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 highquality laboratory tests. This paper investigates how the pressuremeter results are affected by disturbances that inevitably occur during device installation. The installation of selfboring and displacement type pressuremeters is simulated using strain path analyses, with realistic effective stressstrainstrength prop erties described by the MITE3 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. Selfboring pressuremeter data from a welldocumented test site in Boston conﬁrm the general character of the predicted pressuremeter stressstrain behavior. The theoretical analyses underestimate the peak strengths derived from selfboring 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 stressstrain 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 (closeﬁtting) 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. Selfboring 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 10900241/00/00121133–1144/ $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 selfboring 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 highquality laboratory tests (Ghionna et al. 1982; Jamiolkowski et al. 1985). 3. The design of displacementtype 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 fulldisplacement 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 openended pushin 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 unloadreload 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 selfboring and displacementtype 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, MITE3 (Whittle and Kavvadas 1994), that simulates realistic shear stressstrain strength properties for a typical lowplasticity 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): 11331144
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 1.
(Benoıˆt et al. 1995); (c) Full Displacement (Withers et al. 1986); (d) PushIn (Henderson et al. 1980)
SelfBoring and Displacement Pressuremeters: (a) SelfBoring 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 welldocumented site in Bos ton (Ladd et al. 1998).
BACKGROUND
Typical Equipment and Procedures
Selfboring 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 todiameter 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 installationinduced 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 pushin
1134 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2000
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2000, 126(12): 11331144
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 
stressstrain 
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 
= _{h}_{0} s _{u} {1 ln[( V/V)/(G/s _{u} )]}; SBPM case—no stress release 
_{h}_{0} = 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} = ( _{r}_{r} _{}_{} )/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, openended 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 stressstrain 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 GibsonAn derson (GA) (Gibson and Anderson 1961) and WindleWroth (WW) (Windle and Wroth 1977) formulations are based on a linearly elasticperfectly plastic (EPP) soil model. Baguelin et al. (1972), Palmer (1972), and Ladanyi (1972) independently recognized that the complete nonlinear stressstrain 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 stressstrain 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 _{r}_{r} 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 leastsquares
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} _{m}_{a}_{x} ). Alternatively, the undrained shear strength can be shown (Palmer 1972) to be the maximum slope of the Pln( 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 selfboring 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 BaguelinLadanyiPalmer (Baguelin et al. 1972)
and HoulsbyWithers (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 _{u}_{P}_{M} , in soft to medium clays and results of highquality 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 _{u}_{T}_{C} , measured in highquality, 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 liftoff pressure is not equal to the true in situ lateral stress (i.e., P _{0} ≠ _{h}_{0} ). Data from
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2000 / 1135
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2000, 126(12): 11331144
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} < _{h}_{0} ) 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 liftoff 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 _{u}_{T}_{C} values.
4. The lengthtodiameter ratio of the pressuremeter mem brane can have a signiﬁcant effect on the interpreted shear strength. Ghionna et al. (1982) show values of s _{u}_{P}_{M} from a PAFSORtype 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 stressstrain curve may be violated due to (1) partial drainage during membrane expansion and contraction; and (2) strainrate dependent soil behavior. Pre´vost (1976) show that, due to ratede pendent behavior of clays, the derived stressstrain curve from a constant strainrate 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 20fold 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 openended 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
wellestablished 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 onedimensional (cylindrical or spherical) cavity expansion methods. On the other hand, the assumptions of straincon trolled behavior greatly simplify the problem of deep penetra tion and avoid the computational complexity of comprehen sive, nonlinear ﬁniteelement analyses. Following Baligh (1985), the shear strains caused by axi symmetric penetrometers can be conveniently characterized by three components, E _{1} = ε _{z}_{z} , E _{2} = 1/ 3(ε _{r}_{r} ε _{}_{} ), and E _{3} = 2/ 3ε _{r}_{z} , 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 pushin pressuremeter geometry is simulated using strain path solutions previously presented for unplugged pen etration of openended piles and thinwalled 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
FIG. 2.
(a) FullDisplacement Pressuremeters (FDPM); (b) PushIn 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): 11331144
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 3.
(a) PushIn Pressuremeters (PIPM); (b) Ideal SelfBoring 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 _{e}_{q}
is very
Bw
. For the pushin 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 selfboring 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 MITE3 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 MITE3 model provides realistic pre
FIG. 4. Predicted and Measured Undrained Strength Ratios from CK _{0} U Tests on Resedimented Boston Blue Clay (Whittle et al. 1994)
FIG. 5. Predicted and Measured Shear StressStrain Behavior from CK _{0} U Cavity Expansion Tests on Resedimented Boston Blue Clay
dictions of the shear stressstrainstrength 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 _{u}_{D}_{S}_{S} = _{h} _{m}_{a}_{x} roughly corresponds to the average of the undrained strengths mea sured in CK _{0} U compression and extension tests. Stressstrain 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 stressstrain behavior from tests of this type with MITE3 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): 11331144
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 MITE3 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 installationinduced excess pore pressures. These are termed ‘‘immediate’’ and ‘‘ves tigial’’ disturbance conditions. The latter are computed using a nonlinear onedimensional ﬁniteelement model of coupled consolidation.
Fig. 6 summarizes predictions of immediate and vestigial disturbance stresses for displacementtype 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
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
FIG. 7. Effect of Extraction Ratio on Installation Disturbance for SelfBoring 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 shearinduced 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 selfboring 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): 11331144
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 liftoff 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 MITE3 model with input parameters corresponding to BBC and initial OCRs = 1, 2, and 4 for immediate and vestigial
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
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, (Pu )/ (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 welldeﬁned linear portion of the expansion curves in intact clay [ V/V = 1.0–10%; Figs. 8(a) and 9(a)] and match the theoretical (MITE3) 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 thinwalled 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 welldeﬁned 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 _{u}_{C}_{E} / ) 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): 11331144
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 selfboring pressuremeter simulations. In each case, it is possible to deﬁne a linear pressurevolu 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 displacementtype 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 welldeﬁned 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
FIG. 10. Effect of Vestigial Disturbance on Predicted Pressure meter Expansion and Contraction in K _{0} Normally Consolidated BBC: (a) Expansion; (b) Contraction
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 selfboring 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 selfboring 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 selfboring ( f = 1) de vices with a lengthtodiameter ratio of L/B = 6 (Table 1). These twodimensional ﬁniteelement calculations use high order triangular elements (with 15 displacement and three porepressure 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 ﬁniteelement mesh simulates onehalf 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) _{e}_{q} = 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
FIG. 12. Effects of Membrane Length on Predicted Pressure meter Expansion Curves in BBC: (a) OCR = 1; (b) OCR = 4
FIG. 13. Effects of Membrane Length on Predictions of De rived Shear StressStrain Behavior in BBC
1140 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2000
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2000, 126(12): 11331144
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 stressstrain 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 stressstrain 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 selfboring 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
FIG. 14.
at South Boston Special Test Site (Ladd et al. 1998)
Index Properties, In Situ Stresses, and Stress History
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 highquality 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 pressurestrain 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 liftoff 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 stressstrain 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 Pε¯ curve (Appendix I). Fig. 16 compares the shear stressstrain 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
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): 11331144
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
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 smallstrain peak strength. In addition, derived stressstrain curves can exhibit strain softening due to strain rate effects, even in strainhardening materials (Pre´vost 1976). This could amplify the apparent strainsoftening 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 menttype (FDPM and PIPM) and selfboring (SBPM) pres suremeter tests in clay. The present paper uses strain path anal yses, in conjunction with the MITE3 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 welldocumented site. The main ﬁnd ings can be summarized as follows:
1. The installation of full displacement and pushin 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 _{h}_{0} . 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 thinwalled (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 selfboring penetration (i.e., where the volume of soil extracted exactly balances the volume of soil displaced by the device) causes a re duction in liftoff pressure P _{0} compared to the in situ _{h}_{0} , 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 selfboring 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 leastsquares secondorder function
measured pressuremeter curve about the point where the de
rivative is to be calculated; and (2) analytically differentiates
ˆ
P(ε ) . The local leastsquares 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): 11331144
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 AFOSR890060. 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). ‘‘Selfboring pressuremeter testing—Central Artery (I 93)/Third Harbor Tunnel (I90) 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 selfboring pressuremeter.’’ Can. Geotech. J., Ottawa, 32, 22–39. Benoıˆt, J., and Clough, G. W. (1986). ‘‘Selfboring pressuremeter tests in soft clay.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 112(1), 60–78. Briaud, JL. (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). ‘‘Openended 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). ‘‘Selfboring pressuremeter tests in clay.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 106(12), 1369–1387. ‘‘Final report on special laboratory and insitu testing program: Central Artery (I93)/Third Harbor Tunnel (I90) project.’’ (1993). Rep. Pre pared for Mass. Hwy. Dept., Haley & Aldrich, Boston. Fyffe, S., Reid, W. M., and Summers, J. B. (1986). ‘‘The pushin pressuremeter: 5 years offshore experience.’’ The pressuremeter and its marine applications, ASTM STP 950, JL. 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). ‘‘Insitu 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 pushin 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, AB., and Haefele, K. C. (1988). ‘‘A pushin 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 selfbored pressuremeter.’’ Can. Geotech. J., Ottawa, 25,
559–573.
Lacasse, S., D’Orazio, T. B., and Bandis, C. (1990). ‘‘Interpretation of selfboring and pushin 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). ‘‘Insitu determination of undrained stressstrain 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 selfboring pressuremeter tests in Boston blue clay.’’ Rep. No. FHWA/RD80/052, 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 GeoCongr. 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 InSitu 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 planestrain 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 strainsoftening soil.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 101(8), 717–
732.
Pre´vost, J. H. (1976). ‘‘Undrained stressstraintime 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 pushin 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 insitu 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 insitu tests in cohesive soils using rational methods.’’ Res. Rep. R9101, Dept. of Civ. & Envir. Engrg., MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Whittle, A. J., DeGroot, D. J., Ladd, C. C., and Seah, TH. (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 MITE3 con
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2000 / 1143
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2000, 126(12): 11331144
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 selfboring 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} = liftoff 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 _{e}_{q} = equivalent pressuremeter radius;
R _{0} = initial pressuremeter radius;
r = radial coordinate;
s _{u} = undrained shear strength; s _{u}_{C}_{E} = undrained shear strength in cylindrical cavity expan sion mode;
direct simple shear
s _{u}_{D}_{S}_{S} = undrained
shear
strength
from
(DSS) test ( _{h} _{m}_{a}_{x} );
s _{u}_{P}_{M} = undrained shear strength from pressuremeter test; s _{u}_{T}_{C} = 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 _{r}_{r} ε _{}_{} ;
u = excess pore pressure, u u _{0} ; ε _{r}_{r} , 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; _{h}_{0} = total in situ horizontal stress;
_{r}_{r} , _{}_{}
= radial, circumferential stress;
_{v}_{c} = consolidation vertical effective stress; _{v}_{0} = 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): 11331144
Molto più che documenti.
Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.
Annulla in qualsiasi momento.