Talesnick, M. L. (2012). Geotechnique 62, No. 00, 15 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.11.P.

009]

TECHNICAL NOTE

FS

A different approach and result to the measurement of Ko of granular soils

M . L . TA L E S N I C K 

KEYWORDS:

INTRODUCTION
The coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest, Ko , is defined
in equation (1).
Ko h9 = 9z

(1)

Ko represents the effective horizontal pressure in relation

to effective vertical pressure under conditions of zero lateral
strain (h 0). It is obviously not a shear failure condition,
and should not be described in terms of limiting equilibrium.
Despite this, Ko is often estimated according to equation (2).
Ko 1  sin 9

(2)

Equation (2) was suggested in a slightly different form for

normally consolidated soils by Jaky (1944). Note that some
researchers (e.g. Michalowski, 2005) have criticised the use
of this equation.
The objective of this article is to present experimental
data which provide reliable measurement of the coefficient
of lateral earth pressure at rest. Attention has been aimed,
specifically, at the effects of particle size, density and stress
history on the magnitude of Ko of granular soils.

PR

BACKGROUND
The coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest is a
parameter which cannot be determined theoretically, for this
reason, empirical models have been developed for its estimation. Most models (e.g. Alpan, 1967; Schmidt, 1967; Daramola, 1980; Mayne & Kulhawy, 1982) are founded on
equation (2) and have been extended, based on available
experimental data and statistical analysis, to estimate Ko
during unloading and reloading.
Manuscript received 16 January 2011; revised manuscript accepted 21
February 2012. Published online ahead of print XX XXXXXX
XXXX.
Discussion on this paper closed on XX XXXXXX XXXX, for further
details see p. ii.
 Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Technion IIT,
Haifa, Israel.

1
Article Number: 11p009

On a utilise une version dans le sol du syste`me de mesure

de pression nulle du sol dans la mesure de poussees
laterales de la terre pour des sols granulaires dans des
conditions Ko au repos. On a soumis a` des essais quatre
sols a` granulometrie uniforme, de 0,15 mm a` 15 mm. On
effectue deux observations significatives sur la base des
donnees presentees. Pour les charges initiales, on rele`ve
que le coefficient de poussee laterale des terres est superieur pour des sols places dans une configuration a` compactage dense par rapport au coefficient mesure pour le
meme sol soumis a` un compactage lache. Le developpement de la pression horizontale au cours du dechargement et du rechargement sest avere fort similaire a` celui
de la charge initiale.

OO

An in-soil version of the null soil pressure measurement

system has been used in the measurement of lateral earth
pressures of granular soils for at-rest Ko conditions. Four
uniformly graded soils were tested, from particle diameter 0.15 mm through to 15 mm. Two significant observations were made based upon the data presented. For
initial loading, the coefficient of lateral earth pressure,
Ko , was found to be higher for soil placed in a dense
packing arrangement in comparison to that measured for
the same soil placed in a loose packing arrangement. The
development of horizontal pressure during unloading and
reloading was found to be very similar to that of initial
loading.

In the case of granular soils, and in view of the fact that

9 is an increasing function of the relative density (Dr ), Ko
is expected to be higher for a loose sand than for a dense
sand. Over the years, researchers (e.g. Brooker & Ireland,
1965; Mesri & Vardhanabhuti, 2007) have plotted measured
values of Ko as a function of 9: This is problematic, since
9 is dependent upon density, testing apparatus, specimen
preparation and compaction method. From a search of the
literature, the author has not found reliable data demonstrating the reduction of Ko with increasing density.
Consider two packing arrangements of spheres, one loose
and one dense, within infinitely rigid, frictionless containers
of equal volumes, as shown in Fig. 1. Intuitively, in order
for the denser material to deform vertically, a greater
horizontal pressure would develop on the cylinder sides than
in the case of the loose arrangement. This possibility can be
attributed to its dilatant nature in comparison with the
contractive nature of the loose material.
Alternatively, if Ko is determined according to isotropic,
linear elastic theory, Ko would be written as
Ko

h9

v9 1 

(3)

where is the Poisson ratio, which is greater for dense

sands than for loose sands (e.g. Itasca, 2008; Budhu, 2000)
and consequently Ko would be greater for a denser sand than

45 particles

60 particles

Fig. 1. Schematic idealisation of loose and dense packing

arrangements

TALESNICK

Vertically oriented
Horizontally oriented

004

Unloading path

003

002

001

Loading path

is highly hysteretic and does not return to the origin. This

hysteretic response is obviously erroneous. Despite the high
stiffness of the Kulite 0234, the hysteretic response seen in
the figure is inherent to the sensor and is in reaction to the
minute deflection of the sensing membrane, which induces
interaction between the sensor and the surrounding particles.
The same sensor was then placed in the same soil, under the
same conditions, in the vertical orientation. In this case it
responds to unknown horizontal pressure that develops in
response to Ko conditions. The output signal in response to
initial loading is linear, and to unloading is also highly
hysteretic. Determination of the horizontal pressure during
unloading is unrealistic since it is impossible to differentiate
between the real response and the inherent hysteresis introduced by the sensing technique. It should not be assumed
that the soil response to unloading is hysteretic.
EXPERIMENTAL TOOLS: SOIL PRESSURE
MEASUREMENT WITH THE IN-SOIL NULL GAUGE
Talesnick (2005, 2010) described a soil pressure measurement system based on the null concept in which the sensing
membrane is constantly forced to remain in an undeflected
state. The internal pressure required to maintain the membrane in the undeflected state is equal in magnitude to the
soil pressure applied to the outer face of the sensor.
In a series of control tests Talesnick (2005) illustrated
that, when installed at a soil structure boundary, the response
of the sensor is unaffected by soil type, stiffness, particle
size or the stress history. The concept implies that calibration of the sensing system is not required.
Talesnick (2010) illustrated that the same concept can be
used successfully in the measurement of soil pressure within
a soil mass. Under such conditions the sensor responds as
an infinitely stiff inclusion in a deforming medium. Testing
of the system illustrated that the small over-registration
associated with the stiffness mismatch between the transducer and the surrounding soil was in agreement with calculations made by Tory & Sparrow (1967). It was further shown
that the sensor exhibited no hysteresis and was unaffected
by stress history. Talesnick (2010) described a rather large
sensor 105 mm in diameter (9.8 mm thick) which allowed
for the measurement of soil pressure in particulate media
with particle dimensions of up to 15 mm.
In the present study this sensor and one of smaller
dimensions have been used. The smaller sensor is 44 mm in
diameter and 5.7 mm thick, with a sensing diaphragm
23 mm in diameter. The response of the sensors was evaluated in the same pressure vessel described earlier. The
sensors were placed in the horizontal orientation such that
they responded directly to the applied vertical pressure. The
response of the two sensors when embedded in loose dune
sand is shown in Fig. 3. As may be seen, there is no
hysteretic response noted in the loadunload cycle, nor was
there any hysteresis in subsequent loadunload cycles.
This outcome makes the null sensor ideal for the measurement of lateral pressure under Ko conditions; it inherently
prohibits deflection, therefore its output is unaffected by
parasitic hysteresis, which plagues the response of deflecting
diaphragm sensors (Fig. 2).

OO

Kulite 0234, calibrated loose dune sand

PR

Signal output: Vdc

for its looser counterpart. However, soil is not an elastic

solid, therefore this approach is not applicable.
The difficulty in substantiating this hypothesis lies in the
fact that reliable measurement of soil pressure is not trivial.
Many researchers have reported upon the aspects which
hamper the measurement of soil pressure (e.g. Taylor, 1944;
Selig, 1980; Weiler & Kulhawy, 1982). Because of the
particulate nature of soil, the measurement of pressure must
be done without allowing any deflection of the measurement
device. Minute deflection of the sensor induces redistribution
of soil pressure in the vicinity, and error in the response of
the transducer (Tory & Sparrow, 1967).
To highlight this difficulty a set of experiments using a
commercially available soil pressure sensor (Kulite 0234)
embedded in a fine-grained dune sand was performed. The
Kulite sensor has an active sensing diameter of 36 mm, an
overall diameter of 55 mm and a thickness of 15.5 mm. The
tests were carried out in a soil pressure vessel 550 mm in
diameter and 300 mm high. The sides of the pressure vessel
were covered with a friction-reducing tarp comprising two
thin layers of graphite grease, sandwiched within three layers
of thin polyethylene sheeting (Tognon et al., 1999). Measurement of soil pressure on the vessel base has illustrated
that side wall friction has no effect on the vertical pressure
at the centre of the test vessel. Soil was placed in the testing
vessel using a funnel according to testing procedures used in
the determination of minimum unit weight (ASTM 4254,
ASTM (2006)). The transducer was placed horizontally or
vertically on the soil at the mid-height of the vessel. The
vessel was then topped up with soil using the funnel and
sealed with a latex membrane and vessel top. Under such
conditions the transducer was tested in soil placed at a
relative density of 12%. Controlled air pressure was then
applied to the latex membrane, which in turn applied
pressure to the soil below.
Figure 2 presents the response of the Kulite 0234 to
vertical pressure in one case, and to horizontal pressure
under Ko conditions in a second case. When the sensor is
oriented horizontally it responds directly to a known vertical
pressure and should result in a set of points which fall along
a unique straight line both in loading and unloading. As is
seen from the plot, the signal output during initial loading is
linear. However, the signal output over the unloading portion

FS

40
80
Applied surface pressure: kPa

120

Fig. 2. Response of the Kulite soil pressure sensor when placed in

dune sand in the horizontal and vertical orientations

TESTING SET-UP, PROGRAMME AND MATERIALS

TESTED
In this study, testing has been performed on four uniformly graded soils of particle size varying from 0.15 mm
through 12 mm, placed at different densities. All the testing
has been performed in the vat described earlier, according to
the same protocols.

MEASUREMENT OF Ko OF GRANULAR SOILS

240

200

05

120

First load
First unload

FS

Vertical strain, z: %

160

10

Second load

Second unload

15

20

80

Large, first load

Large, first unload

25

40

Small, first load

80

Small, first unload

0
0

40

80
120
160
Applied vertical pressure: kPa

200

240

60

40

20

OO

Fig. 3. Response of the in-soil null gauge when placed in dune

sand in the horizontal orientation

Horizontal pressure: kPa

Null pressure: kPa

Loose dune sand

Each material was tested in two particle arrangements:

loose and dense. The loose condition was achieved by either
funnelling the materials into the test vat, or, in the case of
the gravel-sized materials, by spooning the particles into the
vat. The dense arrangement was achieved by tapping the
outer side of the pressure vat with a hammer, not by direct
compaction or tamping. Direct compaction and tamping
induce compaction stresses and pre-compression pressures
which are to be avoided in this type of experiment. The
vibrations caused by the hammer blows to the cell sides do
not induce pre-compression pressures.
Vertical deformation of the soil was monitored during
testing in order to consider the form of the vertical stress
strain response during the loadunload cycles. Table 1
supplies data relevant to particle size and testing configurations. In each test, at least two full loadunload cycles were
performed.

PR

TEST RESULTS
Figure 4 shows typical results obtained when using the insoil null gauge for the measurement of horizontal soil
pressure in loosely placed dune sand. The lower section of
the figure illustrates almost no hysteresis in horizontal
pressure during unloading or subsequent reloading. The initial loading portions of the plots are near to linear, therefore
the slope represents the coefficient of lateral earth pressure

Table 1. Soil particle sizes and placement densities (given in kg/m3 )

Material

D50 : mm

Dune sand

0.15

Coarse sand

1.5

SumSum

Adas

1215

Density

Loose
Dense
Loose
Dense
Loose
Dense
Loose
Dense

Null gauge

Small

Large

1410
1630
1580
1710

1415
1650
1570
1720
1430
1610
1455
1555

40

80

120

160

Applied pressure: kPa

Fig. 4. Typical results of horizontal pressure measured in loose

dune sand using the in-soil null gauge

at rest, Ko : The slope has been determined based on a leastsquares regression and was found to be 0.45.
The upper portion of the figure depicts the stressstrain
response of the loose sand in the vertical direction. As
would be expected, the plot illustrates very non-linear response and low stiffness of the sand upon initial, virgin
loading. On unloading, almost all of the vertical strain is
seen to be irrecoverable. During the second loadunload
cycle the response is far less non-linear and displays a
significant increase in stiffness.
Figure 5 presents plots similar to those shown in Fig. 4,
but for the case of dense dune sand. The lower plot shows
the same outcome as found for the case of the loosely
placed dune sand. The development of horizontal pressure
on initial loading is linear. Slight hysteresis upon unloading
is noted in comparison to that noted for the loose sand;
however, it is minimal. The slope of the initial loading
segments is 0.54.
This outcome is significant, it implies that Ko for the
loosely placed sand, ,0.45, is less than that of the densely
placed sand, ,0.54. This result is contrary to the
K o 1  sin 9 relation.
Similar outcomes were noted for the other three materials
tested. The values for Ko are given in Table 2 and illustrate
that in each case Ko of the dense material is greater than
that of the loose material. In all cases hysteresis was small,
but not exactly the same for each material. In the case of
the coarse quartz sand the hysteresis was the greatest, but
far below that predicted according to models such as those
of Mayne & Kulhawy (1982) or Schmidt (1967).
The upper graph of Fig. 5 illustrates the typical non-linear
response expected during initial, virgin loading. In this case
the stiffness is significantly higher in comparison to the

TALESNICK

4
0

(a) It has been experimentally observed that, for at-rest

conditions, Ko for any specific granular soil is greater
when in a dense arrangement in comparison with looser
one.
(b) The development of hysteresis in horizontal pressure
upon unloading and subsequent reloading of applied
vertical pressure is small, and in general insignificant.

Dense dune sand

First load

02

Second load

04

FS

Vertical strain, z: %

First unload

Second unload
06

08

10

100

50

0
0

50

100

OO

Horizontal pressure: kPa

150

The first observation is contrary to our usual notions of

soil mechanics and to accepted practice; however, it does
make sense. A soil which is denser is more prone to dilate
in order to accommodate the vertical deformations. When
these vertical deformations must be accommodated under Ko
conditions, the horizontal pressure will be greater in a denser
packing arrangement than in a looser one.
Furthermore, there is no reason that Ko should be associated with 9: It is more likely to be associated with, for
example, some intrinsic material friction and angle of dilation.
The second observation is significant since it illustrates a
type of reversibility in the development of the horizontal
pressures during initial, virgin loading and unloading, in the
case of granular soils. This outcome is evidenced despite the
fact that the vertical deformations over the same segments
are mostly irreversible.
Models for the estimation of Ko in the over-consolidated
state are purely empirical and are based on experimental
data and statistical approaches. The experimental results
shown here indicate that granular soils exhibit minimal
hysteresis in horizontal pressure in comparison to that
suggested by the empirical models.

150

200

250

300

Applied pressure: kPa

Fig. 5. Typical results of horizontal pressure measured in dense

dune sand using the in-soil null gauge

Table 2. Magnitude of Ko for the different materials, densities,

null gauges
Density

Dune sand
Coarse sand

Ko

Small

Large

0.45
0.54
0.54
0.59

0.47
0.52
0.53
0.58
0.50
0.57
0.41
0.49

PR

SumSum

Loose
Dense
Loose
Dense
Loose
Dense
Loose
Dense

Adas

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to acknowledge the guidance of,
and discussions with, Professor Sam Frydman during the
preparation of this submission.

loose sand considered in Fig. 4. The unloading segment of

the first cycle illustrates that almost all of the vertical
deformation is irrecoverable.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

The null soil pressure gauge has been used in the measurement of horizontal pressure in granular materials of uniform grain sizes ranging from 0.15 to 15 mm. The aim of
the measurements was to quantify the magnitude of the
coefficient of lateral earth pressure, Ko , at different densities;
and to consider qualitatively the development of horizontal
pressure during unloading and reloading.
The data presented have led to two significant observations.

NOTATION
Dr
Ko
h

h9
v9
9z
9

relative density
coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest
lateral strain
Poisson ratio
4

REFERENCES
Alpan, I. (1967). The empirical evaluation of the coefficient Ko and
KoR : Soils Found. 7, No. 1, ??????.
ASTM (2006). ASTM D4254: Standard test methods for minimum
index density and unit weight of soils and calculation of relative
density. West Conshohocken, PA, USA: American Society for
Testing and Materials.
Brooker, E. W. & Ireland, H. O. (1965). Earth pressure at rest
related to stress history. Can. Geotech. J. 2, No. 1, 115.
Budhu, M. (2000). Soil mechanics and foundations. ????????, ????:
John Wiley.
Daramola, O. (1980). On estimating Ko for overconsolidated granular soils. Geotechnique 30, No. 3, 310314.
Itasca (2008). FLAC user manual. Minneapolis, USA: Itasca Consulting Group.
Jaky, J. (1944). A nyugalmi nyomas tenyezoje (The coefficient
of earth pressure at rest). Magyar Mernok es Epitesz-Eglyet
Kozlonye (J. Soc. Hung. Eng. Arch.), 355358 (in Hungarian).
Mayne, P. W. & Kulhawy, F. H. (1982). KoOCR relationships in
soil. ASCE J. Geotech. Div. 108, No. GT6, 851872.

MEASUREMENT OF Ko OF GRANULAR SOILS

FS

pile, and the use of miniature soil stress measuring cells in

laboratory applications involving stress reversals. Soils Found.
50, No. 3, 447448.
Taylor, D. W. (1947). Pressure distribution theories, earth pressure
cell investigations and pressure distribution data. Vicksburg,
USA: US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Tognon, A. R., Rowe, R. K. & Brachman, R. W. I. (1999).
Evaluation of side wall friction for a buried pipe testing facility.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 17, No. ?, 193212.
Tory, A. C. & Sparrow, R. W. (1967). The influence of diaphragm
flexibility on the performance of an earth pressure cell. J. Sci.
Instruments 44, No. ??, 781785.
Weiler, W. A. & Kulhawy, F. H. (1982). Factors affecting stress cell
measurements in soil. J. Geotech. Found. Div. ASCE 108, No.
GT12, 15291548.

OO
PR

Mesri, G. & Vardhanabhuti, B. (2007). Coefficient of earth pressure

at rest for sands subjected to vibration. Can. Geotech. J. 44, No.
??, 12421263.
Michalowski, R. L. (2005). Coefficient of earth pressure at rest.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng 131, No. 11, 14291433.
Schmidt, B. (1967). Lateral stresses in uniaxial strain, Bulletin No.
23, pp. 511. Denmark: Geoteknisk Institut (The Danish Geotechnical Institute).
Selig, E. T. (1980). Soil stress gage calibration. Geotech. Testing J.
ASTM 3, No. 4, 153-158.
Talesnick, M. (2005). Measuring soil contact pressure on a solid
boundary and quantifying soil arching. Geotech. Testing J.
ASTM 28, No. 2, 171179.
Talesnick, M. (2010). Discussion on experimental arrangements for
investigation of soil stresses developed around a displacement

1: Please provide keyword terms from ICE approved list at http://

www.icevirtuallibrary.com/upload/geotechniquekeywords.pdf
2: Taylor 1944 cited in text, 1947 listed in refs - please check year
3: ASTM 4254 - year has been completed as 2006 - OK?
4: Please provide definitions for notation list
5: Please give page nos. for Alpan (1967)
6: ASTM ref - details have been added to complete reference. Please
check.
7: Budhu (2000) Location of publisher?
8: Itasca - details have been added to complete reference, please check
9: Mesri and Vardhanabhuti - please give issue no.
10: Tognon et al. - please give issue no.
11: Tory and Sparrow, please give issue no.

10

11