Characterization of Materials Behaviour

by the Pressuremeter Test

Rita Raquel Rego Silva de Oliva

ritarrso@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
The main goals of this work are to study Ménard’s pressuremeter test and to calibrate a soil
behaviour model based in pressuremeter curves. The chosen material for this study is the sandy soil
of the Miocene formations that occur in Lisbon region. The model of the mechanical behaviour of the
soil is calibrated by the finite element method. The soil behaviour is simulated by the Hardening Soil
Model, which is a model already assembled in the chosen software: PLAXIS. The calibration process
consists in a sensitivity analysis of the main defining parameters of the model and the progressive
adjustment to the pressuremeter curves obtained from the tests done in the studied formations. The
results of this work are discussed and the advantages and limitations of this methodology for materials
characterization are analyzed.

Keywords: Ménard’s pressuremeter; geotechnical characterization; numerical modelling;

Miocene; Plaxis; Hardening Soil Model.

1. Ménard’s Pressuremeter Test

1.1 Historical Review

The pressuremeter was invented in 1954 by Louis Ménard in France and is defined as a
device which applies pressure to the sides of a borehole through a flexible membrane. The
pressuremeter probe is built with three cells, the central cell being the measuring one, and the top and
bottom ones, called the guard cells. The purpose of these two cells is to isolate the expansion of the
measuring cell from end effects thus promoting plane strain deformation conditions. As referred by
Baguelin et al. (1978), this means that the increase in volume is due only to radial expansion of the
borehole.
By measuring the pressure applied on the soil and the relative increase in cavity radius, the
pressuremeter test gives an in situ stress-strain curve of the soil, as remarked by Briaud (1992). The
first pressuremeter produced by Ménard is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Sketch of Ménard pressuremeter (after Baguelin et al., 1972).

Although Ménard’s idea was to create a device for geotechnical characterization, he realized
the suitability of the test as a foundation design tool. In 1963 Ménard and Gambin published the first
equations and charts relating pressuremeter results directly to foundation settlement and bearing

1
capacity, in Sols-Soils journal. Baguelin et al. (1978) state that the role and work of Laboratoire
Central des Ponts et Chaussées (LCPC), French Institute for Civil Engineering, were crucial in the
pressuremeter development, namely in establishing the scope of applications of the test, in
standardizing procedures and in the vulgarization of the pressuremeter test.
Throughout the years pressuremeter equipment has seen progresses and new developments.
The device produced by Ménard evolved in a way it would be able to apply a greater pressure and
achieve deeper depths. This process occurred not only in France, by Ménard’s company, but also in
other countries such as Canada, by Roctest company, and Japan, by OYO corporation. According to
Baguelin et al. (1978), the major influence that field technique, especially the drilling method,
registered on the results obtained from the pressuremeter test, led the LCPC to develop a selfboring
pressuremeter in 1967. This type of pressuremeter allows the test to be made without the opening of a
borehole, this way avoiding the disturbance of the soil around the probe.
In parallel with the progress of the equipment and its technology, research and improvement
has been made in the interpretation and use of pressuremeter test results, as well as in test
application to different materials, such as soft rocks, frozen soils and ice.

1.2 Pressuremeter Description/Apparatus

The different types of pressuremeters differ mainly by the way the probe is placed in the
ground. The device can be divided into: preboring pressuremeter; selfboring pressuremeter; cone
pressuremeter; and, pushed tube pressuremeter.
As previously noted, the scope of this work is Ménard’s pressuremeter, which is the most
important type of preboring pressuremeters. The pressuremeter consists of three parts: the probe, the
control unit and the tubing. The most common model of Ménard pressuremeter (pressuremeter GC) is
able to reach a pressure of 2500 kPa, and with a few modifications it can reach up to 4000 kPa. The
3
capacity of the water reservatoire is 900 cm .
As discussed before, the probe is divided into three cells: two guard cells and the main cell;
tied together by a steel core. The main cell is pressurized with water, and is also named as the
measuring cell since its expansion is being registered during the test. It is made of resistant rubber
and is placed in between the guard cells. The guard cells are inflated with gas to prevent the
measuring cell from suffering any length changing. Figure 2 shows a picture of a pressuremeter probe.
Maranha das Neves and Sousa Coutinho (1985) describes the probe as hollow metal cylinder with two
shoulders that mark out the measuring cell. It is protected by a membrane and in certain cases also by
a sheath. This two coatings should have good aging properties: its resistance should remain constant
and independent of the number of tests performed.
The function of the control unit is to control and monitor the expansion of the probe by
applying pressure and measuring the volume change of the main cell. The pressure source is
provided by a bottle of compressed gas and the volume is read in the volumeter. The control unit has
a set of valves which enable the reduction of gas pressure, connection between the tubing and the
probe, filling of the volumeter and expurgation of the air. The control unit is placed on the ground
surface near enough of the borehole execution, and an example is represented in Figure 3.

Figure 2 – Exterior look of the pressuremeter probe. Figure 3 – The control unit of a pressuremeter.

2
 The tubing is the connecting element between the probe and the control unit and it allows the
flow of water and gas. Baguelin et al. (1978) describes it as a semi rigid polyamide coaxial tubing:
water circulates in the inner tubing and gas flows in the outer tubing. The Figure 4 represents the
different parts of the pressuremeter.

Figure 4 – Schematic representation of Ménard pressuremeter (after Weltman and Head, 1983).

1.3 Pressuremeter Test

The pressuremeter test includes three distinctive processes: calibration of the equipment,
borehole execution and realization of the test. Each process is important and influential on
pressuremeter test results; therefore it is understood, by numerous authors and international
standards, as part of the test.

1.3.1 Calibration

The true volume-pressure curve of the soil can only be computed if the pressure and volume
losses inherent to the device are measured. Therefore, the purpose of the calibration process is to
quantify the value of these losses allowing the real stress-deformation behaviour of the soil to be
known. The significance of this process is outlined by several authors: Mair and Wood (1987) state
that the pressuremeter test is useless if calibration is missed; Clarke (1995) and Schnaid (2000) point
out that the pressuremeter must be calibrated regularly, before and after each test campaign.
Volume losses calibration is also named as calibration for system compressibility. It is done by
inserting the probe in the calibration thick walled steel tube. This tube must have standard dimensions,
namely the inside diameter should only be 4 mm larger than the probe. The pressure is raised in
progressive increments of 100 kPa until the membrane is in contact with the inside of the calibration
tube. Baguelin et al. (1978) recommend that from this point on the expansion of the probe continues in
pressure steps of 300 kPa until the maximum pressure is reached. Each pressure step is held for 1
minute and the volume is read in order to obtain the volume calibration curve, as shown in Figure 5.
In the example shown in Figure 5 the probe is in contact with the calibration tube at the point
marked as X. From this point on it is being measured the true volume losses of the pressuremeter.
Baguelin et al. (1978) recommend that the volume calibration should be ran every time the tubing is
renewed or when the working temperature changes.

3
 Figure 5 – Volume calibration curve Figure 6 – Pressure losses calibration curve
(after Baguelin et al., 1978). (after Briaud, 1992).

Pressure losses calibration is a necessary process because the pressure applied to the probe
has to overcome membrane resistance. It is also named probe calibration or calibration for membrane
resistance. During the process the probe is placed vertically on the ground surface as is inflated slowly
until it is reached the maximum working volume. Each step of pressure is maintained for 1 minute and
volume readings are made every 15 seconds, in order to obtain a graph as shown in Figure 6. For any
given value of volume the correspondent pressure value exists inside the probe, but would not be
applied to the borehole walls, as explained by Briaud (1992).

1.3.2 Probe Insertion Techniques

According to Baguelin et al. (1978), pressuremeter results are strongly influenced by the
borehole execution because the parameters are obtained based on the radial expansion of a few
milimeters, therefore any disturbed area directly affects its values. Briaud (1992) points out the two
main conditions for obtaining a quality borehole: the dimensions of the borehole diameter, and the
equipment and method used for the drilling.
The diameter of the borehole has to be within certain limits. As stated by Baguelin et al.
(1978), if the borehole diameter is much larger than the probe then the limit pressure, , will not be
reached during the test. If the borehole is too small in diameter it turns the probe insertion a very
difficult process and the test results can only be partially used. For the reasons presented many
authors and international standards have established limit values for the ratio between the diameter of
the borehole and the diameter of the probe (Mair and Wood, 1987; Amar et al., 1990; Schnaid, 2000)
or between the diameter of the drilling tool and the diameter of the probe (Briaud, 1992).
The aim of the chosen drilling method should be to reduce the soil disturbance to a minimum
because if the walls of the borehole are not intact there will be remoulded soil around the probe, as
remarked by Baguelin et al. (1978). Finn et al. (1984) recommend the identification of the major
processes that disrupt the walls of the borehole: collapse, erosion or softening; in order to choose the
best drilling tool. In addition, the drilling technique should also be selected considering the type of soil
and its condition.
The borehole execution and the probe insertion directly affects the pressuremeter test results:
the shape of the test curve, the dispersion of the results and, the value of the pressuremeter
parameters (the Ménard modulus, , and the limit pressure, which will be described later).
Examining the shape of the pressuremeter curve it can be inferred some test problems, such as: poor
calibration of the borehole, presence of foreign material between the probe and the soil or damaged
borehole walls. As stated by several authors (Baguelin et al., 1978; Amar et al., 1990; Ladanyi, 1995)
one advantage of the pressuremeter test is the possibility of judging the quality of the test from the
experimental curve. The dispersion of the results can be explained by variations in the test technique
or the inaccuracy of some parts of the pressuremeter, but as Nazaret (1972) concluded, it is due
mostly to heterogeneity in the soil properties. The influence on the values of the pressuremeter
parameters, for each type of soil, was extensively studied by Jézéquel (1968) and Briaud (1992).

4
Amar and Jézéquel (1971) established guidelines to dismiss the results of a pressuremeter test
accordingly to the values of the test parameters.

1.3.3 Test Execution

The pressuremeter test can be performed through pressure increments or through volume
increments. Briaud (1992) refers that both methods provide identical results, therefore it is described
only the test done with pressure increments because it is the most common. Baguelin et al. (1978)
recommend 10 pressure increments to plot accurately the pressuremeter curve. Each step is obtained
based on the value expected of the limit pressure parameter. For every pressure applied to the
measuring cell circuit it is registered the water volume at 30 and 60 seconds. Theoretically the last
pressure increment should reach the limit pressure, , therefore ending the test. Usually the end of
the test corresponds to the water reservoir depletion.

2. Test Interpretation and Results

The pressuremeter test simulates the expansion of a cylindrical cavity therefore its
interpretation can be done by applying the theory of expansion of an infinitely long cylinder in an
infinite mass of soil.
As stated before, the presentation of the test results are made in a graph plotting the volume
and pressure applied and corrected. The value of the pressure read during the test is lower than the
true pressure applied because of the hydrostatic pressure of the water in the tubing, and at the same
time, is higher than the true pressure due to the membrane resistance. The value of the volume
obtained during the test is higher than the true value because of the compression of the water in the
circuits. A pressuremeter curve, before and after pressure and volume corrections, is shown in Figure
7.

20

15
Pressure (kPa)

Corrected
Curve
10
Uncorrected
Curve

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Volume (cm3)

Figure 7 – The difference between the corrected curve and the uncorrected curve.

The typical pressuremeter curve, as presented in Figure 8, shows evidence of three distinct phases.
The initial part of the curve (labeled as 1, in Figure 8) represents the expansion of the membrane until
it makes full contact with the walls of the borehole. The ending point of this phase corresponds to the
values , considered the rest conditions of the soil, and marks the theoretical beginning of the
test. The second phase is called the pseudo-elastic phase and during this part of the test the soil is
considered to be in the small deformations domain. The transition point to the next phase represents
the creep point . In the last phase (marked as 3, in Figure 8) the soil is in plastic condition.

5
 Figure 8 – Typical curve and phases of the pressuremeter test.

2.1 Parameters of the Pressuremeter Test

The limit pressure, , is defined as the pressure corresponding to the asymptote of the
pressuremeter curve, as it can be seen in Figure 8. In most tests this parameter is not reached due to
device limitations, therefore its value is obtained by extrapolation methods and is considered as the
required pressure to double the initial volume of the cavity. Although the limit pressure is not a
characteristic property of the soil it is a very important parameter in foundation design.
As stated before, the point A (in Figure 8), defining the values of and , represents the
beginning of the test, that is, when the probe pushes the borehole walls back to their initial position.
The value of is used to obtain the modulus .
The creep pressure, , marks the end of the pseudo-elastic phase of the pressuremeter
curve (point B, in Figure 8). This parameter is used to assess the test quality and the modulus, .
Presuming that in phase named 2, in Figure 8, the soil behaves as an elastic material, it is
possible to apply Lamé (1852) theory for the radial expansion of a cylindrical cavity in an infinite elastic
medium. The shear modulus is given by the following equation:

(eq. 1)

where is the volume of the cavity and is the pressure variation associated to a volume variation
. As it can be deduced, the shear modulus is the slope of the pressuremeter curve for any given
value of the volume, . By convention, it is used the midpoint between A and B (in Figure 8) to
determine . The conversion of the shear modulus into a deformation modulus, , can be done using
the elastic relation based on the Poisson’s ratio, .

(eq. 2)

Considering the value of the Poisson’s ratio as constant and equal to it is possible to
obtain the Ménard modulus, .

(eq. 3)

3. Case Study: Characterization of a sandy material

3.1 Introduction

The main goal of this study is to characterize the behaviour of a soil from pressuremeter test
results using finite element method. It was made an extensive research on pressuremeter test results
made in Lisbon area with the support from Geotest company that made their archive available. It were
analyzed 194 pressuremeter curves resultant from 17 test sites scattered through Lisbon area. It was
concluded, with the aid of a geological map that most of the pressuremeter test results were from
sandy Miocenic formations, being this the chosen material for this study. This type of material is very
heterogeneous and is characterized for having silty and calcareous intercalations. The process of
sampling for laboratory tests in order to describe it mechanical behavior is a very complex and
arduous task. Therefore the main purpose of this study is to characterize the prevailing sandy matrix
of this material. The pressuremeter curves were analyzed and compared in steps of effective vertical

6
stress, at the test depth, in order to identify and reject the curves associated with technological
problems that occurred during the test, the curves that are typical of rock materials and the curves that
were not considered characteristic of the soil in study. The curves selected for this study are
represented in Figure 9. In addition it was studied the evolution of the pressuremeter parameters,
Ménard’s modulus and the limit pressure with the effective vertical stress.

4,5

3,5
P - P0 (MPa)
3

2,5

1,5

0,5

0
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1
ΔV / Vprobe

Figure 9 – Pressuremeter curves selected for the model calibration.

3.2 Numerical Analysis

The numerical analysis of the pressuremeter test was made using Plaxis software based in
the finite elements method. Due to the granular nature of the soil, all calculations were made in
drained conditions. The analysis is axisymmetrical and the mesh elements are 15 nods triangles
(Plaxis, 2002). The borehole diameter measures 3 cm and the probe is divided into three parts: two
guard cells with 15 cm height each and a central cell with 20 cm height. The coordinates axes is
centered in the middle of the central cell and five points, equally spaced, are defined along its height,
as shown in Figure 10.
The pressuremeter test is simulated by three phases. The first phase simulates the borehole
execution and the initial stress state is imposed by the value of . It is also introduced a distributed
load applied along the pressuremeter probe, as it is shown in Figure 11.

Figure 10 – Points from which the displacements are read. Figure 11 – Distributed load.

In the two following step procedures the probe volume increases due to the pressure applied
to the probe and therefore the soil around it will yield. In order to simulate this, an incremental
horizontal pressure is applied, first only until the estimated value of the horizontal stress at rest, is
reached. The calculation type used for both phases is “Updated mesh analysis”. The radial
displacements of the five nods of the central cell, mentioned above, are measured in order to obtain
the expansion volume of the cavity.
The chosen model for simulating the soil behaviour is the Hardening Soil Model. It is a
hyperbolic model based in plasticity theory and it considers the shear hardening as well as the
compression hardening. The Hardening Soil model failure criteria is the Mohr-Coulomb and it includes
soil dilatancy. The main defining parameters of this model are: the failure parameters of Mohr-
Coulomb, (effective cohesion), (effective angle of shear resistance) and (angle of dilatancy);

7
and the soil stiffness parameters, (secant stiffness in standard drained triaxial test), (tangent
stiffness for primary oedometer loading), (unloading/reloading stiffness) and (power for stress-
level dependency of stiffness), (Plaxis, 2002).

3.3 Results

In order to calibrate the soil model several hypotheses were tested and it was made a
parametric study with the most important parameters: coefficient of earth pressure at rest, ; effective
angle of shear resistance, ; angle of dilatancy, ; secant stiffness in standard drained triaxial test,
, and power for stress-level dependency of stiffness, .
The value of the parameters settled as defining of the behaviour model of the soil are
presented in Table 1.

Table 1 – Values of the defining parameters of the numerical model.

Parameter (°) (°) 2
(MPa) (kN/m ) (MPa) (MPa) (kPa)

Value 0,8 38 5 90 0,5 20 90 270 0,2 10 0,95

The following 10 charts (Figure 12 to Figure 16) compare the test curves produced in the
studied soil with the numerical model curve obtained.
Each chart includes the test curves that result from pressuremeter tests, associated to the
same level of effective vertical stress, and the curves used by Guedes de Melo (2008). The study was
made using 25 kPa as gap for the effective vertical stress at the test depth, ranging from 50 kPa to
500 kPa, although in this report it was chosen to display just the charts varying 50 kPa.

5 5

4 4
P - P0 (MPa)
P - P0 (MPa)

3 3

2 2

1 1
Model Curve
Model Curve
Test Curve
Test Curve
0 0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1
Δ V / V probe Δ V / Vprobe
Figure 12 – Model and test curves for 50 kPa of effective vertical stress, on the left, and for 100 kPa of
effective vertical stress, on the right.

5 5

4 4
P - P0 (MPa)

P - P0 (MPa)

3 3

2 2

1 1
Model Curve Model Curve
Test Curve Test Curve

0 0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1
Δ V / Vprobe Δ V / Vprobe
Figure 13 – Model and test curves for 150 kPa of effective vertical stress, on the left, and for 200 kPa of
effective vertical stress, on the right.

8
 5 5

4 4
P - P0 (MPa)

P - P0 (MPa)
3 3

2 2

1 1
Model Curve
Model Curve
Guedes de Melo (2008)
Test Curve
Test Curve
0 0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1
Δ V / Vprobe Δ V / Vprobe
Figure 14 – Model and test curves for 250 kPa of effective vertical stress, on the left, and for 300 kPa of
effective vertical stress, on the right.

5 5

4 4

P - P0 (MPa)
P - P0 (MPa)

3 3

2 2

1 1
Model Curve Model Curve
Guedes de Melo (2008) Guedes de Melo (2008)
Test Curve Test Curve
0 0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1
Δ V / Vprobe Δ V / V probe
Figure 15 – Model and test curves for 350 kPa of effective vertical stress, on the left, and for 400 kPa of
effective vertical stress, on the right.

5 5

4 4
P - P0 (MPa)
P - P0 (MPa)

3 3

2 2

1 1
Model Curve Model Curve
Guedes de Melo (2008) Guedes de Melo (2008)
Test Curve Test Curve
0 0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1
Δ V / Vprobe Δ V / Vprobe
Figure 16 – Model and test curves for 450 kPa of effective vertical stress, on the left, and for 500 kPa of
effective vertical stress, on the right.

From the charts presented above it is possible to conclude that the curves of the tests reveal a
coherent behaviour of the sandy material studied. In addition it can be affirm that the adjustment
achieved between the numerical model and the pressuremeter test results is overall very good.
The biggest difference between the model curve and the tests curves is visible in the
beginning of the curve, that is the early stage of the pressuremeter test. This is due mostly to the
known disturbance of the soil caused during the opening of the borehole. Furthermore the chosen
behavioural model for the soil, the Hardening Soil Model, does not account for the increased stiffness
of soils at small strain levels. This issue could be overcome if the Hardening Soil model with small-
strain stiffness, already a variable in the latest version of Plaxis, was used as the behaviour model for
the soil.

4. Conclusions

With the presented study it is possible to conclude that the Ménard pressuremeter test is an
in-situ test that holds much interest to the geotechnical design. As any other test the pressuremeter
test demands a strict quality control during its execution, most crucially during the opening of the

9
borehole and the placement of the probe in the ground. Analyzing the pressuremeter test with
cylindrical cavity expansion theory it is possible to deduce an in situ stress-strain curve of the soil.
Moreover it can simulate any loading sequence, such as, longer steps of applied pressure for long-
term loadings or unload-reload cycles at various levels of pressure for cyclic loading.
The practical work described represents a different method for materials characterization with
pressuremeter test results. It proves the suitability of the test to numerical modelling and its good
adjustment to test the type of material studied: Miocenic sandy soil with a small degree of
cementation. The major difficulties of this work were the identification of the pressuremeter curves
associated to the sandy matrix of the material studied and the determination of the validity of the
pressuremeter curves. The high number of rejected curves is due to the heterogeneousness nature of
the soil, the frequent existence of rocky elements and the technological problems of the pressuremeter
test, as mentioned before. However it has to be pointed out that it was still possible to calibrate a
complex soil model from the pressuremeter test results. The numerical model obtained to characterize
the studied soil can be improved by analyzing more pressuremeter test results, allowing the analysis
of higher stress levels, and by comparing it with results from other in situ tests, specifically the
preboring pressuremeter test, produced in the same material.

4. Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge the support provided from Geotest company by
providing the test results used in this work and by giving all the demanded support concerning the
execution of pressumeter tests.

5. References

Amar, S., Jézéquel, J.-F. (1971). A propos de la réalisation de l’essai pressiométrique. Bulletin de Liaison des
Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussées, No 56 , 13-15.
Amar, S., Clarke, B., Gambin, M., & Orr, T. (1990). The application of pressuremeter test results to foundation
design in Europe. A.A. Balkema.
Baguelin, F., Jézéquel, J.-F., & Shields, D. H. (1978). The pressuremeter and foundation engineering. Clausthal:
Trans Tech Publications.
Briaud, J. (1992). The Pressuremeter. Roterdam: A.A. Balkema.
Clarke, B. (1995). Pressuremeters in geotechnical design. Glasgow: Blackie Academic & Professional.
Finn, P.S., Nisbet, R. & Hawkins, P. (1984). Effect of disturbance on paramaters derived from selfboring
pressuremeter tests in sand. Géotechnique 34 , 81-97.
Guedes de Melo, P. (2008). Caracterização da Formação "Areolas da Estefânia" a partir da Modelação Numérica
do Ensaio Pressiométrico. Geotecnia, nº 113 , pp. 5-21.
Hughes, J.M., Wroth, G.P. & Windle, D. (1977). Pressuremeter tests in sand. Géotechnique, Vol. 4 , pp. 455-477.
Jézéquel, J.-F. (1968). Essais in situ et fondations sur piex. Bulletin de Liaison des Laboratoires des Ponts et
Chaussées, No 31 , 111-124.
Ladanyi, B. (1995). A brief history of pressuremeter. The Pressuremeter and its New Avenues (pp. 5-23).
Roterdam: A.A. Balkema.
Lamé, G. (1852). Leçons sur la théorie mathématique de l’élasticité des corps solides. Bachelier, Paris.
Mair, R. J., & Wood, D. M. (1987). Pressuremeter testing: methods and interpretation. London: Ciria.
Maranha das Neves, E., & S. Coutinho, A. (1985). Teoria e prática do pressiómetro autoperfurador. Lisboa:
LNEC, Departamento de Geotecnia, Núcleo de Fundações.
Nazaret, M. (1972). Influence du mode de mise en oeuvre de la sonde pressiométrique. Rapport de reserche du
Laboratoire Régional des Ponts et Chaussées d’Angers.
Plaxis (2002). Material Models Manual. Plaxis - Finite Element Code for Soil and Rock Analysis, 2D Version 8.
Manual. A.A. Balkema
Schnaid, F. (2000). Ensaios de campo e suas aplicações à engenharia de fundações. São Paulo: Oficina de
Textos.
Weltman, A. J., & Head, J. M. (1983). Site Investigation Manual. CIRIA Special Publication 25/PSA Civil
Engineering Technical Guide 35.

10