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
Purpose
To measure in-situ elastic modulus
of soils
QC/QA device
Operation
1 person to operate
1-3 minutes per test
Weighs approximately 20 kg
Common Devices
Prima 100
Zorn ZFG 2000
Prima 100

Zorn ZFG 2000

Current Analysis Technique

Based upon Boussinesqs theoretical solution to a static load applied

through a rigid circular plate on an elastic half-space.

w=

F (1 )
AG r0

ks =

2 k s 1 2
E=
Ar0

Fpeak
w peak

Previous In-situ Stress and Strain Research

Fleming (2000)
Used in-situ stress sensors to measure stress induced by the LWD
Did not explore drop height, plate diameter and soil type effects
Did not measure in-situ strain

Several Researchers have used stress sensors to measure in-situ

stress levels from various loading conditions and devices.
Few Researchers have used potentiometers, LVDTs, or
accelerometers to measure in-situ displacement and/or strain
produced by various devices.

Main Research Objectives

Employ In-situ Sensors to Measure LWD Induced

Stress and Strain Levels

Characterize stress and strain state under LWD loading

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

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

modulus value given by the current analysis method

Characterize Influence Depth of the LWD

In-situ Stress and Strain Sensors

Earth Pressure Cell

(EPC)

Linear-Variable-DifferentialTransformer (LVDT)
Displacement Transducer

Sensor Calibration

EPC Calibration

EPCs calibrated in a
laboratory calibration device
at UMN.
Potential Issues include:
stress concentrations,
shadowing effects, variable
temperature effects, etc.

LVDT Calibration

Factory calibration
No known calibration issues

Sensor Placement Procedure

EPC Placement

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

LVDT Placement

Placed by hand in
lightly compacted
new lift

Soil Profiles Tested

Test 1

Test 2

4 Locations tested for each profile

(2 EPC, 2 LVDT)
F

Buried EPCs

In-situ Stress Results

Key Points
Magnitude and duration
of the stress pulse is
greater in the sand than
in the clay
At the deepest layer,
the homogeneous
profile has a greater
magnitude and duration
than the layered profile

Contact Stress Distribution

Terzaghi (1943) theorized that a
rigid circular plate produces a:
Inverse Parabolic Distribution
on cohesive soils

2 k s 1 2
E=
Ar0

A=4

Parabolic Distribution
on non-cohesive soils

A = 3 / 4

Uniform Distribution
on soils having mixed
characteristics

A=

Therefore: Uniform and Parabolic loadings produce Es of

127 and 170 % of the Inverse Parabolic loading

In-situ Stress Results

Employing Static Theory of
Elasticity
The increase in stress at depth z
due to a surface loading is given
by:
z ( peak ) =

2 r
0 00

3q ( r )
z 3r
drd
2
2
5
/
2
2 (r + z )

Experimental data verifies

Terzaghis theory of soil
dependent contact stress
Suggests that the LWD analysis
should reflect the soil type tested

In-situ Stress Results

Terzaghi also theorized that the contact stress between a
rigid plate and soil is dependent upon the level of loading
A cohesive material exhibits an inverse
parabolic distribution at low levels of
loading and trends toward a uniform
distribution at loads producing failure

The experimental data also appears to

confirm this theory

Therefore understanding the level of

loading due to the LWD may also be
important in the data analysis

Plate Diameter and Drop Height Effects

Key Points
Stress magnitude of 200
mm load plate is greater
near the surface but not
at depth
The stress magnitude at
each layer is proportional
to the applied force (drop
height)

In-situ Strain Results

Employing Static Theory of Elasticity
The increase in strain at depth z is given by: z =
Where:

2 r

r = = 0 00

rq ( r ) 3zr 2
z (1 2 )

drd

4 r 2 + z 2 5 / 2 r 2 + z 2 3 / 2

Using a constant modulus the insitu strain data was fit

The strain decreased much more

rapidly with depth than the stress

Note that only the 200 mm plate

and largest drop height produced
measurable strain at the second
layer of sensors

1
[ z ( r + )]
E

In-situ Strain Results

An elastic modulus which increased with depth was utilized
to fit the strain data
It is well know that E increases with a decrease in deviator stress
and an increase in confining stress, both cases exist here

The exponentially
increasing E provided the
best fit

The deviator and

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

More data is needed to

validate these findings

Stress/Strain Results

The secant modulus of the vertical

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

Er and ELWD values were

significantly different, and displayed
different trends

Er vs. ELWD Values

C/C/C 200 mm
Er (MPa)
ELWD (MPa)
S/C 300 mm
Er (MPa)
ELWD (MPa)

4.1

Fpeak (kN)
6.5

8.8

3051.9

262.8

128.5

34.8

34.3

31.7

NA
NA

117.1
60.3

104.9
63.7

Conclusions

Contact stress between the soil and LWD is dependent on the soil
type and level of loading

Cohesive soil ~ inverse parabolic distribution

Non-cohesive soil ~ parabolic distribution
Mixed characteristic soil ~ uniform distribution

Strain decreased much more rapidly than stress with depth

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

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

Continuing Research

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

LWD Prototype
Key Components
Piezoelectric Force
Transducer
Measures Applied Force

Urethane Damper
Effects Impulse Duration
and Magnitude

Geophone
Measures Response of
Loading Plate (velocity)