Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 28, No.

2
Paper ID GTJ12484
Available online at: www.astm.org

Mark Talesnick1

Measuring Soil Contact Pressure on a Solid

Boundary and Quantifying Soil Arching

ABSTRACT: The paper presents the design, development, and calibration of a soil contact pressure transducer, based on the null method. Air
pressure regulated in a tightly controlled PID loop balances the output of a strain gage bridge bonded to the sensing element. This action maintains
the sensing element in an undeflected state. The result is that the membrane does not interact with the surrounding soil, and errors due to arching
are eliminated. In theory, the air pressure required to keep the sensing element in its undeflected state should be equal to the soil contact pressure
applied at the soil boundary interface.
Calibration of the sensor reveals that its response is exactly as anticipated. The ratio between the required null pressure and applied soil pressure
at the boundary interface is 1:1 and independent of soil type, soil stiffness, and load history. The paper presents calibration of the sensor for two
very different sands, each at two significantly different levels of relative density.
The sensitivity of the sensor is a function of the control software. In its present version the sensor responds accurately to pressure imbalances of
0.3 kPa.

KEYWORDS: soil pressure cell, null method, arching, soil-structure interaction, calibration

Introduction
The contact pressure felt by structures buried or fixed within a soil
mass is often an important variable in the design and performance
of such structures. This is true for a variety of different engineering
configurations, examples of which are outlined below:
r Pressure applied by a soil mass on a retaining structure,
whether the soil is at rest (Ko ), at limiting conditions (Ka ,
Kp ), or some intermediate state;
r Pressure felt by an underground structure (e.g., the roof of a
box culvert or the sides of a flexible/rigid pipe) under either
static conditions or conditions involving the application of
repeated or dynamic loads;
r Pressure acting on the side of a pile, whether loaded axially or
laterally.
In each of the examples noted above, the magnitude of the pres-
sure acting on the implanted structure is of primary importance to
the design and/or performance of the structure; it is not secondary
or esoteric.
To date, no reliable device to monitor the magnitude of soil
pressure has been widely accepted. The reason for this is com-
pletely objective. The measurement of soil pressure is not a simple
task, and attempts by various research groups to do so have met
with different levels of success. The many factors that make the
measurement of soil stress such a difficult endeavor were outlined
by Weiler and Kulhawy (1982). Weiler and Kulhaway, as well as
Dunnicliff (1988), concluded that additional development is
required in order to monitor soil pressures properly and reliably.
Oddly, new developments in this field are rare in the published
Received January 2, 2004; accepted for publication July 22, 2004; published
March 2005.
1 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, TechnionIsrael
Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel 32000, e-mail: talesnik@tx.technion.ac.il
literature from the period of 1985 to the present. The purpose of
this contribution is to describe a device that has been designed, de-
veloped, calibrated, and implemented for the measurement of soil
pressure acting upon a solid boundary.
Background
The terms soil stress and pressure used above require clar-
ification. In the context of this paper, the terms are used in order
to describe the normal stress acting over a continuous, planar unit
area. No pretense is being made regarding the composition of the
stress tensor or magnitude of shear stress acting on the same area.
The terminology used throughout the rest of this article will be
soil contact pressure, or for short, soil pressure. This terminol-
ogy has been chosen, despite the fact that the soil contact pressure
is dependent on orientation in space.
Two important prerequisites should be maintained when attempt-
ing to measure soil pressure:
r Inclusion of the measuring device must not alter the actual
stress field in the soil.
r The measuring device must respond to the applied conditions
of stress in a fashion identical to the material in which it is
embedded.
The measurement of soil pressure can be divided into two groups:
measurement of soil pressure within a soil mass, and measurement
of soil pressure at a solid boundary.
Reliable measurement of soil pressure within a deforming soil
mass is a tremendously challenging task. Measuring configurations
based on stress determination through monitoring deformations
requires that the response of the device be identical to that of the
soil. If the response of the soil were known, then there would be no
need to measure soil pressure, it could simply be calculated. In cases
where measurements are performed within a soil mass, the results

Copyright 2005 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. 1
2 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
are affected by the soil type, and the relative stiffness of the soil
and the measuring device. A sensing device, of stiffness different
from that of the medium in which it is placed, induces a perturba-
tion in the actual stress field. A stiff inclusion will draw stresses
towards it, registering higher readings, whereas a relatively soft in-
clusion will shed stress to the sides and register readings lower than
those if the inclusion had not been implanted (Selig 1964). Impor-
tant experimental work reported on by Ingram (1965) attempted to
calibrate sensing inclusions of this sort. Clayton and Bica (1993)
illustrated the same phenomena for the case of boundary total stress
cells.
Interaction between soil and the measuring device makes the
proper calibration of such devices difficult and time consuming. If
the calibration is not performed under conditions identical to those
at the time of installation and throughout the monitoring period, the
resulting readings may be of very limited value (Dunnicliff (1988)).
Calibration of a soil pressure cell, whether at a boundary or within
a soil mass, should address the following aspects of soil/sensor
response:
1. Hysteretic behavior upon loading and unloading;
2. Variation of coefficient of calibration with soil type;
3. Variation of coefficient of calibration with soil condition
e.g., in sands the coefficient of calibration may be dependent
upon relative density, or soil stiffness;
4. Variation of coefficient of calibration with stress history.
Measurement of soil pressure on a solid boundary is a simpler
problem to tackle. The main difficulty encountered in this case is
that most measuring devices require a finite degree of flexibility in
order to develop a reasonable degree of sensitivity. This flexibility
induces a disturbance in the stress field adjacent to the boundary,
which leads to a reduction in the actual pressure applied to the
membrane of the device. This action, called soil arching, has been
dealt with by many researchers. Some of the earlier work on the
topic of soil arching and sensor interaction was published by Taylor
in 1947. Clayton and Bica (1993) illustrated that the disturbance in
the stress field due to the interaction between the soil and the trans-
ducer may be numerically determined and is a direct consequence
of the differences in the membrane stiffness and the small-strain
stiffness of the soil. Testing of measuring devices in a soil cali-
bration chamber is performed, in essence, to calibrate the error
developed due to the interaction between the soil and the transducer
(Selig 1980; Clayton and Bica 1993).
The literature is full of examples illustrating the effect of place-
ment method, soil density/stiffness, geometry, grain size, load his-
tory, and soil type on the calibration of such sensors. Many of the
examples are detailed by Weiler and Kulhawy (1982). Attempts
to rectify these dependencies have led to the development of soil
pressure transducers of very high stiffness, such as piezoelectric
sensors, semiconductor strain gages (Ingram 1965), and thick film
sensors (Piakowsky and Hajduk 1997). These transducer types were
originally developed for dynamic measurements, and they all suffer
to some degree from instability under static conditions.
Development of the Boundary Soil Contact Pressure
Transducer, Mark 1
Based on the considerations outlined above, the following re-
quirements were set out in the development of the soil contact
pressure transducer:
FIG. 1Design of the contact pressure cell, Mark 1.
r Infinite stiffness and flush mount: Required so that the trans-
ducer will blend in with the boundary itself, both in geometry
and interaction with the soil.
r High sensitivity and resolution: Required such that reliable
and accurate measurements can be made over time.
r Coefficient of calibration independent of soil type, stiffness,
and stress history: This requirement is paramount since in most
situations, whether in the field or in the lab, it is impossible
to know truly the condition of the soil next to the transducer.
The ultimate aspiration is that the transducer would not require
calibration at all.
The transducer was originally designed for use in laboratory scale
model tests.
Figure 1 shows the design of the transducer. The sensor is made of
two parts: a membrane housing, which is mounted flush to the soil-
structure interface, and a housing back which provides a hermetic
seal of the cylindrical volume behind the membrane face. The
membrane face is 0.25 mm in thickness and 13.6 mm in diameter.
The design assumes that the soil pressure over the dimensions of the
membrane is uniform. A full bridge (1000
) foil diaphragm strain
gage configuration 13.25 mm in diameter (MicroMeasurement EA-
06-S070R-10C) is bonded to the under side of the membrane face.
Three sets of three holes are equally distributed around the flange of
the membrane housing. One set of threaded holes is used to align the
outer face of the membrane flush with the solid boundary. A second
threaded set seals the housing back to the membrane housing, and
the final, unthreaded set is employed to fix the sensor to the solid
boundary. Two holes in the center area of the housing back allow for
a sealed electrical feedthrough and a sealed pneumatic feedthrough.
The concept of the sensor is based on the null method
(Doebelin 1990). As soil pressure is applied to the outer surface
of the membrane, the diaphragm will tend to deform, inducing a re-
sponse from the diaphragm strain gage bridge. In order to maintain
infinite stiffness, air pressure is applied to the cylindrical volume
behind the membrane face, and is regulated until the output sig-
nal of the diaphragm strain gage bridge is returned to its original,
undeformed value. The pressure required to null the signal of the
diaphragm bridge can be calibrated to the pressure applied to the
outer membrane face: elastic theory dictates that they are equal with
a calibration factor of 1.0.
 TALESNICK ON SOIL ARCHING 3

(010 Vdc) directly from the controlling computer, and outputs a

scaled, regulated air pressure. A schematic of the system algorithm
is shown in Fig. 2b.
Calibration and testing of the soil contact pressure cell was per-
formed in two different measurement modes:

1. Allowing the membrane to deflect, while monitoring the sig-

nal output (membrane deflection mode-MDM). Most com-
mercially available soil pressure sensors, as well as those
commonly used in research, work according to this principle.
2. Maintaining infinite membrane stiffness, while monitoring
the pressure required to null the transducer output (membrane
null mode-MNM).

The sensor was calibrated under two conditions in both of these

modes, once by applying air pressure above the sealed latex mem-
brane laid directly over the sensing membrane, and a second time
by applying air pressure on the sealed latex membrane placed on a
layer of soil 150 mm in thickness overlying the base of the calibra-
tion chamber where the pressure cell was fixed.
The sensor was calibrated for two sands: a fine-grained Israeli
dune sand and a coarse grained quartz sand. Both sands were poorly
graded and the grains well rounded. The gradation curves for the
two soils are shown in Fig. 3. Relevant data for the two sands
are given in Table 1. Calibrations were performed at two differ-
ent degrees of relative density on both soils. The fine sand was
placed at relative densities of 0 and 90 %. The coarse sand was
placed at relative densities of 0 and 60 %. Preparation at minimum
relative density was done according to standard testing specifica-
tions (ASTM D 4254/91). The medium and high-density specimens
were prepared by tamping layers of sand, 4 cm in thickness, in the
calibration chamber.

FIG. 2(a) Calibration chamber, (b) Null loop algorithm.

Calibration and Validation of the Contact Pressure Transducer

Calibration Setup
The transducer was tested under varying conditions in order to
explore its usefulness and to define a calibration. The tests were
performed in the calibration chamber shown in Fig. 2a. The sensor
was placed flush to the upper side of the bottom plate of the calibra- FIG. 3Grain size distribution of sands used in the calibration of the
tion cell. The sensor was tested/calibrated by applying air pressure contact pressure cell.
across a latex membrane sealed to the chamber base. The sides of the
calibration chamber were covered by a layer of teflon sheeting, lu- TABLE 1Properties of the soils used in the calibration tests.
bricating oil, and a thin sheet of polyethylene in order to reduce side
friction. The null pressure system is controlled by computer soft- D50 dmin dmax
ware (LabView, National Instruments) in a tightly maintained PID (mm) kN/m3 kN/m3 Gs Cu Cc
(Proportional-Integral-Derivative) control loop, which runs at a fre-
Dune Sand 0.28 13.9 17.4 2.68 1.7 1.0
quency of 10 Hz. Null pressure is applied by an electro-pneumatic Quartz Sand 1.25 15.3 18.1 2.66 1.5 1.0
controller (Druck, DPI 530), which receives an analog command
4 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

FIG. 4Calibration of the contact pressure sensor against directly applied air pressure: (a) Membrane Deflection Mode, (b) Membrane Null Mode,
(c) nulled output.

Calibration Against Air Pressure in comparison to the plots of Fig. 4. Figure 5a shows the sensor
response when calibrated in MNM. The plots illustrate the highly
Results of the calibration of the pressure cell for the case when air
hysteretic response to load-unload pressure cycles. The sensor re-
pressure was applied directly across a latex sheet to the transducer
sponse to loading is seen to be nonlinear and dependent on the
membrane are shown in Fig. 4. The graph of Fig. 4a shows the
loading history. The response to the first loading cycle is different
calibration curve in membrane deflection mode (MDM), with the
from that of the second; note that the sensor is less sensitive to pres-
transducer output plotted as a function of the applied air pressure
sures applied in the second load cycle than the first. The best linear
for both loading and unloading. As may be seen, the transducer
fit to the measurement in first loading cycle results in a coefficient
response is extremely well represented by a linear plot of slope
of calibration of 0.00178 mV/kPa/V. The second loading cycle is
0.00232 mV/kPa/V, for both loading and unloading. Subsequent
best described by a linear function of slope 0.00152 mV/kPa/V.
load-unload cycles resulted in identical slopes. Figure 4b shows the
Figure 5b shows the air pressure required to null the sensor output
calibration performed in membrane null mode (MNM), as demon-
as a function of the pressure applied to the sand via the latex mem-
strated by the transducer output plotted in Fig. 4c. The plot of
brane. The resulting slope is 1:1.03, very close to the expected ratio
Fig. 4b yields a 1:1 correlation between the air pressure applied at
of 1:1.
the outer face of the membrane and the pressure required to null
The ratio is seen to be consistent both during loading and un-
the diaphragm bridge output for both loading and unloading, as
loading. Subsequent loading cycles produced identical results, il-
expected. The sensitivity of the sensor in MNM is a function of
lustrating independence of the required null pressure from the load
the control software. In its present version, the sensor responds in a
history. A narrow hysteresis loop is formed when shifting from
stable manner to pressure imbalances of 0.3 kPa over a full scale of
loading to unloading; the error introduced due to this response is
200 kPa. The response time is mainly controlled by the ability of
rarely greater than 3 kPa.
the electro-pneumatic converter to regulate pressure. For pressure
The fact that the ratio is so close to 1:1 indicates that no pressure
changes of 10 kPa and less, the membrane is brought to an unde-
is shed due to friction at the calibration chamber sides and that the
flected state in less than 1 s. The plots of Fig. 4 formed the basis
pressure applied to the sand surface reaches the base of the calibra-
for which calibrations performed with soil pressure applied to the
tion chamber in entirety. This outcome is due to the incorporation
sensor face were compared.
of the friction reducing layers of teflon-lubricant-polyethelyene
placed along the vertical walls of the calibration chamber. In tests
performed without the friction reducing layers, the pressure re-
Calibration Against Soil Pressure
quired to balance the strain gage bridge was at times less than 80 %
Figures 5a, b, and c show plots similar to those of Fig. 4, but of the pressure applied to the sand surface.
for the sensor in contact with dune sand placed at conditions of Figures 6a, b, and c show the results of calibrations performed
minimum dry density. Several important differences can be seen for the dune sand placed at a relative density of 90 %. Figure 6a
 TALESNICK ON SOIL ARCHING 5

FIG. 5Calibration of the contact pressure sensor against loosely placed dune sand: (a) Membrane Deflection Mode, (b) Membrane Null Mode,
(c) nulled output.

FIG. 6Calibration of the contact pressure sensor against densely placed dune sand: (a) Membrane Deflection Mode, (b) Membrane Null Mode,
(c) nulled output.
6 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
FIG. 7Calibration of the contact pressure sensor against loosely placed coarse sand: (a) Membrane Deflection Mode, (b) Membrane Null Mode,
(c) nulled output.
illustrates calibration of the sensor in MDM. As in the case of the
loosely placed dune sand, the sensor response is nonlinear, highly
hysteretic on unloading, and load history dependent. The slopes
of the best-fit linear functions for the first and second load cycles
are 0.000934 mV/kPa/V and 0.000926 mV/kPa/V, respectively.
Note that the sensor response to the effect of increased soil stiffness
(higher relative density) is a reduction in sensor sensitivity. As was
the case when calibrating against the loose sand, the sensor sensi-
tivity is reduced in subsequent loading cycleshowever, somewhat
more mildly.
Figures 6b and c show the calibration of the pressure cell when
the null system was engaged. As is clear from the plot, the increase
in sand density has no influence on the calibration of the system.
The calibration is extremely linear and the ratio between applied
soil pressure and the air pressure required to null the sensor output
is 0.984:1, essentially 1:1, for both loading and unloading.
Figures 7 and 8 present graphs similar to those of Figs. 5 and
6however, for sensor calibration against the coarse quartz sand.
The observations are identical in nature to those noted with respect
to the calibrations performed against the fine dune sand.
Analysis and Discussion
Sensor Evaluation
Table 2 presents a numerical summary of the results plotted in
Figs. 4 through 8. The table includes simple statistical measures of
the correlation between the experimental data and the derived coef-
ficient of calibration. Two groups of observations are of importance
and deserve to be pointed out:
r Calibration of the sensor in MNM is independent of grain size,
density, and soil stiffness. The ratio of soil pressure to the re-
quired null pressure is seen to be independent of the sign of the
applied pressure increment and of the loading history. These
are all positive qualities in the choice of a sensing element.
The coefficient of calibration in all cases is within the range
of 1:0.981:1.04. The degree of correlation between the lin-
early derived coefficient of calibration and the measured data
is represented by the coefficient of correlation (r2 ,Table 2),
which in most cases is very high. The standard error based
on the least square linear coefficient of calibration does
not exceed 3.5 kPa. For practical purposes no calibration is
required.
r The coefficient of calibration of the pressure sensor in MDM
is highly dependent on the soil type and condition, sign of the
applied pressure increment, and loading history. These are all
limitations in the choice and use of a soil pressure transducer.
The sensor sensitivity tends to decrease as the stiffness of the
calibrating medium increases. This effect is substantiated by
considering the changes in calibration coefficient as a function
of material and load history. This observation is undoubtedly
connected to interaction between the soil and the deflection of
the membrane face, leading to the development of a soil arch
in the region adjacent to the membrane. The stiffer the soil, the
more effective the soil arch at shielding the membrane from
applied pressures, so damping the resulting membrane deflec-
tion. The r2 values are relatively high; however, the standard
error is in all cases is significantly greater than that determined
when using the sensor in MNM. In specific cases, the standard
error was found to exceed 14 kPa.
 TALESNICK ON SOIL ARCHING 7

FIG. 8Calibration of the contact pressure sensor against medium dense coarse sand: (a) Membrane Deflection Mode, (b) Membrane Null Mode,
(c) nulled output.

TABLE 2Summary of coefficients determined from the different calibration configurations.

Membrane Null Mode Membrane Deflection Mode

Calibration Ratio Coefficient of Calibration
Applied (kPa): Null (kPa) mV/kPa/V
Calibration Medium Relative Density (%) Load Unload Cycle 1 Cycle 2

Air 1:0.998 a
1:0.997 0.00232 a
0.00231
N/A 0.9999b 0.9972 0.9995b 0.9998
0.12c 0.43 0.83c 0.70
Dune Sand 1:1.03 1:1.02 0.00178 0.00152
0 0.9986 0.9997 0.9872 0.9817
2.31 1.29 8.37 14.1
1:0.98 1:0.98 0.000934 0.000926
90 0.9987 0.9979 0.9959 0.9737
2.68 3.30 4.84 11.8
Quartz Sand 1:1.04 1:1.03 0.00168 0.00157
0 0.9993 0.9992 0.9959 0.9967
2.02 2.41 5.12 4.10
1:1.04 1:1.0 0.000814 0.000780
60 0.9992 0.9984 0.9979 0.9780
2.01 3.20 3.45 11.3
a Based on linear regression.
b Coefficient of correlation r 2 .
c Standard error of estimate kPa.
Coefficient of unload segment in Cycle 1.

Quantifying Arching
A quantitative estimate of the magnitude of the effect of arching
can be made by considering the differences between the coefficients
determined for the different media in reference to the coefficient
determined for the calibration carried out in air.
As an example, consider the coefficients determined for the dune
sand at relative densities of 0 and 90 %. Deviations from the ref-
erence value of 0.002318 are 0.00178 and 0.000934, respec-
tively. This means that for an applied pressure of 100 kPa, only
77 kPa and 40 kPa are respectively felt at the sensing membrane.
8 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
The complementary portions are shed away from the deflecting
membrane through the development of a soil arch. A similar situ-
ation is true in the case of the coarse sand, for which the arching
is even more pronounced (72 and 35 %, felt by sensor) most likely
due to the higher medium stiffness in comparison to that of the
dune sand.
There is no doubt that the magnitude of the arching is a function
of the stiffness of the sensing element. Since the pressure cell
developed here was based on the null concept, high membrane
stiffness was not the prime design issue.
Some of the commercially available soil stress cells claim ex-
tremely high stiffnesses. In some cases, the sensors utilize semi-
conductor strain gages that offer very high gage factors, but are
prone to drift and temperature difficulties. Sensors of this type are
at times used to measure free field soil stresses in response to
dynamic situations (Ingram (1965)). It is of interest to consider the
magnitude of arching developed around such a sensor.
A commercially available sensor (Kulite LQ-080U) whose spec-
ifications describe as extremely stiff, was calibrated in the chamber
shown in Fig. 2. The sensors diaphragm is instrumented with semi-
conductor strain gages, and the sensor interior is filled with a fluid.
The specifications claim virtually zero deflection under full-scale
stress. The sensing area of the commercial sensor is marginally
larger than that of the Mark 1 transducer. The sensor was mounted
such that the sensing surface was flush to the base of the calibration
chamber. The calibrations were performed for loosely placed and
densely placed dune sand, as well as for air pressure applied across
a latex membrane.
FIG. 9Calibration of flush mounted, commercial Soil Stress Cell:
(a) Loosely placed dune sand, (b) Densely placed dune sand.
TABLE 3Summary of coefficients of calibration determined for the
commercial sensor.
Coefficient of Calibration
mV/kPa/V
Cycle 1 Cycle 2
Air 0.04483a 0.04444
0.9995b 0.9997
1.93c 1.58
Loose (Dr 0 %) 0.04795 0.04216
0.9976 0.9996
4.05 1.79
Dense (Dr 90%) 0.02316 0.02017
0.9972 0.9984
4.16 3.25
a Based on linear regression.
b Coefficient of correlation r 2 .
c Standard error of estimate kPa.
Coefficient of unload segment in Cycle 1.
The plots of Figs. 9a and b and the numerical data in Table 3
summarize results of the tests performed with the commercial sen-
sor and illustrate the following characteristics:
r Despite its high membrane stiffness, the commercial cell il-
lustrates significant hysteresis on unloading.
r The effect of load history appears to induce a reduction in
sensor sensitivity in subsequent loading cycles. Note that for
both the loosely and densely placed sand the coefficient of
calibration in Cycle 1 is greater than that in Cycle 2. This
effect is very obvious in the case of the densely placed sand
(Fig. 9b) and somewhat less evident for the loosely placed
sand (Fig. 9a).
r The effect of soil condition is manifested by a significant
reduction in sensitivity as the soil medium stiffness increases.
Despite the high stiffness of the membrane, the deviation in
the pressure felt at the membrane face for the densely placed
sand in comparison to the loosely placed sand is 50 %.
r Somewhat surprisingly, the coefficient of calibration deter-
mined for the loosely placed sand is close to (even somewhat
higher) that determined for calibration against air.
Despite the fact that the commercially available sensor is con-
siderably stiffer than the Mark 1 contact pressure cell (MDM), its
interaction with soil is very similar in nature, and the result is the
development of significant arching adjacent to the sensor face.
Conclusions
A sensor for the measurement of soil pressure on a solid bound-
ary has been designed, developed, and tested. The sensor is based
on the null concept, and its response is independent of soil type,
condition, and stress history. These qualities make the sensor su-
perior to commercially available transducers, which suffer from
problems of hysteresis, stress history, and varying soil conditions.
The cell itself, and its calibration, is simple and unaffected by the
various conditions that make the measurement of soil contact pres-
sure tenuous when employing standard or commercially available
transducers. In actuality, the calibration process is really a check
on functionality, and not an actual calibration.
The sensor is currently being used in scale laboratory tests in or-
der to measure the development of contact pressures on boundaries
of buried structures. To date, the sensors have been employed with
a great deal of success under static/monotonic loading conditions.

Use of the scheme under dynamic conditions is possible; how-
ever, this will require integration of a more efficient and responsive
pressure regulation system. It is the intent of the author to extend
their use to larger scale tests and to field applications.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to acknowledge the efforts of engineers
M. Ringel, Y. Lior, and H. Horany, who aided in the development
of the sensor. The author acknowledges the comments of Dr. A.
Dancygier, Dr. Y. Karinski, and the assessments made by Prof.
S. Frydman. Partial funding for the production of the sensor was
provided by the Israeli Housing Ministry.
References
ASTM Standard D 4254/91: Method for Determination of Mini-
mum Index Density and Unit Weight of Soils and Calculation of
Relative Density, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1995.
Clayton, C. R. I. and Bica, A. V. D., 1993, The Design of
Diaphragm-Type Boundary Total Stress Cells, Geotechnique,
Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 523535.
TALESNICK ON SOIL ARCHING 9
Doebelin, E. O., 1990, Measurement Systems: Application and De-
sign, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.
Dunnicliff, J., 1988, Geotechnical Instrumentation for Monitoring
Field Performance, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Ingram, J. K., 1965, The Development of a Free-Field Soil Stress
Gage for Static and Dynamic Measurements, Instruments for
Soil Mechanics, ASTM STP 392, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, pp. 2034.
Piakowsky, S. G. and Hajduk, E. L., 1997, Calibration and Use
of Grid-Based Tactile Pressure Sensors in Granular Material,
Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 218241.
Selig, E. T., 1964, A Review of Stress and Strain Measurement in
Soil, Proceedings of the Symposium on Soil Structure Interac-
tion, University of Arizona, Tucson, pp. 172186.
Selig, E. T., 1980, Soil Stress Gage Calibration, Geotechnical
Testing Journal, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 153158.
Taylor, D. W., 1947, Pressure Distribution Theories, Earth Pressure
Cell Investigations and Pressure Distribution Data, Vickburg:
US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Weiler, W. A. and Kulhawy, F. H., 1982, Factors Affecting Stress
Cell Measurements in Soil, Journal of the Geotechnical and
Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 108, No. GT12, pp. 1529
1548.