Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Patrick K. Miller
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
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
EPC Calibration
EPC’s 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
Buried EPCs
In-situ Stress Results
Key Points
Parabolic Distribution
on non-cohesive soils A = 3π / 4
Uniform Distribution
on soils having mixed A=π
characteristics
2π r 3q ( r ) z 3r
σ z ( peak ) = ∫0 ∫00 drd α
2π (r + z )
2 2 5 / 2
Key Points
The exponentially
increasing E provided the
best fit
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)