APPLICATION OF PRESSUREMETER IN

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
PRACTICE

by

Dr.K.ILAMPARUTHI
Professor and Head,
Department of Civil Engineering,
Anna University,
Chennai-600 025.
SEQUENCE OF PRESENTATION
Introduction
Types of Pressuremeter
About Mini Pressuremeter
Pressuremeter Test Results
Interpretation of Data
Correlation between PMT and SCPT
Conclusions
INTRODUCTION
The main objective of geotechnical investigation
is to find engineering properties of soil .
Laboratory Testing on samples at best can only
approximate field conditions.
In situ testing offers:
Minimal soil disturbance
Testing under natural conditions
Cost effectiveness
Quicker testing
Pressuremeter is one such in situ testing device
TYPES OF PRESSUREMETER
E-type : The first operational pressuremeter, which is
not in practice at present.
GC-type : Most widely used pressuremeter which can
handle a pressure upto 4000 kPa with few
modifications.
GB type : it can reach a pressure of 10,000 kPa.
Widely used two types of pressuremeters are
– GC type (conventional)
– Mini Pressuremeter
PRESSUREMETER

• Development

• Literature
 DATA

G=V0 (ΔP/ΔV)
E=2(1+μ)G
K0=(P0/σ’)
ABOUT MINI PRESSUREMETER
Developed by Louis Menard
It mainly consists of 3 parts:
1. Probe - Sensor of the whole system which consists of a
hollow metal core, a thin inner membrane covering the
middle portion of the probe defined as the measuring cell
and a thick outer rubber pipe reinforced with metal strips,
guarding the measuring cell is known as guard cell.
2. Monitoring device - Consists of a reservoir for the
measuring cell fixed to the brass block. On to this two
pressure gauges of 16 bars capacity are used to monitor
pressures in the measuring and guard cells.
3. The tubing - it is a coaxial nylon hose in which two nylon
tubes are provided one inside the other. one end is
connected to the coaxial inlet of the probe and the other
end is connected to the coaxial outlet of the coaxial
connector and in turn to the monitoring device.
ABOUT MINI PRESSUREMETER (Cntd…)

• Very useful in sand and soft clay where

undisturbed sampling is difficult or not
possible.
• Popular in European countries but yet to
pick up it’s momentum in India.
• Details of the usage of pressure meter is
well documented by Baguelin et al.(1978)
and Clarke (1997)
EXPERIMENTAL SET UP FOR AIR
CALIBRATION OF THE PROBE
APPLICATION OF THE PRESSURE INCREMENT
USING CO2 GAS
 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP FOR VOLUME
CALIBRATION OF THE MINI-PRESSUREMETER
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
Pressuremeter tests and static cone penetration tests
were conducted.
In sand and soft clay.
Net limit pressure values are compared with strength
parameters obtained from empirical correlations.
FIELD TESTS
I. Locations (Dominantly Sand)
• Kottivakkam
• Vyasarpadi
• Parameswari Nagar
• Kotturpuram
• K.K.Nagar
• Thiruvanmiyur
• Indira Nagar

II. Locations (Dominantly Clay)

• Taramani
• Adyar
• Anna Nagar
• Nungambakkam
• Vyasarpadi
• Parameswari Nagar
• K.K. Nagar
PRESSUREMETER TEST RESULTS
TYPICAL PRESSUREMETER CURVE
AIR CALIBRATION CURVE FOR
NUNGAMBAKKAM
VOLUME CALIBRATION CURVE FOR
NUNGAMBAKKAM
PRESSUREMETER CURVE
PRESSUREMETER CURVE
PRESSUREMETER CURVE
PRESSUREMETER CURVE
PRESSUREMETER CURVE
CORRELATION BETWEEN SCPT & PMT
STATIC CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE DIAGRAM
AT NUNGAMBAKKAM SITE
INTERPRETATION OF TEST DATA

Strength Parameters (Ф’ and Cu )

Deformation Modulas Em

Limit Pressure, Pl

Bearing Capacity of Foundations

Settlement of Foundation
 Location Depth (m) Pressuremeter Cone Resistance, qc
x 10 (kN/m2)
Em X10 (kN/m2) P1 (kN/m2)
(1) (2) (5)
(3) (4)
Sand (loose and medium dense)
Kottivakkam 0.8 530 600 380
1.2 825 1100 550
1.7 827 1330 570
2.2 1440 1550 700
Nungambakkam 4.5 94 100 140
Vyasarpadi 0.9 203 330 100
2.5 138 156 30
3.7 151 167 20
4.4 297 272 20
Parameswari Nagar 2 659 1050 320
3 492 1330 320
Kotturpuram Garden 2 290 525 400
3 205 340 300
3.7 245 585 360
K.K.Nagar 2.8 210 180 130
4 93 284 100
Kotturpuram Park 0.7 300 540 245
1.7 460 655 380
2.7 720 1080 620
3.7 1370 1600 650
Thiruvanmiyur 0.7 760 815 400
1.5 960 1000 640
2.7 1340 1180 780
Indira Nagar 0.8 85 160 60
1.4 146 380 100
2.8 187 460 150
3.8 246 480 170
Clay (soft and medium stiff)
Taramani 0.7 220 405 120
1.5 106 155 20
2.5 148 155 20
4.2 236 260 30
Adayar 0.5 560 460 120
1.5 550 460 90
2.5 380 320 55
Anna Nagar 0.7 848 1060 500
1.7 520 800 350

Nungambakkam 1.7 335 565

2.7 375 540
3.7 160 215
Vyasarpadi 1.7 24 42 60

Parameswari Nagar 0.9 940 1280 180

K.K.Nagar 1 70 172 90
2 310 420 100

Kotturpuaram 1 380 650 90

Garden
 STRENGTH PARAMETERS

Pl* =10^ [(Ф-18)/12.8] (Ilamparuthi)

Pl* = b x 2^ [(Ф-24)/4]

Pl* =5.5 x Cu
 COMPARISON OF qc and Pl
Soil Author Baguelin Komornik Crispel &
Condition (1978) (1969) Remy
(1969)
Loose sand 2.5 to 3.7 3 to 4 3 to 5 -

Medium 4 to 7.5 5 to 12 - -
dense sand

Soft Clay 1.2 to 1.7 2.5 to 3.5 - -

Medium 2.2 to 3.5 2.5 to 3.5 2 to 4 4.1 to 4.5

stiff Clay
COMPARISON OF Ф’ PREDICTED FROM SCPT
AND PMT
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN Pi* AND Cu
UN-DRAINED COHESION VS LIMIT
PRESSURE
Cu COMPARISON BETWEEN SCPT AND
PMT
 CONCLUSIONS
The correlation of Pi*/Cu =5.5 may be adopted for the
determination of undrained cohesion of clay of Chennai.

The Φ’ obtained from the results of pressuremeter and from the

static cone resistance by DeBeer (1943) theory compares well.

The correlation between cone resistance and limit pressure

recommended here compare well with recommendations of
Baguelin (1978) and Komornik (1969)

Operation of pressure meter is simple and quick so that it can

be extended to more potential sites.