Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Different Results in Pressuremeter Theories

  • Original paper
  • Published:
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The limit pressure that evaluated from pressuremeter tests has been shown to represent a key constitutive relationship for bearing capacity and shallow foundation design. The theoretical and the conventional limits pressure have been evaluated from different methods of interpretation using different theories. This paper provides a new method for interpretation the conventional limit pressure, the new method showed very good agreements with other methods used for evaluating the conventional limit pressure. The new method named as conventional limit pressure. The results of Menard pressuremeter conducted in Abu-Dhabi site been analyzed in five methods of interpretation for conventional and theoretical limit pressure. The deduced results from different methods showed some discrepancies for the same tests. The tested soil can be described as poorly graded sand with silt.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baguelin F, Jezequel J, Shields D (1978) The pressuremeter and foundation engineering. Trans. Tech. Publications, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop R, Hill R, Mott N (1945) Theory of indentation and hardness tests. Proc Phys Soc 57(3):147–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Centre d’ Etudes Menard (1967) Regles d’ utilisation des techniques pressiometriques et d’ exploitation des resltats obtenus pour le calcul des foundations-Document D60

  • Gibson RE, Anderson WF (1961) In situ measurements of soil properties using the pressuremeter. Civil Eng Public Works Rev 56:615–618

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsland A, Randolph MF (1977) Comparison of the results from pressuremeter tests and large in-situ plate test in London clay. Geotechnique 27(2):217–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinley DG, Tomlinson MJ, Anderson WF (1974) Observation on the undrained strength of glacial till. Geotechnique 24(4):503–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menard LF (1957) An approach for measuring the strength of soil in place. MSc thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Verbena

  • Monnet J (2007) 18ème Congrès Français de Mécanique. Grenoble, pp 27–31

  • Powell JJ (1990) A comparison of four different pressuremeters and their methods of interpretation in stiff heavily over consolidated clay. In: Proceeding of the 3rd international symposium on pressuremeters, Oxford

  • Ramdane B, Nassim A, Ouarda B (2013) Interpretation of a pressuremeter test in cohesive soils. International conference on geotechnical engineering, Tunisia

  • Shwaik RM (1984) Pressuremeter practice in testing glacial till. PhD, Thesis, Civil Engineering Department, University of Strathclyde

  • Van Wambeke A, d Hericourt J (1975) Coubed Pressiometriques inverses: méthode d interpretation de lessai pressiometrique. Soils 25:15–25

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Engineering, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

    Radhi M. Alzubaidi

Authors
  1. Radhi M. Alzubaidi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Radhi M. Alzubaidi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alzubaidi, R.M. Different Results in Pressuremeter Theories. Geotech Geol Eng 32, 965–972 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-014-9772-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-014-9772-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation