Sei sulla pagina 1di 12

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

EFFECTS OF DISTURBANCE ON UNDRAINED STRENGTHS INTERPRETED

FROM PRESSUREMETER TESTS

By Charles P. Aubeny, 1 Andrew J. Whittle, 2 Members, ASCE, and Charles C. Ladd, 3 Honorary Member, ASCE

ABSTRACT: Although the cylindrical cavity expansion theory should provide a sound basis for obtaining the undrained shear strength of clays from pressuremeter tests, the interpreted strengths are often inconsistent with data measured in high-quality laboratory tests. This paper investigates how the pressuremeter results are affected by disturbances that inevitably occur during device installation. The installation of self-boring and displacement- type pressuremeters is simulated using strain path analyses, with realistic effective stress-strain-strength prop- erties described by the MIT-E3 model. Derived strengths obtained from the simulated expansion of displacement- type pressuremeters tend to underestimate the in situ/cavity expansion strength by amounts that depend on the relative volume of soil displaced, the time delay prior to testing, and the initial overconsolidation ratio of the clay. Interpretation procedures using the simulated contraction curves give much more reliable estimates of the true undrained shear strength. The simulated disturbance effects of self boring lead to derived peak shear stresses that are significantly higher than the reference undrained shear strengths. This overestimate depends on the volume of soil removed during installation and is enhanced when the finite membrane length is included in the analyses. Self-boring pressuremeter data from a well-documented test site in Boston confirm the general character of the predicted pressuremeter stress-strain behavior. The theoretical analyses underestimate the peak strengths derived from self-boring pressuremeter (SBPM) expansion tests, but match closely the measured postpeak re- sistance in the strain range of 3–6% (saddle point condition). Saddle point strengths are similar in magnitude to the shear strengths measured in laboratory undrained triaxial compression tests at this site. The current predictions are not able to explain the very high shear strengths derived from the SBPM contraction curves.

INTRODUCTION

The pressuremeter is unique among in situ tests used in geotechnical site characterization in that there exists a sound theoretical basis for deriving the complete shear stress-strain- strength properties of the surrounding soul directly from the measured expansion (and/or contraction) curve. However, ex- perience with pressuremeter testing clearly shows the difficulty of achieving reliable strength properties in practice. For ex- ample, consider the three main classes of pressuremeters used in current practice.

1. The original Me´nard type (MPM) (Me´nard 1956) con- sists of a closed expandable membrane mounted on the shaft of a cylindrical probe. These devices are lowered inside (close-fitting) prebored holes, and measure the volume of fluid injected into the membrane as a function of the applied pressure. The installation procedure has a major influence on the measured expansion curve, pre- cluding direct theoretical interpretation of soil strength and deformation properties. Hence, a wide range of em- pirical correlations and design procedures has evolved using MPM data (Baguelin et al. 1978; Briaud 1992).

2. Self-boring pressuremeters (SBPMs) were developed in- dependently by Baguelin et al. (1972) and Wroth and Hughes (1973) in order to minimize the disturbance of the surrounding ground caused by probe installation. These devices are equipped with a sharp shoe, cutting bit (or jetting tip), and flushing system for soil extraction

1 Asst. Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843. 2 Prof., Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., Massachusetts Inst. of Technol., Cambridge, MA 02139. 3 Edmund K. Turner Prof., Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., Massachu- setts Inst. of Technol., Cambridge, MA. Note. Discussion open until May 1, 2001. To extend the closing date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on September 11, 1998. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 12, December, 2000. ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/00/0012-1133–1144/ $8.00 $.50 per page. Paper No. 19238.

[Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)]. They use relatively sophisticated instrumentation for measuring the membrane deflection, and automated control of the key drilling parameters. Two issues have hindered the application of self-boring pressuremeters in practice. First, the equipment is com- plex, difficult to use, and expensive compared to other in situ tests. Second, experience has shown that un- drained shear strengths derived from SBPM tests are of- ten significantly larger than those obtained from other field tests and high-quality laboratory tests (Ghionna et al. 1982; Jamiolkowski et al. 1985). 3. The design of displacement-type pressuremeters makes no attempt to extract soil, so that the full volume of the probe must be accommodated by deformations within the soil mass. Examples include the full-displacement or cone pressuremeter (FDPM) (Withers et al. 1986; Cam- panella et al. 1990), where the pressuremeter module is mounted on the shaft of a standard piezocone penetrom- eter [Fig. 1(c)], and the open-ended push-in devices [PIPM, Fig. 1(d)] (Henderson et al. 1980; Huang and Haefele 1988). These devices are more robust than self- boring devices and introduce a repeatable (i.e., operator independent) amount of disturbance in the surrounding soil. Deformation and strength properties can potentially be interpreted from measurements of the unload-reload response or contraction curves using theoretical ap- proaches, such as the elegant solutions proposed by Houlsby and Withers (1988).

The present paper focuses on the interpretation of undrained shear strength from self-boring and displacement-type pres- suremeter tests in clays. The writers present results of analyses that show how different modes of pressuremeter installation have a major effect on the undrained shear strengths derived form these tests. Changes in soil stresses and properties caused by installation are predicted using strain path analyses (Baligh 1985) with a generalized effective stress soil model, MIT-E3 (Whittle and Kavvadas 1994), that simulates realistic shear stress-strain strength properties for a typical low-plasticity clay [Boston blue clay (BBC)] (Whittle et al. 1994). The analytical

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2000 / 1133

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2000, 126(12): 1133-1144

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. FIG. 1. (Benoıˆt et al. 1995); (c)

FIG. 1.

(Benoıˆt et al. 1995); (c) Full Displacement (Withers et al. 1986); (d) Push-In (Henderson et al. 1980)

Self-Boring and Displacement Pressuremeters: (a) Self-Boring Camkometer (Wroth and Hughes 1973); (b) Jetting Tip Device

TABLE 1.

Pressuremeter Geometries

 

Diameter, B

 

Membrane

Wall aspect

 

Device

(mm)

Length ratio, L/B

position, z c /B

ratio, B/w

Reference

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

SBPM—camkometer SBPM—PAFSOR SBPM—jetting camkometer FDPM PIPM

83

6

5

12

a

Wroth and Hughes (1973)

2, 4

Baguelin et al. (1972)

6

12

a

Benoıˆt et al. (1995)

44

5–10

25–42

2

Withers et al. (1986)

78

4.2–4.6

4

10–12

Henderson et al. (1980)

a Assumed in current analyses.

predictions are evaluated through comparisons with field data from SBPM tests performed at a well-documented site in Bos- ton (Ladd et al. 1998).

BACKGROUND

Typical Equipment and Procedures

Self-boring pressuremeters operate on the principle that soil that enters the cutting shoe is mixed into a slurry (with the drilling fluid) and removed by flushing between the casing and drive shaft. The original devices—the PAFSOR (Baguelin et al. 1972) and camkometer (Wroth and Hughes 1973)—use a rotating mechanical cutting bit, while the more recent device described by Benoıˆt et al. (1995) uses a jetting tip to improve the efficiency of the installation process [Fig. 1(b)]. Apart from the cutting mechanism (and methods for supporting the mem- brane during installation), the primary differences in the de- vices (Table 1) relate to (1) membrane diameter, B; (2) length- to-diameter aspect ratio of the membrane, L/B; and (3) instrumentation used to monitor the expansion of the mem- brane [the design by Benoıˆt et al. (1995) has three sets of three feeler arms to measure radial displacements of the membrane]. Some camkometer designs are also equipped with a pore pres- sure transducer that can be used to help control the cutting procedure and to measure the radial effective stress acting on the membrane. Table 2 summarizes reported variations in probe penetration rate, equilibration/delay time (prior to mem- brane expansion), and rate of expansion used in SBPM tests.

 

TABLE 2.

Pressuremeter Test Procedures

 

Penetra-

 

Membrane

 

tion rate

Delay time

expansion

Device

(cm/min)

(min)

rate

Reference

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

SBPM

6–9 kPa/min

Benoıˆt and Clough

(1986)

SBPM

2.5–5.0

30–180 a

7 kPa/min

Denby and Clough

(1980)

SBPM

1.7

120–1,300

1%/min

Lacasse et al.

(1990)

SBPM

1.5–2.0

90–1,300 a

Lacasse and Lunne

(1982)

SBPM

20.0

Windle and Wroth

(1977)

SBPM

30

1%/min

Ladd et al. (1980)

FDPM

120.0

1.5–13

5–10%/min

Campanella et al.

(1990)

a Full dissipation of installation-induced excess pore pressures.

Membrane expansion is usually performed to a maximum strain R/R 0 = 10–20% (Windle and Wroth 1977; Campanella et al. 1990). The FDPM combines the profiling capabilities of a conven- tional piezocone, through measurements of tip resistance and pore pressures during steady penetration, with membrane ex- pansion data obtained at selected elevations (when the probe is stationary). Typical device geometrics and test procedures are summarized in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The push-in

1134 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2000

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2000, 126(12): 1133-1144

TABLE 3.

Principal Methods Used for Interpretation of Undrained Shear Strength s u from Pressuremeter Tests

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

   

Shear

     

Method

Reference

stress-strain

Initial stresses

 

Key equation for s u

 

Notes and definitions

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

 

(5)

(6)

GA

Gibson and Anderson

EPP

Elastic unloading of borehole Undisturbed, uniform

P

= h0 s u {1 ln[( V/V)/(G/s u )]}; SBPM case—no stress release

h0 = in situ total horizontal stress; G = elastic shear modulus

(1961)

WW

Windle and Wroth

EPP

P

= P L s u {1 ln[ V/V]}

P L = limit pressure at infinite expan- sion (i.e., V/V 1) q h = ( rr )/2 is cavity shear stress adjacent to membrane s u equated with peak q h

(1977)

   

BPL

Baguelin et al. (1972); Palmer (1972); La- danyi (1972) Houlsby and Withers

(1988)

None

Undisturbed, uniform

q h = ε 0 (1 ε 0 )(1 ε 0 /2)dP/dε 0 ; dP

 

q =

h

d(ln V/V)

 

Cylindrical cavity ex- pansion

 

e

 

e

HW

EPP

s u

[(ε

ε )/2](dP/dε ) =

00

0

1/2dP/d ln(V /V); Contraction phase

e

ε

= maximum membrane strain at

0 end of expansion phase

pressuremeter [PIPM or ‘‘stressprobe,’’ Fig. 1(d)] (Henderson et al. 1980) was developed for offshore site investigations, and its subsequent application has been documented by Reid et al. (1982), Fyffe et al. (1986), and Lacasse et al. (1990). Table 1 summarizes the geometry of the PIPM device. The cutting shoe ensures unplugged, open-ended penetration of soil as the device is jacked below the base of a borehole. The soil plug is extracted after the device is retrieved from the ground.

Interpretation of Undrained Shear Strength

Pressuremeter tests are generally interpreted by assuming that (1) the membrane remains circular in cross section and is effectively infinitely long, and hence can be modeled as a one- dimensional cylindrical cavity expansion; and (2) the mem- brane expansion occurs sufficiently rapidly, such that there is no migration of pore water within the soil mass, and hence the clay is subjected to undrained shearing. Under these con- ditions, the problem is fully strain controlled and changes in volume of the membrane can be related to the (natural/ Hencky) strains in the soil mass as follows:

ε

rr

= ε

=

1

2

ln

1

V

V

2

R

r

(1)

The radial displacement of the membrane itself is usually re- ported in terms of the ‘‘pressuremeter strain,’’ ε 0 = R/R 0 , which can also be related to the current volumetric strain

V

V

= 1

1

(1 ε )

2 (2)

0

where ε 0 is defined as positive in tension, in accordance with conventional practice. The principal methods used for interpreting the undrained shear strength from pressuremeter measurements are summa- rized in Table 3 and differ according to (1) the assumed ma- terial stress-strain behavior; (2) the initial stress distribution in the soil mass prior to testing; and (3) the use of either expan- sion or contraction measurements. The original Gibson-An- derson (GA) (Gibson and Anderson 1961) and Windle-Wroth (WW) (Windle and Wroth 1977) formulations are based on a linearly elastic-perfectly plastic (EPP) soil model. Baguelin et al. (1972), Palmer (1972), and Ladanyi (1972) independently recognized that the complete nonlinear stress-strain response of the clay can be derived directly from the measured expan- sion curve with no prior assumptions concerning stiffness or strength properties (but assuming unique stress-strain proper- ties throughout the soil mass) (BPL). Hence, the apparent mo- bilized cavity shear stress at the pressuremeter boundary, q h , can be derived from the differential of the measured expansion curve [and the corresponding shear strain, = ε rr ε , from (1) with r = R]. This is usually accomplished by numerical methods that approximate the expansion curve by a polyno- mial function that is fitted to the data by a least-squares

method [examples of these tangent methods are given by Ba- guelin et al. (1978) and appear in Appendix I]. The undrained shear strength is generally taken to be the maximum mobilized cavity shear stress (i.e., s u = q h max ). Alternatively, the undrained shear strength can be shown (Palmer 1972) to be the maximum slope of the P-ln( V/V) curve. It is also well known (Wroth 1984) that the BPL interpretation is very sensitive to the dis- turbance caused by probe installation and to the datum selected for the strain. A more elaborate procedure proposed by Jefferies (1988) optimizes the input parameters for the original EPP model (i.e., K 0 , G, s u ) using the complete expansion and contraction curve measured in a self-boring pressuremeter test. This latter ap- proach assumes that the undrained strength is unaffected by the reversal in load direction, and links uncertainties in esti- mating both K 0 and s u . Houlsby and Withers (HW, Table 3) (Houlsby and Withers 1988) present an analytical interpretation of the undrained shear strength from contraction measurements (for the FDPM device) that accounts explicitly for installation disturbance. The authors analyze the contraction phase of the test after the

pressuremeter is expanded to the maximum radius R e . The

natural (Hencky) strains during the contraction phase are de-

fined by

(ε

e

0

ε ) = ln

0

R

e

R

=

1

2

ln

V

e

V

(3)

Subsequent test interpretations presented in the current pa-

per utilize the Baguelin-Ladanyi-Palmer (Baguelin et al. 1972)

and Houlsby-Withers (Houlsby and Withers 1988) methods for expansion and contraction phases, respectively.

Factors Affecting Undrained Strengths Interpreted from Pressuremeter Tests

There is an extensive database of comparisons between un- drained shear strengths interpreted from SBPM tests, s uPM , in soft to medium clays and results of high-quality laboratory undrained shear tests, and field vane shear tests (Ghionna et al. 1982; Lacasse et al. 1990). There is much less data avail- able for evaluating FDPM or PIPM strengths. A detailed re- view of these experimental data by Aubeny (1992) can be summarized as follows:

1. Peak shear strengths, typically occurring at ε 0 1%, estimated from SBPM tests in soft clays are typically 30–50% higher than reference values, s uTC , measured in high-quality, K 0 -consolidated undrained triaxial compres- sion shear tests (CK 0 UC).

2. Probe installation affects both the stress state and prop- erties of soil adjacent to the pressuremeter membrane. In general, the measured lift-off pressure is not equal to the true in situ lateral stress (i.e., P 0 h0 ). Data from

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2000 / 1135

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2000, 126(12): 1133-1144

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Ghionna et al, (1982) and Benoıˆt and Clough (1986) in- dicate that low SBPM contact pressures (P 0 < h0 ) are associated with high estimates of shear strengths and vice versa. The rate of soil extraction (cutting rate) and the size of the cutting shoe are important parameters affect- ing SBPM data (Law and Eden 1985). For example, at higher cutting rates, the measured lift-off pressure (P 0 , the pressure acting on the membrane at zero strain) de- creases and there is a corresponding increase in estimated shear strength. Baguelin et al. (1978) evaluated the ef- fects of changes in soil properties analytically by con- sidering an annulus of soil with reduced strength and stiffness properties adjacent to the membrane. Their anal- yses show small increases in the derived undrained shear strength estimated from the expansion curve. However, their calculations do not consider the very important ef- fects of changes in P 0 caused by probe installation.

3. Displacement pressuremeter (PIPM) strength estimates are significantly lower than those obtained from SBPM tests performed in the same soil (Lacasse et al. 1990). Limited experimental data suggest that the PIPM test strengths are smaller than reference s uTC values.

4. The length-to-diameter ratio of the pressuremeter mem- brane can have a significant effect on the interpreted shear strength. Ghionna et al. (1982) show values of s uPM from a PAFSOR-type device with L/B = 2 that are 100– 250% higher than those obtained from a similar device with L/B = 4. Numerical analyses (using the EPP soil model) to investigate the effects of the membrane length on derived undrained shear strength for L/B = 6 show that the finite membrane length overestimates the theo- retical (i.e., infinite cavity) undrained strength by amounts ranging from 25–40% (Yeung and Carter 1990; Houlsby and Carter 1993) to 5–20% (Shuttle and Jef- feries 1995).

5. The assumption of a unique soil stress-strain curve may be violated due to (1) partial drainage during membrane expansion and contraction; and (2) strain-rate dependent soil behavior. Pre´vost (1976) show that, due to rate-de- pendent behavior of clays, the derived stress-strain curve from a constant strain-rate pressuremeter will exhibit strain softening even in materials that are actually strain hardening. Field evidence of the significance of strain rate effects is given by Benoıˆt and Clough (1986), who quote a 30% increase in estimated strength for a 20-fold increase in expansion rate.

PREDICTIONS OF DISTURBANCE

Strain Path Models

The disturbance effects caused by installation of FDPM and PIPM pressuremeters can be modeled using techniques pre- viously developed for analyzing piezocone penetration (Baligh 1986a,b) and related applications for the setup of closed and open-ended piles in clay (Baligh et al. 1987; Azzouz et al. 1990; Whittle 1992). These previous studies use an approxi- mate analytical framework, referred to as the strain path method (SPM) (Baligh 1985), to predict changes in stresses and pore pressures that occur during penetration. The SPM makes the key assumption that, due to the severe kinematic constraints during deep penetration, the deformations and strains within the soil are effectively independent of its shear- ing resistance. For steady penetration in low permeability clays, soil velocities are equated with the irrotational flow of an incompressible, inviscid fluid moving around the stationary penetrometer. In this case, the velocity field satisfies the con- servation of volume requirement for undrained penetration, while different penetrometer shapes can be developed using

well-established solutions from potential theory. Strain paths of soil elements are obtained by integrating the strain rates along streamlines. Thereafter, the effective stresses are com- puted using a generalized soil model, and excess pore pres- sures from equilibrium equations. Since strain fields are esti- mated independently of soil behavior, equilibrium is not completely satisfied and solutions must be regarded as ap- proximate. By simulating two- (or three-) dimensional defor- mations of the soil, SPM analyses provide a more realistic framework for describing the mechanics of penetration than one-dimensional (cylindrical or spherical) cavity expansion methods. On the other hand, the assumptions of strain-con- trolled behavior greatly simplify the problem of deep penetra- tion and avoid the computational complexity of comprehen- sive, nonlinear finite-element analyses. Following Baligh (1985), the shear strains caused by axi- symmetric penetrometers can be conveniently characterized by three components, E 1 = ε zz , E 2 = 1/ 3(ε rr ε ), and E 3 = 2/ 3ε rz , which correspond to triaxial, pressuremeter (cylin- drical cavity expansion), and direct simple shear modes, re- spectively. Each of these components contributes equally to

the octahedral shear strain, E =

which provides a measure of the overall level of straining in the soil. Fig. 2 compares contours of octahedral shear strain for the FDPM and PIPM devices with dimensions listed in Table 1. The membrane of the FDPM device is located far above the 60 conical tip of a standard piezocone. This geometry can be modeled using the ‘‘simple pile’’ geometry introduced by Ba- ligh (1985). Whittle et al. (1991) have shown that this ge- ometry provides a good approximation for the stresses and pore pressures predicted around a standard 60 cone penetrom- eter. Fig. 2(a) shows that the zone of high shear strains (say, E > 10%) is confined to an annular zone extending approxi- mately 50 mm from the centerline. Many soft clays exhibit nonlinear stiffness behavior at small shear strains (E < 0.01%) and can reach yield at E 0.5% in triaxial compression (CK 0 UC). Thus, the results in Fig. 2(a) indicate that the po- tential zone of soil yielding around the FDPM membrane can extend radially to more than 200 mm (i.e., r/R 10). The push-in pressuremeter geometry is simulated using strain path solutions previously presented for unplugged pen- etration of open-ended piles and thin-walled sampling tubes (Chin 1986; Baligh et al. 1987), with aspect ratio B/w = 12. The simple tube (with rounded tip) in Fig. 2(b) is clearly an approximation of the actual PIPM geometry that ignores de- tails of the cutting shoe geometry. The analyses indicate that a region of high shear strains (E > 10%) occurs within a thin annulus around the tube (with dimensions similar to the wall thickness). The extent of disturbance around the tube is con-

,

1/

2{E

2

123

E

2

E }

2

1/2

around the tube is con- , 1/ 2{ E 2 123 E 2 E } 2

FIG. 2.

(a) Full-Displacement Pressuremeters (FDPM); (b) Push-In Pres- suremeters (PIPM)

Octahedral Shear Strains from Strain Path Models of:

1136 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2000

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2000, 126(12): 1133-1144

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. FIG. 3. (a) Push-In Pressuremeters (PIPM); (b)

FIG. 3.

(a) Push-In Pressuremeters (PIPM); (b) Ideal Self-Boring Pres- suremeters

Octahedral Shear Strains from Strain Path Models of:

trolled by the volume of soil displaced and can be normalized by introducing the equivalent radius of the tube, R eq

is very

Bw

. For the push-in pressuremeter, R

eq

=

23

mm

similar to the radius of the FDPM device (R = 22 mm); hence, the two devices show very similar magnitudes of far field shear strains in Fig. 2. The SBPM extracts soil to accommodate the volume of the device. A comprehensive analysis of this process is currently not conceivable. Whittle and Aubeny (1992) proposed an ap- proximate analysis that models the influence of soil extraction on strains in the outer soil, assuming that the installation pro- cess remains undrained (note that typical self-boring penetra- tion rates are one order of magnitude slower than the FDPM and PIPM devices). For undrained steady penetration, the rate of soil extraction can be conveniently expressed by the ratio f = V /V , where V is the soil volume extracted by the cutter

and V is the tube volume. Ideal self boring occurs for f = 1; i.e., when the rate of soil extraction exactly balances the vol- ume of soil displaced by the pressuremeter tube (the calcula- tions consider a tube with aspect ratio B/w = 12). Undercutting occurs when 0 f 1. Note that this model is not able to simulate conditions of overcutting. Fig. 3 compares the tip geometry and octahedral shear stains for the ideal SBPM pen- etration (i.e., f = 1) with results for the PIPM device ( f = 0) and shows the following:

1. The outside radius of the simulated tube of the ideal self- boring pressuremeter increases slightly toward the tip el- evation where soil is extracted [Fig. 3(b)]. This contrasts with the PIPM simulation where there is a very slight inward curvature at the tip of the simple tube [Fig. 3(a)]. These differences in device geometry are a consequence of the assumptions used in the strain path models.

2. Self boring has a minimal effect on the shear strains that develop below the cutting tip [witnessed by similarities in the strain contours in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b)]. However, unloading (i.e., decrease in E along a particle path) oc- curs as the soil elements move the tip elevation, causing a reduction in the zone of disturbance around the SBPM membrane, as compared to the PIPM device.

Soil Model and Ideal Cavity Expansion Behavior

The analyses use the MIT-E3 effective stress soil model (Whittle and Kavvadas 1994) to represent changes in effective stresses and soil properties throughout the successive phases of installation, equilibration, pressuremeter expansion, and contraction. Whittle et al. (1994) present full details of the model input parameters and detail the selection of input pa- rameters for resedimented Boston blue clay (BBC), used in the current analyses. The MIT-E3 model provides realistic pre-

current analyses. The MIT-E3 model provides realistic pre- FIG. 4. Predicted and Measured Undrained Strength Ratios

FIG. 4. Predicted and Measured Undrained Strength Ratios from CK 0 U Tests on Resedimented Boston Blue Clay (Whittle et al. 1994)

Tests on Resedimented Boston Blue Clay (Whittle et al. 1994) FIG. 5. Predicted and Measured Shear

FIG. 5. Predicted and Measured Shear Stress-Strain Behavior from CK 0 U Cavity Expansion Tests on Resedimented Boston Blue Clay

dictions of the shear stress-strain-strength properties of K 0 -con- solidated clays measured in a wide range of laboratory un- drained shear tests on normally to moderately over consolidated clays [1 overconsolidation ratio (OCR) 4]. Fig 4 summarizes model predictions and measured undrained shear strength ratio, s / , as a function of the overconsoli- dation ratio for BBC. The highest shear strengths occur in plane strain compression tests and the lowest occur in triaxial extension. The model provides a good representation of the measured undrained strength anisotropy. The measured and predicted curves also show significant undrained brittleness (postpeak softening) in triaxial and plane strain compression shear modes at OCR 2. The undrained strengths from direct simple shear tests (Geonor type, CK 0 UDSS) are interpreted using the conventional assumption, and s uDSS = h max roughly corresponds to the average of the undrained strengths mea- sured in CK 0 U compression and extension tests. Stress-strain behavior in undrained cavity expansion tests can be measured in the more sophisticated true triaxial appa- ratus and directional shear cell devices. In these experiments, the soil specimen is consolidated under k 0 -conditions and then sheared undrained in the horizontal plane, which maintaining place strain conditions (i.e. zero strain) in the vertical direction Fig. 5 compares the measured shear stress-strain behavior from tests of this type with MIT-E3 predictions for resedimented BBC. The following points should be noted:

1. The measured data show a ductile response, with peak strengths occurring at shear strains = 2–7%. the mea- sured undrained strength ratios (s / = 0.21 and 0.70 at OCR = 1.0 and 4.0, respectively) are in close agree- ment with ratios from CK 0 UDSS tests in Fig. 4.

2. The model gives excellent predictions of the undrained shear strength ratios measured at OCR = 1.0 and 4.0, but

u

vc

uCE

vc

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2000 / 1137

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2000, 126(12): 1133-1144

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3.

tends to overestimate the shear stiffness (especially at OCR = 4). This result reflects limitations in model pre- dictive capabilities for OCR 4.

Fig. 5 includes model simulations with reversals of load direction. The calculations at OCR = 1.0 predict a sig- nificant reduction in the undrained strength of the clay when the loading direction is reversed (s / = 0.15 versus 0.21 for failure in the initial expansion phase). This behavior reflects the evolution of anisotropic prop- erties described by the MIT-E3 model (Whittle et al. 1994), and can be contrasted with isotropic EPP models used in previous studies of pressuremeter performance (Houlsby and Withers 1988). There is negligible reduc- tion in undrained shear strength for reversed loading at OCR = 4.0, as prefailure plastic strains are much smaller than at OCR = 1.0.

uCE

vc

Installation Stresses and Pore Pressures

The

predictions

of

installation

disturbance for

different

types of pressuremeters make two simplifying assumptions.

1. They consider only radial variations of soil stresses and pore pressures occurring in a typical plane far above the penetrating tip, and hence do not address how the center of the membrane location (z c /B; Table 1) affects the in- terpreted strengths (although the issue of L/b is consid- ered).

2. The analyses assume that pressuremeter expansion tests are performed either immediately after device insertion or after full dissipation of the installation-induced excess pore pressures. These are termed ‘‘immediate’’ and ‘‘ves- tigial’’ disturbance conditions. The latter are computed using a nonlinear one-dimensional finite-element model of coupled consolidation.

Fig. 6 summarizes predictions of immediate and vestigial disturbance stresses for displacement-type pressuremeters (FDPM and PIPM) installed in K 0 -normally consolidated BBC. Due to intense shearing near the penetrometer boundaries, soul behavior is dominated by plastic flow. Hence, similar magni- tudes of effective stresses and excess pore pressures are pre- dicted near the penetrometer boundary during FDPM and PIPM installation despite significant differences in predicted strains (Fig. 2). The analyses predict that both devices generate large excess pore pressures ( u = u u 0 ) at the membrane ( u/ > 1.2), with excess pore pressures extending to more

v0

> 1.2), with excess pore pressures extending to more v 0 FIG. 6. Immediate and Vestigial

FIG. 6. Immediate and Vestigial Installation Disturbance Stresses for FDPM and PIPM Devices in K 0 -Normally Consoli- dated BBC: (a) FDPM Immediate; (b) PIPM Immediate; (c) FDPM Vestigial; (d) PIPM Vestigial

(b) PIPM Immediate; (c) FDPM Vestigial; (d) PIPM Vestigial FIG. 7. Effect of Extraction Ratio on

FIG. 7. Effect of Extraction Ratio on Installation Disturbance for Self-Boring Pressuremeter in K 0 -Normally Consolidated BBC: (a) Excess Pore Pressures; (b) Radial Effective Stress; (c) Mean Effective Stress; (d) Cavity Shear Stress

than 500 mm from the centerline. There is large net reduction in the radial effective stress acting on the membrane (K i =

= 0.48 condition.

Similar reductions in the mean (octahedral) effective stress ( / ) indicate that (1) undrained shearing causes positive shear-induced port pressures; and (2) there is substantial strain softening of normally consolidated BBC close to the surface of both devices. Although the analyses predict very small cav- ity shear stresses (maximum shear stresses in the horizontal plane) acting on the pressuremeter membrane, there are rela- tively large values of q / = 0.1–0.2 for r = 100–500 mm (compared to the reference strength, s / = 0.21, Fig. 5). At radial distances exceeding 1,000–2,000 mm, the stress components approach intact values: / = 0.48, / = 0.65, q / = u/ = 0. After dissipation of excess pore pressures [Figs. 6(c) and 6(d)], the radial effective stress is almost completely restored to the initial K 0 condition (except close to the membrane), and only small cavity shear stresses remain in the soil. The reduc- tion in mean effective stress provides the most significant ev- idence of vestigial disturbance (compared to the initial =

0.65).

/

v 0

v0

0.1), compared to the initial

K

0

rr

h

v0

uCE

rr

v0

v 0

v 0

h

v0

v0

v0

Fig. 7 illustrates the influence of the soil extraction param- eter, f, on predictions of installation soil stresses and pore pres- sures for self-boring devices. The results show a major reduc- tion in the predicted excess pore pressure [Fig. 7(a)] as the extraction ratio approaches 1. For ideal self boring ( f = 1), the predictions show very small excess pore pressures acting on the membrane and elsewhere in the soil. The results also show a reduction in both the radial and mean effective stress com- ponents [Figs. 7(b) and 7(c)] moving toward the membrane (K i 0.05–0.1; / 0.1 at the surface). As the rate of

soil extraction increases ( f 1), there is a gradual reduction in the radial extent of the zone of disturbance [noted particu- larly in the mean effective stress, Fig. 7(c)], but only a small change in the predicted radial effective stress [Fig. 7(b)]. In contrast, the magnitude of f has a major influence on the dis- tribution of the cavity shear stress. As f 1, there is also a change in sign of q / [Fig. 7(d)]. Given the simplifications in the strain path model, one should not read too much into these details. However, the predictions do show that small changes in the cutting parameters (i.e., installation procedure) can significantly alter the excess pore pressures, and cause

v0

h

v0

1138 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2000

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2000, 126(12): 1133-1144

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

substantial changes in the effective stresses within the soil as well as changes in lift-off pressure P 0 .

PREDICTIONS OF PRESSUREMETER TESTS

Predictions of undrained pressuremeter expansion and con- traction tests are first presented assuming that there are no membrane length effects (i.e., the membrane is infinitely long). These calculations are based on the strain fields for ideal cy- lindrical cavity expansion and contraction [(1)], using the MIT-E3 model with input parameters corresponding to BBC and initial OCRs = 1, 2, and 4 for immediate and vestigial

and initial OCR s = 1, 2, and 4 for immediate and vestigial FIG. 8. Effect

FIG. 8. Effect of Immediate Installation Disturbance on Pre- dicted Pressuremeter Expansion and Contraction in K 0 -Nor- mally Consolidated BBC: (a) Expansion; (b) Contraction

-Nor- mally Consolidated BBC: (a) Expansion; (b) Contraction FIG. 9. Effect of Immediate Installation Disturbance on

FIG. 9. Effect of Immediate Installation Disturbance on Pre- dicted Pressuremeter Expansion and Contraction in Overcon- solidated BBC: (a) Expansion; (b) Contraction

disturbance stresses. Each simulation follows a standard pro- cedure of membrane expansion to a maximum volumetric strain of V/V = 30%, followed by contraction back to the undeformed configuration. To facilitate the interpretation of undrained shear strength, the results show the normalized net pressure, (P-u )/ (where P is the total membrane pressure; u 0 and are the original, in situ pore pressure and vertical effective stress, respectively), as a function of log( V/V) dur- ing expansion and a function of log(V e /V) during contraction. Figs. 8 and 9 compare the predicted pressuremeter expan- sion and contraction curves for intact (undisturbed) and im- mediate disturbance stress conditions for devices installed in BBC at OCR = 1.0 and 4.0, respectively. As expected, the undrained strength ratios, s / , can be estimated with con- fidence from the well-defined linear portion of the expansion curves in intact clay [ V/V = 1.0–10%; Figs. 8(a) and 9(a)] and match the theoretical (MIT-E3) cavity expansion solutions,

= 0.21, 0.71. Displacements caused by installation of

FDPM and PIPM devices cause a large increase in the initial membrane contact pressure, while subsequent expansion to large volumetric strains generates pressures similar to the anal- yses for intact clay. The FDPM device generates apparent un-

drained shear strengths that are much lower than those of the intact clay [Figs. 8(a) and 9(a)], while nonlinearity of the PIPM expansion curves at relatively large volume stains

greatly complicates the calculation of s /

strengths derived from curves of this type are calculated from the local slope at V/V = 10% (Table 4). Further calculations for a hypothetical thin-walled tube with B/w = 40 (i.e., similar dimensions to a Shelby tube sampler) show that refinements in the PIPM device geometry offer little improvement in es- timating undrained strengths from the expansion response. The analyses for ideal self boring predict contact pressures that are much smaller than the initial K 0 stress states at both OCR = 1.0 and OCR = 4.0 [ f = 1; Figs. 8(a) and 9(a)]. The expansion curves show no well-defined constant slope, but in- stead predict that the soil exhibits a peak shear resistance (maximum gradient of the expansion curve) at V/V 1–2%, followed by postpeak strain softening (also see Fig. 13 for f = 1.0). the derived peak shear strengths (Table 4) are signifi- cantly higher (by roughly 40 10%) than the cavity expan- sion strengths of the intact clay. Table 4 shows that the derived strengths are closely related to the extraction ratio, f (and hence to the initial contact pressure). Extraction ratios of f < 0.875 generate contact pressures that exceed the K 0 conditions at OCR = 1.0, and underestimate the true undrained strength [Fig. 8(a), Table 4], while calculations at f = 0.875 (fortui- tously) match the response of the intact clay. In comparison to the expansion behavior, the predicted con- traction curves in Figs. 8(b) and 9(b) are very similar for all

0

v0

v0

uPM

v0

s /

uCE

v0

uPM

v0

. Undrained

 

TABLE 4.

Predicted Peak Undrained Strength Ratios from Pressuremeter Test Simulations (L/B = )

 

OCR (s uCE / )

v0

 

Expand or

 

Aspect Ratio, B/w

 

SBPM Extraction Ratio, f

Disturbance

contract

FDPM(2)

PIPM(12)

40

0.5

0.875

1.0

 

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

1.0

(0.21)

Immediate

Expand

0.05

a

0.07

a

0.13

a

0.13

0.23

0.30

Immediate

Contract

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.22

Vestigial

Expand

0.21

0.21

0.21

Vestigial

Contract

0.20

0.22

0.22

2.0

(0.39)

Immediate

Expand

0.10

a

0.14

a

0.26

a

0.60

Immediate

Contract

0.40

0.34

0.35

0.36

Vestigial

Expand

0.17

a

0.20

a

0.29

a

———

Vestigial

Contract

0.33

0.39

0.40

— —

4.0

(0.71)

Immediate

Expand

0.19

0.22

a

0.43

a

— 0.92

Immediate

Contract

0.63

0.57

0.59

— 0.64

Vestigial

Expand

0.11

0.18

a

0.31

a

———

Vestigial

Contract

0.68

0.69

0.67

a Nonlinear expansion curve s u reported at V/V = 10%.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2000 / 1139

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2000, 126(12): 1133-1144

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of the displacement and self-boring pressuremeter simulations. In each case, it is possible to define a linear pressure-volu- metric strain response for V e /V = 2–20%. The corresponding undrained shear strengths in Table 4 are in good agreement with the strength of normally consolidated clay (with the ex- ception of the FDPM device), but tend to underestimate the intact strengths at OCR = 2.0 and 4.0 (by up to 15–20%). Figs. 10 and 11 summarize predictions of expansion and contraction curves for displacement-type pressuremeters at vestigial disturbance conditions (i.e., full dissipation of the ex- cess pore pressures) at OCR = 1.0 and 4.0, respectively. For OCR = 1, the net contact pressures are slightly less than the in situ K 0 stress condition, and the expansion curves show a well-defined linear range for both devices. Table 4 shows that the computed undrained strengths are in very good agreement with those for intact clay. In contrast, the vestigial stresses at OCR = 4 generate initial contact pressures that are significantly higher than the initial K 0 stresses. The expansion curves are only marginally different from predictions immediately after penetration [Fig. 9(a)], and underestimate the intact strength of the clay. It is also interesting to note that the predicted contraction curves, at vestigial disturbance conditions, are somewhat more nonlinear than those based on undrained in- stallation stress fields [compare Figs. 10(b) and 11(b) with Figs 8(b) and 9(b)]. However, this latter result has a minimal effect on the undrained strengths interpreted from the maximum slope of the contraction curves that are within 10–15% of the intact values. Table 4 summarizes the predicted undrained strength ratios

Table 4 summarizes the predicted undrained strength ratios FIG. 10. Effect of Vestigial Disturbance on Predicted

FIG. 10. Effect of Vestigial Disturbance on Predicted Pressure- meter Expansion and Contraction in K 0 -Normally Consolidated BBC: (a) Expansion; (b) Contraction

-Normally Consolidated BBC: (a) Expansion; (b) Contraction Effect of Vestigial Disturbance on Predicted Pressure- meter

Effect of Vestigial Disturbance on Predicted Pressure-

meter Expansion and Contraction in Overconsolidated BBC: (a) Expansion; (b) Contraction

FIG. 11.

for displacement pressuremeters with aspect ratios of B/w = 2, 12, and 40, and self-boring devices with extraction ratios of f = 0.5–1.0. The table highlights the potential for significant underprediction of derived undrained strength ratios from FDPM and PIPM expansion tests [as reported by Lacasse et al. (1990)], while simulations of ideal self boring generate ex- pansion data with derived strengths that are up to 50% higher than the cavity expansion strength of the intact clay. Interpre- tation of contraction curves appears to provide a more reliable method for interpreting the undrained shear strength from both displacement and self-boring pressuremeters.

Effect of Membrane Length on Predictions of Ideal SBPM Tests

One of the factors not considered in the preceding calcula- tions is the finite length of the membrane, L, which can cause an overestimation of undrained shear strengths from SBPM expansion tests (Houlsby and Carter 1993). Analyses were car- ried out to assess the combined effects of membrane length and installation disturbance for ideal self-boring ( f = 1) de- vices with a length-to-diameter ratio of L/B = 6 (Table 1). These two-dimensional finite-element calculations use high- order triangular elements (with 15 displacement and three pore-pressure nodes, enabling cubic strain and linear pore- pressure interpolation) in order to mitigate numerical problems associated with incompressibility (Sloan and Randolph 1982). As in previous calculations, the disturbance due to ideal self boring generates a radial variation in the initial soil stresses and pore pressures. The finite-element mesh simulates one-half of the smooth, flexible pressuremeter membrane, subject to uniform interior pressure, P. It extends radially to 100R, where K 0 stress conditions prevail, and assumes zero vertical dis- placements along the horizontal boundary at 30R. Figs. 12(a) and 12(b) summarize the effects of membrane length on the predicted expansion curves for intact and ideal self boring ( f = 1) of a pressuremeter in BBC at OCR = 1.0 and 4.0. Predictions are presented in terms of equivalent vol- umetric strain ( V/V) eq = 1 (1 ε 0 ) 2 . Presentation of the pressuremeter curve in this manner is consistent with inter- preting camkometer membrane centerline measurements using the WW or BPL methods of interpretation (Benoıˆt 1991). In all four cases, finite membrane length causes an increase in

four cases, finite membrane length causes an increase in FIG. 12. Effects of Membrane Length on

FIG. 12. Effects of Membrane Length on Predicted Pressure- meter Expansion Curves in BBC: (a) OCR = 1; (b) OCR = 4

meter Expansion Curves in BBC: (a) OCR = 1; (b) OCR = 4 FIG. 13. Effects

FIG. 13. Effects of Membrane Length on Predictions of De- rived Shear Stress-Strain Behavior in BBC

1140 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2000

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2000, 126(12): 1133-1144

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the pressure required to achieve a specified centerline strain, while the characteristic shapes of the expansion curves are largely unaffected for this length ratio (L/B = 6). It is perhaps more informative to compare the derived shear stress-strain response of the clay adjacent to the membrane, as shown in Figs. 13(a) and 13(b). The curves (for L/B = ) show that the installation disturbance generates a derived peak shear resis- tance (at ε 0 1.0%) that greatly exceeds the true undrained shear strength of the clay, followed by postpeak strain soft- ening. The finite membrane length causes an increase in the large strain shear strength (for intact clay), and amplifies the apparent peak strength (by up to 20%) for the analyses that include installation disturbance, and causes hardening of the stress-strain curve at large strains.

INTERPRETATION OF SBPM DATA IN SOUTH BOSTON

An extensive geotechnical characterization of a special test site in South Boston (‘‘Final’’ 1993; Ladd et al. 1998) included a series of 11 self-boring pressuremeter tests in Boston blue clay (Benoıˆt 1991). These data provide a useful opportunity for evaluating the SBPM predictions described above. Self boring was carried out using the jetting tip pressure- meter shown in Fig. 1(a). This device is equipped with three sets of feeler arms, each of which measures radial displace- ments of the membrane in three directions (120 apart). The field procedures included delay periods of 22–51 min follow- ing probe insertion, while the membrane expansion was per-

ing probe insertion, while the membrane expansion was per- FIG. 14. at South Boston Special Test

FIG. 14.

at South Boston Special Test Site (Ladd et al. 1998)

Index Properties, In Situ Stresses, and Stress History

1998) Index Properties, In Situ Stresses, and Stress History FIG. 15. Set of SBPM Feeler Arms

FIG. 15.

Set of SBPM Feeler Arms

Averaging of Radial Strain Measurements for Central

formed at rates of dP/dt = 28–55 kPa/min. Fig. 14 summarizes

the soil profile, index properties, stress history, and initial K 0 conditions at the South Boston site based on high-quality lab- oratory tests. The liquid limits (w L = 40–60%) and plasticity indices (I p = 20–35%) remain relatively uniform throughout the 33 m thick clay layer, while the mean liquidity index in- creases with depth from 0.3 to 0.8. The selected preconsoli- dation stress ( ) decreases linearly through the crust, such that the maximum OCR 6 at the top of the layer, while the clay is very lightly overconsolidated (OCR = 1.1–1.3) below

28.0 m. The k 0 values estimated from laboratory tests decrease

from a maximum value of approximately 1.0 to 0.5 in the lower clay. Fig. 15 shows typical pressure-strain expansion curves mea- sured by the centrally located set of feeler arms at three depths (z). The three feeler arms (M1, M2, and M3) show large dif-

ferences in strains and in apparent lift-off pressures (especially

in the lower clay), leading to large uncertainties in the esti-

mation of K 0 [Fig. 14(c)]. Scatter in feeler arm measurements

has also been reported from carefully conducted tests by a

number of previous investigators (Benoıˆt and Clough 1986; Lacasse et al. 1990). The shear stress-strain behavior is found

defining an average pressuremeter strain, ε¯ , assuming that

by

the membrane remains circular (with central axis offset at lo- cation O in Fig. 15), and using numerical differentiation of the P-ε¯ curve (Appendix I). Fig. 16 compares the shear stress-strain curves derived from

four SBPM expansion tests (the curves for 17.0, 24.0, and 34.0

m are from the test data presented in Fig. 15) with analytical predictions for ideal self boring ( f = 1) with L/B = 6 and

for all OCRs that approximate the estimated in situ range. The three deeper tests show derived peak shear strengths that occur

small strains (ε¯ 1.0%), postpeak strain softening, and

at

then further hardening for strain levels greater than 5–6%. The predictions follow qualitatively similar trends, but with much smaller peak strengths in the lower clay (at z = 31.0 m and

p

0

0

0

34.0

m) and a higher peak resistance in the upper clay (z =

17.0

m). There is surprisingly good agreement between the

predicted and derived shear resistance at the saddle points (i.e., ε¯ = 3.0–6.0%) in all four tests. Membrane length effects do not represent a major source of uncertainty in these compari- sons. Underestimation of the derived peak strengths in Fig. 16 can be due to (1) the simplifying assumptions in the SBPM

0

can be due to (1) the simplifying assumptions in the SBPM 0 Comparison of Predicted and

Comparison of Predicted and Derived Shear Stress-

Strain Behavior from SBPM Expansion Tests at South Boston Site

FIG. 16.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2000 / 1141

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2000, 126(12): 1133-1144

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. FIG. 17. Comparison of Undrained Strength Ratios

FIG. 17. Comparison of Undrained Strength Ratios from SBPM and Laboratory Shear Tests at South Boston Site

disturbance model; and (2) strain rate and partial drainage ef- fects. The disturbance model assumes ‘‘ideal’’ self boring with f = 1. In fact, overcoring ( f > 1) is possible, which could further reduce P 0 , with a concomitant increase in the derived small-strain peak strength. In addition, derived stress-strain curves can exhibit strain softening due to strain rate effects, even in strain-hardening materials (Pre´vost 1976). This could amplify the apparent strain-softening effect due to soil distur- bance alone. Fig. 17 compares the undrained strength ratios interpreted form the SBPM expansion and contraction tests performed in South Boston with strengths reported by Ladd et al. (1998) from laboratory tests on K 0 -consolidated samples in triaxial compression, triaxial extension, and direct simple shear modes (CK 0 UC, CK 0 UE, and CK 0 UDSS, respectively). It is clear that the peak strengths from pressuremeter expansion tests greatly overestimate the laboratory undrained strength ratios. The de- rived saddle point strengths are (coincidentally?) in good agreement with predicted behavior in the strain range ε¯ = 3– 6%, as suggested in Fig. 16. Finally, it should be noted that undrained strength ratios estimated from the contraction curves (Fig. 17) are much larger than the laboratory strengths. This result is not explained by the analyses. Further experimental and analytical studies are now needed to establish whether contraction curves can offer a more reliable method for estimating undrained shear strength from SBPM tests.

0

CONCLUSIONS

Installation disturbance represents a major factor affecting the interpretation of undrained shear strengths for displace- ment-type (FDPM and PIPM) and self-boring (SBPM) pres- suremeter tests in clay. The present paper uses strain path anal- yses, in conjunction with the MIT-E3 effective stress soil model, to simulate the effects of installation disturbance on subsequent pressuremeter expansion and contraction tests in normally and moderately overconsolidated BBC. These sim- ulations provide the first realistic analyses of installation dis- turbance effects, taking into account probe geometry and soil extraction. Predictions were also compared with SBPM tests performed in BBC at a well-documented site. The main find- ings can be summarized as follows:

1. The installation of full displacement and push-in pres- suremeter devices generates large excess pore pressures

in the surrounding soil, such that the contact pressures (P 0 ) greatly exceed the initial total horizontal stress h0 . Undrained shear strengths derived from the expansion curves underestimate significantly the strength of the in- tact clay (by 50–90%). These results agree with limited experimental data reported in the literature (Lacasse et al. 1990). Predictions indicate that reducing disturbance using a hypothetical thin-walled (B/w = 40) displacement pressuremeter does not substantially improve strength es- timates. The analyses show that there is no improvement in the estimation of strength achieved by allowing full dissipation of installation excess pore pressures (vestigial disturbance conditions).

2. Disturbance induced during ideal self-boring penetration (i.e., where the volume of soil extracted exactly balances the volume of soil displaced by the device) causes a re- duction in lift-off pressure P 0 compared to the in situ h0 , and excessive derived peak shear strengths with postpeak strain softening that are inconsistent with the behavior of the intact clay. The latter effects are amplified when the finite membrane length is included in the analyses. The predicted effect of increasing the extraction ratio f is in qualitative agreement with field studies indicating that increasing the cutting rate decreases P 0 and increases the derived strength (Benoıˆt and Clough 1986). As P 0 is sen- sitive to the soil extraction rate f, a parameter that cannot be reliably controlled or measured in the field, it cannot be considered a valid basis for estimating k 0 .

3. The general characteristics of the derived shear stress- strain curves are confirmed by experimental data in South Boston. However, the analyses are not able to rep- licate the magnitude of the peak strengths derived from the field tests (which exceed the highest laboratory strengths by 50–100%). There is good agreement be- tween the theoretical and experimentally derived shear stress at average strains in the range of ε¯ = 3–6%. These saddle point strengths are in good agreement with labo- ratory data in the clay crust where OCR 4, but over- estimate the theoretical cavity expansion shear strength of the intact clay at OCR = 1 by more than 50%.

4. The analyses of both displacement (for both immediate

and vestigial disturbance) and self-boring pressuremeters suggest that undrained shear strengths can be estimated reliably from contraction tests (assuming prior membrane expansion to large strains). However, this result was not substantiated by the experimental data at the South Bos- ton site. Further studies are needed to establish factors influencing pressuremeter contraction measurements.

0

APPENDIX I.

PRESSUREMETER CURVE

Evaluation of the apparent mobilized cavity stress, q h , at the pressuremeter boundary requires numerical differentiation of the pressuremeter expansion curve. A method that provides a smooth curve for numerical differentiation was employed,

which (1) fits a least-squares second-order function

measured pressuremeter curve about the point where the de-

rivative is to be calculated; and (2) analytically differentiates
ˆ

P(ε ) . The local least-squares fitting function is of the form

NUMERICAL DIFFERENTIATION OF

ˆ

P(ε ) to the

0

0

ˆ

P(x ) = a

i

0

a x

1

i

a x

2

2 (4)

i

where x i = measured values of puted from the matrix equation

ε¯ .

0

the coefficients a

i

are com-

Z WP = Z WZA

T

T

(5)

where P = [P i ] = measured pressures; A T = [a 0 , a 1 , a 2 ]; and

2 ]. the weighting matrix W assigns full weight to

Z T = [1, x i ,

x i

1142 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2000

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2000, 126(12): 1133-1144

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

data points in the vicinity of the data point at which the de- rivative is to be evaluated and no weight to data points outside this range

w

i

=

0

1

for

for

i n n i n > n w

w

(6)

where w i = weight factor for point i; n = data point at which the derivative is evaluated; and n w defines the number of data points included in the derivative evaluation. Calculations in the present paper use n w = 2 throughout. The slope of the pressuremeter curve is computed as

ˆ

dP

dx n

= a

1

2a x

2

n

(7)

and the apparent cavity shear stress, q h , is computed from the BPL equation in Table 3.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Re- search through grant AFOSR-89-0060. The writers would like to thank the technical monitors of this project, Lieutenant Colonel Steven Boyce and Major Martin Lewis, for their encouragement and help. The SBPM tests at the South Boston site were carried out by Professor Jean Benoıˆt and his students at the University of New Hampshire. The writers thank Dr. Benoıˆt for his careful documentation of test procedures and results.

APPENDIX II.

REFERENCES

Aubeny, C. P. (1992). ‘‘Rational interpretation of in situ tests in cohesive soils.’’ PhD thesis, Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Azzouz, A. S., Baligh, M. M., and Whittle, A. J. (1990). ‘‘The shaft resistance of piles in clay.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 116(2), 205–

221.

Baguelin, F., Jezequel, J. F., Mee, E. L., and Mehaute, A. L. (1972). ‘‘Expansion of cylindrical probes in cohesive soils.’’ J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, 98(11), 1129–1142. Baguelin, F., Jezequel, J. F., and Shields, D. H. (1978). The pressuremeter and foundation engineering. Baligh, M. M. (1985). ‘‘Strain path method.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 111(9), 1108–1136. Baligh, M. M. (1986a). ‘‘Undrained deep penetration: I. Shear stresses.’’ Ge´otechnique, London, 36(4), 471–485. Baligh, M. M. (1986b). ‘‘Undrained deep penetration: II. Pore pressures.’’ Ge´otechnique, London, 36(4), 487–501. Baligh, M. M., Azzouz, A. S., and Chin, C. T. (1987). ‘‘Disturbances due to ‘ideal’ tube sampling.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 113(7), 739–757. Benoıˆt, J. (1991). ‘‘Self-boring pressuremeter testing—Central Artery (I- 93)/Third Harbor Tunnel (I-90) project: Special test program, South Boston, Massachusetts.’’ Rep. Prepared for Haley & Aldrich. Benoıˆt, J., Atwood, M. J., Findlay, R. C., and Hilliard, B. D. (1995). ‘‘Evaluation of jetting insertion for the self-boring pressuremeter.’’ Can. Geotech. J., Ottawa, 32, 22–39. Benoıˆt, J., and Clough, G. W. (1986). ‘‘Self-boring pressuremeter tests in soft clay.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 112(1), 60–78. Briaud, J-L. (1992). The pressuremeter, Ashgate, Brookfield, Vt. Campanella, R. G. Howie, J. A., Hers, I., Sully, J. P., and Robertson, P. K. (1990). ‘‘Evaluation of the cone pressuremeter test in soft cohesive soils.’’ Pressuremeters, Institute of Civil Engineers, London, 125–135. Chin, C. T. (1986). ‘‘Open-ended pile penetration in saturated clays.’’ PhD thesis, Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Clough, G. W., Briaud, J. L., and Hughes, J. M. O. (1990). ‘‘The devel- opment of pressuremeter testing.’’ Pressuremeters, Institute of Civil Engineers, London, 25–45. Denby, G. M., and Clough, G. W. (1980). ‘‘Self-boring pressuremeter tests in clay.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 106(12), 1369–1387. ‘‘Final report on special laboratory and in-situ testing program: Central Artery (I-93)/Third Harbor Tunnel (I-90) project.’’ (1993). Rep. Pre- pared for Mass. Hwy. Dept., Haley & Aldrich, Boston. Fyffe, S., Reid, W. M., and Summers, J. B. (1986). ‘‘The push-in pressuremeter: 5 years offshore experience.’’ The pressuremeter and its marine applications, ASTM STP 950, J-L. Briaud and J. M. E. Audibert, eds., West Conshohocken, Pa., 22–38. Ghionna, V. N., Jamiolkowski, M., and Lancelotta, R. (1982). ‘‘Charac- teristics of saturated clays as obtained from SBP tests.’’ Symp. on Pres- suremeter and Its Marine Applications, 165–185.

Gibson, R. E., and Anderson, W. F. (1961). ‘‘In-situ measurements of soil properties with the pressuremeter.’’ Civ. Engrg. and Public Works Rev., 56(658), 615–618. Henderson, G., Smith, P. D. K., and St. John, H. D. (1980). ‘‘The devel-

opment of the push-in pressuremeter for offshore site investigations.’’

Proc., SUT Conf. on Offshore Site Investigations, Society for Under- water Technology, London, 159–167. Houlsby, G. T., and Carter J. P. (1993). ‘‘The effects of pressuremeter geometry on results of tests in clay.’’ Ge´otechnique, London, 43(4),

567–576.

Houlsby, G. T., and Withers, N. (1988). ‘‘Analysis of the cone pres- suremeter test in clay.’’ Ge´otechnique, London, 38(4), 575–587. Huang, A-B., and Haefele, K. C. (1988). ‘‘A push-in pressuremeter/sam- pler.’’ Proc., 1st Int. Symp. on Penetration Testing, 1, 533–538. Jamiolkowski, M., Ladd, C. C., Germaine, J. T., and Lancelotta, R.

(1985). ‘‘New developments in field and laboratory testing of soils. Theme lecture 2.’’ Proc., 11th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg., 1, 57–153. Jefferies, M. G. (1988). ‘‘Determination of horizontal geostatic stress in clay with self-bored pressuremeter.’’ Can. Geotech. J., Ottawa, 25,

559–573.

Lacasse, S., D’Orazio, T. B., and Bandis, C. (1990). ‘‘Interpretation of self-boring and push-in pressuremeter tests.’’ Pressuremeters, Institute of Civil Engineers, London, 273–285. Lacasse, S., and Lunne, T. (1982). ‘‘In situ horizontal stress from pres- suremeter tests.’’ Symp. on Pressuremeter and Its Marine Applications,

187–208.

Ladanyi, B. (1972). ‘‘In-situ determination of undrained stress-strain be- havior of sensitive clays with the pressuremeter.’’ Can. Geotech. J., Ottawa, 9(3), 313–319. Ladd, C. C., Germaine, J. T., Baligh, M. M., and Lacasse, S. (1980). ‘‘Evaluation of self-boring pressuremeter tests in Boston blue clay.’’ Rep. No. FHWA/RD-80/052, Federal Highway Administration, Wash- ington, D.C. Ladd, C. C., Young, G. A., Kraemer, S. R., and Burke, D. M. (1998). ‘‘Engineering properties of Boston blue clay from special testing pro- gram.’’ Proc., ASCE Geo-Congr. 98, ASCE, Reston, Va., 1–24. Law, K. T., and Eden, W. J. (1985). ‘‘Effects of soil disturbance in pres- suremeter tests.’’ Proc., ASCE Conf. on Updating Subsurface Sampling

of Soils and In-Situ Testing, ASCE, Reston, Va., 291–303. Me´nard, L. (1956). ‘‘An apparatus for measuring the strength of soils in place.’’ MSc thesis, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill. O’Neill, D. A. (1985). ‘‘Undrained strength anisotropy of an overconsol- idated thixotropic clay.’’ MS Thesis, Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Palmer, A. C. (1972). ‘‘Undrained plane-strain expansion of a cylindrical cavity in clay: A simple interpretation of the pressuremeter test.’’ Ge´o- technique, London, 22(3), 451–457. Pre´vost J. H., and Høeg, K. (1975). ‘‘Analysis of the pressuremeter in strain-softening soil.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 101(8), 717–

732.

Pre´vost, J. H. (1976). ‘‘Undrained stress-strain-time behavior of clays.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 102(12), 1245–1259. Reid, W. M., St. John, H. D., Fyffe, S., and Rigden, W. J. (1982). ‘‘The push-in pressuremeter.’’ Symp. on Pressuremeter and Its Marine Ap- plications, 247–261. Shuttle, D. A., and Jefferies, M. G. (1995). ‘‘A practical geometry cor-

rection for interpreting pressuremeter tests in clay.’’ Ge´otechnique, London, 45(3), 549–553. Sloan, S. W., and Randolph, M. F. (1982). ‘‘Numerical predictions of collapse loads using finite element methods.’’ Int. J. Numer. and Ana- lytical Methods in Geomech., 6, 47–76. Whittle, A. J. (1992). ‘‘Assessment of an effective stress analysis for predicting the performance of driven piles in clay.’’ Advances in un- derwater technology—Ocean science and offshore engineering volume 28: Offshore site investigation and foundation behaviour, Society for Underwater Technology, London, 607–643. Whittle, A. J., and Aubeny, C. P. (1992). ‘‘The effects of installation disturbance on interpretation of in-situ tests in clays.’’ Predictive Soil Mech., Proc., Wroth Memorial Symp., Thomas Telford, London, 742–

768.

Whittle, A. J., Aubeny, C. P., Rafalovich, A., Ladd, C. C., and Baligh, M. M. (1991). ‘‘Interpretation of in-situ tests in cohesive soils using rational methods.’’ Res. Rep. R91-01, Dept. of Civ. & Envir. Engrg., MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Whittle, A. J., DeGroot, D. J., Ladd, C. C., and Seah, T-H. (1994). ‘‘Model prediction of the anisotropic behavior of Boston blue clay.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 120(1), 199–224. Whittle, A. J., and Kavvadas, M. (1994). ‘‘Formulation of MIT-E3 con-

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2000 / 1143

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2000, 126(12): 1133-1144

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

stitutive model for overconsolidated clays.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 120(1), 173–198.

Windle, D., and Wroth, C. P. (1977). ‘‘The use of a self-boring pressure- meter to determine the undrained properties of clays.’’ Ground Engrg., Sept., 37–46. Withers, N. J., Schapp, L. H. J., and Dalton, C. P. (1986). ‘‘The devel- opment of the full displacement pressuremeter.’’ The pressuremeter and its marine applications, ASTM STP 950, West Conshohocken, Pa., 38–

56.

Wood, D. M. (1981). ‘‘True triaxial tests on Boston blue clay.’’ Proc., 10th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg., 825–830. Wroth, C. P. (1984). ‘‘The interpretation of in situ soil tests.’’ Ge´otech- nique, London, 34(4), 447–492. Wroth, C. P., and Hughes, J. M. O. (1973). ‘‘An instrument for the in- situ measurement of the properties of soft clays.’’ Proc., 8th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg., 1.2, 487–494. Yeung, K. S., and Carter, J. P. (1990). ‘‘Interpretation of the pressuremeter test in clay allowing for membrane end effects and material non- homogeneity.’’ Pressuremeters, Institute of Civil Engineers, London,

199–208.

APPENDIX III.

NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

B = probe diameter;

CK 0 U =

K 0 -consolidated undrained shear test;

E = octahedral shear strain;

E i = transformed shear strain components;

f

= extraction ratio during SBPM penetration;

G

= elastic shear modulus;

K 0 = coefficient of earth pressure at rest; =

OCR

overconsolidation ratio, / ;

p

v0

P = membrane pressure;

P L = limit pressure at infinite expansion ( V/V 1); P 0 = lift-off pressure in pressuremeter test; q h = cavity shear stress (maximum shear stress acting in horizontal plane);

R = current pressuremeter radius;

R e = maximum pressuremeter radius; R eq = equivalent pressuremeter radius;

R 0 = initial pressuremeter radius;

r = radial coordinate;

s u = undrained shear strength; s uCE = undrained shear strength in cylindrical cavity expan- sion mode;

direct simple shear

s uDSS = undrained

shear

strength

from

(DSS) test ( h max );

s uPM = undrained shear strength from pressuremeter test; s uTC = undrained shear strength from CK 0 UC test; t d = delay time prior to membrane expansion;

U

= probe penetration rate;

u

= pore pressure;

u 0 = in situ pore pressure;

V = current pressuremeter volume;

V e = maximum pressuremeter volume;

V 0 = initial pressuremeter volume;

w

= pressuremeter wall thickness;

z

= depth;

z c = vertical distance from probe tip to center of membrane;

= shear strain, ε rr ε ;

u = excess pore pressure, u u 0 ; ε rr , ε = radial, circumferential strain; ε 0 = pressuremeter strain, R/R 0 ;

ε 0 = maximum

e

pressuremeter strain (end of expansion

phase); = mean stress;

p = vertical preconsolidation pressure; h0 = total in situ horizontal stress;

rr ,

= radial, circumferential stress;

vc = consolidation vertical effective stress; v0 = in situ vertical effective stress; and h = shear stress acting on horizontal plane (e.g., in DSS

test).

1144 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2000

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2000, 126(12): 1133-1144