Skip to main content

Excess Pore Water Pressure Generation, Distribution and Dissipation in Self-boring Pressuremeter Test: Numerical Analysis

Abstract

Pore-water pressure is generated during the self-boring pressuremeter test (SBPT) in saturated fine-grained soils. The excess pore-water pressure (EPWP) generated during the expansion of the probe may also dissipate due to partial drainage and this affects the test results. The main objective of this paper is to present a numerical model to investigate the simultaneous effect of factors influencing the EPWP-response and to determine the drainage range for the interpretation of field data. The problem was simulated using coupled pseudo-static finite element analysis by assuming small-strain deformation. Probe expansion was investigated using the strain holding approach, and EPWP-generation and dissipation were monitored around the probe over time. The results of the numerical analysis were validated by the field, theoretical, and numerical data. The effects of the permeability coefficient (isotropic and non-isotropic) and constant and variable strain rates were simultaneously investigated. The results of parametric studies indicated that in the SBPT with probe geometry (\(L/D = 6\)) and conventional radial strain rate (1%/min), partial drainage occurs in the permeability coefficient range 10−6–10−11 m/s. Therefore, the assumption of undrained conditions in the cavity expansion stage under these states is incorrect. In addition, for different radial strain rates (0.01–100%/min), the variation in drainage behavior from drained to undrained conditions was noticeable. Therefore, for the normalized velocities in the range of 0.0001 to 1, considerations regarding partial drainage seem necessary. In addition, it was found that the dissipation curve is also affected if the strain rate is varied during the cavity expansion stage.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

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

References

  1. Burns SE, Mayne PW (1998) Monotonic and dilatory pore-pressure decay during piezocone tests in clay. Can Geotech J 35(6):1063–1073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mahmoodzadeh H, Randolph MF (2014) Penetrometer testing: effect of partial consolidation on subsequent dissipation response. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Robertson PK (1986) In situ testing and its application to foundation engineering. Can Geotech J 23(4):573–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baguelin F, Jezequel JF et al (1972) Expansion of cylindrical probes in cohesive soils. J Soil Mech Found Div 98(11):1129–1142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wroth CP, Hughes JMO (1973) An instrument for the in situ testing of soft soils. In: Proceedings 8th international conference on soil mech and found engineering, vol 12, pp 487–494

  6. Monnet J (2007) Numerical validation of an elastoplastic formulation of the conventional limit pressure measured with the pressure meter test in cohesive soil. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133(9):1119–1127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Houlsby GT, Carter JP (1993) The effects of pressuremeter geometry on the results of tests in clay. Geotechnique 43(4):567–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fahey M, Carter JP (1986) Some effects of rate of loading and drainage on pressuremeter tests in clay. Proc Specialty Geomech Symp Interpretation Field Test Design Parameters 1(2):50–55

    Google Scholar 

  9. Clarke BG, Carter JP, Wroth CP (1979) ln situ determination of the consolidation characteristics of saturated clays. Proc 7th Eur Conf Soil Mech and Found Eng 2:207–213

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fioravante V, Jamiolkowski M, Lancellotta R (1994) An analysis of pressuremeter holding tests. Géotechnique 44(2):227–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hawkins PG (2019) The pressuremeter holding test, its analysis and similarity to the piezocone dissipation test. Geotech Res 6(1):19–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Randolph MF, Wroth CP (1979) An analytical solution for the consolidation around a driven pile. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 3(3):217–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen SL, Abousleiman YN (2013) Exact drained solution for cylindrical cavity expansion in modified Cam Clay soil. Géotechnique 63(6):510–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Li J, Gong W, Li L, Liu F (2017) Drained elastoplastic solution for cylindrical cavity expansion in K0-consolidated anisotropic soil. J Eng Mech 143(11):4017133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cao LF, Teh CI, Chang MF (2001) Undrained cavity expansion in modified Cam clay I: Theoretical analysis. Geotechnique 51(4):323–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chen SL, Abousleiman YN (2012) Exact undrained elasto-plastic solution for cylindrical cavity expansion in modified Cam Clay soil. Géotechnique 62(5):447–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chen H, Li L, Li J, Wang H (2019) Stress transform method to undrained and drained expansion of a cylindrical cavity in anisotropic modified cam-clay soils. Comput Geotech 106:128–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. DeJong JT, Randolph M (2012) Influence of partial consolidation during cone penetration on estimated soil behavior type and pore pressure dissipation measurements. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 138(7):777–788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ceccato F, Simonini P (2017) Numerical study of partially drained penetration and pore pressure dissipation in piezocone test. Acta Geotech 12(1):195–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Silva MF, White DJ, Bolton MD (2006) An analytical study of the effect of penetration rate on piezocone tests in clay. Int J Numer Anal methods Geomech 30(6):501–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dienstmann G, Maghous S, Schnaid F (2017) Theoretical analysis and finite-element simulation for nonlinear poroelastic behavior of cylinder expansion in infinite media under transient pore-fluid flow conditions. Int J Geomech 17(7):4017001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Khanmohammadi M, Fakharian K (2018) Numerical simulation of soil stress state variations due to mini-pile penetration in clay. Int J Civ Eng 16(4):409–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ansari Y, Merifield R, Sheng D (2014) A piezocone dissipation test interpretation method for hydraulic conductivity of soft clays. Soils Found 54(6):1104–1116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. GolestaniDariani AAG, Ahmadi MM (2021) Generation and dissipation of excess pore water pressure during CPTu in clayey soils: a numerical approach. Geotech Geol Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-021-01716-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jang IS, Chung CK, Kim MM, Cho SM (2003) Numerical assessment on the consolidation characteristics of clays from strain holding, self-boring pressuremeter test. Comput Geotech 30(2):121–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Yin Z, Hicher P (2008) Identifying parameters controlling soil delayed behaviour from laboratory and in situ pressuremeter testing. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 32(12):1515–1535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Rui Y, Yin M (2018) Interpretation of pressuremeter test by finite-element method. Proc Inst Civ Eng 171(2):121–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Chung SF, Randolph MF, Schneider JA (2006) Effect of penetration rate on penetrometer resistance in clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(9):1188–1196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Finnie IMS, Randolph M (1994) Punch-through and liquefaction induced failure of shallow foundations on calcareous sediments. In: Punch-through and liquefaction induced failure of shallow foundations on calcareous sedimentsvol 1, pp 217–230

  30. Carter JP, Booker JR, Yeung SK (1986) Cavity expansion in cohesive frictional soils. Geotechnique 36(3):349–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Vrakas A (2016) Relationship between small and large strain solutions for general cavity expansion problems in elasto-plastic soils. Comput Geotech 76:147–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ahmadi MM, Keshmiri E (2017) Interpretation of in situ horizontal stress from self-boring pressuremeter tests in sands via cavity pressure less than limit pressure: a numerical study. Environ Earth Sci 76(9):333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Isik NS, Ulusay R, Doyuran V (2015) Comparison of undrained shear strength by pressuremeter and other tests and numerical assessment of the effect of finite probe length in pressuremeter tests. Bull Eng Geol Environ 74(3):685–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Robertson PK, Hughes JMO (1985) Determination of properties of sand from self-boring pressuremeter test. In: The pressuremeter and its marine applications, proceedings of the 2nd international symposium on pressuremeters, College Station, Texas. ASTM, Special Technical Publication STP 950, pp 283–302

  35. Zhou H, Liu H, Zha Y, Yin F (2017) A general semi-analytical solution for consolidation around an expanded cylindrical and spherical cavity in modified Cam Clay. Comput Geotech 91:71–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Yi JT, Goh SH, Lee FH, Randolph MF (2012) A numerical study of cone penetration in fine-grained soils allowing for consolidation effects. Géotechnique 62(8):707–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Liu L, Elwood D, Martin D, Chalaturnyk R (2018) Determination of permeability of overconsolidated clay from pressuremeter pressure hold tests. Can Geotech J 55(4):514–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

In this study, MATLAB code execution for all numerical simulations in High-Performance Computing Research Center (HPCRC)—Amirkabir University of Technology was performed under contract number ISI-DCE-DOD-Cloud-900808-170. Therefore, we thank them for their cooperation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mojtaba Jahanandish.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lachinani, H., Jahanandish, M. & Ghahramani, A. Excess Pore Water Pressure Generation, Distribution and Dissipation in Self-boring Pressuremeter Test: Numerical Analysis. Int J Civ Eng (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-022-00721-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-022-00721-4

Keywords

  • Self-boring pressuremeter test (SBPT)
  • Strain holding test (SHT)
  • Pore pressure dissipation
  • Partial drainage