See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321446866

A simplified method for estimating coefficient of earth pressure at rest (K0) in

cohesive soils

Conference Paper · November 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 389

2 authors, including:

Kritika Kate Trakoolngam

Khon Kaen University
13 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fired-Clay Brick Strength View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kritika Kate Trakoolngam on 26 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of GEOMATE, Month, Year, Vol (Issue), pp. 000-000
Geotec., Const. Mat. & Env., ISSN:2186-2990, Japan, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21660/YourID

A SIMPLIFIED METHOD FOR ESTIMATING COEFFICIENT OF

EARTH PRESSURE AT REST (K0) IN COHESIVE SOILS
Premkamol Thuennadee and *Kritika Trakoolngam

Faculty of Technology, Khon Kaen University, Thailand

*Corresponding Author, Received: 00 June 2017, Revised: 00 June 2017, Accepted: 00 0000 2017

ABSTRACT: Various geotechnical engineering problems require the value of coefficient of earth pressure at
rest (K0) for determining the in situ stress and designing engineering structures. At present, most available
empirical methods for estimating this value are based either on the plasticity index or friction angle. These
methods are widely used and proven to be quite accurate. In this paper, we propose a more simplified method
to estimate K0. The parameters of basic physical properties that influence the value of K0 were statistically
analyzed using data from 3,900 cohesive soil samples. An empirical formula was developed based on the water
content, specific gravity, and bulk density. The finalized relationship shows that the value of K0 is a function
of the specific volume. Values of K0 resulting from the new equation were compared to that from the equation
proposed by Massarsch (1979) which is based on the plasticity index. The maximum, minimum, and average
error is 5.00%, 0.00%, and 2.00%, respectively. In conclusion, this new empirical method can estimate K0
values in a much simpler way using the soil’s specific volume without the need to determine the plasticity
index or the friction angle.

Keywords: Coefficient of lateral earth pressure, Cohesive soil, Empirical method

1. INTRODUCTION variations using the Rankine active earth pressure

The coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest
(K0) is a parameter required for determining the in
situ lateral earth pressure which is necessary for
designing many underground engineering works.
The values of K0 can be obtained from laboratory
tests, in situ tests, theoretical analysis, or empirical
method. The latter is the most popular approach
since it is most convenient and inexpensive.
Theoretically, the value of K0 can be determined
from an elastic solution based on the Poisson’s ratio
(  ) as in

K0 
1 
coefficient [9] and the Poisson’s ratio [10].
Interestingly, very few solutions were proposed
for determining K0 of normally consolidated
cohesive soils. The first was proposed by Brooker
and Ireland in 1965 [3] based on the Plasticity Index
(PI) as
K 0 = 0.04 + 0.007 (PI) ; PI = 0 - 40% (2)
(3)
K 0 = 0.64 + 0.001 (PI) ; PI = 40 - 80%
Later in 1979, Massarsch [11] proposed a more
widely accepted formula which was able to
determine K0 at all ranges of PI
(1)
K 0  0.44  0.42  PI  (4)

The first empirical solution for determining the

value of K0 was proposed for cohesionless soils by 2. RATIONALE
Jaky [1] in 1944 which was then simplified,
Good predictions of K0 for cohesionless soils
allowing for some loss in accuracy, in 1948 [2].
are obtained from solutions based on the friction
Both solutions are based on the friction angle of the
angle. However, formulas that use friction angles
material. To date, Jaky’s simplified solution is still
are accurate for only cohesionless soils and those
the most widely used although there have been
that are accurate for cohesive soils use the plasticity
several authors presenting solutions based on the
index which are inapplicable to cohesionless soils.
friction angle of the soil as well [3]-[7].
A formula that can solve for both cohesive and
For overconsolidated clays, the first solution
cohesionless soils accurately would be preferable.
was presented by Schmidt in 1966 [8] which was
Furthermore, being able to account for OCR would
based on the Overconsolidation Ratio (OCR), the
be ideal. This leads to finding a solution that is not
friction angle, and the K0 in its normally
dependent on the friction angle nor the plasticity
consolidated state. Later on, other formulas were
index.
proposed based on the OCR as well but with some

1
 International Journal of GEOMATE, Month, Year, Vol (Issue), pp. 000-000

3. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE Table 2 Available laboratory test result for each
soil sample.
Our long term goal is to develop a formula
which can solve K0 for both cohesive and Soil type Unit
cohesionless soils accurately and is based on basic 1 Moisture Content %
physical properties (independent of friction angle
and plasticity index). 2 Particle Density kg/m3
In this paper we focus on obtaining a solution 3 Bulk Density kg/m3
for cohesive soils first. The concept is to use 4 Dry Density kg/m3
Massarsch’s 1979 solution as a model and derive a 5 Plasticity Index %
formula that is comparable. 6 Clay %
4. APPROACH 7 Silt %
8 Sand %
4.1 Data Acquisition and Filtering 9 Gravel %
Note: Parameters not relevant to this study are not
Secondary data consisting of laboratory tests listed.
results were collected from the Geotechnical
Engineering Department, Mae Moh Mine, 5. RESULT
Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand. The
data consisted of various soil types, therefore, it had 5.1 Proposed Simplified Solution
to be filtered to obtain cohesive soil samples. The
initial criteria being samples consisting of clay and The resulting formula for determining K0 of
silt fraction more than 50%. A total of 3,900 records cohesive soils is found to be based on the bulk
of cohesive soil samples were obtained. According density (Db), water content (w), and specific gravity
to the USDA soil texture triangle [12] the samples (GS) as follow
can be classified into 6 types as shown in Table 1.
Each sample comprises of laboratory test results
 G 1  w  
which consist of 9 individual parameters as shown K 0  0.38  0.102  S  (5)
in Table 2.  Db 

Table 1 Types of soil samples classified according The above equation can be written in the form
to the USDA texture triangle of the specific volume (V) or void ratio whichever
is preferred
Soil type Number of samples
1. Clay 2,358 K 0  0.38  0.102V  (6)
2. Clay loam 95 K 0  0.38  0.102 1  e  (7)
3. Loam 153
4. Silty clay 1,137
5.2 Analysis of the Proposed Solution
5. Silty clay loam 105
6. Silt loam 52 Values of K0 from the new solution is compared
Total 3,900 to that of Massarsch’s solution as shown in Fig.1
The maximum, minimum, and average error of
4.2 Data Analysis K0 from the new solution is 5.00%, 0.00%, and
2.00%, respectively. In order to confirm the
Each parameter listed in Table 2 was accuracy of the solution, an analysis of the error was
statistically analyzed compared to the plasticity conducted. The dependent variables are plotted
index which is Massarsch’s main variable for against the error of K0 as shown in Figs.2 to 5.
determining K0. It can be seen that samples with specific volume
Three parameters were found to strongly between 1.20 and 2.00 do not affect the error of K0.
influence the values of plasticity index and K0, these However, specific volume values are limited due to
are, bulk density (Db), water content (w), and the nature of the soil samples, therefore, it cannot
particle density (used as an alternative to the yet be concluded that specific volume values higher
specific gravity, GS). than 2.00 would result differently. Bulk density,
water content, and specific gravity also do not show
any influence on the error of K0. However, errors
may increase at high water content (more than 30%)
but this is inconclusive with the available data.

2
 International Journal of GEOMATE, Month, Year, Vol (Issue), pp. 000-000

0.650

0.600

0.550
K0

0.500

0.450 K0 Thuennadee, 2017

K0 Massarsch, 1979
0.400

Fig.1 Comparison between values of K0 obtained

from Massarsch’s formula and that of the new Fig.4 Values of water content and the resulting error
proposed formula. of K0 compared to Massarsch’s solution.

Fig.2 Values of specific volume and the resulting Fig.5 Values of specific gravity and the resulting
error of K0 compared to Massarsch’s solution. error of K0 compared to Massarsch’s solution.

Fig.3 Values of bulk density and the resulting error Fig.6 Values of total clay and silt fractions and the
of K0 compared to Massarsch’s solution. resulting error of K0 compared to Massarsch’s
solution.
5.3 Limitations of the Proposed Solution
5.3.1 Activity
5.3.1 Particle Size
The activity of the clays according to Skempton
[13] was calculated from
The effects of the amount of clay and silt on the
error of K0 is presented in Figs.6 to 8. Fig.6 shows
PI
that the error of K0 is not influenced by the amount A (7)
of clay and silt of more than 50%. However, Fig.7 %Clay fraction (weight)
and 8 show that error increases with clay fraction
less than 20% and silt fraction more than 60%. The samples were found to have activity below
1.25. Therefore, the soil samples are categorized as
normal clays.

3
 International Journal of GEOMATE, Month, Year, Vol (Issue), pp. 000-000
Fig.7 Values of total clay fraction and the resulting
error of K0 compared to Massarsch’s solution.
Fig.8 Values of total silt fraction and the resulting
error of K0 compared to Massarsch’s solution.
6. CONCLUSION
A simplified formula for determining the value
of coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest (K0) is
presented in Eq.6. The solution is dependent on the
specific volume which can be easily determined in
the laboratory. Since it is not dependent on the
plasticity index, the application of this formula can
be extended to cohesionless soils and especially
soils that are ambiguous in its cohesiveness. There
are several important notes to be made:
(1) The maximum, minimum, and average error
of K0 from the new solution is 5.00%, 0.00%, and
2.00%, respectively. The accuracy is assumed to
correspond with the accuracy of Massarsch’s
solution and currently applies to cohesive soils.
(2) The formula is applicable to soils with
normal clays. Active clays are expected to result
differently, therefore, using this formula is not
recommended.
(3) Although K0 values are comparable to those
obtained by Massarsch’s solution, validation
against laboratory or in situ data is necessary and is
an ongoing process.
(4) The applicability of this solution to
cohesionless soils is still under investigation.
4
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are truly grateful for the valuable
data given by the Geotechnical Engineering
Department, Mae Moh Mine, Electricity Generating
Authority of Thailand.
8. REFERENCES
[1] Jaky J, "The coefficient of earth pressure at
rest", Journal of the Society of Hungarian
Architects and Engineers, Vol. 7, 1944, pp.
355-358.
[2] Jaky J, "Pressure in soils", in Proc. 2nd
International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, 1948, pp.
103–107.
[3] Brooker EW and Ireland HO, "Earth pressures
at rest related to stress history", Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 2(1), 1965, pp. 1-15.
[4] Feda J, "K0-coefficient of sand in triaxial
apparatus", Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering-Asce, Vol. 110(4), 1984, pp. 519-
524.
[5] da Fonseca AV and Sousa JAE, "At rest
coefficient of earth pressure in saprolitic soils
from granite", in Proc. Fifteenth International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, 2001, pp. 397-400.
[6] Guo PJ and Stolle DFE, "Fabric and particle
shape influence on K-0 of granular materials",
Soils and Foundations, Vol. 46(5), Oct 2006,
pp. 639-652.
[7] Wanatowski D and Chu J, "K-0 of sand
measured by a plane-strain apparatus",
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 44(8),
Aug 2007, pp. 1006-1012.
[8] Schmidt B, "Discussion of ‘Earth pressures at
rest related to stress history’ by Brooker &
Ireland (1965)", Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 3(4), 1966, pp. 239-242.
[9] Pruska MJ, "Effect of initial stress on the
stress-strain relation", in Proc. 8th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 4, Moscow, 1973, pp. 26-28.
[10] Wroth CP, "In situ measurement of initial
stresses and deformation characteristics", in
Proc. In Situ Stress Measurement of Soil
Properties, North Carolina State University,
Geotechnical Engineering Division, 1975, pp.
181-230.
 International Journal of GEOMATE, Month, Year, Vol (Issue), pp. 000-000

[11] Massarsch KR, "Lateral Earth Pressure in [13] Skempton AW, "The Colloidal Activity of
Normally Consolidated Clay", in Proc. Seventh Clays", in Proc. Third International Conference
European Conference on Soil Mechanics and on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Foundation Engineering (Design parameters in Engineering, Vol. 1, Switzerland, 1953, pp. 57-
geotechnical engineering), Vol. 2, Brighton: 61.
British Geotechnical Society, 1979, pp. 245-
249.
Copyright © Int. J. of GEOMATE. All rights
[12] United States Department of Agriculture,
reserved, including the making of copies unless
"Texture Triangle and Particle-Size Limits of
permission is obtained from the copyright
AASHTO, USDA, and Unified Classification proprietors.
Systems", National soil survey handbook, title
430-VI. USA: United States Department of
Agriculture, 2016.

View publication stats