Acta Geotechnica

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 1–12 | Cite as

Some remarks on the coefficient of earth pressure at rest in compacted sandy gravel

Research Paper


In compacted coarse-grained materials, the stress state is largely influenced by the compaction procedure and by the characteristics of the single grains (mineralogy, shape). In this work, two compacted sandy gravels with the same grading but different grain properties have been tested in a large soft oedometer to highlight this influence. In the first part of the paper, the effect of oedometric ring deformability on the stress state is quantified in the framework of elastoplasticity. It is then shown that, for the adopted apparatus and for the tests carried out, the error in the measurement of the coefficient of earth pressure at rest K 0 caused by ring deformability is very small. The two tested materials, compacted by wet tamping, behave differently because of their different grain properties, showing, respectively, small and large grain breakage. In primary loading, the more crushable material has values of K 0 that compare well with Jaky’s (J Soc Hungarian Archit Eng 355–358, 1944) equation at any stress level and for every tested soil density. For the material with stronger grains, only very loose specimens that have undergone little or no compaction have a similar behaviour, while the denser specimens show the typical behaviour of overconsolidated soils, with values of K 0 initially larger than that suggested by Jaky (J Soc Hungarian Archit Eng 355–358, 1944) for normally consolidated soils, tending to it only at the largest applied stress values. By considering the complex combined effect of tamping and grain crushing on the stress state and on the overconsolidation ratio of the soil at the end of compaction, these experimental evidences have been qualitatively explained.


Coefficient of earth pressure at rest Compacted material Grain breakage Gravel 


  1. 1.
    Abdelhamid MS, Krizek RJ (1976) At-rest lateral earth pressure of a consolidation clay. J Geotechn Eng 102(GT7):721–738Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alpan I (1967) The empirical evaluation of the coefficient k0 and K0R. Soil Found 7(1):31–40Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brooker EW, Ireland HO (1965) Earth pressure at rest related to the stress history. Can Geotechn J 2:1–15Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castellanza R, Nova R (2004) Oedometric tests on artificially weathered carbonatic soft rocks. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 130(7):728–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cecconi M, De Simone A, Tamagnini C, Viggiani GMB (2002) A constitutive model for granular materials with grain crushing and its application to a pyroclastic soil. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 26:1531–1560MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chu J, Lo S-CR (1991) On the implementation of strain path testing. Proceedings of the 10th European conference on soil mechanical. Found Eng Florence 1:53–56Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chu J, Lo S-CR (1994) Asymptotic behaviour of a granular soil in strain path testing. Géotechnique 44(1):65–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cubrinovski M, Ishiara K (2002) Maximum and minimum void ratio characteristics of sands. Soil Found 42(6):65–78Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Edil TB, Dhowian AW (1981) At-rest lateral pressure of peat soils. J Geotechn Eng Div ASCE 107:201–220Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Flora A, Lirer S, Viggiani C (2007) Studio sperimentale dei fattori influenti sulla compressibilità di un rockfill. In Italian. Proceedings of XXIII Italian Geotechnical Conference, Padova (Italy), Patron Ed., pp 235–243Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Flora A, Lirer S (2008) Experimental measurement of the coefficient of earth pressure at rest of coarse grained materials. Proceedings of the IS Atlanta 2008—fourth international symposium on deformation characteristics of geomaterials, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gudehus G, Goldscheider M, Winter H (1977) Mechanical properties of sand and clay and numerical integration methods. In: Gudehus G (ed) Finite elements for geomechanics. Wiley, NYGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gudehus G, Mašín D (2009) Graphical representation of constitutive equations. Géotechnique 59(2):147–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gu Q, Lee F-H (2002) Ground response to dynamic compaction of dry sand. Geotechnique 52(7):481–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jaky J (1944) The coefficient of earth pressure at rest. J Soc Hungarian Archit Eng Budapest 7:355–358Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kjarnsli B, Sande A (1963) Compressibility of some coarse grained materials. Proc Eur Conf Soil Mech Found Eng 1:245–251Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee DM (1992) The angle of friction of granular fills. Ph. D. Thesis, Cambridge University (England), pp 220Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lo S-CR, Lee IK (1990) Response of a granular soil along constant stress increment ratio path. J Geotech Engng Div Am Soc Civ Engrs 116(3):355–376Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mayne PW, Kulhawy FH (1982) K0-OCR relationship in soil. J Geotech Eng Div Am Soc Civ Eng 106(6):851–872Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mayne PW, Jones SJ Jr (1983) Impact stress during dynamic compaction. ASCE J Geotech Eng 109:1342–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marsal RJ (1967) Large scale testing of rockfill materials. J SMFE ASCE 93(2):27–43Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marsal RJ (1973) Mechanical properties of rockfill. Embankment Dam Engineering, Casagrande Volume, Wiley, New York, 109–200Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Menard L, Broise Y (1975) Theoretical and practical aspects of dynamic consolidation. Geotechnique 25:3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Merrifield CM, Davies CR (2000) A study of low-energy dynamic compaction: field trials and centrifuge modelling. Geotechnique 50(6):675–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Muir Wood D (1990) Soil behaviour and critical state soil mechanics. Ambridge University Press, Australia. p 462Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nova R, Wood DM (1979) A constitutive model for sand in triaxial compression. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 3:255–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Okochi Y, Tatsuoka F (1984) Some factors affecting K0 values of sand measured in triaxial 75 cell: Soils Found 24:52–68Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Parkin AK (1991) Rockfill modelling. In advances in rockfill structures, NATO ASI Series E, vol 200, Maranha das Neves Ed, pp 35–51Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Parkin AK, Adikari GSN (1981) Rockfill deformation from large scale tests. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference Soil Mechanical and Foundations Engineering Stockholm 4:727–731Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Parvizi M (2009) Soil response to surface impact loads during low energy dynamic compaction. J Appl Sci 9(11) :2088–2096Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Penman ADM (1971) Rockfill. B.R.S. Current Paper 15/71Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pestana JM, Whittle AJ (1995) Compression model for cohesionless soils. Géotechnique 45(4):611–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Santamarina JC, Cho GC (2004) Soil behaviour: the rule of particle shape. Proceedings of the Skempton Conference—Advances in geotechnical engineering, vol. 1, London, pp 604–617Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Topolnicki M, Gudehus G, Mazurkiewicz BK (1990) Observed stress-strain behaviour of remoulded saturated clay under plane strain conditions. Géotechnique 40(2):155–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Valore C, Ziccarelli M (1997) Il coefficiente K0 di sabbie carbonatiche a pressioni alte. Proceedings of the IV National Conference of geotechnical researchers (in Italian), Perugia (Italy), pp 567–602Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Hydraulic, Geotechnical and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Napoli Federico IINaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations