Pressuremeter Testing

Paul J. Cosentino, Ph.D., P.E.

10/24/2019
I. In-situ testing:

Advantages
1. larger samples tested
2. less disturbance
3. much faster than lab tests

Disadvantages
1. can not control initial state of stress during testing (i.e. o’)
2. many times stresses induced during testing are horizontal while building loads
are vertical
3. many times results are empirical

Types (most common)

1. pressuremeter (PMT)
2. cone penetrometer (CPT)
3. dilatometer (DMT)
4. vane shear (VST)
5. standard penetration test (SPT)

II. Pressuremeter (PMT) testing

Introduction
1. developed in 1954 by Ménard at University of Illinois
2. insert long cylindrical balloon type device into soil and during inflation with
water measure response of soil

Theory and Data Reduction

1. during inflation long cylinder expands radially producing plain strain conditions
2. injected water volumes are converted to volumetric strains to yield a stress-strain
plot that can be analyzed
3. typically elastic moduli, lift-off (or at-rest) and limit pressures are determined
from plots

Uses
1. lateral loads on foundations especially piles and drilled shafts (or piers)
2. empirical bearing capacity (i.e. ultimate soil capacity) predictions

1
3. empirical settlement predictions (have been shown to be more reliable than
Terzaghi’s One-dimensional consolidation predictions)
4. elastic moduli for finite element programs, pavement designs, immediate
settlement predictions

Advantages
1. fast testing: field testing can be completed in 10-20 minutes
2. fast analysis: computerized data reduction can be completed in 5 to 60 minutes
3. large sample tested (10 to 18-inches length depending upon model used)
4. test simulates lateral loads on piles and piers
5. simple procedures available to determine settlement, bearing capacity, etc.,
6. relatively simple testing procedure, especially with automation
7. equipment relatively inexpensive ($8,000 to $12,000); therefore costs can be
recouped quickly
8. new procedures for pushing saves a SIGNIFICANT amount of time
9. new instrumentation software also save SIGNIFICANT time

Disadvantages
1. test hole MUST be carefully prepared, if pre-bored
2. membrane failure causes ½ day delay!
3. requires specialist to conduct test

Overview of test procedure

1. Prepare borehole and lower probe to desired test depth or
1. Hydraulically push cone or Pencel Pressuremeter to desired depth
2. Inject equal volume increments of water; wait for system to stabilize and record
corresponding pressures
3. Test is complete once either 90 cm3 or 1200 cm3 is injected depending upon the
PMT model used
4. Apply three calibrations to raw data;
 one for inherent membrane resistance;
 a second for system or volumetric expansion (i.e. the tubing expands and
membrane contracts)
 and a third for the test depth (i.e. hydrostatic pressure at test depth must be
added to pressure read off gage)
 Pressuremeter Testing
Paul J. Cosentino, Ph.D., P.E.
10/24/2019
III. Pressuremeter Models

There are several PMT models currently available. They vary based on the length to
diameter ratio and whether they are tri-cell or mono-cell probes.

Ménard first developed a tri-cell probe as shown below. There are two outer cells,
called guard cells that are expanded first to ensure plain strain conditions during
testing with a center cell that is expanded at predetermined pressure increments to
complete the test. The disadvantages of the Ménard probe are that 1) a stress
controlled test is conducted resulting in few data 2) the testing procedure is complex
and 3) that a gas supply is required to conduct the test.

Volume Measurement

Pressure Gauge

Gas Supply

Gas

Measuring Cell Guard Cells

Gas

Figure 1 Ménard pressuremeter

To simplify the testing procedure Briaud developed a mono-cell probe. This
simplification yields a strain-controlled test producing more data points as known as
about 20 equal volume increments of water are injected into the probe and the
corresponding pressures are recorded.

There are two mono-cell models currently available, the standard size PMT known
as the TEXAM and the cone penetrometer size version known as the PENCEL PMT.
A schematic of a typical mono-cell PMT is shown below. As the actuator is turned a
known volume of water is forced into the probe through nylon tubing and pressures
are recorded from the pressure gage. For the TEXAM; 60 cm3 volume increments up
to 1200 cm3 are injected while for the PENCEL; 5 cm3 increments are injected up to
90 cm3.
Actuator

Volume
Indicator Control Unit

Pressure Gauge
Piston

Cylinder

Tubing

Pressuremeter

Figure 2 Schematic of Mono-Cell Pressuremeter

Schematic of a mono-cell pressuremeter
 Pressuremeter Testing
Paul J. Cosentino, Ph.D., P.E.
10/24/2019
The smaller PENCEL PMT is depicted below. The diameter of the probe is 1.35-inches
which is nearly the same the diameter of the Cone Penetrometer (CPT). It allows this probe
to be attached to cone rods and pushed into the soil. This feature allows a significant
number of tests to be conducted quickly. A photograph of the internal components of the
control unit is shown on the following page. It details the plumbing used to run the water
from the cylinder to the probe. It also includes the latest digital instrumentation that
enables operators to digitally acquire the reduced stress-strain data. The volume counter
runs from 0 to 135 cm3 and the pressure gage typically included reads pressures up to 2500

Figure 2: PENCEL Pressuremeter. 1. Probe, 2. Pressure Gauge, 3. Volume

Counter, 4. Actuator, 5. Tubing, 6. Calibration Tube
kPa (about 310 psi).

5
Figure 3 PENCEL Pressuremeter. 1. Probe, 2. Analogue Pressure Gage, 3. Analogue
Volume Counter, 4. Actuator, 5. Tubing, 6 Calibration Tube for System Expansion
 Cylinder

Digital Pressure
Transducer

Analogue
Linear Pressure Gage
Potentiometer

Electronics’
Module
Volume Counter
and Crank
Handle Assembly

Figure 4 Internal components of PENCEL Pressuremeter Control Unit

 Pressuremeter Testing
Paul J. Cosentino, Ph.D., P.E.
10/24/2019

Limit
Pressure
700
pL
600
Elastic
Phase Plastic
500
Phase
400
Sr
300
Pressure (kPa) Si
200 po Elastic Unloading
Reload
100 At-Rest Soil Phase
Pressure
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Volume (cm3)

Figure 5 Typical reduced pressuremeter data with definitions of key portions

A typical set of results is shown in Figure 5. This data indicates that after the soil reaches
the existing at rest pressure, it displays a relatively linear response up to about 400 kPa and
a nonlinear response typical of granular materials up to a limit pressure of about 650 kPa.

7
IV Applicable Pressuremeter Theories

There are two key parameters that define any material, the stiffness and the
strength. The stiffness is based on the elastic response of a material and for the
pressuremeter test the soil response which is nonlinear must be evaluated.

The basis for the pressuremeter theories is the assumption that the pressuremeter
probe causes the soil to expand according to plane strain conditions. Plane strain
typically occurs when one dimension is significantly very long compared to other
dimensions (Holtz and Kovacs 1981). The pressuremeter probe is thus considered
to be an infinitely long cylinder, expanding uniformly in the radial direction. This
assumption allows the soil moduli to be determined based on linear elastic theory
according to the equation:

P
E  2 1   V (1a)
V m

where, E = Young’s modulus

P = change in stress
V = change in volume related to P
V m = average volume over P
 = Poisson's Ratio (typically assumed to be 0.3 for unsaturated
conditions and 0.5 for saturated)

The relative radius increase in probe radius can be substituted into Equation 1a,
yielding the following equation used in analysis to determine moduli (Tucker and
Briaud 1986):

 R 1 2  R 2 2  P

E  1  1    1    2 2
 R o   R o   R1   R 2  (1b)
1    1  
 R o   R o 

where, R 1 = radius increase at point 1

R 2 = radius increase at point 2
 Pressuremeter Testing
Paul J. Cosentino, Ph.D., P.E.
10/24/2019

V. Settlement with the Pressuremeter

Menard and Rousseau (1962) developed the basic settlement equation from PMT
data. It is composed of two parts a deviatoric component and a spherical
component. Several empirical factors are required to perform the calculations but
the basic equation is:
2  B  
s qBo  d   qc B (2)
9Ed  Bo  Ec

where: s = total footing settlement

 Ed = pressuremeter modulus within the deviatoric zone of influence
Ec = pressuremeter modulus within the spherical zone of influence
q= net bearing pressure of the footing
d = shape factor for deviatoric term from the figure below
d = shape factor for spherical term from the figure below
 =rheological factor from the table below

9
 Menard's Shape Factors for Settlement

2.5

2.25

2
d
Factor  d,  c

1.75

1.5

1.25
c

1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Length/Width

Figure 6 Variation in Menards shape factors versus footing dimensions

To perform the calculations, divide the soil layers beneath the footing into layers
B/2 thick. Us the PMT modulus within the first layer for E c and an average
modulus over a depth of 16 layers each B/2 thick for Ed. Briaud (1992)
recommends a harmonic mean calculation for this deviatoric modulus.
 Pressuremeter Testing
Paul J. Cosentino, Ph.D., P.E.
10/24/2019
Table 1Menard Rheological Factor 

Peat Clay Silt Sand Sand & Gravel

Soil Type E/pL*  E/pL*  E/pL*  E/pL*  E/pL* 
Overconsolidated > 16 1 > 14 2/3 > 12 1/2 > 10 1/3
Normally
1 9-16 2/3 8-14 1/2 7-12 1/3 6-10 1/4
Consolidated
Weathered and/or
7-9 1/2 1/2 1/3 1/4
Remolded
Slightly Fractured or Extremely
Rock Highly Fractured 1/3 Other 1/2 2/3
Weathered

11
VI. Applications for Laterally Loaded Piles

The Robertson et al, Pushed in PMT Method (1986)

Robertson et al. (1986) suggested a method that uses the results of pushed-in
PMT to evaluate p-y curves of a driven pile. According to the authors, the results
provide an excellent comparison with lateral loaded pile test measurements. The
pressure component of the PMT curve is multiplied by an α-factor to obtain the
corrected p-y curve. Using finite element analysis Byrne and Atukorala (1983)
confirmed this factor, which was initially suggested by Hughes et al. (1979),
Robertson et al. (1986) corrected the factor α near the surface assuming that the
PMT response is affected by the lower vertical stress. The factor increases linearly
Multiplying Factor a
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
0
Relative Depth X/Bpile

Cohesive Soils
1 (clay)
Cohesionless Soils
4
(sand)
6

up to a critical depth, which is assumed to be four pile diameter (Dc = 4) as

shown in Figure 6.
Figure 7 Correction Factor “α” versus Relative Depth (From Robertson et al,. 1986)

To obtain the p-y curve, the PMT curve is re-zeroed to the lift-off pressure that is
assumed to be equivalent to the initial lateral stress around the pile. The stress is
 R 
multiplied by the pile width and the strain component   is multiplied by the
 R 
 R   V 
pile half width. For a small strain condition   is assumed equal to  
 R   2V 
where R and V are radius and volume of the PMT respectively.

Since the installation of the pushed in PMT produces an initial pressure on the
probe, an unload/reload sequence is often used. The portion of the corrected
PMT curve from the beginning of reload through the maximum volume is
recommended for determining p-y curves of driven piles, while the initial slope
 Pressuremeter Testing
Paul J. Cosentino, Ph.D., P.E.
10/24/2019
from the PMT tests is recommended for constructing p-y curves for augured
piles. The following equations outline the process for driven piles:
a) Determine the initial radius of the probe:

Initial Circumference of Probe

R0  (2)
2
b) Calculate the initial volume of the probe (Vo):

2
V 0  * RP * Length of Membrane (3)
c) Determine P in units of force / length:
First a correction factor, , is applied to P according to Figure 6, where the
relative depth is the depth from the ground surface to the center of the
z ppmt
membrane. Note that for    4 for sands and for clays and if
Bpile
z ppmt
 4 then  can be found as follows:
Bpile
1.5 * z ppmt 
 for sands (4)
4 * Bpile
 2 * z ppmt
  0.67  for clays (5)
4 * Bpile
Then
P  (Corr. Pressure from PMT) * ( Bpile ) * ( ) (6)
where: Bpile = pile diameter or width.
d) Determine y in units of length according to the following equation:

(Corr. Volume from PMT) Bpile

y * (7)
2 * V0 2

The Briaud et al, Method (1992)

Briaud et al (1992) recommended that the p-y curves be constructed from the
addition of the front and side resistance components along the pile. The total soil
resistance P as a function of lateral movement y of the pile, is given by the
equation:
P =F+Q (8)

where
F = friction resistance
Q = front resistance

13
Briaud suggested for the full displacement driven piles, that the reload portion of
the PMT curves be used. Graphically, the p-y curve is shown as the addition of
the F-y curve and the Q-y curve in Figure 7.

Friction Front P=Q+F

shear F Resistance
p
Q
P
PILE F Q F

Pressure Q

y
(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 8 Front and side resistance components for P-y curve construction

Smith (1983) showed excellent correlations between the pressures obtained from
the PMT response and those acting on the pile. The front pressure contribution,
Q, is found from the net limit pressure pL* determined as:
p L *  p L  p0 (9)
where; pL is the limit pressure and p0 is the horizontal stress at rest pressure
obtained from the PMT curve. The frontal resistance, Q is obtained by choosing
pressure points from the reduced PMT plot and using the equation:
Q( front )  p ( pmt )  B( pile )  S ( Q ) (10)
The side friction, F(side), of the pile is taken as a constant with depth and is given
by the equation:
F( side )   ( soil )  B( pile )  S ( F ) (11)
To obtain the associated lateral pile deflections, choose PMT deflections and
apply the following equation. The deflections must be less than those obtained
from the PMT test and would equate to the change in radii obtained during
expansion.
R( pile )
y ( pile )  y ( pmt )  (12)
R0 ( pmt )
Where: Q(front) = soil resistance due to front reaction with unit of force /unit
length of pile
F(side) = soil resistance due to friction resistance with unit of force /unit
length of pile
p(pmt) = pL* = net pressuremeter pressure
B(pile) = pile width or diameter
 Pressuremeter Testing
Paul J. Cosentino, Ph.D., P.E.
10/24/2019
τ(soil) = maximum soil shear stress-strain at the soil-pile interface
S(Q) = shape factor ( = 0.8 or π/4 for circular piles, 1.0 for square piles)
S(F) = shape factor ( = 1.0 for circular piles, 2.0 for square piles)
y(pile) = lateral deflection of the pile
y(pmt) = increase in radius of the soil cavity in the PMT test or radial
displacement.
R(pile) = pile half-width or radius
R0(pmt) = R0 = initial radius of the soil cavity in PMT test
This method does rely on an accurate estimate of the shear strength, which could
be found from other field-testing performed during the site investigation.

The displacement of soil around the laterally loaded pile is also influenced by the
ground surface. A reduction in the corrected PMT pressures is recommended for
values near the ground surface. A critical depth (Dc), to which pressures and
displacements are influenced, depends on the pile load, diameter and stiffness.
Briaud suggested using a relative rigidity factor, RR, given by:
1 EI
RR  4 (13)
B( pile ) pL *

EI = pile flexural stiffness (E= pile modulus, I = pile moment of inertia)

B( pile ) = pile diameter or width

pL* = net PMT limit pressure

Briaud et al. (1992) relationship results in relative rigidities slightly greater than
10 for most laterally loaded piles in soft clays and the resulting critical depth will
be near 4, therefore Robertson’s value of 4 is recommended. The critical depths
for the PMT as recommended by (Baguelin et al., 1978) are 15 PMT diameters for
cohesive soils, and 30 PMT diameters for cohesionless soils.

The Briaud et al. (1992) suggested reduction factor  is shown in Figure 8 as a

function of relative depth (z/zc). The PMT curve is then corrected by using:

15
 p
p corr  (14)


Figure 9 Briaud’s recommended PMT pressure reduction factor for values

near the ground surface
VII. References

1. Cosentino, Paul J., Edward Kalajian, Ryan Stansifer, ,J Brian Anderson,

Kishore Kattamuri, Graduate Research Assistant, Sunil Sundaram,
Graduate Research Assistant, Farid Messaoud, Thaddeus J. Misilo, Marcus
A Cottingham (2006) Final Report, Standardizing the Pressuremeter Test for
Determining p-y Curves for Laterally Loaded Piles, Florida Institute of
Technology, Civil Engineering Department, Florida Department of
Transportation, Contract Number BC-819.
2. Briaud, J.L., 1997. “Simple Approach for Lateral Loads on Piles”. Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 123, No. 10
pp. 958-964.
3. Robertson, P. K., Campanella, R. G., Brown, P. T., Grof, I., and Hughes, J.
M., (1985). “Design of Axially and Laterally Loaded Piles Using In Situ
Tests : A Case History”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 22, No. 4,
pp.518-527.
4. Robertson, P.K., Davis, M.P., Campanella, R.G.. (1989). “Design of
Laterally Loaded Driven Piles Using the Flat Dilatometer”, ASTM
Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol.12, No. 1, pp30-38.
5. Robertson, P.K., Hughes, J.M.O., Campanella, R.G., and Sy, A., 1983.
“Design of Laterally Loaded Displacement Piles Using a Driven
 Pressuremeter Testing
Paul J. Cosentino, Ph.D., P.E.
10/24/2019
Pressuremeter”. ASTM STP 835, Design and Performance of Laterally
Loaded Piles and Piles Groups, Kansas City, Mo.
6. Robertson, P.K., Hughes, J.M.O., Campanella, R.G., Brown, P., and
McKeown, S., 1986. “Design of Laterally Loaded Displacement Piles Using
the Pressuremeter”. ASTM STP 950, pp. 443-457.
7. Robertson, P.K., and Hughes, J.M.O., 1985. “Determination of Properties
of Sand from Self-Boring Pressuremeter Tests”. The Pressuremeter and Its
Marine Applications, Second International Symposium.

17