Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering – Benz & Nordal (eds)

© 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-59239-0

Size effects on a virtual calibration chamber

J. Butlanska, M. Arroyo & A. Gens

Department of Geotechnical Engineering, UPC, Barcelona, Spain

ABSTRACT: Virtual Calibration Chambers (VCC) are 3D-DEM models where cone penetration is simulated.
They offer the possibility of substituting for the rather more expensive physical calibration chambers. One
important issue in calibration chamber interpretation is the possibility of chamber size effect under different
boundary conditions. The aim of this study was to explore chamber size effects under BC1 and BC3 conditions
on the VCC. The chamber and cone diameters and boundary conditions were varied to investigate their effects
on cone tip resistance. The scaling laws that are obtained from the VCC results are then compared with those
previously obtained with physical calibration chambers.

1 INTRODUCTION Table 1. Types of boundary conditions.

Calibration Chamber tests (CC) provide an effective Top & Bottom Boundary Lateral Boundary
way to study Cone Penetration Test (CPT) in sands BC Stress strain stress strain
under strictly controlled conditions (material, density,
BC1 constant – constant –
stress state and boundary). Results from CC tests are
BC2 – 0 – 0
used to establish relationships between the observed BC3 constant – – 0
outcomes like cone resistance (qc ), and the material BC4 – 0 constant –
descriptors like relative density (DR ) and effective
stress state (σ’). Typical boundary conditions applied
in CC differ on whether stresses are kept constant or remarked that also CC CPT’s on loose sands were
displacements are zero on the lateral and top/bottom affected by size effects, but up to a lower limit of
sample boundaries (Table 1). only Rd > 30 − 35. They noted that for the same Rd , qc
depends on the applied boundary conditions, but did
not quantify that effect.
1.1 Chamber size effect Schnaid & Houlsby (1991), using only BC1 tests,
confirmed that for all sand densities the chamber
The use of calibration chamber results to predict field size can affect the results and that the effect is more
performance needs to take into account the size effect significant for dense sand. They also showed that
due to limited chamber dimensions. Size effects are cone resistance and pressuremeter limit pressure were
observed when the test outcomes vary for constant similarly affected. Mayne & Kulhawy (1991) after
sand properties and conditions as a function of equip- examining six data sets from CC CPT’s for differ-
ment dimensions. Size effect is usually explored using ent ranges of Rd proposed a correction factor for size
the parameter Rd , a chamber to cone diameter ratio. effects:
A related aspect is the influence of variable testing
boundary conditions and how these may result in
different size effects.
Since the early 80’s, these issues have been exam-
ined by various researchers. Parkin & Lunne (1982) where qc,corrected = corrected cone tip resistance;
summarized work performed in two different calibra- qc,measured = measured cone tip resistance; Rd = chamber
tion chambers with two differently sized penetrom- – to - cone diameter ratio and DR = relative density.
eters. They did not observe a significant size effect Equation 1 assumes that a ‘free field’ condition is
for loose sand, whereas for dense sand there was a achieved for Rd > 70 and was meant to apply equally
clear influence of chamber size up to Rd > 50. Cone for both BC1 and BC3 conditions.
tip resistance (qc ) increased with Rd for both BC1 A different empirical correction for size effect was
and BC3 conditions, although somewhat faster in the proposed by Tanizawa (1992) while analyzing CC CPT
former case. In later work, Parkin (1988) suggested results on Toyoura sand:
that the Rd value required to eliminate chamber size
effects might be greater then 70. Ghionna et al. (1991)

225
where a & b = f (Rd ) and DR = relative density. The
proposed correction factor does only apply for BC1
conditions (Garizio, 1997).
Salgado et al. (1998) applied a mixture of cavity
expansion and slip line theory to quantify chamber
size effect. The theory predicts that the difference
between ‘free field’ and chamber qc values increases
for decreasing Rd and that qc measured under BC1 or
BC4 conditions is always smaller than the correspond-
ing ‘free field’ values. The difference (or correction
factor) is not only dependent on density, but also on
ambient stress and material parameters. The opposite
held for qc measured under BC3 or BC2 conditions; the
qc value predicted decreased with increasing Rd , and
thus CC results should lie above “free field” values. Figure 1. Grain size distribution of Ticino sand and DEM
That result was contrary to some available experimen- models.
tal evidence, but the discrepancy was attributed to
experimental imperfections in the enforcement of the
no lateral strain condition.

1.2 Particle size effect

Several researchers (Parkin, 1988; Ghionna et al. 1991;
Schnaid & Houlsby, 1991) have pointed out that, in
principle, the cone to particle size ratio might also
affect the results of CPT tests. However, observations
of this particle size effect are scarce. Peterson (1988) is
one of the clearest examples, reporting that when the
ratio of probe diameter to particle diameter reduced
below 40, scrapping noises and erratic load cell read-
ings appeared, something he attributed to the cone
“feeling” individual particles.
2 NUMERICAL MODEL
2.1 Numerical method
The PFC3D code developed by ITASCA was used
to perform all simulations mentioned in this paper.
The code follows closely the discrete element method
introduced by Cundall & Strack (1979). The model
is composed of distinct particles that displace inde-
pendently of one another, and interact only at the
contact or interfaces between particles. The particles
are assumed rigid with no ability to rotate. The con-
tact law employed is lineal elasto – plastic. The normal
and tangential stiffness at any contact, kn and ks , are
described by the following scaling rule:
where Keff , α = parameters to be calibrated. The plas-
tic part of the contact law is given by the interparticle
friction angle, µ . No cohesion was included in the
contact model. Our simulations also employed non–
viscous damping, δ, to achieve rapid convergence.
2.2 Model calibration
A numerical model representing small cubical sam-
ple of 8 mm side was used to calibrate the material
Figure 2. Calibration of DEM material parameters with a
triaxial test on Ticino sand (DR = 75%, p0 = 100 kPa).
parameters. The model contained 4700 particles with
a grain size distribution closely following that of
Ticino sand (Figure 1DEM curve-fitted gsd).The spec-
imen was built to specified porosity using the radius
expansion method (REM, Itasca 2005).
The material parameters that require calibration are
only interparticle friction (µ ), those related to stiff-
ness (Keff , α) and damping (δ). These parameters were
determined by trial and error in order to provide a best
fit to a single isotropically compressed drained triax-
ial test (TEST M09) confined at 100 kPa and formed
with DR = 75%. The best fit (Figure 2) was found
for: Keff = 300 MN, α = 0.25, δ = 0.05 and µ = 0.35
(µ = 19.3◦ ). Adequacy of the calibration parameters
was verified by simulating a variety of triaxial tests at
differing confinements and initial densities.
2.3 VCC CPT
The VCC CPT model can be seen in Figure 3. The
cone is modelled by perfectly rigid walls. Some are
cylindrical with a diameter dc and the tip is conical
with apex angle of 60◦ . The tip and the sleeve walls
close to it retain the friction coefficient of the granular
material, the rest are frictionless. The geometry of the
numerical calibration chamber (VCC) is cylindrical,
given by its height H and diameter Dcc (Table 2).
Dimensional analysis of the problem (Arroyo et al.,
2009) quickly reveals that an unmanageably large
number of particles are needed if the original dimen-
sions of the problem are maintained. The most

226
Figure 3. View of the DEM model components with indi-
cation of the main relevant dimensions (left) calibration
chamber (right) cone device.

Table 2. Summary of geometrical characteristics of DEM

VCC.

Dcc H dc
Test Series m m mm

Series I 1.2 0.7 71.2; 106.8;

142.4; 213.6 Figure 4. Tip resistance profiles for different confining
Series II 0.4; 0.6; 0.8 0.7 71.2 pressures and DR = 75%.
1.2; 1.58; 2.4
Series III 1.2 0.7 71.2 cone resistance is extracted from the raw penetration
curves by fitting them to the following expression:

effective way to reduce the computational size is by

scaling up the grain size of the discrete material filling
the VCC. The material filling the virtual chamber was
therefore a scaled Ticino Sand where the original grain
size was multiplied by 50 (Figure 1 (DEM scaled gsd
(after REM))). A somewhat shorter chamber height
was also helpful. This resulted in 65,000 elements in
the densest specimens, almost an order of magnitude
more than those employed in previous 2D studies (Ma
1994, Calvetti & Nova 2005, Jiang et al. 2006).
2.4 Testing program
Results from three tests series are described in the
following. The first test series (Series I) explored the
effect of cone diameter to mean grain size ratio (np )
on the results. Series II used quarter – chamber mod-
els with different diameters to investigate calibration
chamber size effects (Rd ) under BC1 conditions. The
third series did the same, but after anisotropic consol-
idation (K0 -conditions) and under BC3 conditions.
3 RESULTS
3.1 Steady state cone tip resistance
Typical DEM VCC results showing CPT tip resistance,
qc , vs. penetration depth, h, for different confining
isotropic stresses are shown in Figure 4. As seen in
the figure, the response of the DEM model is correct:
qc increases with confining pressure (and relative den-
sity). However, the graphs are quite noisy, with large
oscillations. Such noise masks the steady state usually
observed in physical CC CPT tests. This noise, how-
ever, can be filtered out easily. To do that, a steady state
where qc,lim = cone tip resistance; h = penetration
depth and a & b = fitting parameters.
3.2 Particle size effect – Series I
The main suspect for the noise appearing in the pene-
tration curves is particle size effect. Because of scaling
the VCC material has a very low value (2.7) of the
ratio (np ) between cone diameter and average particles
(D50 ).
A numerical simulation exercise (Series I) was spe-
cially performed to confirm that the main reason of
noise was the reduced np ratio. Four different cone
tip sizes were used (diameters of 72.1; 106.8, 142.4
and 213.6 mm) while the VCC diameter was kept
constant. The results are shown in Figure 5. As the
ratio np increases (dc increase) the penetration curves
smoothes visibly and the oscillatory noise all but
disappears.
In this series a reduction in the cone tip resistance
with cone diameter was also observed (Figure 5). This
result can be explained by chamber size effect, because
the increased cone tip diameter results in a decrease
in chamber to cone diameter ratio (Rd ). These results
can be viewed on Figure 6. The trend of increasing
limit cone resistance with Rd is clear and in accor-
dance with previous results from physical tests (Parkin
1998). This chamber size effect is further explored in
the next section.
3.3 Chamber size effect under BC1 – Series II
To explore chamber size effect a test series was per-
formed keeping constant particle size, D50 , and cone

227
Figure 5. Tip resistance profiles for different cone tip sizes
for p0 = 100 kPa and DR = 75%.
Figure 6. Evolution of qc,lim with diameter ratio Rd for
different cone sizes and two relative densities (75 & 90%).
diameter, dc , (and hence having a constant np ratio) and
increasing the VCC diameter, (Dc = 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.2,
1.58 and 2.4 m) to achieve a variable Rd . In this series
the initial confining pressure was always isotropic and
equal to 100 kPa and the initial relative density was
either 75% or 90%. Boundary conditions were stress
controlled, that is of the type BC1.
The simulations were made less costly by using
only models with a quarter of VCC taking profit of
axial symmetry. For the same initial conditions of
stress and density, the difference in the qc,lim from full
and quarter chambers lies within ±0.2 MPa. Butlanska
et al. (2009) explore in more detail, by means of local
representative element volume statistics, the effect of
sample inhomogeneity and enforced axial symmetry
on VCC CPT results.
The results of Series II (for Dcc = 0.4 & 1.58 m) are
shown in Figure 7. Because of the noise caused by
228
Figure 7. Tip resistance profiles for different chamber sizes
for p0 = 100 kPa and DR = 90%.
Figure 8. Evolution of qc,lim with diameter ratio Rd for
different chamber sizes (quarter of VCC) and two relative
densities (75 & 90%).
particle size effect, the reduction of qc with decreas-
ing Rd is difficult to observe. After filtering them out
using the exponential function defined by Eq. 4, a
steady state value of cone tip resistance is obtained.
The steady state values (Figure 8) show a much clearer
size effect.
3.4 Chamber size effect under BC3 – Series III
The third simulation exercise was performed under
BC3 conditions (no lateral deformation is allowed).All
tests were performed in quarter chambers with fixed
cone size and variable chamber diameter so that Rd was
variable between 5.6 and 22.1. All the tests were per-
formed after anisotropic (oedometric) consolidation.
The conditions before starting the CPT were relative
density of 94%, vertical stress of 122 kPa and hori-
zontal stress slightly variable between 42 and 46 kPa.
Results from this simulation series are presented in the
next section.

4 COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS STUDIES

4.1 BC1 conditions

For Ticino sand, Garizio (1997) and Jamiolkowski et al
(2003) tabulate the coefficients a & b that enter the
Tanizawa expression for the chamber correction fac-
tor (CF, Eq. 2). In general, the coefficients a & b are
functions of relative density, DR , and relative chamber Figure 9. Approximation of the parameters a & b.
size, Rd . However, for relative densities above 60%,
the influence of relative chamber size explains almost
exclusively the observed size effect, and the coeffi-
cients a & b can be expressed with good approximation
as functions only of Rd (Figure 9). These functions can
be expressed as

It follows then that, for this restricted set of conditions,

the correction factor based on the physical CC tests
can be represented as a unique function of DR and Rd ,
Figure 10.
Using the relative density and mean stress of the
DEM simulations a free field limit value might be
deduced from the relation proposed by Jamiolkowski
et al. 2003 to summarise physical CC results on
Figure 10. The graphical interpretation of correction fac-
Ticino sand. tor CF.

Once this limit value is obtained it is divided by

the numerical steady state value to obtain the neces-
sary correction factor (CF*) for each VCC test. Figure
11 shows how these values compare with the empirical
correction factors applied to the physical test database.
It should be noted that the empirical relation (2) was
established only with tests where Rd > 20. Despite
the important extrapolation implied, the comparison
is generally good and even better for low Rd ratios
than for the higher ones (22.1 & 33.3). This surprising
result might be related to stress inhomogeneity (see
below).
Figure 11. Comparison of Series II with CF trends.
4.2 BC3 conditions
The fact that Series II was isotropically stressed pre- density range (92 to 95%) and horizontal stress range
cluded a direct comparison with particular physical CC (42 to 50 kPa) that the results reported by Bellotti
tests on Ticino sand on the ISMES – ENEL database. (1985). Therefore a direct comparison is possible (Fig-
This is not the case with results of Series III, where the ure 12). A remarkable quantitative coincidence in the
CPT is performed under anisotropic stress conditions, limit value of tip resistance is evident in the figure.
directly analogous to some physical tests reported by It is interesting that, in this case, both physical and
Bellotti (1985). Indeed, after normal consolidation to numerical experiments seem to indicate no size effect
the same vertical stress as the physical tests, the numer- for BC3 conditions, contrary to what Salgado et al.
ical tests in series III share the same initial relative (1998) predicted.

229

Figure 12. Experimental and DEM results for CPT in a CC
with no radial strain boundary condition. All samples with
DR 92–95% and initial horizontal stress 42–50 kPa.
Figure 13. Horizontal section of normalized mean stress
intensity at the chamber top after anisotropic consolidation
of a VCC model with Rd = 33.
The numerical tests are all in Rd range below that
of the physical tests. Increasing Rd in the numerical
tests to overlap the physical range it is both numer-
ically costly and prone to mistakes. For instance we
have noticed that the usual procedure of numerical cal-
ibration chamber preparation results in strong stress
inhomogeneity during 1D compression in large cham-
bers. Figure 13 illustrates this issue for a chamber
with Rd = 33. Circumferential arching between the
two radial walls leaves understressed the near – axis
zone, where the CPT penetration takes place.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The use of 3D-DEM models offers an interesting
avenue to explore large-deformation problems in gran-
ular materials, such as CPT in virtual calibration
chambers. Due to necessary scaling of mean particle
size another size effect, due to high particle size to
cone diameter ratio, appears in the virtual calibration
chamber. This effect is shown to be easily dealt with by
filtering the penetration resistance curve. Remarkable
quantitative agreement with physical tests is obtained
230
despite the major simplifications in particle size dis-
tribution, particle behavior and model construction
required to obtain practical results using only desktop
computers.
REFERENCES
Arroyo, M. Butlanska, J., Gens, A., Calvetti, F. &
Jamiolkowski, M. 2009. Cone penetration tests in a virtual
calibration chamber (under review).
Bellotti, R. (1985) Chamber size effects and boundary con-
ditions effects, Seminar of cone penetration testing in the
laboratory, University of Southampton, pp 26–29.
Butlanska, J., Arroyo, M. & Gens, A. 2009. Homogeneity and
symmetry in DEM models of cone penetration. Powders &
Grains, vol 1145: 425–428.
Calvetti, F. & Nova, R. 2005. Micro – macro relationships
from DEM simulated element and in – situ test. Powders &
Grains, vol. II: 245–250.
Cundall, P.A. & Strack, O.D.L. 1979. A discrete numeri-
cal model for granula assemblies. Geotechnique 29(1):
47–65.
Garizio, G.M. (1997) Determinazione dei parametri geotec-
nicie in particolare di K0 da prove penetrometriche, Tesi
di Laurea, Politecnico di Torino.
Ghionna, V.N. & Jamiolkowski, M. 1991. Acritical appraisal
of calibration chamber testing of sands, Calibration cham-
ber testing, A. – B. Huang Editor.
Jamiolkowski, M., Lo Presti, D.C.F. & Manassero, M. 2003.
Evaluation of relative density and shear strength of sands
from CPT and DMT, in Germaine, Sheahan & Whit-
man, Soil behavior and soft ground construction, ASCE
Geotechnical Special Publication 119: 201–238
Jiang, M.J., Yu, H.-S. & Harris, D. 2006. Discrete element
modeling of deep penetration in granular soils, Interna-
tional Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics, 30, 335–336.
Ma, M.Y. 2004. A numerical study of cone penetration test
in granular assemblies. PhD Thesis, Clarkson University.
Mayne, P.W. & Kulhawy, H. 1991. Calibration chamber
database and boundary effects correction for CPT data.
Calibration chamber testing, A. – B. Huang Editor.
Parkin, A.K. & Lunne, T. 1982. Boundary effects in labora-
tory calibration of a cone penetrometer for sand, Proceed-
ings of the Second European Symposium on Penetration
Testing, Amsterdam.
Parkin, A.K. 1998, Calibration of cone penetrometers, Pro-
ceedings of the First International Symposium on Pene-
tration Testing, Orlando.
Peterson, R.W. 1988. Laboratory investigation of the pene-
tration resistance of fine cohesionless materials. Proceed-
ings of the First International Symposium on Penetration
Testing, Orlando: 895–901.
Salgado, R., Mitchell, J.K. & Jamiolkowski, M. 1998.
Calibration chamber size effecs on penetration resistance
in sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental-
Engineering, ASCE, 124(9): 878–888.
Schnaid, F. & Houlsby, G.T. 1991. An assessment of cham-
ber size effects in the calibration od in situ tests in sand.
Geotechnique 41(3): 437–445.
Tanizawa, F. 1992. Correlations between cone resistance and
mechanical properties of uniform clean sand. Internal
Report. ENEL-CRIS, Milano.