1995
DOI: 10.1680/geot.1995.45.2.349
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The design of diaphragm-type boundary total stress cells

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
19
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In principle, stress paths may be determined either by measurement or analysis. Although direct measurements of stress from field and laboratory measurements have been reported (Yoo & Selig, 1979;Jain & Keshav, 1999;Shahu et al, 1999), the validity of such measurements is dependent on the adoption of installation procedures appropriate to the characteristics of the individual site (Weiler & Kulhawy, 1982;Richards et al, 2007), and the relative stress cell/soil stiffness ratio (Peattie & Sparrow, 1954;Clayton & Bica, 1993). In general, the use of devices for the direct measurement of in-ground stresses below an in-service railway is not practicable.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In principle, stress paths may be determined either by measurement or analysis. Although direct measurements of stress from field and laboratory measurements have been reported (Yoo & Selig, 1979;Jain & Keshav, 1999;Shahu et al, 1999), the validity of such measurements is dependent on the adoption of installation procedures appropriate to the characteristics of the individual site (Weiler & Kulhawy, 1982;Richards et al, 2007), and the relative stress cell/soil stiffness ratio (Peattie & Sparrow, 1954;Clayton & Bica, 1993). In general, the use of devices for the direct measurement of in-ground stresses below an in-service railway is not practicable.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consideration has to be given to both the stress perturbations caused by cell installation and the subsequent`cell action'. The latter is a consequence of diŠerences between the eŠective stiŠnesses of the stress cell and the soil mass; Bond et al (1991), Clayton and Bica (1993). If not accounted for, cell action can seriously aŠect the reliability and accuracy of the soil-stress measurements.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The existence of the cells will change the stress distribution in the soil due to the stiffness difference between the cell and soil. Lots of experiments showed that the soil pressure cell often gave incorrect results for the soil stress measurement (Clayton and Bica, 1993) without careful calibration. The pressure cells adopted in this test have the stiffness around 90 MPa, which is much different from the compacted sand.…”
Section: Sand Backfillmentioning
confidence: 99%