Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • A Review of Local Strain Measurement Systems For Triaxial Testing of Soils

    Uploaded by

    Pinak Ray
    16 views12 pages

    Original Title

    3. a Review of Local Strain Measurement Systems for Triaxial Testing of Soils

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    16 views12 pages

    A Review of Local Strain Measurement Systems For Triaxial Testing of Soils

    Uploaded by

    Pinak Ray

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 12
    TECHNICAL NOTE A REVIEW OF LOCAL STRAIN MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS FOR TRIAXIAL TESTING OF SOILS S. Yimin nd K. Sopa? ABSTRACT: The use of local strain measurement systems in triaxial apparatus becomes increasingly popular due to the awareness that the knowledge of nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of soils in a wide range of strain level is necessary for aceurate deformation analysis, During the past two decades, different local strain measurement systems have been developed by various academic institutes, ‘Although a review of this subject has been presented by Scholey etal. (1995), this paper intends to supplement their work with recent developments and discussions. The paper also aims to provide information for research and commercial laboratories, who wish to selector develop an appropriate triaxial system that can measure accurate stress-strain relationship of soils. INTRODUCTION ‘A triaxial apparatus is the most common testing equipment to study the stress-strain behaviour of soil inthe laboratory. However, the results from a. conventional triaxial apparatus do not always reflect the real stress-strain behaviour of soils. It is offen found that the stifiness obtained from the conventional triaxial apparatus is far bbelow the stiffness derived from the back-calculation of the measured displacements occurring for given loading condition in the field. Inthe past, sample disturbance was believed to be the major cause for this discrepancy. However, it was realised in the past decade that the large variation of stifiness with strains is another major cause of this discrepancy; that is, the stiffness measured by the ‘conventional triaxial apparatus is at the strain levels larger than those normally occur in the field, Burland (1989) provided evidences that, under working load conditions, the large mass ofthe ground beneath and around structures, e.g. excavation, foundation, and tunnel, experiences strains smaller than 0.1%, ‘Such low values of strains are beyond the accuracy of ‘most routine conventional triaxial apparatus and the extemal strain measurement, which has been corrected for apparatus compliance, often leads to apparently linear intial stress-strain behaviour with very low stiffness. This is mainly due to the overestimation of axial strain from the ‘extemal strain measurement. The contributing factors are (ee Fig); 48) Seating errors due to the closing of the gaps between ranvinternal load cell and top cap, and between top cap or base pedestal and porous stones. 1) Alignment errors which may result from equipment and specimen non-uniformity, and from non- perpendicularty of the end faces of the specimen to the vertical axis of symmetry. ©) Bedding errors caused by lack of fit, or surface itregulaites or voids atthe ends ofthe specimen, 4) System compliance of tie bars, intemal load cel, filter paper, porous stones, the loading system in the hydraulic triaxial apparatus, and lubricated ends, "Lecturer, Deparment of Civil. Engineering, Burapha University, Stensook, Muang, Chonburi 20131, Thailand "Senior, Lecturer, Engineering Department, Cambridge Univesity, Trumpngion Sret, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK. ©) Nonuniform strains along resulting ffom end restrain. the specimen height For accurate measurement of stress-strain behaviour of soils, instrumentation capable of measuring stains to an accuracy of at least 10°% is required. This degree of accuracy can only be achieved ifthe strains are measured intemally within the triaxial cell. In addition, the strains should be measured locally, remotely from the top cap and base pedestal, typically within the central one-third of the specimen. A triaxial testing, in which strains are measured locally on the specimen, shows much stiffer nonlinear behaviour than a conventional externally measured triaxial testing (Jardine etal, 1984) rat Dfiction 3 usding |, (Sena | compliance nang stem Fig. 1 Sourees of errors in external axial deformation measurements (Bald etal, 1988) HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ‘The first local strain measurement system was introduced in repeated loading triaxial tests for pavement material problems by attaching linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) drecily to a soil specimen (Brown and Snaith, 1974). However, the awareness of the non- linearity of the soil and the need to accurately estimate the deformation of structures under working load conditions Populstsed the use ofa local strain measurement system in ‘monotonic triaxial tests. The inclinometer gauge was developed at Imperial College, UK, to measure the local axial strain (Burland and Symes, 1982; Symes and Burland, 1984; and Ackerly eta, 1987). ‘The Hall effect local strain JOURNAL OF THE SOUTHEAST ASIAN GEOTECHNICAL SOCIETY / APRIL 2002/41 {gauge was developed at the University of Suey, UK, t0 ‘measure both local axial and radial strains (Clayton and Khatrsh, 1986; and Clayton et al, 1989). The proximity transducers were employed to develop local axial and radial sirain measurement systems (cg. Hird and Yung, 1989). ‘The local deformation transducer (LOT) was developed at the University of Tokyo, Japa, eriginally to measure the local axial stain (e.g Tatsuoka, 1988). In recent yeas, the LLVDT has been reintroduced since the advancement of the technology made it to be small and. water-submerible Different types of LDT system have also been developed by various researchers due to their costeffetiveness ‘A review of the local strain measurement systems available for triaxial apparatus has been presented by Scholey etal. (1995). Following the review, this paper presents recent developments and additional discussions on the subject. The paper concentrates the discussion on proximity transducer, LVDT, and LDT, because there has been some progress made in these instruments since the time thatthe paper by Scholey etal. (1995) was published. ‘The discussions on the inclinometer gauge and the Hall cffect local strain gauge are not included in this paper and the readers can refer to Scholey et el. (1995) for their details. Information on the available local radial strain ‘measurement systems are also summarised in this paper. ‘The classification of the available local strain measurement techniques is shown in Fig 2 In the following sections, the discussion will proceed according to this classification. Local strain measurement ‘ystems ‘Astalsrain Ratsal strain Hall effec local strain gauge Fixed-type Floating-type: Bhsticaceanauid wor Incinometer oo gauge Proximity vaneducer Proximity Hal effect local ranaducer sian gauge Local deformation transducer (LOT) Local deformation oe transducer (LOT) otrers Proximity transducer Local deformation transducer (LOT) Fig. 2 Classification of local strain measurement techniques for triaxial testing 42/ JOURNAL OF THE SOUTHEAST ASIAN GEOTECHNICAL SOCIETY / APRIL 2002 Local axial strain measurement ‘The local axial strain measurement systems can be divided into two types. according to their mounting methods, ie. fxed- and floating-type (Fig. 2). Inthe fixed- type, the instrument is attached to a fixed support and it ‘measures an absolute movement ofa target on the specimen surface. The deformation of a gauge length can be calculated ffom measuring the absolute movements of two targets by two independent instruments and subtracting one from the other. In the floating-type, on the other hand, the instrument is attached directly on to the specimen surface so that the deformation of the gauge length can be ‘measured directly from one instrument. ‘The advantages of the floating-type over the fixed-type ae: (i) the strain measured by the foatingtype is not susceptible to specimen rotation or tilting and (i) it involves readings from fewer instruments, ‘reducing the probability of instrumentation failure during the test. A soil specimen can tilt during the testing and the measurement of a gauge Tength in the fixed-type system will include both the deformation of the specimen itself as well as the displacement associated with rotation of the specimen Hence, there is @ need to measure gauge length at two

    You might also like