Ministry of

Higher Education
And Scientific
Research
University of
Diyala
College of
Engineering
Civil Department

PRESSUREMETER TEST
BY
Jubran Raad Fahad
Pencel Pressuremeter
Tubing

Pressure
Gage

Probe
Volume
Counter
 Friction Reducer and
Smooth Cone Tips

Friction
Smooth
Reducer
Cone
Cone
Tip
Tip

1.280
1.335 inch inch
33.9 mm 33.0
mm
 Pushing the Pencel
Pressuremeter

Results in Significant Time

Savings
Conventional Boring and PMT
Testing
50 feet per day including 5 PMT tests
Cone Pushed PPMT Testing
Ave: 1:45 min per 50 ft sounding with
5 manual tests
Does the PPMT give reliable
results?
 Elastic Modulus vs Limit
Pressure FIT Sands
2500

y = 0.06x + 192.48
2000
R2 = 0.91

1500
it Pressure(kPa)

1000
Lim

500

0
- 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000
Initial Modulus (kPa)
Concerns Addressed by
Automation
Is resulting stress-strain data
realistic?
Can Pushed PPMT data be
correlated to existing information
Can Recording--Analyzing errors
and time consumption be improved
Can adjustments during testing be
standardized
Volume injection rate
Time between readings
Probe length and diameter
Friction reducer cone tip or smooth cone
tip
Unloading sequence
Total volume injected
Typical Test Procedure

Insert probe to desired depth

Inject equal volume increments
of water & record pressures 
strain controlled
Apply three calibrations to raw
data;
Membrane resistance
Volumetric expansion
Hydrostatic pressure
About 75 pieces of data
recorded
 Instrumentation
Data Collection
Data collected with software
Graphs from data acquisition
Pressure - Volume, Volumetric Strain or
Hoop Strain
Pressure - Time
Volume - Time
Data Analysis
Determine Engineering Properties
Elastic Moduli (equations initial Eo and
rebound Er)
Limit Pressure pl
Initial Pressure po
Typical APMT Screen
Automated Pencel PMT

Laptop with Electrical

Data Connections
Acquisition
 Automated Components

Pressure
Transducer
Linear
Potentiomet
er

Spacer Cylinder
Blocks

Linkag
e
Electronics
Module
LCD
Monit
or
Advantages of the
Automated PPMT

Improves data collection

process.
Reduces potential for
human error.
Improves the quality of the
data.
Results in significant cost
savings.
 Instrumented PPMT
Time Savings
Estimated Time per Task

Task
Manual Instrument
Control Unit ed Control
Unit
Collect Data Read + record; Automatically
5 min Recorded
Data Transfer 25 minutes Performed
and during test
Reduction
Evaluate 20 minutes 10 minutes
Engineering
Parameters
Total 50 minutes 10 minutes
 Analytical Evaluation

Smooth Cone Tip versus Friction

Reducer Tip
Testing Procedure
Engineering Properties
 P-y Curves

P-y curve based on PMT

Method using Robertson et al.
(1985) method.
 Recording
Record initial and final membrane lengths and
diameters per sounding
 Conclusions
The Pushed PPMT saves Time and Yields
Accurate Soil Properties
Standardization
Use 32 mm (1.26 inch) I.D. volume calibration
tube
Record initial and final membrane lengths
Use Provafit Insitu® for data reduction after hand
recorded test
Use APMT for data reduction during automated
test
Automation
Linear potentiometer with 6-inch travel
Stainless steel pressure transducer with -10 to
+500 psi range
In-situ - curves, along with critical properties
for other analyses
 Recommendations

Develop correlations to soil

classification, point bearing (qc)
etc., during test
Develop software to directly
give p-y curves based on a given
pile size and shape
Improve the PPMT Lateral
Load database