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

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 [Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)]. They use relatively sophisticated

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 Ménard type (MPM) (Ménard 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
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).

1
Asst. Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, The present paper focuses on the interpretation of undrained
TX 77843.
2
Prof., Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., Massachusetts Inst. of Technol.,
shear strength from self-boring and displacement-type pres-
Cambridge, MA 02139. suremeter tests in clays. The writers present results of analyses
3
Edmund K. Turner Prof., Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., Massachu- that show how different modes of pressuremeter installation
setts Inst. of Technol., Cambridge, MA. have a major effect on the undrained shear strengths derived
Note. Discussion open until May 1, 2001. To extend the closing date form these tests. Changes in soil stresses and properties caused
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of by installation are predicted using strain path analyses (Baligh
Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on September 11, 1998. This paper is part of the
1985) with a generalized effective stress soil model, MIT-E3
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 126, (Whittle and Kavvadas 1994), that simulates realistic shear
No. 12, December, 2000. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/00/0012-1133–1144/ stress-strain strength properties for a typical low-plasticity clay
$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No. 19238. [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.

FIG. 1. Self-Boring and Displacement Pressuremeters: (a) Self-Boring Camkometer (Wroth and Hughes 1973); (b) Jetting Tip Device
(Benoı̂t et al. 1995); (c) Full Displacement (Withers et al. 1986); (d) Push-In (Henderson et al. 1980)

TABLE 1. Pressuremeter Geometries

Diameter, B Membrane Wall aspect
Device (mm) Length ratio, L/B position, zc /B ratio, B/w Reference
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
SBPM—camkometer 83 6 5 12a Wroth and Hughes (1973)
SBPM—PAFSOR — 2, 4 — — Baguelin et al. (1972)
SBPM—jetting camkometer — 6 — 12a Benoı̂t et al. (1995)
FDPM 44 5–10 25–42 2 Withers et al. (1986)
PIPM 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 TABLE 2. Pressuremeter Test Procedures
from SBPM tests performed at a well-documented site in Bos- Penetra- Membrane
ton (Ladd et al. 1998). tion rate Delay time expansion
Device (cm/min) (min) rate Reference
BACKGROUND (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
SBPM — — 6–9 kPa/min Benoı̂t and Clough
Typical Equipment and Procedures (1986)
SBPM 2.5–5.0 30–180a 7 kPa/min Denby and Clough
Self-boring pressuremeters operate on the principle that soil (1980)
that enters the cutting shoe is mixed into a slurry (with the SBPM 1.7 120–1,300 1%/min Lacasse et al.
drilling fluid) and removed by flushing between the casing and (1990)
drive shaft. The original devices—the PAFSOR (Baguelin et SBPM 1.5–2.0 90–1,300a — Lacasse and Lunne
al. 1972) and camkometer (Wroth and Hughes 1973)—use a (1982)
rotating mechanical cutting bit, while the more recent device SBPM 20.0 — — Windle and Wroth
(1977)
described by Benoı̂t et al. (1995) uses a jetting tip to improve SBPM — 30 1%/min Ladd et al. (1980)
the efficiency of the installation process [Fig. 1(b)]. Apart from FDPM 120.0 1.5–13 5–10%/min Campanella et al.
the cutting mechanism (and methods for supporting the mem- (1990)
brane during installation), the primary differences in the de- a
Full dissipation of installation-induced excess pore pressures.
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- Membrane expansion is usually performed to a maximum
brane [the design by Benoı̂t et al. (1995) has three sets of three strain ⌬R/R0 = 10–20% (Windle and Wroth 1977; Campanella
feeler arms to measure radial displacements of the membrane]. et al. 1990).
Some camkometer designs are also equipped with a pore pres- The FDPM combines the profiling capabilities of a conven-
sure transducer that can be used to help control the cutting tional piezocone, through measurements of tip resistance and
procedure and to measure the radial effective stress acting on pore pressures during steady penetration, with membrane ex-
the membrane. Table 2 summarizes reported variations in pansion data obtained at selected elevations (when the probe
probe penetration rate, equilibration/delay time (prior to mem- is stationary). Typical device geometrics and test procedures
brane expansion), and rate of expansion used in SBPM tests. 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 su from Pressuremeter Tests

Shear
Method Reference stress-strain Initial stresses Key equation for su Notes and definitions
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
GA Gibson and Anderson EPP Elastic unloading of P = ␴h 0 ⫹ su{1 ⫹ ln[(⌬V/V)/(G/su)]}; ␴h 0 = in situ total horizontal stress;
(1961) borehole SBPM case—no stress release G = elastic shear modulus
WW Windle and Wroth EPP Undisturbed, uniform P = PL ⫹ su{1 ⫹ ln[⌬V/V]} PL = limit pressure at infinite expan-
(1977) sion (i.e., ⌬V/V → 1)
BPL Baguelin et al. (1972); None Undisturbed, uniform qh = ε0(1 ⫹ ε0)(1 ⫹ ε0 /2)dP/dε0 ; qh = (␴rr ⫺ ␴␪␪)/2 is cavity shear
Palmer (1972); La- dP stress adjacent to membrane su
danyi (1972) qh = equated with peak qh
d(ln⌬V/V)
HW Houlsby and Withers EPP Cylindrical cavity ex- su ⬇ [(ε e0 ⫺ ε0)/2](dP/dε0) = ε e0 = maximum membrane strain at
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(1988) pansion 1/2dP/d ln(Ve /V); Contraction phase 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:
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., su = q hmax). 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.,
K0, G, su) 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 K0 and su.
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

再 冉 冊冎
2 pressuremeter is expanded to the maximum radius Re . The
1 ⌬V R natural (Hencky) strains during the contraction phase are de-
εrr = ⫺ε␪␪ = ⫺ ln 1⫺ (1)
2 V r fined by
The radial displacement of the membrane itself is usually re-
ported in terms of the ‘‘pressuremeter strain,’’ ε0 = ⌬R/R0 ,
which can also be related to the current volumetric strain
(ε e0 ⫺ ε 0) = ln 冉冊
Re
R
=
1
2
ln冉冊
Ve
V
(3)

Subsequent test interpretations presented in the current pa-

⌬V 1
=1⫺
V (1 ⫹ ε0)2
where ε0 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, qh ,
can be derived from the differential of the measured expansion
curve [and the corresponding shear strain, ␥ = εrr ⫺ 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
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2000 / 1135
(2) 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, suPM , 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 ε0 ⬇ 1%,
estimated from SBPM tests in soft clays are typically
30–50% higher than reference values, suTC , measured in
high-quality, K0-consolidated undrained triaxial compres-
sion shear tests (CK0 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., P0 ≠ ␴h0). Data from

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

 Ghionna et al, (1982) and Benoı̂t and Clough (1986) in-
dicate that low SBPM contact pressures (P0 < ␴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 (P0,
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
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
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 P0 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 suTC 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 suPM
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. Prévost (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 Benoı̂t 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
1136 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2000
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2000, 126(12): 1133-1144
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, E1 = εzz , E2 = 1/公3(εrr ⫺ ε␪␪), and E3 =
2/公3εrz , 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 = 1/兹2{E 21 ⫹ E 22 ⫹ E 23}1/2,
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 ⱕ 0.5% in triaxial compression
(CK0 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 ⱖ 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-
FIG. 2. Octahedral Shear Strains from Strain Path Models of:
(a) Full-Displacement Pressuremeters (FDPM); (b) Push-In Pres-
suremeters (PIPM)

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 3. Octahedral Shear Strains from Strain Path Models of:
(a) Push-In Pressuremeters (PIPM); (b) Ideal Self-Boring Pres-
suremeters
trolled by the volume of soil displaced and can be normalized
by introducing the equivalent radius of the tube, Req ⬇
兹Bw. For the push-in pressuremeter, Req = 23 mm is very
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 ⱕ f ⱕ 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-
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2000 / 1137
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2000, 126(12): 1133-1144
FIG. 4. Predicted and Measured Undrained Strength Ratios
from CK0 U Tests on Resedimented Boston Blue Clay (Whittle et
al. 1994)
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 K0-con-
solidated clays measured in a wide range of laboratory un-
drained shear tests on normally to moderately over
consolidated clays [1 ⱕ overconsolidation ratio (OCR) ⱕ 4].
Fig 4 summarizes model predictions and measured undrained
shear strength ratio, su /␴⬘vc , 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 ⱕ 2. The undrained strengths from direct
simple shear tests (Geonor type, CK0 UDSS) are interpreted
using the conventional assumption, and suDSS = ␶hmax roughly
corresponds to the average of the undrained strengths mea-
sured in CK0 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 k0-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 uCE /␴⬘vc = 0.21 and 0.70
at OCR = 1.0 and 4.0, respectively) are in close agree-
ment with ratios from CK0 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
 tends to overestimate the shear stiffness (especially at
OCR = 4). This result reflects limitations in model pre-
dictive capabilities for OCR ⱖ 4.
3. 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 uCE /␴⬘vc = 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
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(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.
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 (zc /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 K0-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 ⫺ u0) at the membrane
(⌬u/␴⬘v 0 > 1.2), with excess pore pressures extending to more
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
1138 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2000
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2000, 126(12): 1133-1144
FIG. 7. Effect of Extraction Ratio on Installation Disturbance
for Self-Boring Pressuremeter in K0-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 (Ki =
␴⬘rr /␴⬘v0 ⬇ 0.1), compared to the initial K0 = 0.48 condition.
Similar reductions in the mean (octahedral) effective stress
(␴⬘/␴⬘v0) 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 qh /␴⬘v0 = 0.1–0.2 for r = 100–500 mm
(compared to the reference strength, suCE /␴⬘v0 = 0.21, Fig. 5).
At radial distances exceeding 1,000–2,000 mm, the stress
components approach intact values: ␴⬘rr /␴⬘v0 = 0.48, ␴⬘/␴⬘v0 =
0.65, qh /␴⬘v0 = ⌬u/␴⬘v0 = 0.
After dissipation of excess pore pressures [Figs. 6(c) and
6(d)], the radial effective stress is almost completely restored
to the initial K0 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 ␴⬘v0 =
0.65).
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
(Ki ⬇ 0.05–0.1; ␴⬘/␴⬘v 0 ⬇ 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 qh /␴⬘v0 [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
 substantial changes in the effective stresses within the soil as
well as changes in lift-off pressure P0.
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
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
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-u0)/␴⬘v0 (where P is the total membrane pressure;
u0 and ␴⬘v 0 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(Ve /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

FIG. 8. Effect of Immediate Installation Disturbance on Pre-
dicted Pressuremeter Expansion and Contraction in K0-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
undrained strength ratios, suPM /␴⬘v0 , 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,
suCE /␴⬘v0 = 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 suPM /␴⬘v0. Undrained
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 K0 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 K0 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

TABLE 4. Predicted Peak Undrained Strength Ratios from Pressuremeter Test Simulations (L/B = ⬁)
Aspect Ratio, B/w SBPM Extraction Ratio, f
OCR Expand or
(suCE /␴⬘v 0) 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 0.05a 0.07a 0.13a 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 0.10a 0.14a 0.26a — — 0.60
— Immediate Contract 0.40 0.34 0.35 — — 0.36
— Vestigial Expand 0.17a 0.20a 0.29a — — —
— Vestigial Contract 0.33 0.39 0.40 — — —
4.0 (0.71) Immediate Expand 0.19 0.22a 0.43a — — 0.92
— Immediate Contract 0.63 0.57 0.59 — — 0.64
— Vestigial Expand 0.11 0.18a 0.31a — — —
— Vestigial Contract 0.68 0.69 0.67 — — —
a
Nonlinear expansion curve su reported at ⌬V/V = 10%.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2000 / 1139

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

 of the displacement and self-boring pressuremeter simulations.
In each case, it is possible to define a linear pressure-volu-
metric strain response for Ve /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
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
in situ K0 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 K0 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 K0-Normally Consolidated
BBC: (a) Expansion; (b) Contraction
FIG. 11. Effect of Vestigial Disturbance on Predicted Pressure-
meter Expansion and Contraction in Overconsolidated BBC: (a)
Expansion; (b) Contraction
1140 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2000
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2000, 126(12): 1133-1144
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
K0 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 ⫹ ε0)⫺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 (Benoı̂t 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 Stress-Strain Behavior in BBC
 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 ε0 ⱕ 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
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
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 (Benoı̂t 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. Index Properties, In Situ Stresses, and Stress History
at South Boston Special Test Site (Ladd et al. 1998)
FIG. 15. Averaging of Radial Strain Measurements for Central
Set of SBPM Feeler Arms
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2000 / 1141
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2000, 126(12): 1133-1144
formed at rates of dP/dt = 28–55 kPa/min. Fig. 14 summarizes
the soil profile, index properties, stress history, and initial K0
conditions at the South Boston site based on high-quality lab-
oratory tests. The liquid limits (wL = 40–60%) and plasticity
indices (Ip = 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 (␴⬘)p 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 k0 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 K0 [Fig. 14(c)]. Scatter in feeler arm measurements
has also been reported from carefully conducted tests by a
number of previous investigators (Benoı̂t and Clough 1986;
Lacasse et al. 1990). The shear stress-strain behavior is found
by defining an average pressuremeter strain, ε̄0 , assuming that
the membrane remains circular (with central axis offset at lo-
cation O⬘ in Fig. 15), and using numerical differentiation of
the P-ε̄0 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
at small strains (ε̄0 ⱕ 1.0%), postpeak strain softening, and
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
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.,
ε̄0 = 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
FIG. 16. Comparison of Predicted and Derived Shear Stress-
Strain Behavior from SBPM Expansion Tests at South Boston
Site

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 P0, 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 (Prévost 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 K0-consolidated samples in triaxial
compression, triaxial extension, and direct simple shear modes
(CK0 UC, CK0 UE, and CK0 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 ε̄0 = 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.
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
1142 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2000
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2000, 126(12): 1133-1144
in the surrounding soil, such that the contact pressures
(P0) 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 P0 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 P0 and increases the
derived strength (Benoı̂t and Clough 1986). As P0 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 k0.
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 ε̄0 = 3–6%. These
saddle point strengths are in good agreement with labo-
ratory data in the clay crust where OCR ⱖ 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.
APPENDIX I. NUMERICAL DIFFERENTIATION OF
PRESSUREMETER CURVE
Evaluation of the apparent mobilized cavity stress, qh , 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 P̂(ε0) to the
measured pressuremeter curve about the point where the de-
rivative is to be calculated; and (2) analytically differentiates
P̂(ε0). The local least-squares fitting function is of the form
P̂(xi) = a0 ⫹ a1 xi ⫹ a2 x 2i (4)
where xi = measured values of ε̄0. the coefficients ai are com-
puted from the matrix equation
ZT WP = ZT WZA (5)
T
where P = [Pi] = measured pressures; A = [a0, a1, a2]; and
ZT = [1, xi , x 2i ]. the weighting matrix W assigns full weight to
 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
再
1 for 兩 i ⫺ n 兩 ⱕ nw
wi = (6)
0 for 兩 i ⫺ n 兩 > nw
where wi = weight factor for point i; n = data point at which
the derivative is evaluated; and nw defines the number of data
points included in the derivative evaluation. Calculations in
the present paper use nw = 2 throughout.
The slope of the pressuremeter curve is computed as
ˆ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
dP
= a1 ⫹ 2a2 xn (7)
dxn
and the apparent cavity shear stress, qh , 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 Benoı̂t
and his students at the University of New Hampshire. The writers thank
Dr. Benoı̂t 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.’’
Géotechnique, London, 36(4), 471–485.
Baligh, M. M. (1986b). ‘‘Undrained deep penetration: II. Pore pressures.’’
Géotechnique, 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.
Benoı̂t, 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.
Benoı̂t, 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.
Benoı̂t, 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.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2000 / 1143
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2000, 126(12): 1133-1144
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.’’ Géotechnique, London, 43(4),
567–576.
Houlsby, G. T., and Withers, N. (1988). ‘‘Analysis of the cone pres-
suremeter test in clay.’’ Géotechnique, 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.
Ménard, 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.’’ Géo-
technique, London, 22(3), 451–457.
Prévost J. H., and Høeg, K. (1975). ‘‘Analysis of the pressuremeter in
strain-softening soil.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 101(8), 717–
732.
Prévost, 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.’’ Géotechnique,
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-
 stitutive model for overconsolidated clays.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, R = current pressuremeter radius;
120(1), 173–198. Re = maximum pressuremeter radius;
Windle, D., and Wroth, C. P. (1977). ‘‘The use of a self-boring pressure- Req = equivalent pressuremeter radius;
meter to determine the undrained properties of clays.’’ Ground Engrg., R0 = initial pressuremeter radius;
Sept., 37–46.
Withers, N. J., Schapp, L. H. J., and Dalton, C. P. (1986). ‘‘The devel-
r = radial coordinate;
opment of the full displacement pressuremeter.’’ The pressuremeter and su = undrained shear strength;
its marine applications, ASTM STP 950, West Conshohocken, Pa., 38– suCE = undrained shear strength in cylindrical cavity expan-
56. sion mode;
Wood, D. M. (1981). ‘‘True triaxial tests on Boston blue clay.’’ Proc., suDSS = undrained shear strength from direct simple shear
10th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg., 825–830. (DSS) test (␶h max);
Wroth, C. P. (1984). ‘‘The interpretation of in situ soil tests.’’ Géotech- suPM = undrained shear strength from pressuremeter test;
nique, London, 34(4), 447–492. suTC = undrained shear strength from CK0 UC test;
Wroth, C. P., and Hughes, J. M. O. (1973). ‘‘An instrument for the in- td = delay time prior to membrane expansion;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

situ measurement of the properties of soft clays.’’ Proc., 8th Int. Conf.
on Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg., 1.2, 487–494.
U = probe penetration rate;
Yeung, K. S., and Carter, J. P. (1990). ‘‘Interpretation of the pressuremeter u = pore pressure;
test in clay allowing for membrane end effects and material non- u0 = in situ pore pressure;
homogeneity.’’ Pressuremeters, Institute of Civil Engineers, London, V = current pressuremeter volume;
199–208. Ve = maximum pressuremeter volume;
V0 = initial pressuremeter volume;
APPENDIX III. NOTATION w = pressuremeter wall thickness;
z = depth;
The following symbols are used in this paper: zc = vertical distance from probe tip to center of membrane;
␥ = shear strain, εrr ⫺ ε␪␪;
B = probe diameter; ⌬u = excess pore pressure, u ⫺ u0;
CK0 U = K0-consolidated undrained shear test; εrr, ε␪␪ = radial, circumferential strain;
E = octahedral shear strain; ε0 = pressuremeter strain, ⌬R/R0;
Ei = transformed shear strain components; ε e0 = maximum pressuremeter strain (end of expansion
f = extraction ratio during SBPM penetration; phase);
G = elastic shear modulus; ␴ = mean stress;
K0 = coefficient of earth pressure at rest; ␴⬘p = vertical preconsolidation pressure;
OCR = overconsolidation ratio, ␴⬘/␴⬘
p v0; ␴h 0 = total in situ horizontal stress;
P = membrane pressure; ␴rr , ␴␪␪ = radial, circumferential stress;
PL = limit pressure at infinite expansion (⌬V/V → 1); ␴⬘v c = consolidation vertical effective stress;
P0 = lift-off pressure in pressuremeter test; ␴⬘v 0 = in situ vertical effective stress; and
qh = cavity shear stress (maximum shear stress acting in ␶h = shear stress acting on horizontal plane (e.g., in DSS
horizontal plane); test).

1144 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2000

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