. 9c and 9d.
Discussion
The discussion presented herein addresses sand density
(D
r
), overconsolidation ratio (OCR), plane strain, dilatancy,
effective friction angle at constant volume (
cv
), anisotropy,
and numerical procedure.
2001 NRC Canada
Silvestri 1161
Fig. 5. Stressstrain response for Ticino sand in test 222. The results are compared with those of Manassero (1989).
Fig. 6. Expansion curve and derived stressstrain curves for
wash sand. The stressstrain curves were determined on the basis
of both the present approach and that of Hughes et al. (1977).
Density, overconsolidation ratio, and plane strain
Sand density and overconsolidation ratio are automatically
taken into account in the proposed approach by the shape of
the pressuremeter expansion curve, the initial value of the
effective horizontal pressure,
ho
, which is measured prior to

the performance of the expansion test, and the value of the
effective friction angle at constant volume,
cv
. As a conse-
quence, to deduce reasonable parameters from pressuremeter
curves in sand, it is of paramount importance that initial dis-
turbance be minimized.
The theory developed in the preceding sections of this pa-
per assumes that the sand is deformed in plane strain (i.e.,
vertical strain is assumed to be zero) around the pressure-
meter probe. It should be noted that Manassero (1989) sug-
gested that direct use of plane-strain cylindrical expansion
theory might not be able to yield reasonable parameters
from the tests on overconsolidated samples. He attributed
this to the fact that the vertical stresses were very low for the
overconsolidated samples before pressuremeter testing and,
as a result, plane-strain conditions were probably violated in
the vertical direction.
Ajalloeian and Yu (1998) also showed that the finite
length of commercially available pressuremeters affected the
response of normally consolidated sands. Therefore, to mini-
mize the possibility of violating plane-strain conditions, it is
recommended that relatively long pressuremeter probes be
used, that is, pressuremeters with length (L) to diameter (D)
ratios (L/D ratios) of at least 6. It should be further noted
that plane-strain conditions are also violated when the test is
carried out close to the ground surface.
Friction angle
cv
The value of the effective friction angle at constant vol-

ume,
cv
, should be determined in the laboratory on loose

sand specimens subjected to a normal stress level equivalent
2001 NRC Canada
Fig. 7. Stressstrain response for wash sand.
Fig. 8. Expansion curve and derived stressstrain curve for Po
River sand.
to that existing around the pressuremeter probe during the
expansion test. Rowe (1971) noted that measured values of
cv
depend on the stress level and the surface treatment of

the sand particles. Although, as mentioned previously, an
estimate of
cv
can be obtained from the data reported by

Robertson and Hughes (1986), an average value of 3435
can nevertheless be assumed for a preliminary analysis of
tests carried out in fine to coarse sand.
Dilatancy
The curves shown in Figs. 2c, 5c, and 7c indicate that,
since the stress ratio
r
/
t
and, as a consequence, the angle

of friction vary continuously in the case of medium-dense
to dense sands throughout the shearing process, the dilation
angle also varies with shear strain, as
cv
is supposed to
remain constant. The dilation angle is thus at a maximum
at the peak stress ratio.
Anisotropy
The shearing behaviour of sand has so far been assumed
to be isotropic, that is, the sand at a given density and mean
stress level, subjected to a plane-strain shear test, has been
assumed to have unique peak angles of dilation and friction.
Granular soils can exhibit strength anisotropy resulting from
the deposition of the soil. The soil properties then depend on
the direction with respect to deposition, or the bedding
plane, in which the soil in subsequently sheared (Arthur et
al. 1977; Tatsuoka et al. 1986, 1990; Jewel 1989). For
laboratory-prepared samples of dense sand the tangent of the
plane-strain friction angle can vary by as much as 25% due
only to the orientation of shearing with respect to the bed-
ding planes (Tatsuoka 1987; Arthur et al. 1988; Jewell
1989). The peak friction angle is at a minimum when shear-
ing is along the bedding planes. Therefore, since the shear-
ing resistance of the soil around the pressuremeter develops
along vertical failure planes rather than across a succession
of horizontal planes, it corresponds then to a peak plane-
strain angle of friction that is somewhat higher than the min-
imum value. In addition, it should be recalled that when an
initially isotropic sand is sheared, significant degradation of
particles occurs as the critical state is approached. This
results in the appearance of shear bands, which cause an in-
crease in the degree of anisotropy of the structural arrange-
ment of the sand particles.
Numerical solution
For the numerical solution procedure followed in this paper,
the original pressuremeter curves used in the validation
phase were first discretized and then approximated with
polynomials of degrees 4 to 7, as suggested by Manassero
2001 NRC Canada
Silvestri 1163
Fig. 9. Stressstrain response for Po River sand.
(1989). Upon checking the results, it was found that a poly-
nomial of degree 4 or 5 gave the best fit, as also discussed
by Ajalloeian and Yu (1998).
Conclusions
An approach that takes into account finite (natural) strains
is proposed for the interpretation of the shear strength char-
acteristics, volumetric response, and dilatancy properties of
sand from pressuremeter expansion tests. Using Rowes
(1962) stressdilatancy relationship, the differential equation
that relates natural strain increments to effective radial
stresses has been integrated and solved numerically to obtain
stress and strain paths followed by sand particles located at
the wall of the expanding cavity. The method also allows
easy determination of stress and strain distributions in the
sand surrounding the pressuremeter probe.
For implementation of the approach, it is necessary to
know, in addition to the experimental expansion curve, the
initial value of the effective horizontal pressure,
ho
, acting
in the soil prior to the test and the effective angle of friction
at constant volume,
cv
.
The proposed method was validated by applying it to well-
documented case histories involving calibration-chamber
studies and field investigations. The engineering properties of
the sands which were derived using the proposed approach
compare fairly well with those obtained by the original inves-
tigators. The method clearly shows that both the friction angle
and the dilation angle are not constant during plastic de-
formation but are a function of the shear strain.
As with other interpretation procedures, the present method
assumes that the sand is deformed under plane-strain condi-
tions. Such conditions are closely duplicated in the field
when relatively long pressuremeter probes are used and
when tests are carried out in normally consolidated to lightly
overconsolidated sands at moderate to large depths.
Acknowledgement
The author acknowledges the financial support provided
by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
of Canada under research grant A6110.
References
Ajalloeian, R., and Yu, H.S. 1998. Chamber studies of the effects
of pressuremeter geometry on test results in sand. Gotechnique,
48(5): 621636.
Arthur, J.R.F., Dunstan, T., Al-Ani, Q.A.J.L., and Assadi, A. 1977.
Plastic deformation and failure in granular media. Gotechnique,
27(1): 5374.
Arthur, J.R.F., Dalili, A., and Dunstan, T. 1988. Discussion on the
engineering application of direct and simple shear testing. Go-
technique, 38(1): 140144.
Been, K., Crooks, J.H.A., Becker, D.A., and Jefferies, M.G. 1986.
The cone penetration test in sands. Part 1: state parameter inter-
pretation. Gotechnique, 36(2): 239249.
Bellotti, R., Bruzzi, G., and Ghionna, V. 1982. Design, construction
and use of a calibration chamber. In Proceedings of the 2nd Euro-
pean Symposium on Penetration Testing, Amsterdam, Vol. 2.
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 439446.
Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V., Jamiolkowski, M., Robertson, P.K., and
Peterson, R.W. 1989. Interpretation of moduli from self-boring
pressuremeter tests in sand. Gotechnique, 39(2): 269292.
Bolton, M.D. 1986. The strength and dilatancy of sands. Go-
technique, 36(1): 6578.
Bruzzi, D., Ghionna, V., Jamiolkowski, M., Lancellotta, R., and
Manfredini, G. 1986. Self-boring pressuremeter tests in Po River
sand. In The Pressuremeter and its Marine Applications, Proceed-
ings of the 2nd International Symposium on Pressuremeters, Col-
lege Station, Texas. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Special Technical Publication STP 950, pp. 5774.
Collins, I.F., Pender, M.J., and Yan, W. 1992. Cavity expansion in
sands under drained loading conditions. International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 16: 323.
Fahey, M. 1980. A study of the pressuremeter test in dense sand.
Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K.
Fahey, M. 1986. Expansion of a thick cylinder of sand: a labora-
tory simulation of the pressuremeter test. Gotechnique, 36(3):
397424.
Fahey, M., and Carter, J.P. 1993. A finite element study of the
pressuremeter test in sand using a nonlinear elastic plastic model.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 30: 348362.
Ghionna, V., Jamiolkowski, M., and Manassero, M. 1990. Limit
pressure in expansion of cylindrical cavity in sand. In Proceed-
ings of the 3rd International Symposium on Pressuremeters,
Oxford University, Oxford, U.K. Thomas Telford Ltd., London,
pp. 149158.
Gibson, R.E., and Anderson, M.F. 1961. In-situ measurement of
soil properties with the pressuremeter. Civil Engineering and
Public Works Review, 1: 615618.
Hughes, J.M.O., Wroth, C.P., and Windle, D. 1977. Pressuremeter
tests in sand. Gotechnique, 27(4): 453477.
Jewell, R.A. 1989. Direct shear tests in sand. Gotechnique, 39(2):
309322.
Jewell, R.J., Fahey, M., and Wroth, C.P. 1980. Laboratory studies
of the pressuremeter test in sand. Gotechnique, 30(4): 507531.
Ladanyi, B. 1963. Evaluation of pressuremeter tests in granular
soils. In Proceedings of the 2nd Panamerican Conference on
Soil Mechanics, Caracas, Venezuela, Vol. 1, pp. 330.
Ladanyi, B., and Foriero, A. 1998. A numerical solution of cavity
expansion problem in sand based directly on experimental stress
strain curves. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35: 541559.
Manassero, M. 1989. Stressstrain relationships from drained self-
boring pressuremeter tests in sands. Gotechnique, 39(2): 297307.
Robertson, P.K. 1982. In-situ testing of soil with emphasis on its
application to liquefaction assessment. Ph.D. thesis, University
of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.
Robertson, P.K., and Hughes, J.M.O. 1986. Determination of proper-
ties of sand from self-boring pressuremeter tests. In The Pressure-
meter and its Marine Applications, Proceedings of the 2nd
International Symposium on Pressuremeters, College Station,
Texas. American Society for Testing and Materials, Special Tech-
nical Publication STP 950, pp. 283302.
Rowe, P.W. 1962. The stressdilatancy relation for static equilib-
rium of particles in contact. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London, Series A, 269: 500524.
Rowe, P.W. 1971. Theoretical meaning and observed values of
deformation parameters for soil. In StressStrain Behaviour of
Soils, Proceedings of the Roscoe Memorial Symposium, Cam-
bridge University, Cambridge, U.K. Edited by R.H.G. Parry.
G.T. Foulis & Co. Ltd., Henley-on-Thames, U.K., pp. 143194.
Salgado, F.M., and Byrne, P.M. 1990. Finite element analysis of
pressuremeter chamber tests in sand. In Proceedings of the 3rd
2001 NRC Canada
2001 NRC Canada
Silvestri 1165
International Symposium on Pressuremeters, Oxford University,
Oxford, U.K. Thomas Telford Ltd., London, pp. 209219.
Tatsuoka, F. 1987. Discussion to The strength and dilatancy of
sand by M.D. Bolton. Gotechnique, 37(2): 219225.
Tatsuoka, F., Sakamoto, X., Kawamura, T., and Fukushima, S.
1986. Strength and deformation characteristics of sand in plane
strain compression at extremely low pressure. Soils and Founda-
tions, 26(1): 6584.
Tatsuoka, F., Nakamura, S., Huang, C.-C., and Tani, K. 1990.
Strength anisotropy and shear band direction in plane strain tests
of sand. Soils and Foundations, 30(1): 3554.
Vesic, A. 1972. Expansion of cavities in infinite soil mass. Journal of the
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 98(SM3): 265290.
Wroth, C.P., and Windle, D. 1975. Analysis of the pressuremeter
test allowing for volume change. Gotechnique, 25(3): 598610.
Yu, H.S. 1994. State parameters from self-boring pressuremeter tests
in sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 120(12):
21182135.

Interpretation of Pressuremeter Tests in Sand

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Interpretation of Pressuremeter Tests in Sand

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Interpretation of pressuremeter tests in sand

and, because there is volume change, one has

are effective stresses, and K

is the constant-volume effective

is the initial value of the effective horizontal stress.

are the effective radial and tangential

is the effective friction angle at constant volume. It

is required. The friction angle

can be made us-

is needed, however, it is necessary to carry out either ring

reported in Fig. 2c attains a peak

reported in the paper. The dilation angle is thus equal

was reported to be 34.

coincides with that re-

, which is measured prior to

The value of the effective friction angle at constant vol-

, should be determined in the laboratory on loose

depend on the stress level and the surface treatment of

can be obtained from the data reported by

and, as a consequence, the angle

Potrebbero piacerti anche