Anda di halaman 1dari 9

Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 28, No.

5
Paper ID GTJ11630
Available online at: www.astm.org

E. Ibraim1 and H. Di Benedetto2

New Local System of Measurement of Axial


Strains for Triaxial Apparatus Using LVDT

ABSTRACT: This paper presents a new local system of measurement of axial strains for triaxial apparatus using LVDT. The bodies of four
nonsubmersible transducers are supported by an independent circular ring, while the rods are simply put on local targets (pins pushed through the
membrane into the sample). A flexible metal plate is used to attach the body of the LVDT to the circular ring and a nonrigid connection is considered
between the rod and the pin. These original developments allow the system to investigate the soil behavior in large strains, up to 15 102 m/m,
and to accommodate the radial deformation, tilting, and usually inevitable barreling of the sand specimen. The soil stiffness in the small strain
domain, less than some 105 m/m, can be evaluated with good accuracy, as well as its evolution during triaxial compression or extension tests. The
assessment of errors is discussed and the performance of the device is shown with results of tests on Hostun RF sand.
KEYWORDS: prefailure, small strain, large strain, sand, LVDT, triaxial, local system device, Youngs modulus

Introduction
In many geotechnical problems, the operational strain domain
ranges from small, less than some 105 m/m, to medium, up to
around 103 m/m. An accurate laboratory assessment of soil stiffness for this strain domain is essential for prediction of deformation of ground and settlement of structures under working or
dynamic/seismic loading. At the same time, it is a desirable requirement of soil laboratory investigation to be able to study the
prefailure deformation characteristics and the large strain behavior,
up to 15 102 m/m, using a continuous test on a single specimen.
That is, to analyze the soil stiffness with the evolution of the strain
and stress levels.
In the laboratory, the measurement of stiffness of soils in the small
strain domain can be achieved using the following three methods:
the resonant column test (Hardin and Richart 1963; Hardin and
Black 1966), the measurements of the body wave velocities within
the soil element (Shirley and Hampton 1978; Schultheiss 1980;
Dyvik and Madshus 1985; Viggiani and Atkinson 1995; Brignoli
et al. 1996; Pennington et al. 1997; Cazacliu and Di Benedetto 1998;
Modoni et al. 2000), and the direct measurement of small strain and
stress amplitude during monotonic or cyclic quasi-static loading.
The last method has the advantage of providing direct access to
the stiffness of the soils. An overall review of local measurement
systems with inclinometer levels, Hall Effect transducers, noncontact sensors, Linear Variable Differential Transformer (LVDT), and
strain-gaged Local Deformation Transducers (LDT) developed for
triaxial apparatus is presented by Scholey et al. (1995) and Tatsuoka
et al. (1997). Besuelle and Desrues (2001) have recently proposed
a similar system to LDT for soft rock specimens. Concerning the
hollow cylinder torsional apparatus, details of measurement systems are given by Hight et al. (1983), Lo Presti et al. (1993), Di
Benedetto et al. (1999), and Connolly and Kuwano (1999).
1 Lecturer in Civil Engineering, University of Bristol, Queens Building,
University Walk, Bristol, BS8 1TR, UK.
2 Professor, Ecole Nationale des Travaux Publics de lEtat, DGCB, Rue
Maurice Audin, Vaulx-en-Velin, France.

It is widely recognized that the stiffness evaluated with traditional


external measurement devices is underestimated and is smaller than
that determined by measurements in the central part of the specimen. Jardine et al. (1984) and Baldi et al. (1988) identify the
potential errors induced by compliance of loading system and misalignment and specimen bedding/seating effects, but also by insufficient precision and accuracy of the sensors and data acquisition
system. Thus, using a local measurement system of strains with
very accurate and reliable transducers is essential in order to have
a good evaluation of the quasi-elastic properties of soil materials
(Shibuya et al. 1992; Tatsuoka et al. 1994).
In this paper, a new local system of measurement of axial strains
for triaxial apparatus using Linear Variable Differential Transformers is described. This new system developed and tested for sand
specimens allows the exploration of soil behavior both in the small
and large strain domains.
Why Use LVDT Sensors?
The answer to this question is given by their attractive technical
qualities: the stability under changes in temperature and pressure,
the good linearity of the output of the signal, the resolution (Lo
Presti et al. 1994; Da Re et al. 2001). Very important too is their
low price.
Nevertheless, the use of the LVDT in the triaxial test for local
axial strain measurements is not simple, especially when the analysis of the stiffness of the soil with stress and strain evolution is
required. Two principal problems must be solved: one is the mounting of the transducerscore and body; the other one is the ability
for the local strain system to accommodate coupled axial and radial
displacements, taking also into account the tilting and inevitable
barrelling of the cylindrical specimen and the need to minimize the
friction developed between the LVDT core and body.
Basically, two main different mounting solutions are proposed in
the literature.
In the first one, the body and the core are attached directly to the
specimen (Cuccovillo and Coop 1997) or by means of circular split
collars hinged at one end and connected by a spring at the other

Copyright by
ASTM
(all rights
reserved);100
SunBarr
AugHarbor
31 23:02:43
EDT
Copyright
2005
byInt'l
ASTM
International,
Drive,
PO 2014
Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.

Downloaded/printed by
Universidad de Concepcion (Universidad de Concepcion) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

2 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

FIG. 1Schematic representation of different LVDT mounting devices for axial strain measurement.

Taking into account these considerations, the following requirements were proposed for the new LVDT local system of measurement of axial strains in the triaxial test:

r To minimize the weight supported by the specimen and to use


nonsubmerged sensors;
r To evaluate the prefailure deformation characteristics, but also
to be able to follow the soil behavior up to large strains (postfailure), without excessive friction between the core and the
body;
r To record the axial displacements without perturbations of the
specimen radial deformation and tilting/barrelling; and
r To be simple and easy to use.
Description of the New Local Axial Strain Device
FIG. 2Shape of sand samples (initial height 70 mm, aspect ratio 1)
with (left) and without (right) frictionless end plates at large axial strains.

(Brown and Snaith 1974; Boyce and Brown 1976; Nataatmadja


and Parkin 1990; Da Re et al. 2001), as schematically presented
in Fig. 1a. As long as the shape of the specimen remains cylindrical during shear, these axial strain devices should be able to
accommodate radial movements. However, this seems not to be
always possible, especially when granular materials are tested to
large strains. As can be seen in Fig. 2, the shape of both sand
specimens (dense Hostun RF sand, specimen of 70 mm height and
aspect ratio 1) at the end of the triaxial compression tests is far from
cylindrical, even when frictionless end platens are provided. This
could alter the LVDT body and core parallelism and, thus, make it
more difficult to maintain these measurement systems in working
conditions up to large strains. Another limitation that can affect the
axial displacement measurement is the self-weight of the transducer
and the mounting device. A local yielding of the soil around the
attachment points can be generated (Scholey et al. 1995).
In the second mounting solution, Fig. 1b, the weight supported
by the soil is considerably reducedonly the core of the LVDT
is fixed to targets placed on the specimen wall, while the body
is rigidly attached to independent supports (Yuen et al. 1978;
Brown et al. 1980; Costa Filho 1985). Again, during the triaxial
test, with horizontal specimen displacements occurring, excessive
friction between the core and the body can cause jamming, making the measurement system less adapted for large strain investigations.

Figure 3 presents an overall view of the triaxial cell system with


the new local axial device for measurement of axial strains. The
triaxial cell accommodates specimens of 70 mm height and aspect ratio 1 with two, top and bottom, enlarged plates. The cell
is partially filled with deaired water and the specimen is totally
submerged; there is no direct contact between the membrane of
the specimen and the pressurized air (the diffusion of the air into
the specimen is prevented). The axial local strain system includes
four identical LVDTs with a measurement range of 10 mm. This
range makes it possible to reach the behavior of soil in large deformations (up to 0.150.20 m/m). Each transducer is connected to
a generator-demodulator signal-conditioning unit, which ensures
the current supply and the shaping of signal output from the sensor.
Even if the resolution of the LVDT sensor is considered infinite, the
sensitivity of the signal output is directly affected by the resolution
of the data acquisition system employed. Using a data acquisition unit with a 6 1/2 digit integrating analog-to-digital converter,
a minimum range output signal of approximately 0.01 mV has
been recorded for all four transducers. Based on the calibration
factor obtained using a micrometer with a nonrotating rod (accuracy 0.5 m), the corresponding resolution of the LVDT is
approximately 0.1 m (Fig. 4). The LVDT resolution magnitude
combined with other factors mentioned in the next section, control the random errors with which the axial displacement of the
specimen is measured. The assessment of these errors is discussed
later.
The arrangement of the local points of measurement on the specimen and the corresponding LVDT sensors, noted 1T, 2T, 1B,
and 2B, are presented in Fig. 5a. The vertical distance (dTB )

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Sun Aug 31 23:02:43 EDT 2014
Downloaded/printed by
Universidad de Concepcion (Universidad de Concepcion) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

IBRAIM AND DI BENEDETTO ON LVDT

FIG. 3General view of the triaxial test system.

FIG. 4Resolution of the LVDT.

between the points of measurement is 40 mm, and there is a distance of 15 mm between the top of the specimen and 1T (2T)
and between the base of the specimen and 1B (2B). The measurement points are diametrically opposite for 1T and 2T and
for 1B and 2B (Section A-A, Fig. 5a). The measurement of
displacements on the top (T) and on the bottom (B) are carried out
in two different vertical planes. With respect to the center of the
specimen, these planes form an angle of approximately 25 . It is
not possible to mount two LVDTs in the same vertical plane on
the same side of the specimen. The fact that the top and bottom
transducers are in different vertical planes should not be important
when computing the average local strain. However, it may raise
questions when comparing Strain 1 with Strain 2. The strain on one
side of the specimen represents, actually, a strain averaged over a
zone limited by these two vertical planes.
The bodies of the LVDTs are connected independently of the
specimen to a circular ring (Figs. 3 and 6). The parts of the device,
which ensure fixing of the body on the circular ring, were designed
to facilitate the initial positioning of the LVDT in vertical (Part P1)
and radial (Part P2) planes around the specimen (Fig. 6a). A thin
flexible metal plate connects these two parts and the body of the
transducer, and this represents the main originality of the device.

In order to prevent the flexing of the plate, due to the weight of


the transducer, and thus preserve the initial vertical position of the
body, a counterweight is attached to the flexible metal plate as is
shown in Figs. 5b and 6a.
The LVDTs are placed above the water level of the triaxial cell,
and core extension rods are necessary in order to reach the local
measurement points. These extensions are made of aluminum and
have an L shape; they simply rest on the target (detail, Fig. 3). There
is no rigid contact between the core extensions and the targets, and
this represents another original development for the measurement
system. The targets are pins of 0.5 mm diameter and 25 mm length,
pushed through the membrane into the sand specimen. A 2-mmthick layer of silicone is necessary around the pin to ensure sealing
of the membrane (Fig. 3). No leakage problems have been observed
during the tests.
During a triaxial compression test, with the development of the
barrel shape of the specimen, a rotation of the pin with respect to
the measurement point can occur (Fig. 7). The device accommodates this rotation of the pin (mainly due to the nonrigid rod-target
contact), but a displacement error (K) may affect the axial measurement. The actual top local displacement (T ) could be underestimated (T K), whereas the actual bottom local displacement
(B) could be overestimated (B + K). Overall, these effects may
lead to an underestimation of the axial strain. The assessment of the
error represents a difficult task. However, it is minimized because
the spherical head of the pin is placed as close as possible to the
specimen (3 to 4 mm).
In spite of the initial verticality of the LVDT body, the first experimental tests revealed some problems due to the excessive friction
between the core and the body, especially at the beginning of the
triaxial loading test. Excessive friction is reflected in discontinuous
measurement records. For these reasons, an improvement was made
to the L rod extensions by fixing two counterweights, in accordance
with Figs. 5a and 5c. This made it possible to locate the vertical
center of gravity of the L rod unit plus counterweights on the spherical head of the target support. The total weight (nonsubmerged) of
the LVDT rod, extension, and counterweights is 23 g for 1B and
2B and 19 g for 1T and 2T.
For a large range of sand specimen densities, loose, medium, and
dense, no displacements of the targets due to the weight of the rods
were observed. However, the use of this device was not possible for

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Sun Aug 31 23:02:43 EDT 2014
Downloaded/printed by
Universidad de Concepcion (Universidad de Concepcion) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

4 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

FIG. 5Position of local measurement points (a) and solution to provide initial verticality of the body (b) and of the rod (c).

FIG. 6The LVDT mounts, initial positioning (a), and operating principle of the new local system during axial loading of the sample (b).

very loose sand specimens (relative density, Dr 0). The rigidity


of the internal structure of very loose sand is not sufficient to prevent
a loss of orientation of the pins due to the weight of the rod (even
without the counterweights).
During a triaxial compression or extension test, the initial position of the local measurement point M changes, axially (a) and
radially (r), to the current position M (Fig. 6). Thanks to the flexibility of the plate, which allows the rotation of the LVDT body,
and to the nonrigid rod/pin contact, which acts actually as a hinge
that allows freedom for the end of the L rod to rotate, the axial
displacement of the local point can be recorded continuously, i.e.,
at the same time as the horizontal displacement develops. Thus, the

designed system is able to investigate the axial behavior at large


strains and to accommodate radial deformation of the specimen.
The center of rotation O coincides with the center of gravity of
the LVDTs body. This was made possible by adjusting the length
of the flexible metal plate.
The local axial measurement system has not been designed to accommodate circumferential displacements of the targets imposed
by the development of shear band. However, for very limited movements, the device remains operational. A relative rotation of the core
extension rod with respect to the LVDT body in the circumferential
direction occurs, and this is allowed by the existing gap between
the LVDT body shaft and core.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Sun Aug 31 23:02:43 EDT 2014
Downloaded/printed by
Universidad de Concepcion (Universidad de Concepcion) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

IBRAIM AND DI BENEDETTO ON LVDT

FIG. 7Effects on the axial measurements induced by the rotation of the target due to barrelling of specimen.

The recorded axial displacement showed that friction between


the LVDT rod and body remains very small, actually negligible.
Visual inspections revealed as well that during the tests the local
radial deformation is not inhibited by the local axial strain system
and the pins are not pushed into the specimen. A 20-mm width
of flexible plate and a careful initial positioning of the transducer
can be enough to avoid the torsion of the flexible foil during the
experimental test.
It should be noted that the rigid rotation of the LVDT body
imposed by the radial displacement of the specimen might introduce systematic errors on the axial strain measurement. Knowing
the geometry of the specimen, the accurate position of the local
measurement points, and the dimensions of the LVDT rods, the
magnitude of these errors can be assessed without any difficulty.
FIG. 8Schematic diagram for axial displacement measurement used
for the assessment of the systematic error due to the rigid rotation of the
LVDT (L + a is compared with OC ).

Assessment of Errors
Systematic Error
The systematic error is considered here in terms of a relative error
on the measured value of the axial strain, Err(a ), and is given by
the following relation:
Err(a ) =

a,r a, mes
100
a, mes

(1)

where a,r is the real axial strain experienced by the specimen and
a, mes is the axial strain provided by the new local axial system. In
order to assess this relative error, the real axial strain is taken as a
known variable, while the axial strain given by the local system is
deduced. A single value of local axial strain is obtained according
to the following relation:
a, mes =

1T + 2T 1B 2B

2dTB

(2)

where means a displacement, 1 and 2 stand for diametrically


opposite parts of the specimen, T and B indicate the top and the
bottom of the local measurement points, and dTB represents the
initial vertical distance between the T and B targets.
The evaluation of the relative error, detailed in Ibraim (1998),
reduces, actually, to a geometrical problem; a schematic diagram
representing the measurement process for one LVDT is presented
in Fig. 8 (compression test case). The difference between the real
and the measured axial displacements is assessed if the segment
(L + a ) is compared with the segment OC . The hypothesis of
homogenous shape development of the specimen during the triaxial

test (the axial displacement is linear with the height of the specimen)
and a fixed value of the Poissons ratio of 0.25 are also considered.
For both compression and extension tests, the rigid rotation of the
LVDT body underestimates the axial displacement.
The assessment of the relative error presents a particular interest
for two distinct test conditions:

r The first is a monotonic triaxial test, in compression or extension, and the question is how much is this relative error,
called Err(a, mon ), when the real axial strain ranges between
0.10 m/m and +0.15 m/m.
r The second test condition concerns the soil behavior in the
small strain domain and the evolution of the elastic properties during triaxial compression or extension tests. A common
test procedure corresponds to the repetition of two stages applied at different levels of the stress path (Fig. 9). First, a
monotonic loading (axial compression or extension) brings
the specimen to a deformed state, 1, 2, . . i, . . n. Second, at
this state, called the investigation point, the behavior of the
specimen in the small strain domain is studied by application
of a quasi-static axial cyclic loading of small amplitude. This
step is repeated up to large strains. It is proposed to evaluate the relative error, called Err(a, cycle ), when these small
axial strain cycles of amplitude a, cycle are applied at different investigation points of the triaxial compression or extension stress paths. The investigation points considered for the
numerical analysis correspond to 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, and

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Sun Aug 31 23:02:43 EDT 2014
Downloaded/printed by
Universidad de Concepcion (Universidad de Concepcion) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

6 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

FIG. 9General shape of a triaxial test, large strains and small cycles
in different investigation points (i).

0.05 m/m of the total axial strain, while the chosen cycle
amplitude was 5 105 m/m.
Figure 10a shows only the relative error Err(a,mon ) involved in
the axial strain measurement for monotonic triaxial compression
and extension tests performed up to large strains. The numerical values considered for the geometrical dimensions are given
in Fig. 8. For very small initial axial strains, the relative error is
around 2.8 %. Therefore, the error induced by the rigid rotation of
the LVDT, for example, for initial axial strains up to 5 105 m/m
is 1.4 106 m/m. Then, with the evolution of the axial strain, the
relative error, Err(a, mon ), decreases in triaxial compression (up to
2.3 %) and increases in triaxial extension (up to 3.2 %).
For small axial strain cycles of 5 105 m/m amplitude, the
relative error Err(a, cycle ) depends on the investigation point, but it
remains always between 2.3 and 2.8 % for a compression test and
between 2.8 and 3.2 % for an extension test.
Considering the error on the measured value of the equivalent
Youngs modulus (Eeq = the peak-to-peak secant modulus for the
small unload/reload cycle, Fig. 9), the rigid rotation of the LVDT
body induces only an error of approximately 3 %, which is considered to be acceptable.

FIG. 10Relative errors on the measured value of the axial strain induced by the rotation of the LVDT for triaxial compression and extension
tests up to large strains (a) and evolution of random errors with the axial
strain (b).

The electrical output of the LVDT is linear; therefore, the measured distance is given by the following relation:
= S E

Random Errors
Errors on the values of the displacements measured with LVDT
sensors and by extension, on the axial strain, are induced by random
errors. These errors are due:

r To the electric signal output of the transducer and to the resolution of data acquisition unit (noise, hysteresis, repeatability);
r To the sensitivity of the sensors: linearity of the calibration
curve, measurement of the calibration factor, accuracy of the
calibration device;
r To the validity of the postulated hypothesis of homogeneous
strain field development during the test;
r To the accuracy of the measurement of the initial specimen
size.
During repeated measurements of a given distance , these random errors lead to a scatter of measurements around a mean value
m . An indication of this scatter is given by the standard deviation
, which represents the precision of the measured displacement .

(3)

where S is the sensitivity of the LVDT (cm/V) and E the output


(V). S and E are considered independent random variables (approximated by normal distributions) each one represented by the
mean (mS and mE ) and by the standard deviation (S and E ). By
application of the method of central moments to the deterministic
relation (3), the mean and the standard deviation of the variable
can be found as function of the means and standard deviations of
the input variables S and E (Ghiocel and Lungu 1975). Therefore,
the mean value, m , and the standard deviation, , of the random
variable , are:
m = mS mE
=

(mS )2 (E )2 + (mE )2 (S )2

(4)
(5)

The standard deviation can be expressed as a function of the


m if the mean value mE is replaced by the ratio m /mS .
The mean mS is given by the slope of the best fit calibration line of
the LVDT. The accuracy of the calibration device and the resolution
of the transducer are taken into account for the estimation of the

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Sun Aug 31 23:02:43 EDT 2014
Downloaded/printed by
Universidad de Concepcion (Universidad de Concepcion) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

IBRAIM AND DI BENEDETTO ON LVDT


TABLE 1Statistical parameters of the sensitivity and the electrical

output for the LVDTs.


LVDT

mS (cm/V)

S (cm/V)

E (V)

1T and 2T


1B and 2B

1.0909
0.9591

7 103
7 103

2 105
2 105

standard deviation S , while the resolution of the data acquisition


unit gives an assessment of E . For the transducers T and B,
the current values of mS , S , and E used for the computation of
the random errors are given in Table 1.
The local axial strain a, mes is determined by the relation (2).
Considering the components of this relation as independent random variables, each one represented by the average m and by the
standard deviation , the precision of the axial strain obtained
by using this device can be estimated by the standard deviation,
a, mes , of the random function a, mes . A detailed description of the
calculation (based on the method of central moments) is given by
Ibraim (1998). For axial strains up to 5 105 m/m, the precision expressed in terms of the standard deviation, a, mes , is around
5 106 m/m (Fig. 10b). The standard deviation increases with
the strain level.
The relative error induced by these random errors on the measured value of the initial Youngs modulus or equivalent Youngs
modulus, if small unload/reload cycles are applied at different investigation points, is around 10 % for axial strain levels up to
35 105 m/m.
Test Results
Several triaxial tests were performed on Hostun RF sand specimens using this new axial strain measurement system. Two triaxial
tests will be presented in this paper. Hostun RF sand is a common testing material for some European laboratories, and all the
specifications have been given by Flavigny et al. (1990).
Figure 11 presents the results of an isotropic compression test
on a specimen with a fabrication relative density, Dr , of 81 %. The
strain was evaluated with the new local system of measurement and
with an internal LVDT sensor (h) placed on the rigid top plate of
the specimen (internal means located in the triaxial cell).
A very good agreement is observed between the measurements
made in the lower quarter of the specimen by the 1B and 2B

transducers (Fig. 11a). Some differences, up to 10 %, were recorded


between 1T and 2T . They were probably caused by the lack of
the homogeneity in the higher quarter of the specimen density (the
dry pluviation technique was used for the specimen fabrication).
The axial displacement recorded by the internal LVDT (h) results
in a higher value of axial strain than that obtained by the local
system (Fig. 11b). The gap between the internal and local axial
strains increases with the effective mean pressure, p  . When p 
reaches 550 kPa, the local strain represents almost 70 % of the
internal one.
The second test is a triaxial compression test from an initial
isotropic effective confining pressure, po , of 100 kPa (specimen
with relative density, Dr , of 81 %). Again, the importance of the
local system of measurement for the stiffness evaluation is highlighted. The stress-strain response presented in Fig. 12b shows that
the internal and the external (an LVDT placed external to the triaxial
cell) measurement systems underestimate the initial stiffness of the
soil. For the external measure, there is no separation between the
displacement of the specimen and the compliance and bedding errors. The internal measurement corrects only the compliance errors.
Good agreement between the local measurements made by
the LVDTs diametrically opposite 1 and 2 is also observed
(Fig. 12c). The Strains 1 and 2 do not seem to be affected by
measurements made in different top and bottom vertical planes (at
25 ). At the same time, the quality and the continuity of the curves
indicate that the friction between the core and the body of the local LVDTs is negligible. It should be noted that the local system
remains operational also for large strains, up to 0.13 m/m (Fig. 12a).
The initial Youngs modulus Emax can be given for strain levels up
to 23 105 m/m (Fig. 12d). The slope of the average line gives
an initial stiffness around 180 MPa. The evolution of the secant
Youngs modulus with the strain level is presented in Fig. 13. Due
to the precision of the measurement system, an important scatter of
data is observed for axial strains below 2 105 m/m. In spite of this
scatter of data, the stiffness of the sand appears to exhibit a plateau
at strain levels up to 23 105 m/m (around 180 MPa). However,
the error in the evaluation of the stiffness at 23 105 m/m axial
strain is around 10 %, which appears to be in agreement with the
previous estimation given by the random errors.
An extensive experimental program has been performed for the
assessment of the elastic properties of the Hostun RF sand by
application of quasi-static axial cyclic loading of small amplitude at different strain and stress levels (Ibraim 1998). Due to the

FIG. 11Isotropic compression test on Hostun RF sand.


Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Sun Aug 31 23:02:43 EDT 2014
Downloaded/printed by
Universidad de Concepcion (Universidad de Concepcion) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

8 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

FIG. 12Stress-strain behavior for a drained triaxial compression test on Hostun RF sand.

r A flexible metal plate is used to attach the body of the LVDT


to an independent support;
r The rod of the transducer simply rests on the local target, there
is a nonrigid rod/target connection;
r The targets are pins driven through the membrane into the
specimen.

FIG. 13Strain-dependent stiffness of Hostun RF sand specimen evaluated with the new local axial strain system of measurement.

considerable volume of data, the analysis of the results, and thus


the assessment of the performance of the local device, will be considered in a separate communication.
Conclusions
A local system of measurement of axial strains for triaxial apparatus using four LVDTs is described in this paper. This new device
is characterized by some innovative solutions:

These solutions make possible the use of the axial device for
the investigation of the soil behavior from small strains, some
105 m/m, up to large strains, 1015 102 m/m without perturbations of the specimen radial deformation and tilting/barrelling.
The systematic error on the measured value of the axial strain
induced by the rigid rotation of the LVDT body has been assessed
in terms of a relative error. For very small initial axial strains (compression or extension tests), this relative error is around 2.8 %.
Then, with the evolution of the axial strain, it reaches 2.3 % for
compression test and 3.2 % for extension test. However, a correction algorithm could be considered.
For axial strains up to 5 105 m/m, the precision of the device
given by an assessment of the random errors is around 5 106 .
Acknowledgements
The technical staff of the Department of Civil Engineering of the
Ecole Nationale des Travaux Publics de lEtat de Lyon, in particular
Mr. M. Pernoud and Mr. G. Prevost, provided the necessary help
and assistance with the development of the new local system of
measurement of axial displacements.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Sun Aug 31 23:02:43 EDT 2014
Downloaded/printed by
Universidad de Concepcion (Universidad de Concepcion) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

IBRAIM AND DI BENEDETTO ON LVDT

References
Baldi, G., Hight, D. W., and Thomas, G. E., 1988, A Re-Evaluation
of Conventional Triaxial Test Methods, Advanced Triaxial Testing of Soil and Rock, ASTM STP 977, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, pp. 219263.
Brown, S. F. and Snaith, M. S., 1974, The Measurement of Recoverable and Irrecoverable Deformations in the Repeated Load
Triaxial Test, Geotechnique, No. 2, pp. 255259.
Brown, S. F., Austin, G., and Overy, R. F., 1980, An Instrumented
Triaxial Cell for Cyclic Loading of Clays, Geotechnical Testing
Journal, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 145152.
Boyce, J. R. and Brown, S. F., 1976, Measurement of Elastic
Strain in Granular Material, Geotechnique, Vol. 26, No. 4,
pp. 637640.
Besuelle, P. and Desrues, J., 2001, An Internal Instrumentation
for Axial and Radial Strain Measurements in Triaxial Tests,
Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 193199.
Brignoli, E. G. M., Gotti, M., and Stoke, J. H., 1996, Measurement of Shear Waves in Laboratory Specimens by Means
of Piezoelectric Transducers, Geotechnical Testing Journal,
Vol. 19, pp. 284397.
Cazacliu, B. and Di Benedetto, H., 1998, Behavior of Sand in the
Small Strain Domain Observed with a Hollow Cylinder Apparatus, Proceedings of 11th ECEE, CD-ROM, Balkema, Rotterdam.
Connolly, T. M. and Kuwano, R., 1999, The Measurement of
Gmax in a Resonant Column, Bender Element, Torsional Shear
Apparatus, Proceedings of 2nd IS on Prefailure Deformation
Characteristics of Geomaterials, pp. 7380.
Cuccovillo, T. and Coop, M. R., 1997, The Measurement of Local
Axial Strains in Triaxial Tests Using LVDTs, Geotechnique,
Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 167171.
Costa Filho, L. M., 1985, Measurement of Axial Strains in Triaxial
Tests on London Clay, Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 8,
No. 1, pp. 313.
Da Re, G., Santagata, M. C., and Germaine, J. T., 2001, LVDT
Based System for the Measurement of the Prefailure Behavior
of Geomaterials, Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3,
pp. 288298.
Di Benedetto, H., Cazacliu, B., Geoffroy, H., and Sauzeat, C., 1999,
Sand Behaviour in Very Small to Medium Strain Domains,
Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Prefailure
Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials, pp. 8996.
Dyvik, R. and Madshus, C., 1985, Laboratory Measurements of
Gmax Using Bender Elements, Proceedings, ASCE Annual Convention: Advances in the Art of Testing Soils under Cyclic Conditions, Detroit, MI, pp. 186197.
Flavigny, E., Desrues, J., and Palayer, B., 1990, Note Technique
Le Sable dHostun RF, Revue Francaise de Geotechnique,
No. 53, pp. 6770.
Ghiocel, D. and Lungu, D., 1975, Wind, Snow and Temperature
Effects on Structures Based on Probability, Abacus Press, UK.
Hardin, B. O. and Richart, F. E., 1963, Elastic Wave Velocities
in Granular Soils, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Division, ASCE, Vol. 89, pp. 3365.
Hardin, B. O. and Black, W. L., 1966 Sand Stiffness under Various
Triaxial Stresses, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Division, ASCE, Vol. SM2, pp. 2742.

Hight, D. W., Gens, A., and Symes, M. J., 1983, The Development
of a New Hollow Cylinder Apparatus for Investigating the Effects
of Principal Stress Rotation in Soils, Geotechnique, Vol. 33,
No. 4, pp. 355383.
Ibraim, E., 1998, Differents aspects du comportement des sables a
partir dessais triaxiaux: des petites deformations a la liquefaction
statique, PhD thesis, ENTPE Lyon, France.
Jardine, R. J., Symes, M. J., and Burland, J. B., 1984, The Measurement of Soil Stiffness in the Triaxial Apparatus, Geotechnique,
Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 323340.
Lo Presti, D. C. F., Pallara, O., Lancellotta, R., Armandi, M., and
Maniscalco, R., 1993, Monotonic and Cyclic Loading Behavior
of Two Sands at Small Strains, Geotechnical Testing Journal,
Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 409424.
Lo Presti, D. C. F., Pallara, O., Constanzo, D., and Impavido, M.,
1994, Small Strain Measurements During Triaxial Tests: Many
Problems, Some Solutions, Proceedings, International Symposium on Prefailure Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials,
Hokkaido, Vol. 1, pp. 1116.
Modoni, G., Flora, A., Mancuso, C., Viggiani, C., and Tatsuoka,
F., 2000, Evaluation of Gravel Stiffness by Pulse Wave Transmission Tests, Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 23, No. 4,
pp. 506521.
Nataatmadja, A. and Parkin, A. K., 1990, Axial Deformation Measurement in Repeated Load Triaxial Testing, Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 4548.
Pennington, D. S., Nash, D. F. T., and Lings, M. L., 1997, Anistropy
of G0 Shear Stiffness in Gault Clay, Geotechnique, Vol. 47,
No. 3, pp. 391398.
Scholey, G. K., Frost, J. D., Lo Presti, D. C. F., and Jamiolkowski,
M., 1995, A Review of Instrumentation for Measuring Small
Strains During Triaxial Testing of Soil Specimens, Geotechnical
Testing Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 137156.
Schultheiss, P. J., 1980, Simultaneous Measurement of P and S
Wave Velocities During Conventional Laboratory Soil Testing
Procedures, Marine Geotechnology, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 343
367.
Shibuya, S., et al., 1992, Elastic Deformation Properties of Geomaterials, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 2646.
Shirley, D. J. and Hampton, L. D., 1978, Shear-Wave Measurements in Laboratory Sediments, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 607613.
Tatsuoka, F., Sato, T., Park, C.-S., Kim, Y.-S., Mukabi, J. N., and
Kohata, Y., 1994, Measurement of Elastic Properties of Geomaterials in Laboratory Compression Tests, Geotechnical Testing
Journal, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 8094.
Tatsuoka, F., Jardine, R. J., Lo Presti, D. C. F., Di Benedetto,
and H., Kodaka, 1997, Characterising the Pre-Failure Deformation Properties of Geomaterials, Theme lecture, Plenary Session 1, Proceedings, XIV ICSMFE, Hamburg, Balkema, Vol. 4,
pp. 21292164.
Viggiani, G. and Atkinson, J. H., 1995, Interpretation of Bender Element Tests, Geotechnique, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 149
154.
Yuen, C. M. K., Lo, K. Y., Palmer, J. H. L., and Leonards, G. A.,
1978, A New Apparatus for Measuring the Principal Strains in
Anisotropic Clays, Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1,
pp. 2433.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Sun Aug 31 23:02:43 EDT 2014
Downloaded/printed by
Universidad de Concepcion (Universidad de Concepcion) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.