Geotech Geol Eng
DOI 10.1007/s10706-015-9862-z
ORIGINAL PAPER
A New Approach for Interpretation Strength Sensitivity
to Po in Pressuremeter Testing
Radhi M. Alzubaidi
Received: 13 December 2014 / Accepted: 11 February 2015
Ó Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015
Abstract The pressuremeter testing received a great
application in site investigation and foundation design.
One major development of pressuremeter testing
devoted to the methods of interpretation the undrained
shear strength (Cu) of the tested soil, also the
horizontal at rest pressure was evaluated using differ-
ent methods of interpretation. In the present research it
is intended to focus on the different theories for
interpretation of the pressuremeter testing and the
discrepancies in the values of undrained shear
strengths when using different methods for evaluating
the horizontal at rest pressure (Po). The results of
Menard Pressuremeter tests that been conducted in
sandy silt soil been evaluated using three methods for
interpretation the undrained shear strength and five
methods of analysis for deducing the horizontal at rest
pressure (Po). The values of the deduced undrained
shear strength of the soil showed great discrepancies
between the three methods of analysis (Gibson and
Anderson, Palmer and Ladanyi method). The new
approach presented in this research, showed that when
using different values of the horizontal at rest pressure
(Po) evaluated from the five methods, a great differ-
ences in the values of the undrained shear strength
obtained. The sensitivity of the undrained shear
strength (Cu) to the evaluated values of the horizontal
R. M. Alzubaidi (&)
College of Engineering, Sharjah University, Sharjah,
United Arab Emirates
e-mail: ralzubaidi@sharjah.ac.ae
at rest pressure (Po) examined extensively. These new
findings may need a great investigation to predict the
represented undrained shear strength of the soil from
pressuremeter testing.
Keywords Pressuremeter  Undrained shear
strength  Horizontal at rest pressure  Sensitivity
1 Introduction
Design of foundation construction requires interpre-
tation of various field parameters. The pressuremeter
is currently inexpensive device which used in the field
to provide parameters describing the static, cyclic
strength and also the deformation of soils and soft
rocks within one test procedure. Various indirect
laboratory techniques attempt to deduce the in situ
total stress, but the pressuremeter is one of the few
devices giving the possibility of estimation of the
horizontal stress from in situ observations. One of the
developments in pressuremeter testing was the
theoretical solution that allows the complete
undrained stress–strain curve to be obtained. The
theories that interpreted pressuremeter testing ap-
proached the problem with different assumptions and
arguments. Shwaik (1984) concluded that the values
of the undrained strength for Glasgow till deduced
from Gibson and Anderson (1961) method are lower
than those evaluated from Palmer (1972) method for
123
 Geotech Geol Eng

the same tests. Bahar et al. (2013) conducted pres- 600

suremeter tests in clays in different sites in Algeria.

500
They used three methods to evaluate the undrained BH.No1 Depth=2.3 m
shear strength of the clay. They concluded that the 400

Volume (cm3)
values of the undrained shear strength that evaluated
300
by the method developed by Bahar and Olivari (1993)
Vi
are higher than those evaluated using the methods that 200
developed by Ménard (1957) and that developed by
100
Amar and Jézéquel (1972). In the present research
three methods of interpretation were used to evaluate 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
the undrained shear strength (Cu), and five methods Pressure (KN/m 2)
been used to interpret the values of the horizontal at
rest pressure (Po). The results showed distinctive Fig. 1 Showing the volume of the borehole at the start of the
differences in the values of Cu when using different pressuremeter test
values of Po.
ð1 þ mÞ
qo ¼ DP a ð1Þ
E
2 Evaluation of Horizontal At Rest Pressure (Po)
where qo = the displacement at the borehole wall,
DP = the increase in pressure above Po in the elastic
The horizontal at rest pressure (Po) is one of the main
zone, m = Poisson’s ratio, E = Young’s modulus,
items which can be deduced from Menard pres-
a = the borehole radius under that particular pressure.
suremeter test. The results of four boreholes of Menard
Gibson and Anderson also presented the following
pressuremeter test that been conducted in sandy silt
equation
soil were used. Five methods for obtaining the values
of Po were used, some of these methods have no P ¼ Po þ Cu þ Cu ln½½ðEÞ=ð2ð1 þ mÞCuÞ
theoretical background, where the others try to  ½ðDV=VÞ ð2Þ
compensate, at least partially for the effects of
where P = Applied pressure, Po = horizontal at rest
disturbance which inevitably occur in all predrilled
pressure, Cu = undrained shear strength, DV = the
Menard pressuremeter tests (Alzubaidi 2014), these
difference between the volume and the volume of the
methods can be described as follows.
borehole at Po (DV = V - Vo), V = volume of the
borehole corresponds the applied pressure P.
2.1 Inflection Point Method
A value for Po to be assumed. A value for E could
be determined from Eq. (1). From two points on the
This represents the oldest method used to interpret the
plastic zone, the slope represents the value of Cu. For
values of Po, the method developed in the early days of
either of the two points, a value of Po is computed
Menard pressuremeter testing when it was thought that
from Eq. (2) and this value compared with that
the horizontal at rest pressure equals Po at the start of
assumed one. This process is continued until the error
the straight portion of the pressuremeter curve as can
between the assumed value of Po and the calculated
be seen in Fig. 1. This method is used in pre-drilled
value is negligible.
boreholes and has no theoretical or empirical basis.
2.3 Graphical Iteration Method
2.2 Numerical Iteration Method
This method developed by Marsland and Randolph
A numerical solution was developed by Gibson and
(1977), for evaluating Po. They suggested the follow-
Anderson (1961) to estimate Po. They used elasto-
ing assumptions:
plastic model to describe the soil behavior during
pressuremeter test. Gibson and Anderson reported in A Small negative or positive increments of pressure
the elastic zone that, from Po will create similar volume changes.

123
Geotech Geol Eng

B Po should be lie within the central portion of the
pressure–volume change curve.
C When P exceeds Po ? Cu a marked increase in
the curvature of P-eo curve will occur (eo repre-
sents the radial strain), where
3 Stress Relief Method
A new method for determining the values of Po from
the pressuremeter tests was developed by the author
(Alzubaidi 2014), the method depend mainly on the

Increase in radius of borehole due to increase in pressure ðP  PoÞ

eo ¼ ð3Þ
Radius of borehole at reference state ðP ¼ Po)

The method required to determine Po in order to
derive a value for Cu, so it is required iteration until the
value of Po ? Cu obtained, corresponds to the pres-
sure at which the P - eo curve exhibits increase in
curvature as shown in Fig. 2.
2.4 Up Side—Down Curve Method
This was suggested by Van Wambeke and d’Hericourt
(1975), mainly to find the limit pressure, in the present
study this method used also to find the values of Po.
The pressure is plotted against the reciprocal of the
volume change DV1, where DV1 represents the
amount of volume above the original volume of the
probe before inflating. As can be seen from Fig. 3, the
plot consists of three portions, two straight lines and a
curve, Po represents the point of intersection between
the straight line and the curve.
facts that after drilling a borehole, the value of Po will
be equal to zero (Po = 0), where stress relief will be
occurred at the borehole wall, when a pressuremeter
test will be conducted, any small increase in the
pressure applied to the bore hole wall, there is a
positive increase in the volume of the borehole, these
increases occur before and after reaching the values of
Po. The second fact, that the soil act as elastic-
perfectly plastic material after Po. Then the values of
Po can be evaluated using the following steps:
(a) Select a value for Vi at the start of the
pressuremeter curve results, where Vi repre-
sents the volume of the bore hole wall at P equal
to zero, where stress relief occurred at the
borehole wall as can be seen in Fig. 1.
(b) A plot between the values of ln (DVi/Vi) and V
to be plotted, where DVi represent the volume

450
600
BH.No.1 400
Depth 6.25 m
500 350 BH.No.3
Depth 8.3 m
300
400
P (KN/m2)

P (KN/m2)

250
Po= 120 KN/m2
300 200
Cu=310 KN/m2
200 150
100
100
Po=130 KNm2 50

0 0
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
ɛo 1/ ΔV1

Fig. 2 The graphical iteration method Fig. 3 Up side—down curve method

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

3 4 Evaluation of the Horizontal at Rest Pressure

2.5
(Po) from Different Methods

2 The values of Po had been evaluated using the

ln (ΔVi/Vi)

1.5
BH.No.Depth=2.3m inflection point method, numerical iteration method,
graphical iteration method, up side down curve
1 method and the stress relief method. Figure 5 shows
0.5 Vo=90 cm 3
the values of Po with depths for BH.1 deduced from
the five methods of interpretation. All the methods
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
showed an increase in the values of Po with depths, but
V cm3 there are some discrepancies in the results of Po that
deduced from different methods for the same test
Fig. 4 The relation between ln (DVi/Vi) against V results. The results showed little differences between
the values of Po deduced from inflection point method,
change between the volume of the borehole at graphical iteration method, up side down curve
certain pressure and Vi at Po = 0 as shown in method and the stress relief method where the
Fig. 4. Where V represents the total volume of numerical iteration methods gave much higher values
the bore hole wall at specified pressure during for Po than the other four methods. The values of Po
the pressuremeter test. deduced from the numerical iteration method are
(c) The plot consists of two straight lines, where the higher than those deduced from the inflection method,
intersection point, represents the value of Vo graphical iteration method, up side curve method and
(the value of the volume of the bore hole at stress relief method, the differences ranged from 11 to
P = Po) as shown in Fig. 4. 54 %, 10 to 57 %, 1 to 53 % and 11 to 51 %
(d) From the pressuremeter curves which represent respectively. The stress relief method showed a good
the volume of bore hole against the applied agreement with the inflection point method, graphical
pressure (Fig. 1), the value of Po can be iteration method and up side down curve method. The
deduced for the same value of Vo. The method differences in the values of Po deduced from the stress
takes into account the unloading of the bore hole relief method compared with point inflection method,
wall which usually occurred in all pre bored graphical iteration and up side curve method ranged
holes. from 1 to 19 %, 3 to 20 % and 3 to 20 % respectively.

12

10

8
Depth (m)

Point Inflection Method

6 Numerical Iteration Method
Graphical Iteration Method
4 BH.No.1 Up Side Curve Method
Stress Relief Method

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Po (KN/m2)

Fig. 5 Values of Po deduced from different methods for BH.1

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 6 Values of Po BH.No.2

deduced from different 12
methods for BH.2
10

8 Inflection point Method

Depth (m)
Numerical Iteration Method
6 Graphical Iteration Method
Up Side Down Curve Method
4 Stress Relief Method

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Po (KN/m2)

Figure 6 shows the results of Po deduced from the
five methods of interpretation with depth for BH2. It
can be seen that all the methods showed distinctive
increase in the values of Po with depth. The values of
Po deduced from the numerical iteration method are
higher than those deduced from inflection point
method, graphical iteration method, up side curve
method and stress relief method, the differences
ranged from 7 to 40 %, 11 to 35 %, 4 to 25 % and
13 to 22 % respectively. It can be noticed from Fig. 6
that the results of Po deduced from the stress relief
method showed little differences with those deduced
from the inflection point method, graphical iteration
method and the up side down curve method, the
differences can be ranged as 5 to 15 %, 1 to 14 %, 4 to
7 % respectively.
The values of Po with depth evaluated from the five
methods of interpretations are shown in Fig. 7 for
BH.3, where all the methods of evaluations showed
increase in the values of Po with depth. The results
showed distinctive discrepancies between the values
of Po for the same test results, there are increase in the
values of Po deduced from the numerical iteration
method than those obtained from the inflection
method, graphical iteration method, up side curve
method and stress relief method ranged from 13 to
50 %, 1 to 44 %, 7 to 40 % and 2 to 48 % respectively.
The stress relief method showed little differences in
the values of Po with those evaluated from the
inflection point method, graphical iteration method
and the up side down curve method, the differences
can be ranged 4 to 10 %, 2 to 12 % and 5 to 12 %. The

Fig. 7 Values of Po BH.No.3

deduced from different 12
methods for BH.3
10

8
Inflection Point Method
Depth (m)

Numerical Iteration Method

6 Graphical Iteration Method
Up Side Curve Method
Stress Relief Method
4

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Po (KN/m2)

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

BH.No.4
3.5

2.5
Inflection Point Method
Depth (m)

2 Numerical Iteration Method

Graphical Iteration Method
1.5 Up Side Down Curve Method
Sterss Relief Method

0.5

0
0 50 100 150 200
Po (KN/m2)

Fig. 8 Values of Po deduced from different methods for BH.4

results of Po with depth for BH.4 presented in Fig. 8,
the values of all the methods showed increase with
depth, discrepancies in the values of Po that been
evaluated from different methods are recorded. The
differences in the value of Po interpreted from the
numerical iteration method compared with those
evaluated from inflection point method, graphical
iteration method, up side curve method and stress
relief method ranged from 8 to 11 %, 10 to 20 %, 14 to
36 % and 11 to 25 % respectively. The comparison
between the values of Po deduced from the stress relief
method with those evaluated from the inflection point
method, graphical iteration method and the up side
down curve method, showed differences ranged from
11 to 26 %, 10 to 15 %, 3 to 12 % which reflected a
good agreements between the results of Po.
6 Gibson and Anderson Method
Gibson and Anderson (1961) developed theoretical
relationship to interpret the undrained shear strength
from pressuremeter tests. From their analysis they
suggest the following equation
P ¼ PL þ Cu lnðDV=VÞ ð4Þ
where P = applied pressure, PL = limit pressure,
DV = volume change, V = volume of the borehole
wall.
By plotting the applied pressure (P) versus ln (DV/
V), the gradient of the best straight line is fitted to the
data, represents the undrained shear strength of the
soil.

5 Interpretation of Undrained Shear Strength
from Pressuremeter Tests
One of the major developments in the pressuremeter
testing was the theoretical solution that allows the
complete undrained stress–strain curve to be obtained,
different authors have approached the problem with
different assumptions and arguments. Three methods
were chosen to evaluate the undrained shear strength
from pressuremeter testing.
7 Palmer Method
Palmer (1972) presented a solution for the pres-
suremeter test. The proposed solution enabled to
obtain the complete stress–strain curve of pressureme-
ter test where the peak is considered to be undrained
shear strength of the soil, where the stress for each
pressure can be obtained as follows
dP
ð1=2Þðrr  rh Þ ¼ s ¼ ð5Þ
d lnðDV=VÞ

123
Geotech Geol Eng

350 450
300
400
350
250

τ (KN/m2)
300
τ (KN/m2)

200 250
200
150
BH. No .1 150 BH.No.3
100 Depth 4.3 m
100 Depth 2.3 m
50 50
0
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Єo Є

Fig. 9 stress strain curve using Palmer method Fig. 10 Stress–strain curve using Ladanyi method

where rr and rh represent the radial and circumfer-
ential stresses, dp = differences in pressures between
two points in the elastic zone, DV = volume change in
the borehole wall, V = volume of the borehole at
applied pressure, P.
The strain ðÞ can be obtained as follows
 
DV 1=2
o ¼ 1  1 ð6Þ
D Alzubaidi (2014) concluded that all the methods of
As can be seen from Fig. 9 the stress strain curve can
be obtained, where the peak is considered to be the
undrained shear strength (Cu).
8 Ladanyi Method
Ladnayi (1972) also introduced a method of analysis
for undrained shear strength for pressuremeter tests,
The solution derived a complete undrained stress–
strain curve for the soil allowing for the non-linear
stress–strain behavior to occur. Ladanyi derived the
stress from the following equation where the deviator
stress (s) can be derived as follows
p " #
3 Pi  Piþ1
si;iþ1 ¼ ð7Þ
2 12 ½lnðDV=VÞi  lnðDV=VÞiþ1 
The strain ðÞ can found as follows
1 deduced values of Cu using the five methods of
i;iþ1 ¼ p ½ð1=2Þ½ðDV=VÞi þ ðDV=VÞiþ1 
3
Thus the whole undrained stress–strain behavior can
be examined by in situ testing up to relatively large
strains and presented in the form commonly adopted in
triaxial test presentation where the peak stress repre-
sents the undrained shear strength of the clay. Typical
stress–strain curve can be seen in Fig. 10.
9 Variation of Undrained Shear Strength
with Variation of Po
interpretation of Po from pressuremeter tests showed
distinctive discrepancies in the values of Po that
deduced from different methods for the same tests,
The results showed little differences between the
values of Po deduced from the inflection point method,
graphical iteration method, up side down curve
method and the stress relief method where the
numerical iteration methods showed higher values of
Po than the other four methods for the same tests.
10 Gibson and Anderson Method
The values of undrained shear strength (Cu)for
pressuremeter tests been evaluated using different
values of Po, the value of Po been evaluated using,
the inflection point method, numerical iteration
method, graphical iteration method, up side down
curve method and the stress relief method. The
ð8Þ evaluation of Po can be seen in Figs. 11, 12, 13
and 14.
It can be seen clearly that the values of Cu increased
with increasing the values of Po for the same
pressuremeter test. The differences in the values of

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

500
450
400
Depth 2.3 m"""

Cu (KN/m2)
350
300 Depth 4.3 m"
250 6.25 m"
200 Depth 8.3 m"
150 Depth 10.3 m"
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Po (KN/m2)

Fig. 11 Variation of Cu with variation of Po for BH.NO.1 using Gibson and Anderson method

400

350

300
Cu (KN/m2)

250
Depth 2.2 m
200
Depth 10.7
150

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Po (KN?m2)

Fig. 12 Variation of Cu with variation of Po for BH.NO.2 using Gibson and Anderson method

500
450
400
350
Cu (KN/m2)

Depth 2.3 m
300
Depth 6.3
250
Depth 8.3 m
200
Depth 10.3 m
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Po (KN/m2)

Fig. 13 Variation of Cu with variation of Po for BH.NO.3 using Gibson and Anderson method

Cu that evaluated using Gibson and Anderson method, 11 Palmer Method

when using different values of Po that deduced from
different methods ranged from 0 to 55 % for the same The values of the undrained shear strength for
test. pressuremeter tests also had been evaluated using

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 14 Variation of Cu 700

with variation of Po for
BH.NO.4 using Gibson and 600
Anderson method

500

Cu (KN/m2)
400
Depth 1.8 m
Depth 3.3 m
300

200

100

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Po (KN/m2)

600

500

400
Cu (KN/m2)

Depth 2.3 m
Depth 4.3 m
300
Depth 6.25 m
Depth 8.3 m
200
Depth 10.3 m

100

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Po (KN/m2)

Fig. 15 Variation of Cu with variation of Po for BH.NO.1 using Palmer method

Fig. 16 Variation of Cu 500

with variation of Po for 450
BH.NO.2 using Palmer
400
method
350
Cu (KN/m2)

300
Depth 2.2 m
250
Depth 10.7 m
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Po (KN/m2)

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

450

400
350

300
Cu (KN/m2) Depth 2.2 m
250 Depth 6.3 m
200 Depth 8.3 m
150 Depth 10.3 m
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Po (KN/m2)

Fig. 17 Variation of Cu with variation of Po for BH.NO.3 using Palmer method

900

800

700

600
Cu (KN/m2)

500 Depth 1.8 m

400 Depth 3.3 m

300

200

100

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Po (KN/m2)

Fig. 18 Variation of Cu with variation of Po for BH.NO.4 using Palmer method

Palmer method. The deduced values of Cu using the
five methods of evaluation Po can be shown in
Figs. 15, 16, 17 and 18 for four boreholes.
The results of Cu showed distinctive increase with
increase in the values of Po. The differences in the
values of Cu that evaluated using Palmer method,
when using different values of Po deduced from the
five methods ranged from 0 to 45 % for the same test.
12 Ladanyi Method
The pressuremeter tests results also been evaluated
using Ladanyi method to find the values of undrained
shear strength. The undrained shear strength results
were evaluated using different values of Po that
deduced from the different methods (five methods). As
can be seen from Figs. 19, 20, 21 and 22 that the
deduced values of undrained shear strength also
showed a distinctive increase in the values of Cu with
increase in the values of Po.
The values of Cu showed a considerable increase
reached to 60 % when using high values that
deduced from the different methods of interpreta-
tion of Po. It seems that all the methods of
interpretation used to evaluate the undrained shear
strengths of pressuremeter tests are sensitive to the
values of Po.

123
Geotech Geol Eng

800
700
600
Depth 2.3 m

Cu (KN/m2)
500 Depth4.3 m
400 Depth 6.25 m
300 Depth 8.3 m

200 Depth 10.3 m

100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Po (KN/m2)

Fig. 19 Variation of Cu with variation of Po for BH.NO.1 using Ladanyi method

Fig. 20 Variation of Cu 800

with variation of Po for
700
BH.NO.2 using Ladanyi
method 600
Cu (KN/m2)

500

400
Depth 2.2 m
Depth 10.7 m
300

200

100

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Po (KN/m2)

600

500

400
Cu (KN/m2)

Depth 2.2 m
Depth 6.3 m
300
Depth 8.3 m
Depth 10.3 m
200

100

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Po (KN/m2)

Fig. 21 Variation of Cu with variation of Po for BH.NO.3 using Ladanyi method

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

1200

1000

Cu (KN/m2) 800

Depth 1.8 m
600
Depth 3.3 m

400

200

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Po (KN/m2)

Fig. 22 Variation of Cu with variation of Po for BH.NO.4 using Ladanyi method

13 Discrepancies in the Values of the Undrained
Shear Strength
The values of the undrained shear strength Cu
examined using different methods of interpretation
(Gibson and Anderson, Palmer and Ladanyi) with
using one method of evaluation of Po for the same test.
13.1 Evaluation of Cu Values Using Po Values
from Numerical Iteration Method
The results of the undrained shear strength also
showed distinctive differences when using different
methods of interpretation of Cu (Gibson and Ander-
son, Palmer and Ladanyi method) and one method of
evaluation of Po for the same test. As can be seen from
Fig. 23, 24, 25 and 26, the results of Cu using different
methods of analysis using the numerical iteration
method to deduce the values of Po for the four
boreholes.
The values of Cu deduced from Ladanyi method
are higher than those deduced from Gibson and
Anderson method and Palmer method using the
numerical iteration method for evaluating Po. The
values of Cu evaluated from Ladnyi method are
higher than those obtained from Gibson and
Anderson, the increase ranged from 34 to 65 %
for the same test. The values of Cu that deduced
from Ladanyi method are higher than those
deduced from Palmer method the increase ranged
from 15 to 50 % for the same test. The values of
Cu that evaluated from Palmer method are higher
than those obtained from Gibson and Anderson, the
increase ranged from 0 to 48 % for the same test.

Fig. 23 Values of Cu with 800

depth for BH.No.1 using the
700
numerical iteration method
for Po 600
Cu (Kn/m2)

500 Gibson and Anderson

400 Palmer
300 Ladanyi

200

100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Depth m

123
Geotech Geol Eng

800

700

600
Cu (KN/m2)
500
Gibson and Anderson
400 Palmer

300
Ladanyi

200

100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Depth m

Fig. 24 Values of Cu with depth for BH.No.2 using the numerical iteration method for Po

500

450

400

350
Cu (KN/m2)

300 Gibson and Anderson

250 Palmer

200 Ladanyi

150

100

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Depth m

Fig. 25 Values of Cu with depth for BH.No.3 using the numerical iteration method for Po

1200

1000
Gibson and Anderson
Cu (KN/m2)

800
Palmer
600 Ladanyi

400

200

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Depth m

Fig. 26 Values of Cu with depth for BH.No.4 using the numerical iteration method for Po

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

700

600

500

Cu (KN/m2)
Gibson and Anderson
400
Palmer
300
Ladanyi
200

100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Depth m

Fig. 27 Values of Cu with depth for BH.No.1 using the inflection point method for Po

700
600
Cu (KN/m2)

500
400 Gibson and Anderson

300 Palmer

200 Ladanyi

100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Depth m

Fig. 28 Values of Cu with depth for BH.No.2 using the inflection point method for Po

450
400
350
Cu (KN/m2)

300
250 Gibson and Anderson
Palmer
200
Ladanyi
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Depth m

Fig. 29 Values of Cu with depth for BH.No.3 using the inflection point method for Po

13.2 Evaluation of Cu Values with Different
Methods Using Po Values from Inflection
Point Method
The pressuremeter tests also evaluated with different
methods of evaluation for determination the values of
undrained shear strength (Cu) using the values of Po
that deduced from the inflection point method. As can
be seen from Figs. 27, 28, 29 and 30 the values of Cu
evaluated from different methods of interpretation
using the inflection point method to calculate the
values of Po for the four boreholes. The values of Cu
evaluated from Ladanyi method were found to be
higher than those obtained from Gibson and Anderson

123
Geotech Geol Eng

800

700

600
Gibson and Anderson
Cu (KN/m2) 500
Palmer
400 Ladanyi
300

200

100

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Depth m

Fig. 30 Values of Cu with depth for BH.No.4 using the inflection point method for Po

method, the increase ranged from 27 to 76 %. The
value of Cu that deduced from Ladanyi method are
higher than those evaluated from Palmer method, the
increase ranged from 10 to 50 %.The values of Cu
obtained from Palmer method also found higher than
those evaluated from Gibson and Anderson method,
the increase ranged from 14 to 70 %.
13.3 Evaluation of Cu Values with Different
Methods Using Po Values from Graphical
Iteration Method
The pressuremeter tests also evaluated with different
methods of evaluation for determination the values of
undrained shear strength (Cu) using the values of Po
that deduced from the graphical iteration method. As
can be seen from Figs. 31, 32, 33 and 34 the values of
Cu evaluated from different methods of interpretation
using the graphical iteration method to calculate the
values of Po for the four boreholes. The values of Cu
evaluated from Ladanyi method were found to be
higher than those obtained from Gibson and Anderson
method, the increase ranged from 14 % to 63 %. The
value of Cu that deduced from Ladanyi method are
higher than those evaluated from Palmer method, the
increase ranged from 9 to 42 %.The values of Cu
obtained from Palmer method also found higher than
those evaluated from Gibson and Anderson method,
the increase ranged from 16 to 53 %.
13.4 Evaluation of Cu Values with Different
Methods Using Po Values from Up-side
Down Curve Method
The pressuremeter tests also evaluated with different
methods of evaluation for determination the values
of undrained shear strength (Cu) using the values of
Po that deduced from up-side down curve method.
As can be seen from Figs. 35, 36, 37 and 38 the
values of Cu evaluated from different methods of

700

600

500
Cu (Kn/m2)

Gibson and anderson

400
Palmer
300
Ladanyi
200

100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Depth m

Fig. 31 Values of Cu with depth for BH.No.1 using the graphical iteration method for Po

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

700

600

500

Cu (KN/m2)
400 Gibson and Anderson
Palmer
300
Ladanyi
200

100

0
0 5 10 15
Depth m

Fig. 32 Values of Cu with depth for BH.No.2 using the graphical iteration method for Po

450
400
350
Cu (KN/m2)

300
Gibson and Anderson
250
Palmer
200
Ladanyi
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Depth m

Fig. 33 Values of Cu with depth for BH.No.3 using the graphical iteration method for Po

1200

1000
Cu (KN/m2)

800
Gibson and Anderson
600 Palmer
Ladanyi
400

200

0
0 1 2 3 4
Depth m

Fig. 34 Values of Cu with depth for BH.No.4 using the graphical iteration method for Po

interpretation using the up-side curve method to
calculate the values of Po for the four boreholes.
The values of Cu evaluated from Ladanyi method
were found to be higher than those obtained from
Gibson and Anderson method, the increase ranged
from 10 to 60 %. The value of Cu that deduced
from Ladanyi method are higher than those evaluat-
ed from Palmer method, the increase ranged from 7
to 37 %.The values of Cu obtained from Palmer
method also found higher than those evaluated from
Gibson and Anderson method, the increase ranged
from 7 to 46 %.

123
Geotech Geol Eng

700

600

500

Cu (KN/m2) 400 Gibson and Anderson

Palmer
300
Ladanyi
200

100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Depth m

Fig. 35 Values of Cu with depth for BH.No.1 using the up-side curve method for Po

800
700
600
Cu (KN/m2)

500 Gibson and Anderson

400 Palmer
300 Ladanyi
200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Depth m

Fig. 36 Values of Cu with depth for BH.No.2 using the up-side curve method for Po

500

400
Cu (KN/m2)

300 Gibson and Anderson

Palmer
200
Ladanyi
100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Depth m

Fig. 37 Values of Cu with depth for BH.No.3 using the up-side curve method for Po

13.5 Evaluation of Cu Values with Different
Methods Using Po Values from Stress Relief
Method
The pressuremeter tests also evaluated with different
methods of evaluation for determination the values of
undrained shear strength (Cu) using the values of Po
that deduced from stress relief method. As can be seen
from Figs. 39, 40, 41 and 42 the values of Cu
evaluated from different methods of interpretation
using the stress relief method to calculate the values of
Po for the four boreholes. The values of Cu evaluated
from Ladanyi method were found to be higher than
those obtained from Gibson and Anderson method, the
increase ranged from 19 to 71 %. The value of Cu that
deduced from Ladanyi method are higher than those

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

1200

1000

Cu (KN/m2)
800 Gibson and Anderson
600 Palmer

400 Ladanyi

200

0
0 1 2 3 4
Depth m

Fig. 38 Values of Cu with depth for BH.No.4 using the up-side curve method for Po

600

500
Cu (KN/m2)

400 Gibson and Anderson

300 Palmer
200 Ladanyi

100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Depth m

Fig. 39 Values of Cu with depth for BH.No.1 using stress relief method for Po

600

500
Cu (KN/m2)

400 Gibson and Anderson

300 Palmer
200 Ladanyi

100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Depth m

Fig. 40 Values of Cu with depth for BH.No.2 using stress relief method for Po

Fig. 41 Values of Cu with 600

depth for BH.No.3 using
500
stress relief method for Po
Cu (KN/m2)

400 Gibson and Anderson

300 Palmer
200 Ladanyi

100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Depth m

123
Geotech Geol Eng
1200
1000
Cu (KN/m2)
800
600
400
200
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Depth m
Fig. 42 Values of Cu with depth for BH.No.4 using stress relief method for Po
evaluated from Palmer method, the increase ranged
from 6 to 41 %. The values of Cu obtained from
Palmer method also found higher than those evaluated
from Gibson and Anderson method, the increase
ranged from 12 to 63 %.
14 Conclusions
This research foxed on a new approach to be
considered when conducting pressuremeter tests that
the values of the undrained shear strength reflect a
great sensitivity to the values of Po of the tested
soil.The values of the undrained shear strength derived
from different methods of interpretation showed
considerable discrepancies in the results for the same
test. Based on the present research results, some
conclusions can be drawn as follow:
1. The values of the horizontal at rest pressure (Po)
that evaluated from different methods of interpre-
tation showed distinctive discrepancies for the
same tests. The results showed some differences
between the values of Po deduced from the
inflection point method, numerical iteration
method, graphical iteration method, up side down
curve method and the stress relief method. The
numerical iteration methods gave higher values of
Po than the other four methods for the same tests.
The stress relief method (proposed by the author)
showed good agreements with inflection point
method, graphical iteration method and the up
side down curve method where a pronounced
difference in the values of Po were obtained when
using the numerical iteration method.
Gibson and Anderson
Palmer
Ladanyi
2 2.5 3 3.5
2. The values of undrained shear strength deduced
from the pressuremeter tests showed a distinctive
sensitivity to the evaluated values of Po. The
results showed that the undrained shear strength
increase when the values of the horizontal at rest
pressure (Po) increase. The results of the
undrained shear strength (Cu) that evaluated using
the Gibson and Anderson method, palmer method
and Ladanyi method showed increases reached to
55, 45 and 60 % respectively for the same test
when using different values of Po deduced from
the five methods of evaluation (inflection point
method, numerical iteration method, graphical
iteration method, up side down curve method and
the stress relief method).
3. The values of the undrained shear strength that
evaluated using Gibson and Anderson, Palmer and
Ladanyi method showed distinctive differences in
the results when using one method of evaluation
of Po for the same pressuremeter test. The values
of the undrained shear strength evaluated using
Ladanyi method were found to be higher than
those evaluated from Gibson and Anderson
method, the increases ranged from 34 to 65 %,
27 to 76 %, 14 to 63 %, 10 to 60 % and 19 to
71 %, when using the numerical iteration, inflec-
tion point, graphical iteration, up-side down curve
and stress relief method for evaluation of Po
respectively for the same tests.
4. The values of the undrained shear strength
deduced using Ladanyi method are higher than
those obtained from Palmer method, the increases
ranged from 15 to 50 %, 10 to 50 %, 9 to 42 %, 7
to 37 % and 6 to 41 %, when using the numerical
iteration, inflection point, graphical iteration, up-
123

side down curve and stress relief method for
evaluation of Po respectively for the same pres-
suremeter tests.
5. The values of Cu that evaluated from Palmer
method are higher than those obtained from
Gibson and Anderson method, the increases
ranged from 0 to 48 %, 14 to 70 %, 16 to 53 %,
7 to 46 % and 12 to 63 %, when using the
numerical iteration, inflection point, graphical
iteration, up-side down curve and stress relief
method for evaluation of Po respectively for the
same pressuremeter tests.
References
Alzubaidi R (2014) A new method for interpreting pres-
suremeter data to estimate in situ horizontal stress. Arabian
J Geosciences. doi:10.1007/s12517-014-1532-6
Amar S, Jézéquel JF (1972) Essais en place et en laboratoire sur
sols cohérents: comparaison des résultats. Bulletin de Li-
aison des Ponts et Chaussées 58:97–108
123
Geotech Geol Eng
Bahar R, Olivari G (1993) Analyse de la réponse du modèle de
Prager généralisé sur chemin pressiométrique. Actes du
6ème Colloque Franco-Polonais de Mécanique des Sols
Appliquée: 97–104. Douai, France
Bahar R, Alimrina N, BelhassaniO (2013) Interpretation of a
pressuremeter test in cohesive soils. International Confer-
ence on Geotechnical Engineering, Tunis
Gibson RE, Anderson WF (1961) In-situ measurement of soils
properties with the pressuremeter. Civ Engng Publ Wks
Rev 56:615–618
Ladanyi B (1972) In-situ determination of undrained stress-
strain behaviour of sensitive clays with pressuremeter.
Canidian Geotech J 9:313–319
Marsland A, Randolph MF (1977) Comparison of the results
from pressuremeter tests and large in situ plate test in
London clay. Geotechnique 27:217–243
Ménard L (1957) Mesures in situ des propriétés physiques des
sols. Annales des Ponts et Chaussées l.3:357–376
Palmer AC (1972) Undrained plane—strain expansion of
cylindrical cavity in clay; simple interpretation of pres-
suremeter test. Geotechnique 22:451–457
Shwaik R (1984) Pressuremeter practice in testing glacial tills.
PhD thesis, University of Strathclyde, UK
Van Wambeke A, d’Hericourt J (1975) Coubed Pres-
siometriques inverses: méthode d interpretation de lessai
pressiometrique. Soils–Soils 25:15–25