For Volume 1:

Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterisation 5 – Lehane, Acosta-Martínez & Kelly (Eds)
© 2016 Australian Geomechanics Society, Sydney, Australia, ISBN 978-0-9946261-1-0

Determination
Determination of
of Em
Em
For Volume 2: from
from Ménard
Ménard pressuremeter
pressuremeter tests
tests for
for gneiss
gneiss residual
residual
soils
soils
Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterisation 5 – Lehane, Acosta-Martínez & Kelly (Eds)
© 2016 Australian Geomechanics Society, Sydney, Australia, ISBN 978-0-9946261-2-7
T.
T. Q.
Q. Silva
Silva &
& E.
E. S.
S. Cândido
Cândido
Civil
Civil Engineering
Engineering Department,
Department, Universidade
Universidade Federal
Federal de
de Viçosa,
Viçosa, Viçosa,
Viçosa, Brazil
Brazil
E.
E. A.
A. G.
G. Marques
Marques &
& E.
E. Minette
Minette
Civil
Civil Engineering
Engineering Department,
Department, Universidade
Universidade Federal
Federal de
de Viçosa,
Viçosa, Viçosa,
Viçosa, Brazil
Brazil

ABSTRACT:
ABSTRACT: This This manuscript
manuscript presents
presents thethe results
results of of some
some Ménard
Ménard Pressuremeter
Pressuremeter tests
tests performed
performed in in gneiss
gneiss re-
re-
sidual soils from Southeast Brazil, developed under tropical conditions. These tests
sidual soils from Southeast Brazil, developed under tropical conditions. These tests are useful to determine are useful to determine
stress-strain
stress-strain behavior
behavior of of soils
soils and,
and, so,
so, can
can be
be used
used on on Civil
Civil Engineering
Engineering applications.
applications. Amid
Amid the the parameters
parameters thatthat
can
can bebe determined
determined throughout
throughout this this type
type ofof tests
tests isis Ménard
Ménard Pressuremeter
Pressuremeter Modulus
Modulus (E (Emm),), which
which represents
represents thethe
deformability
deformability of of aa soil
soil under
under external
external loads.
loads. Four
Four boreholes
boreholes were
were executed
executed on
on gneisses
gneisses residual
residual soils,
soils, in
in which
which
aa total
total of
of 11
11 (eleven)
(eleven) pressuremeter
pressuremeter tests tests were
were performed
performed on on mature
mature residual
residual soils
soils and
and 1818 (eighteen)
(eighteen) on on young
young
residual
residual soils.
soils. Results
Results have
have shown
shown that that EEmm for
for both
both soils
soils increase
increase with
with depth,
depth, as
as expected.
expected. Nevertheless,
Nevertheless, for for
young residual this behavior is not obvious, as a small reduction on E values can
young residual this behavior is not obvious, as a small reduction on Emm values can be noted for deeper youngbe noted for deeper young
residual
residual soil
soil layers,
layers, as
as these
these present
present textural
textural and
and structural
structural heterogeneities
heterogeneities –– given
given byby mica
mica (biotite)
(biotite) oriented
oriented
layers,
layers, that
that can
can control
control this
this behavior.
behavior. In In general,
general, deformability
deformability values
values were
were higher
higher for
for young
young residual
residual soils
soils than
than
in
in mature
mature residual
residual ones.
ones.

This
This manuscript
manuscript presents
presents the
the results
results of
of an
an in
in situ
situ
11 INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
testing
testing campaign
campaign performed
performed onon gneiss
gneiss residual
residual soils
soils
from
from Southeast
Southeast Brazil.
Brazil.
The
The Ménard
Ménard pressuremeter
pressuremeter prototype
prototype was was developed
developed
by
by Ménard
Ménard on on 1955
1955 to to determine
determine stress-strain
stress-strain soil soil
parameters,
parameters, and and isis composed
composed by by three
three overlaid
overlaid
chambers, 22 MATERIALS
MATERIALS AND
AND METHODS
METHODS
chambers, one one for
for measurements,
measurements, and and twotwo safe
safe cells,
cells,
one
one inferior and the other superior, which protect the
inferior and the other superior, which protect the
central Ménard
Ménard pressuremeter
pressuremeter tests tests were
were performed
performed on on three
three
central chamber
chamber from from thethe effects
effects caused
caused by by the
the finite
finite
length selected
selected sites
sites (High
(High geological-geotechnical
geological-geotechnical risk risk are-
are-
length of of the
the equipment,
equipment, by by confining
confining and and inducing
inducing
itit to as numbered 1, 2 and 3 on Figure 1). Four
as numbered 1, 2 and 3 on Figure 1). Four boreholes boreholes
to expand
expand only only inin radial
radial direction.
direction.
The (one
(one at
at area
area 1,1, one
one atat area
area 22 and
and two
two atat area
area 3)
3) were
were
The interpretation
interpretation of of pressure
pressure xx volume
volume curvescurves
from excavated
excavated throughout
throughout Auger Auger drilling
drilling (Silva,
(Silva, 2016;
2016;
from the the tests
tests allows
allows the the acquisition
acquisition of of aa deformabil-
deformabil-
ity Roque
Roque etet al.,
al., 2014).
2014).
ity characteristic
characteristic and and aa strength
strength characteristic
characteristic of of the
the
soil Pressuremeter
Pressuremeter teststests were
were performed
performed at at each
each bore-
bore-
soil under test, known as pressiometer modulus and
under test, known as pressiometer modulus and
limit hole
hole at
at every
every meter,
meter, in in order
order toto verify
verify the
the stress-
stress-
limit pressure,
pressure, respectively.
respectively. Moreover,
Moreover, other other soil
soil pa-
pa-
rameters, strain
strain behavior
behavior for for each
each soil
soil layer
layer previously
previously identi-
identi-
rameters, such such asas cyclic
cyclic modulus
modulus and and shear
shear modulus,
modulus,
creep fied
fied during geological-geotechnical mapping
during geological-geotechnical mapping previ-
previ-
creep pressure
pressure andand horizontal
horizontal stress,
stress, can
can also
also bebe ob-
ob-
tained. ously
ously executed
executed in in the
the study
study areas
areas -- mature
mature and
and young
young
tained.
However, residual
residual soils.
soils. A A Ménard
Ménard pressuremeter,
pressuremeter, Type Type GCGC
However, those those parameters
parameters do do not
not correspond
correspond to to
the soil inherent mechanical characteristics as they (Figure
(Figure 2),
2), belonging
belonging to to Civil
Civil Engineering
Engineering Depart-
Depart-
the soil inherent mechanical characteristics as they
rely ment,
ment, Universidade
Universidade FederalFederal de de Viçosa
Viçosa (DEC/UFV)
(DEC/UFV)
rely not not only
only on on the
the material
material type
type as
as well
well asas on
on the
the
equipment was
was used.
used. Previously
Previously to to the
the tests,
tests, the
the equipment
equipment was was
equipment type type used,
used, on on the
the way
way the
the test
test hole
hole isis dug
dug
and calibrated by volume and pressure
calibrated by volume and pressure loss. loss.
and on on the
the operator
operator experience.
experience.
Currently, Test
Test procedures
procedures followed
followed ASTM ASTM D4719-87
D4719-87 ee
Currently, the the Ménard
Ménard pressuremeter
pressuremeter isis recog- recog-
nized AFN
AFN P94-110-91
P94-110-91 recommendations.
recommendations. Basically,
Basically, tests
tests
nized and and used
used as as aa routine
routine tool
tool on
on geotechnical
geotechnical in- in-
vestigation, were
were performed
performed throughout
throughout the the following
following phases:
phases:
vestigation, being being particularly
particularly useful
useful on on the
the determi-
determi-
nation equipment
equipment saturation,
saturation, pressure
pressure andand volume
volume loss
loss cali-
cali-
nation of of stress-strain
stress-strain behavior
behavior of of in in situ
situ soils
soils
(Schnaid, bration,
bration, borehole
borehole execution,
execution, probeprobe insertion
insertion and
and ex-
ex-
(Schnaid, 2000).2000).
pansion
pansion on desired depth up to the achievement of aa
on desired depth up to the achievement of
good
good pressuremeter
pressuremeter curve curve

809
 Area
2 Area
1
Area
3

Figure 1: High landslide risk areas selected for in situ testing (Roque, 2013).

29. Figure 4 and Figure 5 presents some examples of

typical soils tested.
Table 1: Results of limit pressure and Ménard pressuremeter
modulus.
Area 1 - Borehole 1 Area 2 - Borehole 2
Depth
Soil Em (MPa) Soil Em
0 0 0
1 Mature 2.63 3.52
2 Residual 1.63 5.69
3 Soil 6.24 Young 3.91
4 13.62 Residual 6.11
5 6.51 Soil 3.13
Young
6 8.35 6.43
Residual
7 5.73 5.46
Soil
8 10.75 13.11
Area 3 - Borehole 3 Area 3 - Borehole 4
Figure 2: Ménard pressiometer equipment used in the tests Depth
(Silva, 2016). Soil Em (MPa) Soil Em
0 Soil 0 0
1 2.00 6.76
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 2 2.06 Young 7.19
3 Mature 2.41 Residual 6.05
In Table 1 it is presented a summary of all values ob- 4 Residual 3.12 Soil 6.24
tained for Ménard pressuremeter modulus (Em) for 5 Soil 7.23 8.88
each performed test. In Figure 3 results for each soil 6 12.18 14.17
type are presented, allowing a better comparison. All 7 13.49 - -
studied soils are residual soils from high-grade met-
amorphic rocks (gneiss) and no lithological differ- By definition, Em usually increases with depth.
ences could be noted in the material present on the This happens primarily because, among several other
selected sites. Mature residual soil is a clay sandy causes, an increase on geostatic pressure, which
material, with plasticity index (PI) varying from 25 leads to higher pressure variations for lower volume
to 36. Young residual soils are predominately sandy variations of the probe, so generating higher Em val-
silty clayey materials, and with PI varying from 25 to ues.

810
 In general, Ménard pressuremeter modulus (Em)
values are higher for young residual soils than for
mature residual soils.

Figure 3: Results of Ménard pressuremeter modulus (Em) with Figure 5 – Typical young residual soil observed in the study ar-
depth. ea.

The results observed on Figure 3 shows that, in Gambim & Rosseou (1975) and Clarke (1995) have
general, a constant increase could be observed for suggested some correlations between pressuremeter
gneiss mature residual soils (black lines). For young tests and soils types. Based on such proposals and
residual soils a different behavior can be observed, considering the results from pressuremeter tests per-
as only for more deep layers an increase in pres- formed for the soils under study, the resulting soil
suremeter modulus can be noted. Up to a depth equal classification are presented on Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5.
to 6 m there is no considerable variation on these pa-
rameter on some tests. Authors believe that this dif- Table 2: Soil classification for borehole 1according to Gambim
ferent behavior is mainly due to the high heterogene- & Rosseou, 1975).
ity observed on these soils due to the presence of Area 1 – Borehole 1
preserved foliation and high biotite rich layers. Depth Soil Type Soil Classification
0 ---
1 Soft clay
Mature residu-
2 Soft clay
al soil
3 Medium clay
4 Medium clay
5 Medium clay
6 Young residual Medium clay
7 soil Silt
8 Silt

Figure 4 – Typical mature residual soils observed in the study

area.

811
Table 3: Soil classification for borehole 2according to Gambim
& Rosseou, 1975).
Area 2 – Borehole 2
Depth Soil Type Soil Classification
0 ---
1 Soft clay
2 Soft Clay
3 Medium Clay
Young residual
4 Medium Clay
soil
5 Medium Clay
6 Medium Clay
7 Silt
8 Silt
Table 4: Soil classification for borehole 3 according to Gam-
bim & Rosseou, 1975).
Area 3 – Borehole 3
Depth Soil Type Soil Classification
0 ---
1 Soft clay
2 Soft clay
3 Young residual Soft clay
4 soil Soft clay
5 Medium clay
6 Stiff clay
7 Stiff clay
Table 5: Soil classification for borehole 4 according to Gam-
bim & Rosseou, 1975).
Area 3 – Borehole 4
Depth Soil Type Soil Classification
0 ---
1 Silt
2 Silt
Young residual
3 Silt
soil
4 Silt
5 Silt
6 Stiff clay
The classification based on Gambim & Rosseou
(1975) however, did not correlate well with grain
size distribution curves obtained from samples col-
lected in the same area.
4 CONCLUSIONS
Results have shown that it is possible to predict an
increment in pressuremeter modulus (Em) with
depth for gneiss mature residual soils like the ones
occurring in the studied sites. Nevertheless, for
young residual soils the Em is more constant along
the profile.
Based on the results, it become clear that the de-
termination of deformability on gneiss residual soils
should for use in geotechnical projects should be
based on site-specific studies.
There is also a need for more detailed studies on
determination of Em for metamorphic residual soils
812
such the ones tested on the study, in order to try to
establish reliable range of values for this parameter.
5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank the CAPES Foundation, Ministry
of Education of Brazil for the student grant, to
FAPEMIG for the financial support to attend the
conference and to the Universidade Federal de
Viçosa, Brazil, for funding and providing laboratory
support.
6 REFERENCES
American Society for Testing of Materials. (1987). D4719:
Standard Test Method for Prebored Pressuremeter Testing
in Soils. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
Araújo, P. S. M. (2001). O Ensaio Pressiométrico de Ménard e
sua Utilização na Estimativa da Capacidade de Carga e
Recalques de Fundações Assentes em Solo Residual de
Gnaisse. Dissertação de Mestrado, Departamento de
Engenharia Civil, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa,
MG, 156 p. (In Portuguese).
Association Française de Normalisation. (1991). NF P 94-110:
Sols: reconnaissance et essais. Essai pressiométrique Mé-
nard. 32 p.
Clarke, B. G. (1995). Pressuremeter in Geotechnical Design.
Cambridge, Great Britain, 364 p.
Ianelli, L. A. R., Villar, L. F. S. (2012). Utilização do
Pressiômetro de Ménard (PMT) para Determinação do
Comportamento Geotécnico de Solos de Fundação e sua
Aplicação nos Estudos Tensão – Deformação.
COBRAMSEG, 8 p. (In Portuguese).
Roque, L. A. (2013). Mapeamento das áreas de risco geológi-
co-geotécnicos associados a movimentos de massas na
área urbana de Viçosa-MG. Dissertação de Mestrado, De-
partamento de Engenharia Civil, Universidade Federal de
Viçosa, Viçosa, MG, 86 p. (In Portuguese)
Roque, L. A.; Marques, E. A. G.; Gripp Jr. J. (2014). Risk
Mapping Associated With Mass Movements in Viçosa
(MG) Urban Area. Brazilian Geographical Journal, v.5,
n.2, p.533-555, nov./2014.
Schnaid, F. (2000). Ensaios de Campo e suas Aplicações à
Engenharia de Fundações. São Paulo: Oficina de Textos.
189 p. (In Portuguese).
Silva, T. Q. (2016). Análise de risco geológico-geotécnico em
áreas sujeitas à movimentos de massa. Dissertação de Mes-
trado, Departamento de Engenharia Civil, Universidade
Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, MG, 116 p. (In Portuguese)