ANALYSIS OF THE

LIGHT WEIGHT DEFLECTOMETER

IN-SITU STRESS AND STRAIN

Patrick K. Miller

BSCE Tufts University

MS Colorado School of Mines
Project Engineer – Olson Engineering
 LWD Background
ƒPurpose
ƒTo measure in-situ elastic modulus
of soils
ƒQC/QA device
ƒOperation
ƒ1 person to operate
ƒ1-3 minutes per test
ƒWeighs approximately 20 kg
ƒCommon Devices
ƒPrima 100
ƒZorn ZFG 2000
Prima 100 Zorn ZFG 2000
 Current Analysis Technique
„ Based upon Boussinesq’s theoretical solution to a static load applied
through a rigid circular plate on an elastic half-space.

F (1 −ν ) Fpeak
w= ks =
AG r0 w peak

E=
(
2 k s 1 −ν 2 )
Ar0
Previous In-situ Stress and Strain Research
ƒ Fleming (2000)
ƒUsed in-situ stress sensors to measure stress induced by the LWD
ƒDid not explore drop height, plate diameter and soil type effects
ƒDid not measure in-situ strain

ƒSeveral Researchers have used stress sensors to measure in-situ

stress levels from various loading conditions and devices.

ƒFew Researchers have used potentiometers, LVDT’s, or

accelerometers to measure in-situ displacement and/or strain
produced by various devices.
 Main Research Objectives

ƒ Employ In-situ Sensors to Measure LWD Induced

Stress and Strain Levels

ƒ Characterize stress and strain state under LWD loading

ƒ Determine how stress and strain vary with loading plate diameter
and drop height (applied force)

ƒ Compare Secant Modulus from in-situ stress and strain data to

modulus value given by the current analysis method

ƒ Characterize “Influence Depth” of the LWD

In-situ Stress and Strain Sensors

Earth Pressure Cell Linear-Variable-Differential-

(EPC) Transformer (LVDT)
Displacement Transducer
 Sensor Calibration

ƒ EPC Calibration
ƒ EPC’s calibrated in a
laboratory calibration device
at UMN.
ƒ Potential Issues include:
stress concentrations,
shadowing effects, variable
temperature effects, etc.

ƒ LVDT Calibration
ƒ Factory calibration
ƒ No known calibration issues
 Sensor Placement Procedure

ƒ EPC Placement
ƒ Placed by hand in
lightly compacted
new lift
ƒ Encased in a pocket
of the calibration
sand

ƒ LVDT Placement
ƒ Placed by hand in
lightly compacted
new lift
 Soil Profiles Tested
Test 1 Test 2

ƒ 4 Locations tested for each profile

(2 EPC, 2 LVDT)
F F

Buried EPCs
 In-situ Stress Results

ƒ Key Points

ƒ Magnitude and duration

of the stress pulse is
greater in the sand than
in the clay

ƒ At the deepest layer,

the homogeneous
profile has a greater
magnitude and duration
than the layered profile
 Contact Stress Distribution
ƒ Terzaghi (1943) theorized that a
E=
(
2 k s 1 −ν 2 )
rigid circular plate produces a: Ar0

ƒInverse Parabolic Distribution

on cohesive soils A=4

ƒParabolic Distribution
on non-cohesive soils A = 3π / 4

ƒUniform Distribution
on soils having mixed A=π
characteristics

Therefore: Uniform and Parabolic loadings produce E’s of

127 and 170 % of the Inverse Parabolic loading
 In-situ Stress Results
ƒ Employing Static Theory of
Elasticity
ƒ The increase in stress at depth z
due to a surface loading is given
by:

2π r 3q ( r ) z 3r
σ z ( peak ) = ∫0 ∫00 drd α
2π (r + z )
2 2 5 / 2

ƒ Experimental data verifies

Terzaghi’s theory of soil
dependent contact stress
ƒ Suggests that the LWD analysis
should reflect the soil type tested
 In-situ Stress Results

ƒ Terzaghi also theorized that the contact stress between a

rigid plate and soil is dependent upon the level of loading

ƒ A cohesive material exhibits an inverse

parabolic distribution at low levels of
loading and trends toward a uniform
distribution at loads producing failure

ƒThe experimental data also appears to

confirm this theory

ƒTherefore understanding the level of

loading due to the LWD may also be
important in the data analysis
 Plate Diameter and Drop Height Effects

ƒ Key Points

ƒ Stress magnitude of 200

mm load plate is greater
near the surface but not
at depth

ƒ The stress magnitude at

each layer is proportional
to the applied force (drop
height)
 In-situ Strain Results
ƒ Employing Static Theory of Elasticity
1
ƒ The increase in strain at depth z is given by: ε z = [σ z −ν (σ r + σ θ )]
E
2π r rq ( r ) ⎡ 3zr 2 z (1 − 2ν ) ⎤
ƒ Where: σ r = σ θ = ∫0 ∫00 ⎢ − ⎥ drdα
( ⎣ ) ( )
4π ⎢ r 2 + z 2 5 / 2 r 2 + z 2 3 / 2 ⎥
⎦

ƒ Using a constant modulus the in-

situ strain data was fit

ƒ The strain decreased much more

rapidly with depth than the stress

ƒ Note that only the 200 mm plate

and largest drop height produced
measurable strain at the second
layer of sensors
 In-situ Strain Results

ƒ An elastic modulus which increased with depth was utilized

to fit the strain data
ƒ It is well know that E increases with a decrease in deviator stress
and an increase in confining stress, both cases exist here

ƒ The exponentially
increasing E provided the
best fit

ƒ The deviator and

confining stress
dependent E equation
provided a much better fit
than the constant E

ƒ More data is needed to

validate these findings
 Stress/Strain Results

ƒ The secant modulus of the vertical

in-situ stress and strain data was
calculated and deemed Er

ƒ Er and ELWD values were

significantly different, and displayed
different trends

Er vs. ELWD Values

Fpeak (kN)
4.1 6.5 8.8
C/C/C 200 mm
Er (MPa) 3051.9 262.8 128.5
ELWD (MPa) 34.8 34.3 31.7
S/C 300 mm
Er (MPa) NA 117.1 104.9
ELWD (MPa) NA 60.3 63.7
 Conclusions
ƒ Contact stress between the soil and LWD is dependent on the soil
type and level of loading
ƒ Cohesive soil ~ inverse parabolic distribution
ƒ Non-cohesive soil ~ parabolic distribution
ƒ Mixed characteristic soil ~ uniform distribution

ƒ Strain decreased much more rapidly than stress with depth

ƒ A modulus profile which increased with depth more closely matched the
experimental strain data.

ƒ The secant modulus values calculated from the in-situ stress and
strain data did not compare well with values obtained from the LWD

ƒ Continuing Research
ƒ More data needed from all soil types, focusing near the surface
ƒ Tactile sensors – to measure pressure distribution
ƒ Refinement/Laboratory calibration of strain sensors
 LWD Prototype

ƒ Key Components
ƒ Piezoelectric Force
Transducer
ƒ Measures Applied Force

ƒ Urethane Damper
ƒ Effects Impulse Duration
and Magnitude

ƒ Geophone
ƒ Measures Response of
Loading Plate (velocity)