This article was downloaded by: [University of Tehran], [Akbar Cheshomi]

On: 22 August 2014, At: 22:58

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Geomechanics and Geoengineering: An International

Journal
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tgeo20

Estimating Menard pressuremeter modulus and limit

pressure from SPT in silty sand and silty clay soils. A
case study in Mashhad, Iran
a a
Akbar Cheshomi & Mohammad Ghodrati
a
Department of Engineering Geology, School of Geology, Faculty of Science, University of
Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Published online: 18 Aug 2014.

To cite this article: Akbar Cheshomi & Mohammad Ghodrati (2014): Estimating Menard pressuremeter modulus and limit
pressure from SPT in silty sand and silty clay soils. A case study in Mashhad, Iran, Geomechanics and Geoengineering: An
International Journal, DOI: 10.1080/17486025.2014.933894

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2014.933894

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Geomechanics and Geoengineering: An International Journal, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2014.933894

Estimating Menard pressuremeter modulus and limit pressure from SPT in silty
sand and silty clay soils. A case study in Mashhad, Iran
Akbar Cheshomi* and Mohammad Ghodrati
Department of Engineering Geology, School of Geology, Faculty of Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

(Received 6 April 2013; accepted 5 June 2014)

The Menard pressuremeter test is a relatively expensive in situ test, which generates useful information about the strength and deformation properties
Downloaded by [University of Tehran], [Akbar Cheshomi] at 22:58 22 August 2014

of any soil and weak rock, which is carried out in some projects. On the other hand, the SPT test is a rather inexpensive, simple and typical in situ test
used to determine the engineering properties of silt, clay, sand, and fine gravel which is utilised in almost all projects.
In this study SPT blow counts (N60) were correlated with pressuremeter modulus (EPMT) and limit pressure (PL) and empirical equations were
proposed to estimate PL and EPMT from N60 in silty sand and silty clay soils separately. These tests have been conducted during subway geotechnical
investigation in Mashhad, Iran.
Moreover, in order to verify these empirical equations, they were compared with similar equations that have been proposed by other researchers.
These comparisons display that in all equations a linear relationship exists between N60 - EPMT and N60 - PL. However, the line slopes are different so
it can be concluded the line slopes are related to soil type and geological condition of an area. Thus, for each area a separate empirical equation must
be presented.

Keywords: standard penetration test; pressuremeter modulus; limit pressure

Introduction
In situ and laboratory tests are two main methods for determin-
ing engineering soil parameters. In situ tests are often preferred
to laboratory tests due to unchanged soil stress conditions and
disturbance. Besides, simple laboratory tests may not be reliable
in most cases while more sophisticated laboratory testing can be
time consuming and costly (Mair and Wood 1987), therefore, in
situ testing is very important in geotechnical engineering.
Different in situ testing methods have been introduced in
order to determine soil properties. Among them, standard
penetration test (SPT) and the pressuremeter test (PMT) are
the two main ones. According to the following reasons, having
a correlation between SPT and PMT is useful:
- SPT test is a relatively low cost and routine part of every
soil exploration program in the world and Iran. However, PMT
test is comparatively expensive; therefore, sometimes it is not
performed in small and normal geotechnical projects.
- Phoon and Kulhavi (1999) believe local correlations that
are developed within a specific geology setting are generally
preferable to generalised global correlations because they are
significantly more accurate. Therefore, it is necessary to pro-
vide empirical relations for different areas.
- Correlations help the designer in evaluating, comparing,
interpreting or cross-checking the soil parameters obtained
from these two important in situ tests (Bozbey and Togrol
2010).
The aim of the present study is to investigate the relation-
ships between N60 values and both EPMT and PL based on tests
that have been carried out during subway geotechnical inves-
tigation in Mashhad, Iran. Mashhad city is located 960 kilo-
metres east of Tehran (Latitude 36.19°N, 59.37°E). The
empirical equations were proposed for silty sand and silty
clay soils separately. In order to verify the empirical equations,
these equations were compared with similar equations that
have been proposed by other researchers.
Site description
The data used in this study were obtained from 17 exploration
boreholes that were drilled as a part of a soil investigation
program in Mashhad, Iran. The study area is underlain by
recent alluvium. Figure 1 presents surface and subsurface soil
condition in the route of the study. Based on Figure 1, two
main layers are separated. Physical specifications of these
layers are shown in Table 1. These alluviums consist of silty
clays and silty sands. The silty clays are medium to low
plasticity and firm, stiff to very stiff. The silty sands are
dense to very dense. The depths of the borings ranged between

*Corresponding author. Email: a.cheshomi@ut.ac.ir

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

 2 A. Cheshomi and M. Ghodrati

46° 48° 50° 52° 54° 56° 58° 60° 62°

40°

38°

36°

34°
Downloaded by [University of Tehran], [Akbar Cheshomi] at 22:58 22 August 2014

a) b)

Figure 1. (a) Location of site under study and map of surface soil (Mashhad), (b) subsurface soil condition in the rout of study. Based on this figure, two main
layers distinguished.

Table 1. Specifications of two main layers in the rout of study the measured energy transferred to the rod and 60% of the
theoretical free-fall energy of the hammer (Bowles 1997,
Density Moisture
Layer no. USCS ðg=cm2 Þ content (%) LL PI
Aggour and Radding 2001).
In this research the SPT test was performed in accordance
I CL-ML 1.5–1.75 13–22 25–33 6–12 with ASTM 1582-99. A dount hammer was used and the
II SM/SC-SM 1.6–1.9 17–27
energy efficiency has not been measured directly but based
on recommendations made on energy efficiency of 60% and
25–45 metres. The underground water level is more than 55 m other corrections were performed according to the proposed
below the ground surface. description/method by Bowles (1997). In Figure 2a variations
of N60 measured with respect to depth have been presented and
Figure 2b presents a histogram of the N60 data used in this
Standard penetration test study for silty sand soils. The N60 values range between 28 to
57, with an average of 43 and standard deviation of 8.1, upper
The SPT test has been developed in the United States, which is and lower bounds were drawn in Figure 2a. Figure 2c presents
a simple and relatively inexpensive in situ test for determining the variation of N60 values with depth and Figure 2d display a
soil properties such as density, strength and deformation histogram of the N60 data used in this study for silty clay soils.
modulus. In these soils N60 values range between 9 and 50, with an
A detailed description and interpretation of the SPT test has average of 28 and standard deviation of 10.5, upper and lower
been presented and discussed by several researchers (e.g., Seed bounds were drawn in Figure 2c. Figure 2 shows that with
et al. 1975, Marcuson and Bieganousky 1977, Skempton 1986, growth in silty clay and silty sand depth, N60 values increase.
Liao and Whitman 1986, Clayton 1996, Bowles 1997). The
SPT test is an easy test to perform and correlations have been
developed with parameters used in designing foundations. As a Pressuremeter test
result this test, just like around the world, is widely used in
Iran. Furthermore, it is recommended that the measured N The pressuremeter test is the in situ test that measures lateral
value to be standardised by multiplying it by the ratio between deformation characteristics of ground at a particular depth. The
 Geomechanics and Geoengineering: An International Journal 3

SPT , N60
7
20 30 40 50 60 6
0

Number of data
5
5
4
10
3

Depth , m
15
2
20 1
25 0

26–30

31–35

36–40

41–45

46–50

51–55

56–60
30
35 SPT , N60
a)
b)

SPT, N60
Downloaded by [University of Tehran], [Akbar Cheshomi] at 22:58 22 August 2014

12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 10
0

Number of data
5 8
10 6
15
Depth , m

4
20
2
25
0
30

<10
10–15
16–20
21–25
26–30
31–35
36–40
41–45
46–50
35
40 SPT , N60
c) d)

Figure 2. (a) SPT, N60 values with depth in silty sand soils, (b) histogram of N60 values in silty sand soils, (c) SPT, N60 values with depth in silty clay soils, (d)
histogram of N60 values in silty clay soils.

equipment for this test was developed by Menard (1957) and
introduced as the ‘Menard Pressuremeter’. The pressuremeter
consists of two major parts: the measuring unit and the probe
unit. The measuring unit was located on the ground surface
consisting of several gauges that record pressure and volume
and the probe unit was inserted into a borehole consisting of
three independent cells, a measuring and two guard cells.
When the probe is installed at the desired depth, as the pressure
increases in the measuring cell, the borehole walls deform.
In this research the pressuremeter test was performed in
accordance with ASTM D4719-00. Figure 3 shows the varia-
tion and histogram of EPMT values for silty sand and silty clay
soils. For silty sand soils, measured EPMT values range
between 16.4 and 51.3 MPa, with an average of 32.8 MPa
and standard deviation of 10.1 MPa. For silty clay soils,
measured EPMT values range between 6.7 and 55.7 MPa,
with an average of 25.3 MPa and standard deviation of 12.4
MPa. Although the results show an increase in the measured
EPMT values with depth, the rate of increase could not be
clearly defined due to other factors such as grain size distribu-
tions, mineralogy and geological conditions, which are influ-
ential as well, only lower and upper bounds could be drawn for
them.
Figure 4 shows the variation and histogram of PL values for
silty sand and silty clay soils. For silty sand soils measured PL
values range between 0.8 and 4.33 MPa, with an average of
2.49 MPa and standard deviation of 1.1 MPa. For silty clay
soils measured PL values range between 0.54 and 3.57 MPa,
with an average of 1.88 MPa and standard deviation of 2.0
MPa. There was an increase in PL values with depth, and
although a unique trend could not be determined, a lower
bound line could be obtained.
Estimating PMT parameters from SPT
Many correlations between field tests have developed from
individual sources (Kulhawy and Mayne 1990, Akca 2003,
Hasancebi and Ulusay 2007, Isik et al. 2008). However, only
a limited number of studies have investigated the correlation
between SPT and PMT results.
Ohya et al. (1982) presented the correlation between N and
EPMT for clay soils. Also the linear relationship between N and
EPMT and PL was presented by Chiang and Ho in weathered
granite in Hong Kong (1980). Moreover, Yagiz et al. (2008)
searched for a relationship between Ncor and EPMT and PL
based on a study conducted in Denizli, Turkey. Their results
were based on 15 readings carried out on shallow sandy silty
clays. They found that a linear relationship exists between the
corrected Ncor and EPMT and PL.
 4 A. Cheshomi and M. Ghodrati

EPMT, MPa 4
20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00
0

Number of data
3
5
2
10

Depth , m
15 1
20
25 0

16–20

21–25
26–30
31–35
36–40
41–45
46–50
51–55
30
35 EPMT, MPa
a) b)

EPMT, MPa
8
Downloaded by [University of Tehran], [Akbar Cheshomi] at 22:58 22 August 2014

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0

Number of data
6
5
10 4
Depth , m

15
20 2
25
30 0
<10
10–15
16–20
21–25
26–30
31–35
36–40
41–45
46–50
51–55
35
40
d) EPMT, MPa
c)

Figure 3. (a) EPMT values in silty sand soils, (b) histogram of data in silty sand soils, (c) EPMT values in silty clay soils, (d) histogram of data in silty clay soils.

6
PL , MPa
0 1 2 3 4 5 5
Number of data

0
4
5
3
10
2
Depth , m

15
1
20
0
0.5–1
1.1–1.5
1.6–2
2.1–2.5
2.6–3
3.1–3.5
3.6–4
4.1–4.5

25
30
35 PL , MPa
a) b)

10
PL , MPa
8
Number of data

0 1 2 3 4
0
6
5
4
10
Depth , m

15 2

20 0
0.5–1

1.1–1.5

1.6–2

2.1–2.5

2.6–3

3.1–3.5

25
30
PL , MPa
35
c) d)

Figure 4. (a) PL values in silty sand soils, (b) histogram of data in silty sand soils, (c) PL values in silty clay soils, (d) histogram of data in silty clay soils.
 Geomechanics and Geoengineering: An International Journal 5

Table 2. Empirical relationships between EPMT , PL and N, by several studies

Empirical equations

Soil type EPMT / PL PL EPMT Researchers

Silty clay 12–21 PL (kpa) = 29.45 (Ncor) +219.7 EPMT (kPa) = 388.67 (Ncor) + 4554 Yagiz et al. (2008)
r = 0.97 r = 0.91
Sandy soil 7–15 PL (Mpa) = 0.33 (N60)0. 51 EPMT (Mpa)= 1.33 (N60)0. 77 Bozbey and Togrol (2010)
r2 = 0.74 r2 = 0.82
Clayey soil 7–19 PL (Mpa) = 0.26 (N60)0. 57 EPMT (Mpa) = 1.61 (N60)0. 71
r2 = 0.67 r2 = 0.72
Sandy soil — — EPMT / Pa = 9.08 N0.66 Ohya et al. (1982)
r2 = 0.482
Clayey soil — — EPMT / Pa = 19.3 N0.63
r2 = 0.393
Downloaded by [University of Tehran], [Akbar Cheshomi] at 22:58 22 August 2014

Bozbey and Togrol (2010) presented the relationship Table 3. Soil type, N60, EPMT and PL, for silty clay soils
between N60 and EPMT and PL based on a study conducted in
Test no. USCS EPMT (MPa) PL (MPa) N60
Istanbul, Turkey. Their results were based on 182 tests carried
out on sand and clay soils and presented distinctive linear 1 Cl 13.03 1.08 25
correlation for each soil. Gonin et al. (1992) correlated SPT 2 Cl 33.22 2.40 38
3 Cl 18.91 1.17 27
results with EPMT and PL for nine different French soils. The 4 Cl 14.01 1.16 16
literature survey shows there is not a uniform relationship 5 Cl-Ml 17.54 – 25
between SPT and EPMT and PL, therefore some factors such 6 ML 10.39 0.86 9
7 Cl 22.07 – 22
as soil type, the ranges of N, EPMT and PL, and geological 8 CL-ML 37.54 2.03 25
conditions affect the results. Table 2 shows empirical relation- 9 Cl 27.57 – 23
ships by several researchers. Tables 3 and 4 present soil type, 10 Cl 28.99 1.83 23
11 Cl 22.64 2.17 20
N60, EPMT and PL data for silty sand and silty clay soils that are 12 Cl 8.13 1.04 16
used in this research. Based on the collected data, the follow- 13 Cl 7.94 – 24
ing correlations are proposed. 14 Cl-Ml 20.29 – 20
15 Cl 8.73 1.23 16
16 Cl 16.30 2.05 24
17 Cl-Ml 19.96 1.47 27
Correlation between N60 and EPMT 18 ML 28.29 2.06 38
19 Cl 55.73 – 50
Figures 5a and 5d depict the correlation between N60–EPMT for 20 Cl 24.76 1.77 35
21 CL-ML 23.62 1.25 32
silty sand and silty clay soils. These graphs show a linear 22 CL 6.73 0.54 15
relationship between these parameters which Equations (1a) 23 CL-ML 13.06 – 23
and (1b) present. 24 CL-ML 35.11 – 35
25 CL-ML 30.48 2.26 27
26 CL-ML 9.93 – 11
EPMT =Pa ¼ 9:8 N60  94:3 r ¼ 0:79 for silty sand (1a) 27 CL-ML 25.39 2.17 30
28 CL-ML 14.72 – 24
29 CL-ML 28.25 – 30
EPMT =Pa ¼ 10 N60  26:7 r ¼ 0:85 for silty clay (1b) 30 CL 32.43 2.68 40
31 CL 23.61 2.10 23
In these equations, Pa is atmospheric pressure. 32 CL-ML 20.73 1.74 13
33 CL-ML 45.60 2.21 42
34 CL-ML 37.02 2.48 38
35 CL-ML 46.54 2.28 38
Correlation between N60 and PL 36 CL-ML 44.48 1.67 37
37 ML 43.81 3.57 50
38 CL 43.71 3.41 50
Figures 5b and 5e display the correlation between N60–PL for
silty sand and silty clay soils. These graphs show a linear
relationship between these parameters which Equations (2a)
and (2b) present.
Correlation between EPMT and PL
PL =Pa ¼ N60  20:8 r ¼ 0:72 for silty sand (2a)
Figures 5c and 5f demonstrate the correlation between EPMT–
PL =Pa ¼ 0:5 N60 þ 42 r ¼ 0:78 for silty clay (2b) PL for silty sand and silty clay soils. These graphs show a
linear relationship between these parameters which Equations
In these equations Pa is atmospheric pressure. (3a) and (3b) present.
 6 A. Cheshomi and M. Ghodrati

Table 4. Soil type, N60, EPMT and PL data for silty sand soils PL ¼ 0:08 EPMT  0:026 r ¼ 0:68 for silty sand (3a)
Test no. USCS EPMT (MPa) PL (MPa) N60
PL ¼ 0:046 EPMT þ 0:067 r ¼ 0:78 for silty clay (3b)
1 SM 43.32 4.33 57
2 SM 30.79 1.99 50
3 SM 30.75 1.87 50 In these equations EPMT and PL is MPa. Equations (3a) and
4 SM 28.93 1.62 38
5 SM 19.58 – 34 (3b) suggest that the PL of the tested soils can be estimated
6 GC-GM 33.18 – 42 from the EPMT. It is known that extrapolation must be used to
7 GC 45.28 1.99 50 obtain PL if the volumetric increase at the end of the test is less
8 GC-GM 24.87 – 32
9 SC 16.48 – 34 than twice the cavity volume. For these cases, where limit
10 SC-SM 26.14 3.38 44 pressures cannot be measured directly, this equation may be
11 SM 36.55 – 40 useful in making estimations and cross checking the results.
12 SM 33.10 1.61 38
13 SC-SM 51.31 4.13 50
Figure 6 shows the variation of EPMT/PL ratios with density
14 SM 40.08 – 50 (for silty sand soils) and consistency (for silty clay soils). The
15 GM 46.37 3.22 50 ratios for the data that were investigated in this paper are as
Downloaded by [University of Tehran], [Akbar Cheshomi] at 22:58 22 August 2014

16 SM 18.91 0.80 28
follows:

60
5
50 EPMT = 0.98 N60 – 9.43
r = 0.79 4 PL = 0.1 N60 – 2.08
40 r = 0.72
EPMT, MPa

PL , MPa
3
30

20 2

10 1

0 0
20 30 40 50 60 20 30 40 50 60
a) SPT, N60 b) SPT, N60

60
5
EPMT = N60 –2.6748
PL = 0.08 EPMT – 0.26 50
4 r = 0.68 r = 0.85
40
EPMT, MPa
PL , MPa

3
30
2
20
1 10

0 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
c) EPMT, MPa d) SPT, N60

5
4
PL = 0.05 N60 + 0.42 PL = 0.046 EPMT + 0.67
4
r = 0.78 r = 0.78
3
PL , MPa

3
PL , MPa

2
2

1
1

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 20 40 60
SPT, N60 f)
e) EPMT, MPa

Figure 5. Correlation between (a) N60– EPMT, (b) N60 – PL and (c) PL – EPMT in silty sand soils and correlation between (d) N60– EPMT, (e) N60 – PL and (f) PL –
EPMT in silty clay soils.
 Geomechanics and Geoengineering: An International Journal 7

30 For dense and very dense silty sand EPMT =PL ¼ 10 to 24 (4a)
24 23
25
18 For stiff to very stiff silty clay EPMT =PL ¼ 7 to 20 (4b)
EPMT/PL 20
15
10 For hard silty clay EPMT =PL ¼ 12 to 20: (4c)
10
5 For self-boring pressuremeter tests, Baguelin (1982) has clas-
0
sified EPMT/PL ratios between 7 and 19 as medium dense to
dense sands and 4–7 as very loose to loose sands. Clarke
Dense

V. dense
(1995) for pre-bored pressuremeter, which is used in this
study, has classified EPMT/PL ratios between 10 and 20 as
a) Density
stiff to very stiff clays and 8 to 10 as soft to firm clays.
25
20 20
20
Downloaded by [University of Tehran], [Akbar Cheshomi] at 22:58 22 August 2014

Discussion
EPMT/PL

15 12 12 12
In Figure 7 (a and b) the measurement and estimated EPMT
10 7 8
values with those obtained from Equations (1a) and (1b) of this
5 study and Yagiz et al. (2008) and Bozbey and Togrol (2010)
formulas have been compared. The data used to draw this
0
figure is presented in Table 5.
Firm

Hard
Stiff

V. Stiff

This figure clearly shows that a similar linear relationship

exists between N60–EPMT in all equations. Specifically for N60
b) Consistensy
the Yagiz et al. (2008) formula estimates a lower value for
Figure 6. EPMT/PL value and (a) density for silty sand soils and (b) consis- EPMT and the formula presented in this paper estimates a higher
tency for silty clay soils. value for EPMT.

60

50 Measured by pressurmeter

40
EPMT, MPa

This study for silty sand soils

30

20 Bozbey and Togrol 2010 for

sandy soils
10
Yagiz et al 2008 for silt and
0 clayey silt soils
20 30 40 50 60
SPT, N60
a)

60

50 Measured by pressurmeter

40
EPMT, MPa

This study for silty clay soils

30

20 Bozbey and Togrol 2010 for

clayey soils
10
Yagiz et al 2008 for silt and
0 clayey silt soils
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
b) SPT, N60

Figure 7. Comparision of measured and calculated EPMT value for a) silty sand and b) silty clay soils.
 8 A. Cheshomi and M. Ghodrati

Table 5. Comparison between measured EPMT with estimated EPMT In clay soils, for N60 values lower than 20, EPMT values
Estimated EPMT (MPa)
presented by this study’s formula are very close to those of
Bozbey and Togrol (2010) but for N60 values more than 20,
Measured Bozbey and Yagiz EPMT values presented by this study’s formula are between
Test EPMT Togrol et al.
no. USCS N60 (MPa) This study (2010) (2008)
40% to 80% which are more than the EPMT estimated by
Bozbey and Togrol (2010). In this soil N60 values presented
1 CL 25 13.03 22.33 15.91 9.76 by this study’s formula are 2 to 2.5 times higher than the
2 CL 38 33.22 35.33 21.42 14.81 values presented by Yagiz et al. (2008).
3 CL 27 18.91 24.33 16.81 10.54
4 CL 16 14.01 13.33 11.59 6.26 Table 6 compares the condition of this research with those
5 CL-ML 25 17.54 22.33 15.91 9.76 of Yagiz et al. (2008) as well as Bozbey and Togrol (2010)
6 ML 9 10.39 6.33 7.70 3.54 based on a number of tests that represent empirical equation,
7 CL 22 22.07 19.33 14.53 8.60
8 CL-ML 25 37.54 22.33 15.91 9.76 range of EPMT, PL and N60, kind of soil and density or soil
9 CL 23 27.57 20.33 15.00 8.98 stiffness. According to this table Yagiz et al. (2008) pre-
10 CL 23 28.99 20.33 15.00 8.98 sented one equation for sand, silt, silty and sandy clay soils.
11 CL 20 22.64 17.33 13.58 7.82
Downloaded by [University of Tehran], [Akbar Cheshomi] at 22:58 22 August 2014

12 CL 16 8.13 13.33 11.59 6.26 But Bozbey and Togrol (2010) presented one equation for
13 CL 24 7.94 21.33 15.45 9.37 sandy soil and another equation for clay soil. And, this
14 CL-ML 20 20.29 17.33 13.58 7.82 research presented one equation for silty sand soil and
15 CL 16 8.73 13.33 11.59 6.26
16 Cl 24 16.30 21.33 15.46 9.37 another equation for silty clay soil. The differences between
17 CL-ML 27 19.96 24.33 16.81 10.54 the results of this study with Yagiz et al. (2008) can be
18 ML 38 28.29 35.33 21.42 14.82 related to soil type and range of EPMT. Similar to this
19 CL 50 55.73 47.33 26.03 19.48
20 CL 35 24.76 32.33 20.20 13.65 research, Bozbey and Togrol (2010) presented two equations
21 CL-ML 32 23.62 29.33 18.96 12.48 for any kind of soil, therefore the difference between these
22 CL 15 6.73 12.33 11.07 5.88 equation especially in low EPMT and N60 is less. However,
23 CL-ML 23 13.06 20.33 15.00 8.98
24 CL-ML 35 35.11 32.33 20.21 13.65 as there is a difference in soil type, especially considering
25 CL-ML 27 30.48 24.33 16.81 10.54 plasticity, this could be the source of the difference by itself.
26 CL-ML 11 9.93 8.33 8.88 4.32 Accordingly soil type which is the property of local geolo-
27 CL-ML 30 25.39 27.33 18.11 11.71
28 CL-ML 24 14.72 21.33 15.46 9.37 gical condition could be an important factor in empirical
29 CL-ML 30 28.25 27.33 18.11 11.71 equations. In addition, filed energy levels for SPT test, the
30 CL 40 32.43 37.33 22.22 15.59 disturbance created in a borehole while doing pressuremeter
31 CL 23 23.61 20.33 15.00 8.98
32 CL-ML 13 20.73 10.33 10.00 5.10 test, range of tests’ results could also be the reasons causing
33 CL-ML 42 45.60 39.33 23.00 16.37 this difference between these equations. Therefore, it is
34 CL-ML 38 37.02 35.33 21.42 14.81 necessary to present separate empirical equations between
35 CL-ML 38 46.54 35.33 21.42 14.81
36 CL-ML 37 44.48 34.33 21.02 14.43 the SPT test and PMT test for each soil type and it is better
37 ML 50 43.81 47.33 26.03 19.48 to present these equations for each area separately.
38 CL 50 43.71 47.33 26.03 19.48

In silty sand soils (Figure 7a), for N60 values lower than 35,
EPMT values presented by this study’s formula are very close to
values presented by Bozbey and Togrol (2010) but for N60
values more than 35, EPMT values presented by this study’s
formula are between 25% to 50% which are more than the
EPMT estimated by Bozbey and Togrol (2010). In this soil N60
values presented by this study’s formula are 2 to 2.5 times
higher than the values presented by Yagiz et al. (2008).
Conclusion
The standard penetration and pressuremeter tests are widely
used as in situ tests for estimating the soil properties in geo-
technical projects. With regard to the PMT test which is
comparatively expensive and as the SPT test is relatively
inexpensive and is usually performed in almost all geotechni-
cal projects; developing a relationship between these two tests’
results could be useful. This study aimed to correlate SPT and

Table 6. Comparisons of the condition of this research with those of Yagiz et al. (2008) as well as Bozbey and Togrol (2010)

Researchers Soil type Number of tests EPMT (MPa) PL (MPa) N Density/Stiffness

Bozbey and Togrol (2010) Sandy soil 54 12–47 1–3 20–95 Medium, dense to very dense
Clayey soils (CH) 100 5–44 0.5–3 20–70 Stiff, very stiff to hard
Yagiz et al. (2008) Sand, Silt Clayey silt Sandy clay Silty 15 4.5–19 0.3–1.5 6–42 Loose, medium and dense
clay Silty sand
This study Silty sand 15 16.4–51.3 0.5–3.5 28–57 Dense to very dense
Silty clay 38 6.7–55.7 0.5–3.5 9–50 Lowly plastic and firm, stiff to very stiff
 Geomechanics and Geoengineering: An International Journal
PMT data obtained during a soil investigation program in
Mashhad, Iran.
Empirical relationships were proposed between N60–EPMT,
N60–PL and EPMT–PL for silty sand and silty clay soils sepa-
rately with acceptable correlation coefficients. These correla-
tions are valid for the range of N values measured on the site.
Empirical equations presented in this paper were compared
with similar equations in other research.
These comparisons showed that there exists a similar linear
relationship between them but their line slope is different.
Thus, it can be concluded that line slopes are related to geolo-
gical condition, soil type, field energy level for SPT testing,
and range of test results. Hence, it is necessary to present
empirical equations between SPT and PMT tests for each soil
Downloaded by [University of Tehran], [Akbar Cheshomi] at 22:58 22 August 2014
type and for each area separately.
References
Aggour, M.S. and Radding, W.R., 2001. Standard penetration test
(SPT) correction. Research report submitted to Maryland
Department of Transportation, report no. SP007B48State,
Highway Administration. Department of Transportation.
Akca, N., 2003 Correlation of SPT–CPT data from the United Arab
Emirates. English Geology 67(3/4) 219–231. doi:10.1016/
S0013-7952(02)00181-3
ASTM, 1999. Standard test method for penetration test and splitbarrel
sampling of soils (D1586), Thomson Reuters.
ASTM, 2000. Standard test method for pre-bored pressuremeter test-
ing in soils (D4719), Thomson Reuters.
Baguelin, F., 1982. Rules of foundation design using self boring
pressuremeter results. Proceedings of international symposium
on pressuremeter marine applications, 347–360, Editions
TECHNIP-Paris.
Bowles, J.E., 1997. Foundation analysis and design, 5th edn. New
York: McGraw- Hill.
Bozbey, I. and Togrol, E., 2010. Correlation of standard penetration
test and pressuremeter data a case study from Estunbol
Turkey. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and Environmental,
69, 505–515. doi:10.1007/s10064-009-0248-4
Chiang, Y.C. and Ho, Y.M., 1980. Pressuremeter method for founda-
tion design in Hong Kong. Proceedings of sixth Southeast Asian
conference on soil engineering, 1, 31–42.
9
Clarke, B.G., 1995. Pressuremeters in geotechnical design. London:
Blackie Academic and Professional, Chapman & Hall.
Clayton, C.R.I., 1995. The standard penetration tests (SPT): methods
and use (R143). London: CIRIA, 144.
Gonin, H., Vandangeon, P. and Lafeullade, M.P., 1992. Correlation
study between standard penetration and pressuremeter tests. Rev
Fr Ge´otech, 58, 67–78.
Hasancebi, N. and Ulusay, R., 2007. Empirical correlations between
shear wave velocity and penetration resistance for ground shak-
ing assessments. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the
Environmental, 66, 203–213. doi:10.2007/s10064-006-0063-0
Isik, N.S., Doyuran, V. and Ulusay, R., 2008. Assessment of deforma-
tion modulus of weak rock masses from pressuremeter tests and
seismic surveys. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the
Environment, 67, 293–303. doi:10.1007/s10064-008-0163-0
Kulhawy, F.H. and Mayne, P.W., 1990. Manual on estimating soil
properties for foundation design. Palo Alto: Electric Power
Research Institute.
Liao, S. and Whitman, R.V., 1986. Overburden correction factor for
SPT in sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
112 (3), 373–377.
Mair, R.J. and Wood, D.M., 1987. Pressuremeter testing-methods and
interpretation. CIRIA.
Marcuson, W.F. and Bieganousky, W.A., 1977. SPT and relative
density in coarse sands. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, 103(11),1295–1309.
Menard, L., 1957. An apparatus for measuring the strength of soils in
place. Thesis (PhD). University of Illinois.
Ohya, S., Imai, T. and Matsubara, M., 1982. Relationship between N
value by SPT and LLT pressuremeter results. Proceedings, 2.
European symposium on penetration testing, 1, 125–130.
Phoon, K.K. and Kulhawy, F.H., 1999. Evaluation of geotechnical
variability. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 36, 625–639.
Seed, H.B., Arango, I. and Chan, C.K., 1975. Evaluation of soil
liquefaction potential during earthquake (report no. 75–28).
Earthquake.
Skempton, A.W., 1986. Standard penetration test procedures and
the effect in sands of overburden pressure, relative density,
particle size, aging and over-consolidation. Geotechnique,
36 (3), 425–447.
Yagiz, S., Akyol, E. and Sen, G., 2008. Relationship between the
standard penetration test and the pressuremeter test on sandy silty
clays: a case study from Denizli. Bulletin of Engineering
Geology and the Environment, 67, 405–410.