At-rest Earth Pressure Relationships

Richard Church
ECI-284
Theoretical Geomechanics
Winter Quarter, 2003
03/11/2003
Introduction

The purpose of this report is to present several factors affecting the determination of at-
rest earth pressures and their application to the design of earth retaining structures. The
problem of estimating lateral earth pressures has been facing engineers for centuries.
Couplet and Coulomb developed their theories in the 18th century (1726 and 1776
respectively) and Rankine developed his in 1857. For the estimates of these theories to
be valid, deflection of the structure must occur, whether it be translation or rotation into
or out of the soil mass in question, to develop active or passive lateral earth pressures
(Fig 1).

Fig. 1: Relationship of earth pressures to wall movements

(after Department of the Navy 1982b)

Most earth retaining problems involve the movement of the structure away from the soil
mass, the active condition. However, in his study of lateral earth pressures, “Old Earth
Pressure Theories and New Test Results” (1920), Terzaghi noted the importance of
lateral earth pressures developed on structures which experience no deflection, and
termed them “at-rest earth pressures” (Andrawes & El-Sohby, 1973). As is shown in this
report, at-rest earth pressures are significantly greater than active earth pressures and are
often not taken into account in many common engineering problems (Fig 2).

At-Rest Earth Pressures 1 of 8 Theoretical Geomechanics

Term Paper ECI-284
Winter Quarter 2003
 1.0
0.9
0.8
At-rest Active
0.7
0.6
Ko 0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
20 25 30 35 40 45
φ'

Fig 2: A Comparison of At-rest Earth and

Active Earth Pressure Coefficients

At-rest earth pressures develop under restrained conditions, when no outward strain is
allowed. A few common examples are: a braced wall and a basement wall. An
uncommon example that generally is not considered during retaining wall is the
intersection of two attached, perpendicular (or any other angle that does not allow
outward strain) walls. Furthermore, “because designs incorporate factors of safety, walls
may be quite rigid and pressures may be greater than active” (Army Corps of Engineers,
1989).

Additionally, at-rest earth pressures, like active and passive earth pressures, are affected
by the micro-structure of the soil in question, the geometry of the structure/soil system,
and the stress history of the soil. These factors have been the subject of many studies,
some of which are summarized in this paper. However, before a discussion of the
variation of at-rest earth pressures, the definition of at rest earth pressures must be
discussed.

Definition of At-rest Earth Pressures

Generally, the at-rest earth pressure is the horizontal component of the in-situ stress state,
or the horizontal pressure acting on an earth retaining structure. At-rest lateral earth
At-Rest Earth Pressures 2 of 8 Theoretical Geomechanics
Term Paper ECI-284
Winter Quarter 2003
pressures can be shown to be some multiple of the vertical stress at any point. This
concept can be shown with the following ratio:
σh
Ko =
σv

where σh is the horizontal pressure, σv is the vertical pressure, and Ko is the coefficient of
earth pressure at rest, as coined by Terzaghi (1920). The trick in determining at-rest earth
pressures is in determining Ko .

A more specific definition has been offered by Bishop (1958). “The coefficient of earth
pressure at rest is the ratio of the lateral to the vertical effective stresses in a soil
consolidated under the condition of no lateral deformation, the stresses being principal
stresses with no shear stress applied to the planes on which these stresses act” (Bishop,
1958), or:
σ 'h
Ko =
σ 'v
where σ'h is the horizontal principal effective stress and σ'v is the vertical principal
effective stress.

In there 1973 paper, “Factors Affecting Coefficient of Earth Pressure Ko ”, Andrawes and
El-Sohby provide an even more specific definition of Ko . “It is conceivable that a soil
leement subjected to any stress history may thereafter suffer a stress change in order to
prevent further change in the lateral strain. Consequently, it is fundamental to express the
coefficient of earth pressure at rest as an instantaneous incremental ratio:

∆σ'h
Ko =
∆σ'v
or, the coefficient of earth pressure at rest is the ratio of the increment in the minor
principal effective stress to the corresponding increment in the major principal effective
stress when no strain occurs in the direction of the minor principal effective stress”
(Andrawes & El-Sohby, 1973).

At-Rest Earth Pressures 3 of 8 Theoretical Geomechanics

Term Paper ECI-284
Winter Quarter 2003
Normally Consolidated Soils, Jaky’s Ko Equation
In 1944 J. Jaky’s paper “The Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest” presented his
theoretical derivation of Ko :

 2 
1 + sin φ '
K o = (1 − sin φ ')  
3
(1 + sin φ')
where φ’ is the effective angle of internal friction. The above equation can be simplified
to the following approximation:
K o = (1 − sin φ ') .
The difference in the calculated values is shown in Fig 3, and ranges from 9 percent at
low friction angles to 16 percent at high friction angles. However, “considering the
difficulty of making an appropriate choice for φ’ for a given soil, this approximation is
sufficiently accurate for most engineering purposes” (Wroth, 1972).

0.7
Jaky's Simplified Equation
0.6 Jaky's Theoretical Equation
Brooker and Ireland's Equation
0.5
Ko
0.4

0.3

0.2
20 25 30 35 40 45
φ'

Fig 3: Comparison of Several Ko Equations for

Normally Consolidated Soils

In their determination of Ko Brooker and Ireland (1965) proposed an equation similar in

appearance to Jaky’s simplified equation, but more similar in results to his theoretical
equation. Many researchers have proposed many equations for the calculation of Ko ,
however, the literature suggests that Jaky’s simplified equation provides the best
agreement with experimental results from tests conducted on normally consolidated soils.
At-Rest Earth Pressures 4 of 8 Theoretical Geomechanics
Term Paper ECI-284
Winter Quarter 2003
Effect of Variations in Micro -Structure on Ko
Moroto and Muramatsu (1987) derive a theoretical equation to determine Ko based on the
anisotropy of an overconsolidated clay soil. Their equation is base on the ratio of the
horizontal modulus of elasticity of the soil to its vertically elasticity:
Eh
Ko = n = .
Ev

While their equation is theoretically sound, it does not provide a good correlation with in-
situ values of Ko .

“Although not readily amenable to mathematical formulation in terms of other soil

parameters, Ko can be regarded as a complex function of the microstructural composition
of a soil” (Abdelhamid & Krizek, 1976). This being said, these researchers set out to
discover the effects of anisotropy on a consolidating clay. They prepared two different
types of samples from a consolidated slurry of Hydrite 10 Georgia Kaolinite. One
sample was mixed with a solution of 0.01 M NaOH before consolidation to yield
dispersed clay. The other sample was mixed with a 0.01 M solution of NaCl before
consolidation to yield a flocculated clay. However, the data did not suggest a relationship
between anisotropy and Ko . “This conclusion, although not anticipated at the outset of
this study, suggests that the lateral earth pressure at-rest … is not strongly affected by the
short term interparticle michromechanisms (as opposed to long-term cementation bonds,
for example) that prevail in a clay mass” (Abdelhamid & Krizek, 1976).

Effect of Geometry on Ko
Based on Coulomb’s active earth pressure equation, sloping backfill can significantly
increase the active earth pressure a structure. It follows that sloping backfill should
significantly increase at-rest earth pressures on a structure. However, only the only
reference to this condition was found in the Army Corps of Engineers retaining wall
design manual (Army Corps of Engineers, 1989). The manual presented an equation
given in the “Danish Code” (Danish Geotechnical Institute, 1978), which is an extension
of Jaky’s simplified equation to sloping backfills:

At-Rest Earth Pressures 5 of 8 Theoretical Geomechanics

Term Paper ECI-284
Winter Quarter 2003
K o = (1 − sin φ ')(1 + sin β )

where β is the angle of the backslope above horizontal. It can be seen in Fig 4 that
sloping backfill can almost double Ko for a 2:1 (H:V) slope.

1.2 Jaky's Equation

Danish Code, 3:1 Slope
1.0 Danish Code, 2:1 Slope

Ko 0.8
0.6
0.4

0.2
20 25 30 35 40 45
φ'
Fig 4: A Comparison of At-rest Earth Pressures
For Various Backslope Angles

Effect of Stress History on Ko

Mayne and Kulhawy (1982) provide an excellent summary of the effects of stress history
on Ko , including “data compiled from over 170 different soils tested and reported by
many researchers” (Mayne & Kulhawy, 1982). The authors conduct a statistical analysis
of this data and determine relationships between at-rest earth pressure and stress history.
Three stress history regimes are identified: virgin loading, unloading, and reloading
(Fig 5).

At-Rest Earth Pressures 6 of 8 Theoretical Geomechanics

Term Paper ECI-284
Winter Quarter 2003
 1st unloading

σh
’

1st reloading

Virgin loading

σv
’
Fig 5: Simplified Stress History of Soil Under Ko Conditions
(Mayne and Kulhawy, 1982)

The Jaky formula was found to agree with the data for normally consolidated soils.
Analysis of the unloading portion of the stress path provided a relatio nship between Ko
and OCR that builds on Jaky’s simplified equation:
K o = (1 − sin φ')OCR sin φ'
where OCR is the overconsolidation ratio. Fig 6 illustrates the increase in Ko for several OCR
values.

2.5

OCR = 1 OCR = 2
2.0 OCR = 3 OCR = 5
OCR = 10 OCR = 20

1.5
Ko
1.0

0.5

0.0
20 25 30 35 40 45
φ'

Fig 6: A Comparison of Ko for Different

Overconsolidation Ratios

At-Rest Earth Pressures 7 of 8 Theoretical Geomechanics

Term Paper ECI-284
Winter Quarter 2003
References

Abdelhamid, M.S., and Krizek, R.J. (1976), “At-Rest Lateral Earth Pressures of a
Consolidating Clay”, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,
Vol. 102, No. GT7, July, pp. 721-738.

Andrawes, K.Z., and El-Sohby, M.A. (1973), “Factors Affecting Ko ”, Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol 99, No. SM7, July, pp. 527-539.

Army Corps of Engineers, (1989), “Engineering and Design - Retaining and Flood
Walls”, Publication Number: EM 1110-2-2502

Bishop, A.W., (1958), “Test Requirements for Measuring the Coefficient of Earth
Pressure at Rest”, Proceedings, Brussels Conference on Earth Pressure Problems,
Vol 1, pp. 2-14.

Danish Geotechnical Institute, (1978), "Code of Practice for Foundation Engineering”,

Danish Geotechnical Institute, Bulletin No. 32, p 52.

Jaky, J. (1944), “The Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest”, Journal for Society of
Hungarian Architects and Engineers, October, pp. 355-358.

Mayne, P.W., and Kulhawy, F.H., (1982), “K o -OCR Relationships in Soil”, Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol 108, No. GT6, June, pp. 851-872.

Moroto, N. and Muramatsu, M. (1987), “Ko Value and Degree of Anisotropy of

Overconsolidated Clay”, Proceedings, 9th Southeast Asian Geotechnical
Conference, Sec. 5, pp. 25-32.

Terzaghi, K. (1920), “Old Earth Pressure Theories and New Test Results”, Engineering
News Record, Vol. 85, p. 632.

Wroth, C.P. (1975), “In Situ Measurements on Initial Stresses and Deformation
Characteristics”, Proceedings, In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties, North
Carolina State University, Geotechnical Engineering Division, pp. 181-230.

At-Rest Earth Pressures 8 of 8 Theoretical Geomechanics

Term Paper ECI-284
Winter Quarter 2003