Calibration Chamber Size Effects on Penetration Resistance in Sand
Publication: Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
Volume 124, Issue 9
Abstract
Calibration chamber tests provide an effective way to study cone penetration resistance in sands under controlled conditions. Calibration chamber tests are performed in large soil samples with known densities, consolidated to desired stresses, and subjected to known boundary conditions. Results from calibration chamber tests can be used to establish the relationship between cone resistance, soil density, and stress state. However, the penetration resistance measured in a calibration chamber differs from that measured in the free field because of chamber size and boundary condition effects. There has been considerable uncertainty about these effects, precluding use of the results of calibration chamber research with greater confidence. In this paper, a penetration resistance theory recently developed is used to quantify chamber size effect, to investigate the factors it depends on, and to show how to correct calibration chamber test penetration resistance values to free-field conditions. The theoretical results are compared with available experimental results.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Baldi, G., et al. (1986). “Interpretation of CPT's and CPTU's—second part: Drained penetration of sands.”4th Int. Conf. on Field Instrumentation and In-Situ Measurement, Nanyang Technological Institute, Singapore, 143–156.
2.
Bellotti, R., Bizzi, G., and Ghionna, V. (1982). “Design, construction, and use of a calibration chamber.”Proc., ESOPT II, Balkema, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Vol. 2, 439–446.
3.
Bellotti, R., et al. (1985). “Bearing capacity of piles using cavity expansion theory.”Proc., from Theory to Practice in Deep Foundations, Centro de Pós-Graduação Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
4.
Bellotti, R., Jamiolkowski, M., Lo Presti, D., and O'Neill, D.(1996). “Anisotropy of small strain stiffness in Ticino sand.”Geotechnique, London, England, 46(1), 115–131.
5.
Bolton, M. D.(1986). “The strength and dilatancy of sands.”Geotechnique, London, England, 36(1), 65–78.
6.
Carter, J. P., Booker, J. R., and Yeung, S. K.(1986). “Cavity expansion in cohesive-frictional soils.”Geotechnique, London, England, 36(3), 349–358.
7.
Ghionna, V., and Jamiolkowski, M. (1991). “A critical apraisal of calibration chamber testing of sands.”Proc., 1st Int. Symp. on Calibration Chamber Testing (ISOCCT1). Elsevier, Potsdam, N.Y., 13–39.
8.
Hardin, B., and Drnevich, V. P.(1972). “Shear modulus and damping in soils: Design equations and curves.”J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., 98(7), 667–692.
9.
Holden, J. C. (1971). “Laboratory research on static cone penetrometers.”Rep. No. CE-SM-71-1, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla.
10.
Houlsby, G. T., and Hitchman, R.(1988). “Calibration chamber tests of a cone penetrometer in sand.”Geotechnique, London, England, 38(1), 39–44.
11.
Houlsby, G. T., and Wroth, P. W. (1989). “The influence of soil stiffness and lateral stress on the results of in-situ soil tests.”12th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg., Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Balkema, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
12.
Mayne, P. W., and Kulhawy, F. H. (1991). “Calibration chamber database and boundary effects correction for CPT data.”Proc., 1st Int. Symp. on Calibration Chamber Testing (ISOCCT1). Elsevier, Potsdam, N.Y., 257–264.
13.
Parkin, A., and Lunne, T. (1982). “Boundary effects in the laboratory calibration of a cone penetrometer in sand.”Proc., 2nd Eur. Symp. on Penetration Testing, Vol. 2, Balkema, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 761–768.
14.
Salgado, R. (1993). “Analysis of penetration resistance in sands,” PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
15.
Salgado, R., Boulanger, R. W., and Mitchell, J. K.(1997a). “Lateral stress effects on CPT liquefaction resistance correlations.”J. Geotech. and Geoenvir. Engrg., ASCE, 123(8), 726–735.
16.
Salgado, R., Mitchell, J. K., and Jamiolkowski, M.(1997b). “Cavity expansion and penetration resistance in sands.”J. Geotech. and Geoenvir. Engrg., ASCE, 123(4), 344–354.
17.
Schnaid, F., and Houlsby, G.(1991). “An assessment of chamber size effects in the calibration of in situ tests in sand.”Geotechnique, London, England, 41(3), 437–445.
18.
Sisson, R. C. (1990). “Lateral stresses on displacement penetrometers,” PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
19.
Tseng, D. J. (1989). “Prediction of cone penetration resistance and its application to liquefaction assessment,” PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
20.
Vaid, Y. P., and Negussey, D.(1984). “Relative density of pluviated sand samples.”Soils and Found., Tokyo, Japan, 24(2), 101–105.
21.
Vésic, A. S.(1972). “Expansion of cavities in infinite soil mass.”J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, 98(3), 265–290.
22.
Villet, W. C. B. (1981). “Acoustic emissions during static penetration of soils,” PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
23.
Villet, W. C. B., and Mitchell, J. K. (1981). “Cone resistance, realtive density, and friction angle.”Proc., ASCE Symp. on Cone Penetration Testing and Experience, ASCE, New York, N.Y., 178–208.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
Volume 124 • Issue 9 • September 1998
Pages: 878 - 888
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Published online: Sep 1, 1998
Published in print: Sep 1998
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.