An approach for determining the relationship between the parameters of pressuremeter and SPT in different consistency clays in Eastern Turkey

  • Ali Özvan
  • İsmail Akkaya
  • Mücip Tapan
Original Paper


The pressuremeter test is one of the borehole loading tests that determines the deformation characteristics of subsurface soil. The main idea of the pressuremeter test is to inflate the cylindrical hole drilled in order to measure the pressure-deformation relations of the soil. Another in situ test by which soil properties are determined is the well-known standard penetration test (SPT). The consistency and firmness of soils can be determined using the test results of these in situ tests. In order to determine the relationship between the results of these two tests in clayey soils with low and high plasticity characteristics, a total of 20 boreholes with 1.5–4.5 m depths were drilled, and both tests were performed at varying depths. Following the pressuremeter test, pure limit pressure (P L) values and pressuremeter deformation modulus (E M) were calculated for 31 different levels, respectively. These values were compared to SPT (N 60) values, and high determination coefficients (R 2) were attained. Therefore, for clayey soils, it is possible to determine E M and P L values from SPT results, and consequently SPT test results can be used to calculate settlement and bearing capacity as well as the undrained shear strength values (c u) of low and high plasticity clayey soils.


Pressuremeter Standard penetration test Clay Correlation 



The authors thank Elif Özvan and Kemal Gezici for their support during different stages of this study. The authors also thank Dr. M. Nuri Almalı for his valuable help for evaluating the results of the statistical analysis.


  1. Aggour MS, Radding WR (2001) Standard penetration test (SPT) correction, Research report submitted to Maryland Department of Transportation, Report No. SP007B48, State Highway AdministrationGoogle Scholar
  2. Aladağ CH, Kayabasi A, Gokceoglu C (2013) Estimation of pressuremeter modulus and limit pressureof clayey soils by various artificial neural network models. Neural Comput Applic 23:333–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anwar MB (2016) Correlation between PMT and SPT resultsfor calcareous soil. Housing and Building National Research Center. doi: 10.1016/j.hbrcj.2016.03.001
  4. ASTM D1586 (1999) Standard test method for penetration test and split-barrel sampling of soils. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  5. ASTM D4719 (2000) Standard test method for pre-bored pressuremeter testing in soils. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  6. Baguelin F, Jezequel JF, Shields DH (1978) The pressuremeter and foundation engineering. Trans Tech Publications, Pennsylvania State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowles JE (1997) Foundation analysis and design, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  8. Bozbey I, Togrol E (2010) Correlation of standard penetration test and pressuremeter data a case study from Estunbol Turkey. Bull Eng Geol Environ 69:505–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. British Standards Institution (2007) BS EN ISO 22476-3: Geotechnical investigation and testing—field testing (Part 3: standard penetration test). British Standards Institution, London Google Scholar
  10. Cheshomi A, Ghodrati M (2015) Estimating Menard pressuremeter modulus and limit pressure from SPT in silty sand and silty claysoils. A case study in Mashhad, Iran. Geomech Geoeng 10(3):194–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chiang YC, Ho YM (1980) Pressuremeter method for foundation design in Hong Hong. In: Proceedings of sixth Southeast Asian Conference on Soil Engineering 1. pp s31–s42Google Scholar
  12. Clarke BG (1995) Pressuremeters in geotechnical design. Blackie/Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Coduto DP (1999) Geotechnical Engineering: Principles and Practices. California State Polytechnic University, Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  14. Gonin H, Vandangeon P, Lafeullade MP (1992) Correlation study between standard penetration and pressuremeter tests. Rev Fr Geotech 58:67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ISRM (2007) The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization. Testing And monitoring: 1974–2006. In: R Ulusay, JA Hudson (eds) International Society for Rock Mechanics, Commission on Testing Methods Turkish National Group, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  16. Kayabaşı A (2012) Prediction of pressuremeter modulus and limit pressure of clayey soils by simple and non linear multiple regression techniques: a case study from Mersin, Turkey. Environ Earth Sci 66:2171–2183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kayabaşı A, Gökceoğlu C (2012) Taşıma Kapasitesi ve Oturma Miktarının hesaplanmasında Yaygın Kullanılan Yöntemlerin Mersin Arıtma Tesisi Temeli Örneğinde Uygulanması (in Turkish). TMMOB Jeoloji Mühendisleri Odası, Jeoloji Mühendisliği Dergisi 36(1):1–22Google Scholar
  18. Mair RJ, Wood DM (1987) Pressuremeter testing methods and interpretation. CIRIA. ISSN:0-408-02434-8Google Scholar
  19. Menard L (1957) An apparatus for measuring the strength of soils in place. Thesis, University of IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  20. MTA (2007) Van İlininYerbilimi Verileri (in Turkish). MadenTetkik ve Arama Genel Müdürlüğü, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  21. Ohya S, Imai T, Matsubara M (1982) Relationship between N value by SPT and LLT pressuremeter results. In: Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, vol 1, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 24–27 May 1982, pp 125–130Google Scholar
  22. Phoon KK, Kulhawy FH (1999) Evaluation of geotechnical variability. Can Geotech J 36:625–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shields D, Bauer G (1975) Determination of the modulus of deformation of a sensitive clay using laboratory and in situ tests. In: Proceedings of the specialty conference on in situ measurement of soil properties, vol 1. American Society of Civil Engineers, Raleigh, North Carolina, pp 395–421Google Scholar
  24. Sivrikaya O, Toğrol E (2007). Türkiye’de SPT-N Değeri ile İnce Daneli Zeminlerin Drenajsız Kayma Mukavemeti arasındaki İlişkiler (in Turkish). İMO Teknik Dergi, 2007, pp 4229–4246, Yazı 279Google Scholar
  25. SPSS (2002) Statistical package for the social sciences (v. 23). SPSS Inc, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  26. TS 1500 (2000) İnşaat Mühendisliğinde Zeminlerin Sınıflandırılması (in Turkish). Türk Standartları Enstitüsü, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  27. Yagiz S, Akyol E, Sen G (2008) Relationship between the standard penetration test and the pressuremeter test on sandy silty clays: a case study from Denizli. Bull Eng Geol Environ 67:405–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geological Engineering, Engineering-Architecture FacultyYüzüncü Yıl UniversityVanTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Geophysical EngineeringYüzüncü Yıl UniversityVanTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringYüzüncüYıl UniversityVanTurkey

Personalised recommendations