Christopher R. I. Clayton, 1 Suleiman A. Khatrush, 1 Adriano V. D.
Bica, l and A b u Siddique I
The Use of Hall Effect Semiconductors in
Geotechnical Instrumentation
REFERENCE: Clayton, C. R. I., Khatrush, S. A., Bica, A. V. D., and
Siddique, A., "The Use of Hall Effect Semiconductors in Geotechnical
Instrumentation," Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 12,
No. 1, March 1989, pp. 69-76.
ABSTRACT: For the past five years or so Hall effect semiconductors
have been increasingly used in the geotechnical engineering laboratories
at the University of Surrey. They have been incorporated as sensing ele-
ments in local radial and axial strain measuring devices, for the small-
strain instrumentation of triaxial specimens, and in small diameter
boundary normal and shear stress cells. Triaxial internal load cells are
currently being built incorporating Hall effect semiconductors.
This paper describes the Hall effect principle and the methods of con-
figuring magnet/sensor systems to achieve suitable measuring systems.
Some geotechnical instruments built at the University of Surrey are de-
tailed, and their characteristics discussed. The calibrations of the in-
struments described in the paper show a performance generally at least
as good as might be expected from some commercially available instru-
ments. Hall effect semiconductors are shown to be of use in a range of
situations where displacement can form the basis of measurement. The
displacements measured can vary from as little as 5 #m to as much as 10
mm, and the best repeatability so far obtained has been of the order of
1/10o of a micrometre.
KEYWORDS: instrumentation, strain, stress, calibrations, errors, tri-
axial tests, deformation gages, pressure cells
The Hall Effect Principle
Consider a metallic or semiconductor plate through which elec-
trical current is flowing. If this is placed in a magnetic field where
the flux lines are perpendicular both to the plate and to the current
flow, the charge carriers will be deflected. A voltage will thus be
produced across the plate in a direction normal to the current flow.
This voltage is termed the Hall voltage, after E. H. Hall who dis-
covered the effect in 1879.
Hall effect semiconductors are used widely as switches and to
measure magnetic flux density. Linear Hall effect sensors are typi-
cally direct current (DC) energized and deliver a DC output that
varies linearly with magnetic flux density over a specified range.
Various types are commercially available. The cost of a sensor typi-
cally ranges from £8 to £10 ($14 to $18). They are currently used as
the sensing element in a range of applications including com-
puters, machine tools, and medical equipment.
nOTE: Discussion is encouraged and should be submitted by Sept. 1,
1989.
~Reader in geotechnical engineering, research student (formerly), re-
search student, and research student, respectively, Civil Engineering De-
partment, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 SXH, United King-
dom.
© 1989 by the American Society for Testing and Materials
69
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Tue Oct 15 11:56:04 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
(UFRGS) Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul ((UFRGS) Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorize
Hall Effect Devices at the University of Surrey
Linear output Hall effect semiconductors were first used at the
University of Surrey in 1983 to control radial strains during Ko tri-
axial compression tests on sand [1]. The sensors were ideally suited
for these triaxial tests because they were small, very light, and
could be sealed to work under water at pressures of up to 1000 kPa.
Experience gained during the use of this early sensor system
showed that the semiconductors were relatively reliable, inexpen-
sive, and easy to implement.
The first semiconductor used was found to be satisfactory for
short-term tests, or in an environment with good temperature con-
trol. But the temperature sensitivity of the device was found to be
unacceptable for long-term tests carried out with the level of tem-
perature control provided by standard air-conditioning. Subse-
quently, since 1985, temperature compensated semiconductors
manufactured by Micro-Switch have been used (Fig. 1). These
semiconductors are light (0.35 g), small, and in some cases regu-
lated against changes in DC supply voltage. They have a single DC
output that varies linearly with magnetic flux density from - - 4 0
m T to + 4 0 roT, and can work with any D C voltage supply from 8
to 16 V.
These latter semiconductors were used not only in devices to
sense radial strain changes on triaxial specimens. They have also
been used (since 1986) for measuring simultaneously both radial
and axial local strains on 102-mm-diameter specimens in a re-
search program to investigate the yielding of a fine Leighton Buz-
zard sand [2]. Subsequently, the linear range of the local axial
strain gage has been increased (1987). A similar Hall effect sensor
has been successfully used in a 25-ram-diameter boundary total
normal stress cell.
Implementation
The output from a Hall effect semiconductor will change, some-
times by up to 2- to 3-V DC, when a magnet is moved close to its
sensing position. To produce a displacement sensor, only a semi-
conductor and one or more magnets are required, together with
mechanical parts to hold and encapsulate them. Four basic config-
urations of sensor and magnets have so far been used in geotechni-
eal instrumentation at the University of Surrey (Fig. 2):
(1) single magnet, head-on,
(2) double magnet, bi-polar slide-by,
(3) single magnet, bi-polar slide-by, with pole pieces, and
(4) tandem double magnet bi-polar slide-by.
0149-612318910003-0069502.50
70 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

Hall EFfect eensor

(a)

FIG. l--Photograph of a Hall effect transducer.

I:
-~l metier

Hall Effect s e n s o r s

G
t/®

FIG. 3--Electrical connections of sendor/magnet systems: (a)for sys-

tems with one sensor and (b)for the tandem double magnet bi-polar slide-
by system.

G
r-,

v (=)
® 4J
D
12=

//~ (d) r e l a t i v e di=placement oF 9ou9e ende (mm)

FIG. 2--Basic configurations of sensor~magnet systems: (a) single mag-

net, head-on, (b) double magnet, bi-polar slide-by, (c) single magnet, bi- 4
polar slide-by, with pole pieces, and (d) tandem double magnet bi-polar
slide-by. > (b)

Electrical connections to the power supply and the read-out in-

strument are shown in Fig. 3. The typical output voltage/displace-
ment characteristics of the head-on and slide-by configurations are
shown in Fig. 4. For the head-on configuration, used in our early o
triaxial lateral strain sensors and in the first prototype for a bound-
ary total stress cell, the change in output is of the order of several r e l a t i v e dieplaoement of 9auge ends (mm)
volts. But the resulting voltage/displacement relationship is FIG. 4--Output voYage~displacement relationships: (a) head-on and
strongly nonlinear. However, this type of geometry may still be of slide-by(b).

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Tue Oct 15 11:56:04 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
(UFRGS) Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul ((UFRGS) Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorize
 CLAYTON ET AL. ON HALL EFFECT SEMICONDUCTORS 71

use if software-based conversion to engineering units is used, or if
the required range of displacement is small relative to the total
range. It may even be considered an advantage where differing sen-
sitivities are required at different displacement levels.
The various slide-by configurations, (2) to (4), use two magnetic
poles, either by using two magnets with parallel north/south axes
or by extending the poles sideways towards the sensor by means of
soft ferro-magnetic "pole pieces." The Hall effect semiconductor is
displaced in such a way that it passes over first one pole and then
the opposite pole. This system has the advantage that it can, with
careful design, produce an output that has a portion with good lin-
earity with respect to displacement. Figure 5 shows the influence of
varying both the separation S between the magnets and the gap G
between the magnets and the semiconductor for a double magnet
bi-polar slide-by configuration. Up to a separation S approximat-
ing to the minimum face width of the pole of the magnet, an in-
crease in the gap results in an increase in the linear range of the
device. Beyond this spacing the output becomes strongly nonlin-
ear. The sensitivity of the output can be increased by decreasing
the gap G. For highly sensitive displacement measurement the
spacing is reduced to zero, and the gap is reduced to as little as is
practical.
Local Strain Measuring Instruments
[7-9] and strain gages [10]. Two such devices have been developed
at Surrey, using Hall effect semiconductors, and these are de-
scribed in detail below.
A Radial Strain Measuring Device
The Hall effect principle has been used for the measurement of
radial strains on the central section of 102-mm-diameter triaxial
specimens. The mechanical parts of the system are essentially simi-
lar to those originally designed by Bishop and Henkel [11], but
with the original mercury indicator column replaced by a slide-by
configuration, as in Fig. 2 b. The design of the device can be seen in
Fig. 6. Two 3- by 3-ram magnets, 6 mm long, separated by a 3-
mm-thick polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) spacer are mounted
within a magnet holding block, which can be adjusted with respect
to the Hall effect sensor by use of the screws at either end of the
assembly. The Hall effect sensor is encapsulated in epoxy resin,
within a brass container, and is attached to the other arm of the
caliper. The gap between the magnets and the face of the semicon-
ductor is maintained constant, at approximately 1 mm, partly by
the PTFE block separating the two magnets and partly by a 0.5
mm thick PTFE strip covering the surface of the semiconductor.
The two parts of the device are maintained in contact because of
the use of uneven spring forces at the caliper hinge.

Conventional measurements of both axial and volumetric defor- An Axial Strain Measuring Device
mations of triaxial specimens from outside the triaxial cell intro-
duce significant errors, particularly in the computation of small Unlike the radial strain device, the axial measuring device
strains [2,3]. Some of these errors (for example, caused by bed- passed through several stages of development before a successful
ding) are of a random nature and are difficult to evaluate, even
with careful calibration. And the extensive calibrations needed to
eprin3-]oaded hin3e / p o l l a h o d hln~e-pin
evaluate the magnitude of systematic strain errors (for example,
because of internal load cell compression) are generally inconve-
nient. Other errors, which might be thought to be systematic (for ~ (a)

example, frictional and volume losses in the lower chamber of a

Bishop/Wesley stress path cell) in fact turn out to vary with use of
the equipment.
These problems have created the need for alternative techniques
of measurement, from points directly located on the specimen. A
number of different instruments have been devised in the United
Kingdom, including within them linear variable differential trans-
formers (LVDT) [3,4], proximity transducers [5,6], electrolevels

¢11
5 inoreoein9
AT TA
a'}
o
.o
0
> a]uminium rin~
.p
Q_
.i.)
braoa oontainer Ho]] Ef?eot 6ensor
0

Iinear range
For" e o l i d l i n e
I I

coble
dieplacement of the ~ensor
r e l o t i v e t o the magneto eliding b|o~k PTFE~pa~er

FIO. 5--Effectofva~ingmagnetgapandspacingonou~utfrom adou- FIG. 6--Hall effect radial strain measuring device: (a) plan and (b) Sec-
b~ magnetslide-byconfigurat~n. tion A-A.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Tue Oct 15 11:56:04 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
(UFRGS) Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul ((UFRGS) Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorize
72 GEOTECHNICTESTI
AL NGJOURNAL
design was achieved, because of the need to achieve good mechani-
cal performance. The factors taken into account were
(1) reduction, and if possible avoidance, of both friction and
slack in any bearings incorporated in the design;
(2) reduction of size, in order to ensure that this gage and the
radial strain measuring gage described above could both be fitted
on a standard 102-ram-diameter specimen within a 102-mm-diam-
eter triaxial cell, and in order to minimize the self-weight of the
device (and thus the forces applied to the side of the specimen);
(3) provision of a good contact between the device and the speci-
men, while minimising the influence of any pad rotation on the
measured strains; and
(4) flexibility and incompressibility of the electrical cabling exit-
ing from the device.
The best initial solution to these problems [12] was the gage shown
in cross section in Fig. 7, which will subsequently be denoted axial
gage I. It consists of two parts:
1. A spring-mounted pendulum which holds two bar magnets,
each 3-mm-square in cross section, separated by 3 mm is sus-
pended from an upper pad fixed to the specimen by pins, and
bonded to the membrane by adhesive. The spring, which should
ideally be positioned as close to the side of the specimen as possi-
ble, allows relative motion between the fixing pad and the pendu-
lum (which would occur, for example, if the specimen were to bar-
rel at large strains) without the need to introduce a bearing. This is
an important feature of the device, as it guarantees that there will
be no slack in the system, while also ensuring that friction remains
very low. During the early stages of the design of this device, exper-
iments showed the very large friction that could be induced in bali-
joint bearings when relative rotation of the pads of the device oc-
curs during mounting, on an axis perpendicular to the bearing
axis. The spring has the function of gently pressing the PTFE
spacer against the face of the encapsulated semiconductor, in the
lower part of the device.
membrane ~ adhesive,
?ixin 9 pin
E i~ spring
t"-
v ture involves, however, a large number of machining operations,
¢- Q
.~ E new version of this gage, redesigned with production in mind.
¢- O II v..ticol
• @
@
I\ / o ju.t..nt
"o''"
@ tured.
/'iliad---J-" PTFEa d h e , i v e
8trip
--electrical oable
F1G. 7--Hall effect axial gage 1.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Tue Oct 15 11:56:04 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
(UFRGS) Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul ((UFRGS) Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorize
The pendulum arm below is bent, so that it may pass beneath
the lateral strain caliper described in the previous section. The
PTFE spacer maintains the separation of the two magnets, and
also the gap between the face of the semiconductor and the magnet
faces. "Wings" projecting from the sides of the magnet assembly
(but not shown in Fig. 7) ensure that the magnets track over the
center of the semiconductor in the lower assembly.
2. A container to hold the encapsulated Hall effect semiconduc-
t o r - T h e lower part of the gage consists of a brass container
mounted on the specimen by means of a pinned fixing pad, and
containing a linear output Hall effect semiconductor encapsulated
in epoxy resin. In this version of the device the surface of the semi-
conductor was covered by thin self-adhesive PTFE tape, but in
later versions a thin glass cover slip (as used in microscopy) has
been used. The cabling consists of three single-strand small diame-
ter insulated copper leads within a "heatshrink" plastic cover.
Typical output of this device is shown in Fig. 4b. The linear
range is approximately 2.5 mm. The sensitivity of the device might
be thought to be affected by mis-alignment of the two parts of the
assembly, and so experimental work has been carried out to assess
the precision with which the gage must be mounted on the speci-
men. When deliberate mis-alignment of the two halves of the gage
was 5% it was found that the change in sensitivity was only 1.25%
of the sensitivity when properly aligned. In practice it is relatively
easy to achieve an alignment much better than this, as a S° mis-
alignment is extremely noticeable. Thus potential friction between
the wings and the semiconductor casing can he avoided since these
need not be a close fit.
The need for pins on the mounting pads, driven through the
membrane, was based initially on a requirement to define the gage
length. Our first tests were carried out on saturated sand speci-
mens, but subsequent tests on unsaturated clay specimens, when
pins were not used, have shown that the pins have a further impor-
tant function in holding the pads against the side of the specimen
until a cell pressure is applied. If the upper pad is allowed to move
away from the side of the specimen during setting up, a convolute
may develop in the membrane above the pad, and the pad will not
then reseat itself until the cell pressure is raised by a considerable
amount. During this period, pad rotation occurs and can be mis-
interpreted as an extensive strain.
Further Developments
The gages described above have been in use at the University of
Surrey for over two years and have performed well. Their manufac-
which makes them costly to produce in quantity. Figure 8 shows a
More than 40 of these devices have either been installed in com-
mercial soil testing laboratories, or are currently being manufac-
The basic concept of the new version of the gage (subsequently
referred as axial gage II) remains the same, but a number of im-
provements have been made. These include the following:
• replacement of the metal spring strip at the top of the arm
with two lengths of stainless steel spring wire,
• the use of an arm consisting of bent brass strip, to reduce ma-
chining operations,
• substitution of smaller magnets, to reduce size, weight and
complexity of the holding block,
 CLAYTON ET AL. ON HALL EFFECT SEMICONDUCTORS 73

Calibration, Accuracy, and Performance of Hall Effect

Strain Devices

FIG. 8--Hall effect axial gage H.
• introduction of an adjustment system in the lower pad, to al-
low proper pad alignment, subsequent placement of the semicon-
ductor, and final adjustment after fixing to achieve any desired po-
sition in the linear range of the device, and
• optional pinning.
Both the radial and axial gages are calibrated using a microme-
ter (minimum resolution 2.54/tin) in a specially built jig. Both the
micrometer and the jig were manufactured of nonmagnetic materi-
als, in this case aluminum alloy, in order avoid any local influence
on magnetic fields in the area of the sensor. Linear regression anal-
yses were carried out on the linear portion of the output, and typi-
cal regression error plots are shown in Figs. 10a and b. Expected
calibration characteristics for the four types of gage are shown in
Table 1. It can be seen that the maximum linear regression error of
the axial gages is of the order of 0.24 to 0.42% of the full-scale
output in the linear range, which is a good achievement for a non-
commercial transducer. The maximum linear regression error of
the radial strain gage is poorer, largely as a result of the mechani-
cal arrangement of the system, which causes the magnets to skew
over the sensor rather than to run in line.
The overall accuracy of these devices is rather more difficult to
assess, since it is controlled not only. by the performance of the de-
vice in calibration under the ideal conditions described above. Fac-
tors, which may be relevant are as follows:
(1) ability to determine the gage length over which the strains
are calculated,
(2) the vertical position of suitable reference points from which
to calculate strains free of end effects,
(3) the need for three devices per specimen (as opposed to the
two currently commonly used), to avoid tilt effects, and

In addition, the desire to measure larger strains on soft clay speci-

mens, without recourse to external LVDT measuring systems has
lead to the development of a similar device with a linear range of r~

some 7 mm (or 10% strain on a 70 mm gage length). The configu-

ration used is a single magnet bi-polar slide by (as shown in Fig. 9)
(a)
mounted instead of the small magnets on the new flat gage arm.
This configuration will subsequently be referred to as axial gage
IIl.
r ~
0 II ~' " 1 i I
3

distomce (mm)

[ ~ - 10

tn

0
' '
T
- t
o~

clistance (mm)
-2
O9
0
L

0
£

FIG. 9--Single magnet bi-polar slide-by configuration used in axial FIG. lO--Linear regression error plots for (a) axial gage l and (b) axial
gage 11I. gage III.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Tue Oct 15 11:56:04 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
(UFRGS) Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul ((UFRGS) Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorize
74 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

TABLE 1--Calibration performance of local strain devices.

Maximum Linear
Regression
Resolution Error
Full-Scale at 1 mV Gage Maximum (% Linear
Device Output V Linear Range, mm Output #m Length, mm Strain, % Range)

Radial gage 1.8 1.5 0.83 100 1.5 --+0.80

Axial gage type I 2.0 2.5 1.25 70 3.6 ±0.24
Axial gage type II 1.6 2.5 1.56 70 3.6 -+0.38
Axial gage type lII 1.9 7.0 3.68 70 10.0 -+0.42

(4) effect of closure of fissures at low strains, and barrelling and
necking at high strains.
The influences of such factors have been described, in part, by
Clayton and Khatrush [13].
The actual performance of axial gage type I was examined ini-
tially by conducting special triaxial tests on a dummy specimen of
rubber, subjected to deviatoric total stress paths. In the first test
the ends of the specimen were in direct contact with the triaxial
platens, whereas in the second test two greased latex rubber disks
(0.3 mm thick) were placed at either end to the specimen to simu-
late the effect of lubricated end platens. It can be seen in Fig. 11
that for both tests the axial and radial strains recorded by the local
strain devices are the same, and that they differ from the external
axial strain measurement up to a strain level of about 0.4%. A sin-
gle value of Poisson's ratio (0.45) results from all local strain mea-
surement, at whatever strain level, whereas external axial strain
measurement introduces significant errors. Further comparisons
made, on specimens of saturated fine Leigthon Buzzard sand, be-
tween external volume change measurement and volumetric
strains calculated as the sum of the axial and twice the radial local
strain have also confirmed that at low strain levels volumetric
strains must be measured locally.
+ t e a t 1 ~ avara~e meoaurement o~ two
o t a a t 2 J Hall E ~ o c t a x i a l 9augaa
X taat I l external axLal dioplacement
• toot 2 J tranaduoar
0.8
8 tained, and temperature sensitivity was a potential problem be-
5
0.4
'3
0 the voltage compensation problem, two semiconductors with two
i.
0.8 1.6
axial attain CZ)
FIG. 1l--Radial and axial strains measured locally and externally on a
dummy rubber triaxial specimen. Test 1: top cap in direct contact with
rubber specimen. Test 2: two membrane disks inserted in between speci-
men and top and bottom ends.
Small-Diameter Boundary Earth Pressure Cell
As part of an experimental research program on the pressures on
free embedded cantilever walls, small boundary total normal stress
and shear stress cells were required. Several such cells have been
described in the literature, using either hydraulic [14] or inductive
[15], but mostly strain gaged type sensing units [16-21]. However,
previous experience at the University of Surrey, described above,
suggested that it might be feasible to design these devices using
Hall effect semiconductors as the basic sensors, with the advantage
that this would result in a low-cost robust device. Trials of the
boundary total normal stress cell have recently been completed,
and the prototype for the shear cell is, at the time of writing, in
production.
The basic principle chosen for the total normal stress cell was the
measurement of the displacements of the center of a diaphragm
encastr6 with a thick surrounding ring. Since the Waterways Ex-
periment Station criterion [22] suggests that the maximum deflec-
tion/diameter ratio for such a cell should be 1/2000 and since the
diameter of the diaphragm of the proposed cell was planned to be
of the order of 20 mm, it was clear that displacements amounting
to no more than one tenth of a micrometre must be measured accu-
rately and repeatably.
Initially the simple unipolar head-on configuration was used
(Fig. 2a). However, experience with a first prototype of the cell
suggested that the more efficient bipolar slide-by configuration
would be required in order to measure the very small displace-
ments involved. Small (2- by 2 mm- by 1-mm) rare earth magnets
were used, with the spacing S reduced to zero and the gap G re-
duced to the minimum feasible (about 0.1 mm). Although this con-
figuration gave a relatively large sensitivity, when compared with
that of the previous gages, the maximum range of the output volt-
age remained at only about one-tenth of the values previously ob-
cause of the semiconductor characteristics. Thus the type of Hall
effect semiconductor was once again changed; the type used in the
further development of the cell had better internal temperature
compensation but had no input voltage stabilization. To overcome
slide-by magnet configurations were used in each cell (Fig. 2d),
with the output of the cell being obtained from the difference in
output between the two semiconductors (Fig. 3 b). In this configu-
ration, the output voltage of the completed cell was sufficiently sta-
bilized against voltage changes, but two further advantages were
obtained. First, the large zero offset of the individual semiconduc-
tors was removed. Second, by an appropriate arrangement of the
magnets the overall sensitivity of the cell was doubled. Finally,
some further contribution to temperature stability could be

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Tue Oct 15 11:56:04 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
(UFRGS) Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul ((UFRGS) Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorize

achieved, if necessary, by using semiconductors with matched tem-
perature sensitivity.
The final design of the device is shown in Fig. 12. The dia-
phragm and its surrounding ring, and the back plate were ma-
chined from EN24 steel (similar to American Iron and Steel Insti-
tute [AISI] 4340) and heat-treated to bring the steel to a high level
of hardness (approximately 40-43 Rockwell C). Following this, the
face of the diaphragm was milled to reduce the diaphragm to its
final thickness. This simple design aimed to produce a high-quality
cell at low cost, but necessarily included standard design features
such as
(1) radiused corners at the edge of the diaphragm, to reduce
overstress at this position, thus limiting hysteresis;
(2) a diaphragm of sufficient stiffness--Initial experimental
work had shown that a diaphragm deflection/diameter ratio of at
least 1/5000 would be necessary if the device was to have an ade-
quate cell action factor in some sands;
(3) a thick outer ring to minimize the sensitivity of the cell to
external loads other than stresses normal to the diaphragm;
(4) machining of the diaphragm and its ring from a single block
of steel to avoid the nonlinearity and hysteresis characterized by
bolted diaphragms; and
(5) use of hardened steel, to minimize nonlinearity, hysteresis,
and zero deviation upon unloading.
The sensing element, later mounted inside the cell (Fig. 12),
consists of two Hall effect sensors bonded with epoxy resin to the
central steel stud on the underside of the diaphragm. Steel strips,
bonded to the inside of the ring with epoxy resin, support the mag-
net assemblies on either side of the semiconductors. During assem-
bly the pairs of magnets are carefully positioned near the center of
the linear range of output voltage with, as far as possible, the same
initial output voltage in each sensor. The magnets are initially held
to these strips by their magnetism only, but following precise posi-
tioning they can be permanently bonded with adhesive. The system
must be mounted so that the semiconductor sensors remain central
with respect to the magnets, and a magnet/sensor spacing of about
0.1 mm is used. It is necessary to construct metallic parts, such as
the steel strips and the outer cell ring, from materials with the same
coefficient of thermal expansion, if unacceptably high thermal sen-
sitivity is to be avoided.
The cell shown in Fig. 12 was designed for a maximum normal
stress (that is, when the diaphragm diameter/deflection ratio
equals about 1/5000) of 100 kPa. The cell was calibrated under
diaphragm
ate.1 .trips ~[< 024 mm ~'I/
/} °utsr tin9
//'
,I - ° over
two magnets
stud
H a l l E£Fect s e n s o r
FIG. 12--Hall effect boundary total normal stress cell.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Tue Oct 15 11:56:04 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
(UFRGS) Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul ((UFRGS) Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorize
CLAYTON ET AL. O N HALL EFFECT SEMICONDUCTORS 75
fluid pressure up to 250 kPa, at which stress level the diaphragm
deflection/diameter ratio is computed as 1/2260 and the com-
puted deflection at the center of the diaphragm is 10.6/xm. The
fluid calibration showed an output of approximately 280 mV at 250
kPa, which is relatively high for a device of this type. The levels of
nonlinearity, hysteresis, nonrepeatability, and zero deviation upon
unloading are all less than 0.25% of the full-scale output (at 250
kPa), and their combined effect is well within 1 °70. A typical linear
regression error plot is shown in Fig. 13a. The temperature stabil-
ity of the cell was tested by mounting it inside a fan assisted oven-
refrigerator, and applying a complete cycle of temperature change
from 6 to 36°C and back. The zero output voltage error corre-
sponding to this cycle was about 0.75% of the full-scale output as
can be seen from Fig. 13b. This corresponds to about 0.025% of
the full-scale output per 1° C. The low sensitivity to temperature of
the Young's Modulus of steel (about --0.025%/°C), of the Hall
effect semiconductor calibration (less than ___0.02%/°C) and of
the rare earth magnets total flux density (about --0.06%/°C), to-
gether with their somewhat self-compensating combined influence,
suggest a similarly small influence upon the sensitivity of the cell.
Current and Future Developments
At this time the first boundary shear cells are being produced,
but have yet to be calibrated. Prototypes simultaneously are being
prepared for a new Hall effect internal load cell, for use in triaxial
chambers. It has recently been suggested that a Hall effect dis-
placement measuring system may provide the higher levels of accu-
.$0
E
Z (a)
v
L
iol
o~
~
a app1 iod preaeuro (kN/m2)
-.$
(b)
z
v
C
o
L
o
n
@ temperature (degreea C)
FIG. 13--Calibration of Hall effect total normal stress cell: (a) linear
regression error and (b) zero output temperature sensitivity.
76 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
racy that are currently required to improve the measurement of
total stress (the so-called lift-off pressure) in the self-boring
pressuremeter test.
Conclusions
From the descriptions of the devices so far successfully de-
veloped at the University of Surrey it can be seen that Hall effect
semiconductors can fairly easily be used in the development of
" h o m e - b r e w " geotechnical instrumentation. Their small-size,
light-weight, low-cost, temperature and voltage compensation,
and apparent tolerance to mis-treatment make them ideal for use
in the often hostile environment in which geotechnical engineers
require their instruments to work.
To date, these devices have been used as the sensing elements in
radial and axial triaxial local strain measuring devices, and in
small-diameter boundary total normal stress cells. Devices to mea-
sure boundary shear stress, and the deviator load in triaxial tests
are currently under development, and the possibility of using this
type of sensor in the self-boring pressuremeter has been discussed.
The calibrations of the instruments described in the paper show
that their performance is generally at least as good as might be
expected from some commercially manufactured instruments, and
in some cases better.
Hall effect semiconductors are clearly of use in any situation
where displacement can form the basis of measurement; the range
of displacement measurement can vary from as little as S ttm to as
much as 10 ram, and the m i n i m u m repeatability so far obtained
has been of the order of 1/100 of a micrometre. Despite the quality
of these results, transducers based on Hall effect semiconductors
are relatively simple to assemble.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the help of Mr. P. F.
Cheesman in the development of the instruments described in this
paper. The work of Dr. S. A. Khatrush was supported by the gov-
ernment of Libya. The work of A. V. D. Bica has been supported
by both The British Council and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvi-
mento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) of Brazil. A. Siddique is
supported by the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission of the
United Kingdom.
References
[1] Hababa, M. B., "The Dynamic Penetration Resistance and Com-
pressibility of Sand," PhD thesis, University of Surrey, Guildford,
England, 1984.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Tue Oct 15 11:56:04 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
(UFRGS) Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul ((UFRGS) Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorize
[2] Khatrush, S. A., "The Yielding of a Fine Sand in Triaxial Stress
Space," PhD thesis, University of Surrey, Guildford, England, 1987.
[3] Daramola, C., "The Influence of Stress-History on the Deformation
of a Sand," PhD thesis, Imperial College, University of London, Lon-
don, England, 1978.
[4] Brown, S. F. and Snaith, M. S., "'The Measurement of Recoverable
and Irrecoverable Deformations in the Repeated Loading Triaxial
Test," Geoteehnique, Vol. 24, No. 2, 1974, pp. 255-259.
15] Brown, S. F., Austin, G., and Over),, R. F., "'An Instrumented Tri-
axial Cell for Cyclic Loading of Clays," Geotechnical Testing Journal,
Vol. 3, No. 4, 1980, pp. 145-152.
[6] Hird, C. C. and Yung, P., "Discussion," Geotechnique, Vol. 37, No.
3, 1987, pp. 413-414.
[7] Symes, M. J. P. R., "Rotation of Principal Stresses in Sand," PhD
thesis, Imperial College, University of London, London, England,
1983.
[8] Symes, M. J. P. R. and Burland, J. B., "Determination of Local Dis-
placement on Soil Samples," Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 7,
No. 2, 1984, pp. 49-59.
[9] Jardine, R. J., Symes, M. J., and Burland, J. B., "The Measurement
of Soil Stiffness in the Triaxial Apparatus," Geotechnique, Vol. 34,
No. 3, 1984, pp. 323-340.
[10] Ackerly, S. K., Hellings, J. E., and Jardine, R. J., "Discussion,"
Geotechnique, Vol. 37, No. 3, 1987, pp. 414-415.
[11] Bishop, A. W. and Henkel, D. J., The Measurement of Soil Properties
in the Triaxial Test, Edward Arnold, London, England, 1957.
[12] Clayton, C. R. I. and Khatrush, S. A., "A New Device for Measuring
Local Axial Strains on Triaxial Specimens," Geotechnique, Vol. 36,
No. 4, 1986, pp. 593-597.
[13] Clayton, C. R. I. and Khatrush, S. A., "Discussion," Geotechnique,
Vol. 37, No. 3, 1987, pp. 415-417.
[14] Peaker, K. R., "A Hydraulic Earth Pressure Cell," Instruments and
Apparatus for Soil and Rock Mechanics, STP 392, American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1965, pp. 75-81.
[15] Rowe, P. W., "Anchored Sheet Pile Bulkheads," PhD thesis, St. An-
drews University, St. Andrews, Scotland, 1950.
[16] Redshaw, S. C., "A Sensitive Miniature Pressure Cell," Journal of
Sc&ntific Instruments, Vol. 31, No. 12, 1954, pp. 467-469.
[17] Arthur, J. F. R. and Roscoe, K. H., "An Earth Pressure Cell for the
Measurement of Normal and Shear Stresses," Civil Engineering and
Public Works Review, Vol. 56, No. 659, 1961, pp. 765-770.
[18] Dunn, C. S. and Billam, J., "A Study of the Response Characteristics
of a New Earth Pressure Cell," Civil Engineering and Public Works
Review, Vol. 61, No. 715, 1966, pp. 181-186.
[19] Brown, S. F., "Discussion," Proceedings, Symposium on Field In-
strumentation in Geotechnical Engineering, British Geotechnical So-
ciety, Butterworths, London, England, 1974, pp. 543-545, 578-579.
[20] Brown, S. F., "State-of-the-Art Report on Field Instrumentation for
Pavement Experiments," Transportation Research Record, No. 640,
1977, pp. 13-28.
[21] Hanna, T. H., Field Instrumentation in Geotechnical Engineering,
Series on Rock and Soil Mechanics, Vol. 10, Transtech, Clausthal-
Zellerfeld, Germany, 1985.
[22] U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, "Soil Pressure
Cell Investigation," Technical Memorandum 210-1, Vicksburg, MS,
1944.