Influence of Contacting Material on Calibration Response of Diaphragm Earth Pressure Cells

  • Vinil Kumar Gade
  • S. M. DasakaEmail author
Original Paper


Earth pressure cells (EPCs) are widely being used for the measurement of pressure acting on structures or within the soil. Output from an EPC varies with properties of contacting media (fluid or soil), density of media, etc. As geofoam is used in many geotechnical applications, especially to control earth pressures, it is prudent to calibrate earth pressure sensors, with geofoam as a contacting material with EPCs (geofoam calibration of EPC). In the present study, two diaphragm-based EPCs of different make are used to perform in-soil and geofoam calibration studies. A deadweight calibration set-up is developed to perform both soil and geofoam calibration tests. Effect of soil thickness, geofoam thickness, combined geofoam and sand thickness, geofoam density and displacement/loading rate on the EPC output under external loading is studied. From soil calibration results, it is observed that optimum sand thickness is 4.17d for both types of EPC. The response of EPC in geofoam calibration resembles the stress–strain response of geofoam, and it varies with the density of geofoam. At any applied pressure, output from an EPC is much higher in the case of geofoam calibration compared to that of soil calibration.


Calibration Diaphragm earth pressure cell Geofoam Sand Deadweight calibration 



The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support received from the Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India (MoES/P.O(Seismo)/1(118)/2010), to carry out the research.


  1. 1.
    Clayton CRI, Bica AVD (1993) The design of diaphragm-type boundary total stress cells. Geotechnique 43(4):523–536. Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reese LC, Brown JC, Dalrymple HH (1968) Instrumentation for measurements of lateral earth pressure in drilled shafts. Center for Highway Research, The University of Texas, Austin. Research Report 89-2Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Selig ET (1980) Soil stress gage calibration. Geotech Test J 3(4):153–158. Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Peattie KR, Sparrow RW (1954) The fundamental action of earth pressure cells. J Mech Phys Solids 2:141–155. Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhu B, Jardine RJ, Foray P (2009) The use of miniature soil stress measuring cells in laboratory applications involving stress reversals. Soils Found 49(5):675–688. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Li Y, Talesnick M, Bolton MD (2014) Use of null gauges to monitor soil stresses during excavation in a centrifuge. Int J Phys Model Geotech 14(2):40–53. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Talesnick M (2013) Measuring soil pressure within a soil mass. Can Geotech J 50(7):1529–1548. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Talesnick M, Avraham R, Ringel M (2014) Measurement of contact soil pressure in physical modelling of soil–structure interaction. Int J Phys Model Geotech 14(1):3–12. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gao Y, Wang YH (2013) Calibration of tactile pressure sensors for measuring stress in soils. Geotech Test J 36(4):1–7. Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weiler WA, Kulhawy FH (1982) Factors affecting stress cell measurements in soil. J Geotech Eng 108(12):1529–1548Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miura K, Otsuka N, Kohama E, Supachawarote C, Hirabayashi T (2003) The size effects of earth pressure cells on measurement in granular materials. Soils Found 43(5):133–147. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Labuz JF, Theroux B (2005) Laboratory calibration of earth pressure cells. Geotech Test J 28(2):1–9. Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dave TN, Dasaka SM (2012) Transition of earth pressure on rigid retaining walls subjected to surcharge loading. Int J Geotech Eng 6(4):427–435. Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ASTM D2487-11 (2011) Classification of soils for engineering purposes (Unified soil classification system). West Conshohocken, PA.
  15. 15.
    Zarnani S, Bathurst RJ (2008) Numerical modelling of EPS seismic buffer shaking table tests. Geotext Geomembr 26(5):371–383. Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim H, Choi B, Kim J (2010) Reduction of earth pressure on buried pipes by EPS geofoam inclusions. Geotech Test J 33(4):1–10. Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Witthoeft AF, Kim H (2016) Numerical investigation of earth pressure reduction buried pipes using EPS geofoam compressible inclusions. Geosynth Int 23(4):287–300. Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ikizler SB, Aytekin M, Vekli M (2009) Reductions in swelling pressure of expansive soil stabilized using EPS geofoam and sand. Geosynth Int 16(3):216–221. Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dave TN, Dasaka SM (2013) In-house calibration of pressure transducers and effect of material thickness. Geomech Eng 5(1):1–15. Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gade VK, Dasaka SM (2018) Calibration of earth pressure sensors. Indian Geotech J 48(1):142–152. Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Talesnick M (2005) Measuring soil contact pressure on a solid boundary and quantifying soil arching. Geotech Test J 28(2):171–179. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Geotechnical Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology BombayPowai, MumbaiIndia
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringVR Siddhartha Engineering College (Autonomous)VijayawadaIndia

Personalised recommendations