See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282071134

Interpretation of pressuremeter tests in rock

Conference Paper · May 2015

CITATION READS

1 4,903

1 author:

Kedar Birid
Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd.
18 PUBLICATIONS   17 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Case Study View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kedar Birid on 22 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ISP7-PRESSIO 2015. Frikha, Varaksin & Gambin (Eds.) © 2015

INTERPRETATION OF PRESSUREMETER TESTS IN ROCK

INTERPRETATION D’ESSAIS PRESSIOMETRIQUES DANS LA ROCHE

1
Kedar C. Birid
1 Asst. Manager, Toyo Engineering India Ltd., Mumbai, India

ABSTRACT - The paper aims at evaluating various in situ rock mass parameters using
pressuremeter tests (PMTs). The PMTs were conducted on moderately weathered and
fractured basalt, tuff and breccia formations below the seabed using an OYO pressuremeter.
Laboratory tests were also carried out on cored rock samples, retrieved from the same
boreholes and depths in which pressuremeter tests have been carried out. The in situ elastic
moduli from PMT (Em) are compared with deformation values from other methods of
interpretation using different correlations. Lateral load analysis of pile foundation is carried out
based on the PMT results using different interpretation methods and LPile software is used to
present the results Based on these studies it has been observed that PMTs can be used in
weak and fractured rock formations mainly to obtain the rock mass modulus and sometimes the
pressuremeter limit pressure. The PMT can also be used in fractured rock to evaluate
parameters useful for foundation design such as the coefficient of subgrade reaction for
instance.

RÉSUMÉ - L'étude vise à évaluer différents paramètres de roche in situ à l'aide de l'essai
pressiométrique (PMT). Les PMT ont été effectués sous le fond marin dans des basaltes
modérément altérés et fracturées, des tufs et des brèches à l'aide d’un pressiomètre de type
OYO. Des essais en laboratoire ont été également effectués sur des échantillons de roche
carottés, récupérés des mêmes forages et profondeurs où les essais pressiométriques ont été
effectués. Les modules de déformation (Em), obtenus des mesures pressiométriques sont
comparées avec les résultats obtenus d'autres méthodes d’interprétation, utilisant différentes
corrélations. L’analyse des contraintes dans un pieu soumis à des efforts horizontaux est faite
suivant différentes méthodes et les résultats sont présentés par le programme LPile. Selon
cette étude, il a été observé que l’essai pressiométrique peut être utilisé dans les formations
rocheuses tendres et fracturées principalement pour obtenir le module (Em) du massif rocheux
et dans certains cas la pression limite pressiométrique. L'essai pressiométrique permet
également d'évaluer des paramètres utiles pour la conception des fondations dans un massif
de roche fracturée comme, le coefficient de réaction p. ex.

1. Introduction

When the geological conditions are such that the weathered rock is highly fractured, it is very
difficult to take samples for laboratory test. Furthermore, when tested in the laboratory, the
strength and the stiffness properties of the intact rock fragments are not representative of the in
situ weathered rock mass. Therefore, if geological conditions vary with depth, in situ measured
properties are expected to provide the best data for design. The pressuremeter test (PMT) is
an in situ test to measure rock mass properties in a prebored borehole. Much research has
been done in the past to analize PMT data in sand and clay, however very few case studies are
available of PMTs carried out in fractured rock. As the author had an opportunity to carry out
PMTs in fractured rock from Mumbai, India region, an attempt has been made to analize the
results based on available literature.
While there are many potential mathematical functions to represent non-linear curves (such
as power, exponential, and hyperbolic functions) past research has suggested, power or
hyperbolic functions as appropriate for the representation of P-Y curves in soil. The response of
laterally loaded piles in terms of P-Y curves was studied using PMT results based on analytical

289
 ISP7-PRESSIO 2015. Frikha, Varaksin & Gambin (Eds.) © 2015

approach and LPile design software. The various other design parameters such as limit
pressure, subgrade modulus, rock mass modulus are evaluated using PMT results which can
be used for the design of shallow and deep foundations in fractured rock mass.

2. Geological Settings of the Region under investigation

The region under investigation is characterized by different types of rock formations such as
basalt, tuff and breccia. After Sethna (1999), the geology of Mumbai, India is believed to be
slightly younger than the flood basalts of the main Deccan province, having been extruded in
the early Tertiary period (Palaeocene), approximately 63 million years ago.
The generalized stratification in this region consists of 0.5m of soil overburden below the sea
bed followed by moderately weathered and highly fractured rock formations. The majority of in
situ testing was carried out on basalt rock and few on breccia and tuff rock. The weathering
degree of basalt, breccia and tuff rock is varying from moderately weathered to fresh and the
rock masses are highly jointed.

3. Method of Testing and Data Logging using Pressuremeter

The PMTs were carried out in a pre-bored hole of 76mm in diameter (NX/NQ) by means of the
radial expansion of a prepared test pocket at the required depth using an OYO “Elastmeter 2”,
with a rated pressure range of 0 to 20MPa. The pressure and the subsequent radial
displacement of the probe membrane were continuously monitored by strain gauged
transducers contained within the instrument. Plotting these readings of displacement against
pressure produces a loading curve of the material being tested. The instrument was then
lowered into the borehole at the required depth and a test was carried out by applying pressure
gradually and recording the corresponding displacements. The water pressure was applied in
small intervals and a time lag of 60 sec was maintained between every pressure increment. At
each load level, the pressure was held constant for a period of 60 seconds, allowing sufficient
time for readings to stabilize and to observe any creep deformation. The end of test was
reached when the maximum pressure of 20 MPa was applied or when the membrane bursted.
Before the maximum pressure was applied, one or two reload loops were performed. During
the test pressure and displacement values were recorded and at the end of the test, a loading
curve (pressure vs. displacement) was plotted after applying various corrections to the
readings. The evolution of the probe dilatation at each pressure hole was carefully observed
during the test so as to produce an optimal pressuremeter curve and to minimize membrane
ruptures.

4. Pressuremeter Results

4.1 Typical pressuremeter curve

A typical stress-strain curve based on a pressuremeter test performed in a pre-bored borehole

is shown in figure 1. “Phase I occurs when the probe adapts to the size of the borehole (pocket)
and pushes its walls back to their natural position. Phase II, being almost a straight line,
corresponds to microplastic (or pseudo-elastic) strains. Phase III reflects large, plastic
deformations of soil. It serves for limit pressure PL determination” (Tarnawski, 2004).

290
 ISP7-PRESSIO 2015. Frikha, Varaksin & Gambin (Eds.) © 2015

Figure 1. Typical PMT Curve.

4.2 Pressuremeter curves from the test site

Different types of PMT curves have been studied and discussed by Hughes (2002) and
Tarnawski (2004) based on the shape. Most of the shape anomalies occur when the borehole
is oversized (it is too loose) or the borehole is of too small in diameter (it is too tight) or the
borehole walls are disturbed.

The results of actual PMT are divided into three types based on their shape as shown in fig. 2
and the probable reasons for getting such shapes are assessed.

Type-I Type-II Type-III

Figure 2. Types of observed PMT curves.

The Type-I curve does not have any marked phases (I-III), being almost a straight line. In
this case the expanding probe penetrates loosened zones most probably to the very end of the
test. It has happened because of highly fractured rock and because the drilling method was
unsuitable or the slurry is too thin.
Type-II shape of the curve indicates oversized borehole in undisturbed state. The borehole
data at this level indicates strong basalt with less fracturing. However we notice the absence of
distinct phases and that the curve does not pass the whole modulus zone.
Type-III curve indicates the 3 distinct phases of deformation and can be considered as the
correct pressuremeter curve. The rock in this region is slightly to moderately strong and
moderately weathered basalt with randomly oriented fractures.
The different types of PMT curves for different types of rock and the corresponding values of
test depths, Rock Mass Rating (RMR) and Rock Quality Designation (RQD) are summarized in
table I.

291
 ISP7-PRESSIO 2015. Frikha, Varaksin & Gambin (Eds.) © 2015

Table I. RMR, RQD, and Type of PMT curve

Type of Borehole Depth of test, Type of
RMR RQD, %
Rock No. m PMT Curve
M10 1.50 40 11 I
M10 3.00 60 82 II
M6 1.50 43 7 III
M6 3.00 43 14 III
M6 4.50 67 90 II
M6 6.00 59 100 II
M6 16.10 56 57 I
M12 1.50 9 0 III
Basalt M12 3.00 9 0 III
M12 6.00 10 9 III
M12 7.50 12 10 III
W12 4.50 60 82 III
M2 4.70 33 29 I
W17 3.00 28 6 III
H4 6.00 29 0 III
H4 8.00 31 0 III
H4 10.00 31 0 I
W10 3.60 28 9 III
W10 5.10 40 53 III
Tuff W15A 1.50 32 9 III
H4 18.00 43 52 II
H4 22.00 36 73 II
H2 6.00 34 42 II
Breccia H2 8.00 41 50 II
H2 10.00 31 0 III

It can be observed from table I that the type I curve is obtained for RQD values raging
between 0%-57%, type II curve is obtained for RQD ranging between 50%-100% and type III
curve is obtained for RQD values ranging between 0%-14% with exceptional high values of
53% in borehole W10 at 5.1 m depth and 82% in borehole W12 at 4.50m depth.

5. Rock Mass Rating (RMR)

Rock Mass Rating (RMR) is one of the various methods of characterization for rocks. RMR is
an engineering classification system developed by Bieniawski (1973). The classification system
uses six rock mass parameters such as uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock (UCS),
RQD, spacing of discontinuities, condition of discontinuities, groundwater conditions and
orientation of discontinuities. To apply the RMR classification, the ratings are assigned to the
six parameters for each site considering typical, rather than the worst, conditions. The RMR is
evaluated for each borehole and specific depth where the PMT has been carried out. This
evaluation helped in understanding the behavior of rock mass with different properties under
the PMT loading as indicated in table I.

6. PMT Moduli versus RMR/RQD Rock Mass Moduli

“In practice, rocks often contain discontinuities which implies the expansion curve is a function
of rock mass behavior which could include development of fissures and opening and/or closing

292
 ISP7-PRESSIO 2015. Frikha, Varaksin & Gambin (Eds.) © 2015

of existing discontinuities. The modulus from an unload-reload cycle, in general, represents the
stiffness of the intact rock (Johnston and Haberfield, 1990) that is an upper bound value. The
initial modulus may represent the stiffness of the rock mass” (Clarke et al.,1998). However such
elastic modulus is different from the pressuremeter modulus. The Pressuremeter Modulus (Em)
is determined using equation 1 (after Briaud, 1992) from the linear, pseudo-elastic deformation
zone of the load/deformation curve which is actually a shear modulus. (phase II in fig.1):

Em = (1+µ)*rm*Km (1)

where,

Km = ΔP/ΔR, according to the points at the beginning (r0; P0) and the end (r1; P1) of the
pseudo-elastic phase

and
rm = (r0 + r1)/2

The Shear Modulus (G) is determined using the following equation assuming a suitable
value of Poisson’s ratio for the strata encountered in the test pocket:

G = Em/2 (1+µ ) (2)

The rock mass modulus Em thus evaluated, using the pseudo-elastic section of the PMT
curve is compared with the results of Em moduli based on the results of RMR and RQD
classifications and Elastic Moduli of intact rock core (Ei). The various equations to evaluate the
rock mass deformation modulus are discussed by Birid 2014. The comparison is summarized
in table II (after Chun et al., 2006, Galera et al., 2005 & 2007).
It can be observed from this comparison that the available correlation equations tend to
overestimate Em values when compared with Em based on PMT. The variation in
pressuremeter modulus (Em) and shear modulus (G) with respect to RMR values is plotted in
Fig. 3.

Figure 3. RMR against Pressuremeter Modulus and Shear Modulus.

It can be observed from this comparison that the E and G values increase with increase in
RMR. However RMR values are scattered with large variation at the lower Em and G values.
Such scatter in rock modulus is also reported by Failmezger et al. (2005), due to
heterogeneous of rock and rock mass.

293
 ISP7-PRESSIO 2015. Frikha, Varaksin & Gambin (Eds.) © 2015

Table II. Rock Mass Deformation Modulus from Different Methods

Em=0.0097×RMR

cos(π×RMR/100)
0.9.e^(RMR/22.8
Em/Ei=1/100×0.0

10^(0.0186RQD-1.91)
e^(0.0755RMR)

Pressuremeter Modulus, Em,

Ei .e^(RMR-100)/36
Em/Ei (Mean) =
Em =10^(RMR-

=0.562×RMR+

Em/Ei =0.5×(1-
=300.e^(0.07×
Em =e^(RMR-

RMR) ×10^-3

Em =0.0736×

028RMR^2+
^3.54×10^-3

Em = αE . Ei
10)/40

10)/18

0.183

Em =
Em

Em

2)

)
Test Depth, m
Boreholes

RMR
Rock
Type

Serafim and

Serafim and

Nicholson &
et al. (2003)
Mohammad
(RMR< 50)

Galera J M
Gokceoglu

Zhang and
Bieniawski

Mitri et al.
improved

Gardner
Kyowon

Einstein
Pereira

Pereira

(1993)
(1983)

(1983)

(1997)

(1997)

(1990)

(1994)

(1987)

(2004)

(2005)
Aydan

et al.
Kim,
M6 1.5 43 6.68 6.25 3.73 5.88 24.35 1.89 68.72 4.50 1.73 0.19 2.36 0.73
M6 3.0 43 6.68 6.25 3.73 5.88 24.35 1.89 68.72 4.50 1.73 0.26 2.36 0.13
Not
M6 4.5 67 Applicable 23.73 20.01 28.25 37.84 11.58 432.53 19.10 19.2 14.70 10.12 1.78
Not
M6 6.0 59 Applicable 15.21 11.43 18.01 33.34 6.33 396.47 21.06 32.6 29.35 10.54 4.59
Not
M6 16.1 56 Applicable 12.88 9.26 14.97 31.66 5.05 328.70 18.48 4.67 4.40 9.17 1.49
Not Not Not Not Not
M12 1.5 9 0.94 0.95 0.35 0.02 5.24 0.15 Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable 0.11
Not Not Not Not Not
M12 3.0 9 0.94 0.95 0.35 0.02 5.24 0.15 Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable 1.11
Basalt Not Not Not Not Not
M12 6.0 10 1.00 1.00 0.37 0.03 5.80 0.16 Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable 0.76
M12 7.5 12 1.12 1.12 0.43 0.06 6.93 0.18 41.91 0.96 4.12 0.52 2.38 1.11
Not
W12 4.5 60 Applicable 16.08 12.26 19.12 33.90 6.83 498.60 25.94 22.7 16.34 13.05 0.49
M2 4.7 33 3.76 3.59 1.85 2.30 18.73 0.89 24.35 1.55 0.95 0.27 0.98 1.60
W17 3.0 28 2.82 2.72 1.30 1.29 15.92 0.61 7.00 0.41 0.34 0.04 0.31 0.31
H4 6.0 29 2.99 2.87 1.40 1.46 16.48 0.66 7.40 0.44 0.34 0.03 0.32 0.16
H4 8.0 31 3.35 3.21 1.61 1.85 17.61 0.76 8.09 0.50 0.34 0.03 0.34 0.21
H4 10.0 31 3.35 3.21 1.61 1.85 17.61 0.76 8.09 0.50 0.34 0.03 0.34 0.01
W10 3.6 28 2.82 2.72 1.30 1.29 15.92 0.61 10.11 0.59 0.49 0.06 0.44 3.34
W10 5.1 40 5.62 5.29 3.02 4.55 22.66 1.51 17.13 1.13 0.49 0.39 0.62 3.79
Tuff Not Not Not Not Not
W15A 1.5 32 3.55 3.39 1.73 2.07 18.17 0.82 Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable 0.11
H4 18.0 43 6.68 6.25 3.73 5.88 24.35 1.89 16.15 1.06 0.41 0.31 0.55 0.16
H2 6.0 34 3.98 3.79 1.99 2.56 19.29 0.96 5.97 0.38 0.22 0.11 0.24 1.94
Breccia H2 8.0 41 5.96 5.60 3.24 4.97 23.23 1.63 8.54 0.56 0.23 0.16 0.30 1.67
Not Not Not Not Not
H2 10.0 31 3.35 3.21 1.61 1.85 17.61 0.76 Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable 0.05
Note: All values in GPa

294
 ISP7-PRESSIO 2015. Frikha, Varaksin & Gambin (Eds.) © 2015

7. P-Y curves for Laterally Loaded Piles

7.1 Based on pressuremeter results

7.1.1 Robertson Method (Robertson et al., 1985).

As per Robertson method the values of P and corresponding Y can be calculated using eq. (3)
and (4) respectively. R0 and ∆R are the initial PMT borehole radius and the increase in
borehole radius under the net pressure p respectively.

P   . p * B (=2 for clays, 1.5 for sands) (3)

BR
Y (4)
2R 0

7.1.2 Method of Briaud (Bouafia, 2007)

The total lateral reaction P to the deflection Y at a given depth is the sum of the frontal reaction
Q and the tangential reaction F. Q–Y is directly built from the expansion curve of the PMT test
as follows:

Q  Sf p*B (5)

Y can be calculated using equation (4).

The shape factor Sf is equal to 1 for square piles and to π/4 for circular section.

F1  S t qs B (6)

The shape factor St is equal to 2 for square piles and to 1 for circular pile section.

7.2 Based on LPile software

The LPile software uses a finite difference scheme to analyze individual laterally loaded piles.
To determine pile displacements and stresses, the basic differential equation for a beam-
column is solved using a finite difference approximation. The governing differential equation is
given by

d4y d2y
EI 4  Q 2  p  w  0 (7)
dx dx

where;
Q = axial thrust load in the pile,
y = lateral deflection of the pile at a point x along the length of the pile,
p = soil reaction per unit length,
EI = flexural rigidity, and
w = distributed load along the length of the pile.

The rock mass can be modeled as weak rock or strong rock (vuggy limestone) in LPile
software. The available PMT data is used to develop P-Y curves in LPile by modeling the
substrata as weak rock and strong rock. The analysis is also carried out by replacing weak rock
with moderately stiff clay and strong rock with stiff clay. The shear strength of clay is evaluated
based on Cole and Stroud chart. The diameter of pile is assumed as 0.50m and nominal pile
reinforcement of 0.4% is considered for LPile analysis.

295
 ISP7-PRESSIO 2015. Frikha, Varaksin & Gambin (Eds.) © 2015

The P-Y curves thus generated are compared with those based on PMT data using
Robertson and Briaud methods and some are indicated in fig. 4.

Figure 4. Comparison of P-Y curves.

It can be observed from these comparisons that LPile predictions about P-Y curves are very
high when modeled as rock. The P-Y curves when modeled as clay are comparable with those
evaluated by Briaud and Robertson methods even though they show high values by some
extent. This behavior can be attributed to many factors with pile stiffness being the major
contributing factor. Bouafia (2013) has incorporated the factor related to pile-soil stiffness to
eliminate such errors in case of laterally loaded piles in soil.

8. Limit Pressure, PL

The Menard limit pressure is the pressure required to double the volume of the cavity. However
the tests are carried to limited cavity deformation without doubling its volume.
The limit pressure, PL and the capacity of shallow and deep foundations are tied together
(Baguelin et al.,1978). However in good quality rock, the limit pressure may not be reached, but
with a rock pressuremeter the engineer will know that the limit pressure will be at least 20 MPa
depending on capacity of PMT equipment.

(a) (b)
Figure 5. Limit Pressure.

‘’Due relatively high strength of the rock, most of the PMT are terminated right after yield
pressure was reached or in some cases before yield pressure and significant judgment is
required in extrapolating for the PL value from the test data’’ (Huang et al., 1999). The identical
phenomenon is observed while carrying out PMT in weathered rock where yield pressure is not

296
 ISP7-PRESSIO 2015. Frikha, Varaksin & Gambin (Eds.) © 2015

reached and hence it is difficult to evaluate limit pressure using PMT data. The curve fitting
method suggested by Gabr et al. (2002) is then adopted to evaluate ultimate resistance (Pult)
first and limit pressure is then calculated using Pult as Pult/pile diameter. The ultimate resistance
(Pult) is estimated from curve fitting extrapolation, due to inability to achieve deformations large
enough to develop ultimate resistance in the field. This function indicates that the back-
calculated P-y curve data plotted in y/P versus y space should be a linear function which has
intercept, a, and slope, b, as shown in fig. 5(a). The parameter “a” is equal to 1/kh and “b” is
equal to 1/Pult.
It has to be noted that the increase in y/P function against increasing y as indicated in fig.
5(a) is observed for initial loading data in Type III PMT data only. Hence Pult and limit pressure
could not be evaluated for Type I and Type II PMT curves. The results of limit pressure against
RMR are plotted as shown in fig. 5(b) where limit pressure is observed to be increasing with
RMR values.

9. Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction (Gabr et al., 2002)

Often it is difficult to measure the ultimate resistance of weathered rock using a rock
dilatometer due to the limited deformation. Therefore the rock dilatometer data are used only
for estimating the coefficient of subgrade reaction (kh0) of weathered rock. For the sake of
simplicity, the modulus of subgrade reaction is assumed equal to the lateral modulus as
obtained from PMT and can be calculated using eq. (8).

0.65E
kh0  (8)
D(1   2 )
where
E= Elastic Modulus
D = pile diameter
 = Poisson's ration of membrane (0.3)

The variation of coefficient of subgrade reaction with RMR is shown in fig. 6, however no
conclusive behavior is observed.

Figure 6. Coefficient of subgrade reaction Vs RMR.

10. Condition of Rock Mass

Baguelin et al. (1978) established a relationship between the pressuremeter characteristics

such as limit pressure (PL) and pressuremeter modulus (Em) to assess the condition of the soil

297
 ISP7-PRESSIO 2015. Frikha, Varaksin & Gambin (Eds.) © 2015

and cautioned to use these relations as these characteristics are dependent on the quality of
borehole. He also found ratio of Em/PL to be quite useful and typical values mentioned in
weathered rock as 8 to 10 in very decomposed schist and can reach up to 30 to 40 in altered
mica schist to the extent of very dense sand. This ration is evaluated based on selected PMT
data mainly on Type III pressuremeter data where Pult, PL, Em were calculated as summarized
in table III.

Table III. Ultimate resistance, rock mass elastic modulus and limit pressure
Type Type of
Borehole Depth, Pult
PL (kPa) Em (kPa) Em/PL of PMT
No. m (kN/m)
Rock Curve
M6 1.5 5.00E+04 1.00E+05 7.30E+05 7.30 Basalt III
M12 1.5 5.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.09E+05 10.90 Basalt III
M12 3.0 1.00E+04 2.00E+04 1.11E+06 55.70 Basalt III
W10 3.6 1.67E+04 3.33E+04 3.34E+06 100.23 Tuff III
1.43E+04 2.86E+04 1.03E+06 35.98 Basalt III
W12 4.5
1.67E+04 3.33E+04 8.12E+04 2.44 Basalt III
W15A 1.5 1.43E+04 2.86E+04 1.07E+05 3.75 Tuff III
W17 3.0 1.00E+04 2.00E+04 3.09E+05 15.45 Basalt III
H2 6.0 1.00E+04 2.00E+04 1.72E+06 86.20 Breccia II
H4 6.0 1.11E+04 2.22E+04 1.64E+05 7.37 Basalt III
H4 8.0 5.00E+03 1.00E+04 9.81E+04 9.81 Basalt III

It has been observed from this analysis that the Em/PL ratio for moderately weathered and
fractured rock is varying from 2.44 to 100.23. By ignoring extremely high and low values, the
range of Em/PL ratio varies between 10 to 55 which is still high.

11. Conclusions

The behavior of rock mass can reasonably be studied using PMT test when the RQD values
are less than 50%. However low RQD values also tend to disturb the borehole wall during the
borehole drilling which is observed from Type I pressuremeter curve.
Rocks mass range from highly weathered, through moderately weathered rock to hard rocks
with different grades of fracturing and discontinuities. The expansion of most PMT in the
moderately to unweathered rocks is limited since the pressure capacity of most pressuremeters
is insufficient to cause the rock to yield. For this reason most of the pressuremeter tests in
rocks can only be used to measure stiffness of the rock mass. The use of PMT is advisable
over available correlations as most of the correlations overestimate the rock mass modulus.
The influence of lateral pile/rock stiffness on the P–Y curves was not accounted for by the
methods proposed by Briaud and Robertson. These methods simply correlate the parameters
of P–Y curves to those measured in PMT test. According to the literature reviewed, none of the
previous work has been performed by fully investigating the load-deflection behavior of shafts
embedded in weathered rock. Therefore, it appears that the stiff clay model has been most
frequently used in industry to design shafts embedded in weathered rock. If advanced
knowledge can lead to shortening the length of shaft by developing a P-Y curve model for
weathered rock, a significant cost saving can be expected.
The limit pressure can be evaluated in fractured rock mass with RQD values up to 50%. It is
not possible to assess the limit pressure and evaluation of condition of rock mass when RQD is
less than 50%.

298
 ISP7-PRESSIO 2015. Frikha, Varaksin & Gambin (Eds.) © 2015

12. References

Baguelin F., Jézéquel J.F., Shields D.H. (1978) The pressuremeter and foundation engineering. Series on rock and
soil mechanics, Vol. 2 (1974/77), No. 4, 1st edition, 615 pages, Trans Tech Publications, Germany.
Bieniawski Z.T. (1989) Engineering rock mass classifications, a complete manual for engineers and geologists in
mining, civil, and petroleum engineering, John Wiley & Sons Publishers.
Birid K.C. (2014) Comparative study of rock mass deformation modulus using different approaches. ARMS8, 8th
Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium, 14-16 October 2014, Sapporo, Japan.
Bouafia A. (2007) Single piles under horizontal loads-Determination of the P-Y Curves from the prebored
pressuremeter. International Journal of Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Vol. 25, 283-301, Springer-
Verlag, ISSN: 0960-3182.
Bouafia A. (2013) P-Y curves from the prebored pressuremeter test for laterally loaded single piles. Proceedings of
the 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Paris, September 2-6,
2695-2698.
Briaud J.L. (1992) The Pressuremeter, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, p. 210.
Chun B. S., Lee Y. J., Seo D. D., Lim B. S. (2006). Correlation of Deformation Modulus by PMT with RMR and
Rock Mass Condition, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology incorporating Trenchless Technology
Research vol. 21 issue 3-4 May - July, 2006. pp. 231-232.
Clarke B.G., Gambin M.P. (1998) Pressuremeter testing in onshore ground investigation. A report by the ISSMGE
Technical committee 16, ISC'98, International conference on site characterization, Atlanta, April 19-22, 1-29.
Failmezger R.A., Zdinak A.L., Darden J.N., Fahs R. (2005) Use of rock pressuremeter for deep foundation design.
50 ans de pressiomètres. Vol. 1. Gambin, Magnan et Mestat (ed.) 2005, Presses de l’ENPC/LCPC, Paris, 495-
503.
Gabr M. A., Borden R. H., Cho K. H., Clark S. C., Nixon J. B. (2002) P-y curves for laterally loaded drilled shafts
embedded in weathered rock. Report No. FHWA/NC/2002-008, Civil Engineering Research, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, North Carolina State University, December 2002, 274 pages.
Galera J. M., Alvarez M., Bieniawski Z. T. (2005). Evaluation of the deformation modulus of rock masses:
comparison of pressuremeter and dilatometer tests with RMR prediction, ISP5-PRESSIO 2005 International
Symposium.
Galera J. M., Alvarez M., Bieniawski Z. T. (2007). Evaluation of the deformation modulus of rock masses using
RMR. Comparison with dilatometer tests, http://subterra-ing.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2007.-Evaluation-
of-the-formation-modulus-of-rock-masses-using-RMR.pdf., “Underground Works under Special Conditions”
organizado en Madrid el 6 de julio de 2007, por ISRM.
Huang A.B., Pan I.W., Liao J.J., Wang C.H., Hseih S.Y. (1999) Pressuremeter tests in poorly cemented weak
rocks. Reprint of Proceedings of the 37th U. S. Rock Mechanics, Vail, Colorado, 247-252.
Hughes J. (2002) Use of pressuremeter in weak rocks of the lower Nanaimo Series. Proceedings of 16th Annual
Vancouver Geotechnical Society Symposium on Foundation Engineering, Vancouver B. C. May 29-30, 61-65.
ISBN 0-921095-60-0, BiTech Publishers Ltd., Richmond B. C.
LPile, Version 2012-06, A program for the analysis of deep foundations under lateral loading, Ensoft, Inc.
Robertson P.K., Campanella R.G., Brown P.T., Grof I., Hughes J.M. (1985) Design of axially and laterally loaded
piles using in situ tests: A case history. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 22 (4), 518-527.
Sethna S.F. (1999) Geology of Mumbai and surrounding areas and its position in the deccan volcanic stratigraphy,
India. Journal Geological Society of India, Vol. 53. March 1999, 359-365.
Tarnawski M. (2004) The Perfect Ménard Pressuremeter Curve, Archives of Hydro-Engineering and Environmental
Mechanics, Vol. 51 (2004), No. 4, 387–402.

299
 ISP7-PRESSIO 2015. Frikha, Varaksin & Gambin (Eds.) © 2015

300
View publication stats