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

net/publication/272180342

Tactile Pressure Sensors in Centrifuge Testing

Article  in  Geotechnical Testing Journal · October 2013

DOI: 10.1520/GTJ20120061

CITATIONS READS

21 675

4 authors:

Hesham El Ganainy Anthony Tessari

LANGAN University at Buffalo, The State University of New York
14 PUBLICATIONS   147 CITATIONS    27 PUBLICATIONS   84 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tarek H. Abdoun Inthuorn Sasanakul

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute University of South Carolina
208 PUBLICATIONS   2,596 CITATIONS    42 PUBLICATIONS   201 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Dam and road safety project View project

Identification of nonlinear soil properties View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anthony Tessari on 18 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Geotechnical
Testing Journal
Hesham El Ganainy,1 Anthony Tessari,2 Tarek Abdoun,3 and Inthuorn Sasanakul4

DOI: 10.1520/GTJ20120061

Tactile Pressure Sensors in

Centrifuge Testing
VOL. 37 / NO. 1 / JANUARY 2014
 Geotechnical Testing Journal

doi:10.1520/GTJ20120061 / Vol. 37 / No. 1 / JANUARY 2014 / available online at www.astm.org

Hesham El Ganainy,1 Anthony Tessari,2 Tarek Abdoun,3 and Inthuorn Sasanakul4

Tactile Pressure Sensors in Centrifuge Testing

Reference
El Ganainy, Hesham, Tessari, Anthony, Abdoun, Tarek, and Sasanakul, Inthuorn, “Tactile
Pressure Sensors in Centrifuge Testing,” Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2014, pp. 151–163,
doi:10.1520/GTJ20120061. ISSN 0149-6115

ABSTRACT
Manuscript received April 30, 2012; Assessing vertical and lateral earth pressure is important in geotechnical and foundation
accepted for publication August 23,
engineering. Vertical stresses are easy to calculate assuming a geostatic stress condition.
2013; published online October 28, 2013.
However, characterizing the lateral earth pressure is primarily based on judgment and
1
Project Engineering Associate, Paul C.
empirical correlations that assume a lateral earth pressure coefficient based on the shear
Rizzo Associates, Inc., 500 Penn Center
Blvd., Penn Center East, Suite 100, strength parameters of the soil. Effects of factors such as overconsolidation, geologic age,
Pittsburgh, PA 15235, United States of and pre-shaking on the lateral earth pressure magnitude and distribution are difficult to
America (Corresponding author), e-mail:
hesham.elganainy@rizzoassoc.com assess using only the empirical correlations found in literature. Direct measurements of the
2
lateral earth pressure in the field, full-scale, and centrifuge models are required to fully
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil,
Structural, and Environmental characterize these factors. This paper discusses the use of grid-based tactile pressure
Engineering, University at Buffalo, 212 sensors in centrifuge models to study the effects of overconsolidation and pre-shaking on
Ketter Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260, United
the lateral earth pressure. A new preparation and calibration procedure for the tactile
States of America, e-mail:
atessari@buffalo.edu sensors is discussed in detail. A series of five centrifuge tests were performed using dry and
3 saturated sand in normally consolidated, overconsolidated, and pre-shaken deposits. The
Iovino Chair Professor, Dept. of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Rensselaer measured lateral earth pressure distributions are plotted and evaluated. Precautions and
Polytechnic Institute, 110 8th St., JEC recommendations for the use of tactile sensors in centrifuge experiments are given.
4049, Troy, NY 12180, United States of
America, e-mail: abdout@rpi.edu
4
Research Assistant Professor, Dept. of
Keywords
Civil and Environmental Engineering, tactile pressure sensors, centrifuge modeling, lateral earth pressure coefficient
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 8th
St., JEC 4049, Troy, NY 12180, United
States of America,
e-mail: sasani@rpi.edu Introduction
Vertical and lateral effective stresses play a major role in characterizing the stiffness and strength
of soil deposits. These are produced by the self-weight of the soil in addition to any external loads
that act upon it. The vertical effective stresses are simple to characterize under the assumption of a
geostatic stress condition for the soil mass and a homogenous isotropic half-space assumption for
the stresses because of external loads. Conversely, the evaluation of lateral effective earth pressure

Copyright V
C 2014 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. 151
152 Geotechnical Testing Journal
because of the soil weight usually involves the introduction of a
lateral earth pressure coefficient, K, defined as the ratio of the
lateral to vertical effective stress at any depth. The K value
depends on various factors such as: soil type, relative density,
geologic age, overconsolidation, pre-shaking, and the lateral
constraint condition (Jaky 1944; Terzaghi and Peck 1948;
Lambe and Whitman 1969; Mayne and Kulhawy 1982; Kramer
1996; Sadrekarimi 2011).
Researchers and practicing engineers may calculate lateral
earth pressures either from sophisticated numerical models or
simple analytical solutions (Jaky 1944; Whittle et al. 1993;
Gourvenec and Powrie 1999; Nikolinakou et al. 2011). Numeri-
cal models, such as those based on finite elements or other com-
plex analyses, are expensive and require specialized experience.
This limits their use to research and high-end applications. The
merit of simplicity that analytical solutions possess makes them
the most favorable approach to practicing engineers.
Analytical solutions are predominantly based on an
assumption that the lateral constraint condition for the soil stra-
tum is at rest, active, or in a passive state. This problem has
been extensively studied in the past either mathematically or
empirically and many simple analytical equations for the lateral
earth pressure coefficient can be found in common geotechnical
engineering textbooks (e.g., Terzaghi and Peck 1948). These sol-
utions mainly evaluate the K value utilizing a soil shear strength
parameter, e.g., the phi angle (Jaky 1944). Factors such as over-
consolidation and pre-shaking cannot be precisely accounted
for using these simple expressions.
Direct measurements of the lateral earth pressure in the
field, full-scale, and centrifuge experiments permit engineers
and researchers to identify different elements affecting the K
value and the distribution of the lateral earth pressure. More-
over, this approach does not require simplifying mathematical
assumptions, which may not correctly simulate field conditions,
to obtain a closed form solution for the problem (Michalowski
2005).
Stresses in soils have been conventionally measured using
load cells. This has always been a challenge because the physical
presence of a load cell in the soil affects the measured stresses,
stimulates soil arching and creates a non-uniform stress field
around the cell that will likely skew the measured stresses
(Weiler and Kulhawy 1982; Selig 1989; Paikowsky and Hajduk
1997; Dave and Dasaka 2011). Additionally, load cells only pro-
vide a localized pressure measurement. Determining the pres-
sure distribution inside the soil requires the use of a dense array
of load cells, which is not feasible in centrifuge models.
Tactile pressure sensors, originally developed for the analy-
sis of dental occlusions (Podoloff and Benjamin 1989), are cur-
rently being used by various geotechnical researchers in
measuring soil contact stresses (Paikowsky and Hajduk 1997;
Paikowsky et al. 2000, 2003, 2006; Stith 2005; Palmer et al.
2006, 2009; Ha et al. 2008; Tessari et al. 2010; El Ganainy 2012).
Unlike their load cells counterparts, tactile pressure sensors
have the advantage of being thin, flexible and capable of meas-
uring normal pressures over a large surface area. Several chal-
lenges arise when considering their use in geotechnical
applications and these include sensor calibration, measuring
stresses in saturated soil deposits, and the effect of shear stresses
on the accuracy of the measured normal stress. These issues
have previously impeded their use as reliable sensors in geotech-
nical physical testing.
The objective of this paper is to discuss the reliability of
using tactile pressure sensors in centrifuge models and to intro-
duce a consistent preparation and calibration procedure for
them. Using the proposed approach, the effect of overconsolida-
tion and pre-shaking on the lateral earth pressure will be
investigated.
Sensor Description
Tactile sensors consist of two thin, flexible polyester sheets that
contain either rows or columns of resistive ink. The sheets are
joined together such that the superimposed ink traces form a
grid. The intersection of the rows and columns produces sens-
ing cells, or “sensels.” The sensors operate by measuring
changes in the electrical resistance at the grid intersections
upon application of load, which are linked to the amount of
applied pressure through a calibration process (Palmer et al.
2006). Tactile pressure sensors are commercially available from
various manufacturers (e.g., Pressure Profile Systems, Inc., Sen-
sor Products, Inc., and Tekscan, Inc.) in many sizes, shapes, and
pressure ratings. Tactile pressure sensors manufactured by
Tekscan were used in this study.
The electrical resistance between the internal traces varies
when pressure is applied to the sensor. This resistance change is
measured and converted to an 8-bit number that is transmitted
to a data acquisition device. Proprietary software converts the
number to a pressure value based on the sensor calibration.
Finally, the resulting array of numbers is transformed into a
colorized distribution of pressure (Palmer et al. 2006). Selection
of a sensor should not be based solely on its physical dimen-
sions. Both the maximum anticipated pressure and the mini-
mum measureable pressure increment should be identified.
Saving the pressure value as an 8-bit number results in 256 fi-
nite divisions for the entire range. Thus the minimum change
in pressure of an individual sensel, which can be recognized by
the system, is 1/256 of its pressure range. This is defined as the
code-width and is of particular importance when selecting sen-
sors for measuring events with small or dynamic variations. To
allow more flexibility in selecting sensors, the gain of the system
may be modified by a factor of three. For example, if using a
sensor rated for 100 kPa, the gain can be increased such that the
sensor saturates at approximately 33 kPa. Conversely, the gain
can be reduced so that the maximum measurable pressure is

300 kPa. The gain change will propagate through all other sen-
sors attached to the system and will negate previous calibra-
tions. Furthermore, the code-width will also change with
respect to the new maximum pressure. Figure 1 shows the com-
ponents of the tactile pressure sensors measurement system.
Use in Centrifuge Testing:
Feasibility and Limitations
In the past, tactile sensors have been used in various applica-
tions within the automotive, robotics, and medical industries
(Luo et al. 1998; Sumiya et al. 1998; Girão et al. 2007). In geo-
technical engineering applications they have been used in meas-
uring soil pressures around pipelines crossing fault line (Ha
et al. 2008; Palmer et al. 2009), contact stresses under rigid foot-
ings (Paikowsky et al. 2000), and beneath a pile of sand
(Paikowsky et al. 2003, 2006, 2010), and the vertical stresses
under railroad tracks (Stith 2005).
In the past two decades, the use of centrifuge experiments
in testing soil-structure systems has increased extensively
because of its feasibility, reliability, and low cost compared to
full-scale testing. Tactile sensors have been used in many
research projects at the Geotechnical Centrifuge at Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute (Ha et al. 2008). Because the sensors are
not waterproof, the use of tactile sensors in reliably measuring
stresses in saturated sands has been a challenge. In the next sec-
tions a new approach for waterproofing, preparing and calibrat-
ing the sensors will be introduced. The sensors will be then used
to measure the lateral pressure of water and soils in centrifuge
models. The results will be compared with the theoretical solu-
tions found in literature to validate the proposed approach.
Conventional Sensor Preparation
and Calibration Procedure
Tactile pressure sensors should be prepared via a three-step
procedure (Tekscan, Inc. 2003). The first step is to condition
the sensor through a load-unload cycle, three to five times, to a
pressure level of 120 % of its maximum rating. This reduces the
FIG. 1
Tactile pressure sensors measurement system.
EL GANAINY ET AL. ON TACTILE PRESSURE SENSORS 153
magnitude of drift and hysteresis in the sensor readings and
improves the repeatability of the results. Traditionally, the con-
ditioning load is applied as a uniform pressure by either pneu-
matic or hydrostatic devices.
To compensate for the differences in sensitivity between
sensels because of manufacturing tolerances or repeated use, an
equilibration step is performed. Equilibration focuses on the
scaling of the individual sensels and is achieved by summing
their readings and dividing by the total number of sensels. This
value is subtracted from each sensel to recognize those that are
more or less sensitive (“hot” or “cold”). A correction factor is
then applied so that the average reading is constant throughout
the sensor. Equal and even application of pressure is very im-
portant for equilibration. Observations suggest that the slightest
variation of pressure on the sensor can produce compounding
error during equilibration. That is, slight variations in the equil-
ibration pressure can cause hot sensels to be equilibrated as
cold. Therefore, a uniform pressure applied through a pneu-
matic device to the entire active area of the sensor is recom-
mended for equilibration. The software allows equilibration at a
maximum of five points. However, Tekscan, Inc. recommends
equilibrating the sensors at only three loading levels: 20 %,
50 %, and 80 % of the sensor’s pressure range.
Finishing the conditioning and equilibration steps, the sen-
sor is ready for calibration. Calibration focuses on the force-to-
resistance relationship for the entire sensor. In this step, a uni-
form pressure is applied to the sensor causing changes in the re-
sistance of the loaded sensels. The analog reading from the
sensels is converted to a digital value, referred to as raw sensor
data units. This value is then correlated to engineering units
based on the magnitude of the applied pressure through the
software.
Sensors are typically calibrated using a one-load or two-
load calibration scheme (Tekscan, Inc. 2003). During the one-
load calibration, it is assumed that the sensor has zero output
under no load. A known load is then applied to the sensor to
obtain a single calibration point. The calibration line is obtained
by connecting the zero point to the calibration point on a sensor
output versus load graph. A two-load calibration uses an initial
154 Geotechnical Testing Journal
FIG. 2 Lateral hydrostatic pressure measured using tactile sensors calibrated
with an air bladder.
load and a second higher load. The calibration points are then
connected using a power law equation (Palmer et al. 2009).
Tekscan, Inc. recommends calibrating the sensors using the
two-load calibration scheme at 20 % and 80 % of the sensor’s
pressure range.
Sensor calibration is a challenging task. Figures 2 and 3
show the lateral pressure of water and dry Nevada sand deposits
at relative densities of 45 % and 75 % and OCR ¼ 1.0. The data
was measured in two centrifuge models using tactile sensors
that were calibrated using the air bladder shown in Fig. 1. As can
be seen in the figures, the measured pressures are considerably
lower than the theoretical lateral pressures (approximately
FIG. 3 Lateral earth pressure of nevada sand measured using tactile sensors
calibrated with an air bladder.
50 %–60 % of the expected values). This outcome highlights the
importance of choosing the right equipment and procedure for
calibrating the sensors. Paikowsky and Hajduk (1997) have
developed a calibration device that applies pressure to the sen-
sor through a granular material that can be either soil or glass
beads. Although using this device in calibrating the sensors
showed good results, it has not been standardized yet. Further-
more, its use requires independent manufacturing because the
sensor distributing companies do not produce it.
Proposed Sensor Preparation and
Inflight Calibration Procedures
As discussed earlier, the preparation procedure for tactile sen-
sors is made up of three steps: conditioning, equilibration, and
calibration. Conditioning and equilibrating are performed by
applying uniform pressure over the active sensor area via a
pneumatic pump system. In this study, a rubber air bladder was
used to apply pressure. Calibrating the sensors should be done
using the same material that the sensor will be used to measure
its stresses during testing. This is to account for the material
compliance at the interface (Tekscan, Inc. 2003). In geotechnical
applications, tactile sensors are used mainly to measure soil
pressures; thus, calibrating the sensors should be done by pres-
surizing the sensors through a layer of soil at the interface.
The proposed approach is to calibrate the sensors inflight
and this can be achieved as follows. If it is necessary to measure
the pressure of a given material, the sensor may be calibrated by
placing it horizontally at the bottom of a model box and loading
it with a known height of the same material at a constant mass
density. Spinning this model to higher g-levels, the sensor can
be calibrated by calculating the vertical load that acts upon it at
each specific g-level. Knowing the mass density of the overlying
material and its height at 1 g, the target calibration g-levels can
be back calculated. Calibrated sensors can be then used to mea-
sure the contact pressure of the same material either in the free
field, against other surfaces, or at any lateral constraint
condition.
Centrifuge Testing Program
The experimental program presented herein consists of five cen-
trifuge experiments that were designed to address the proposed
sensors preparation procedure, refine the calibration, measure
lateral pressure of Ottawa and Nevada sand, and to investigate
the effect of overconsolidation and pre-shaking on the meas-
ured pressures. Table 1 summarizes the experiments performed,
highlights the different parameters tested, and lists the major
purpose of each experiment. In the subsequent sections, these
experiments will be dissected and discussed in detail. Table 2
gives the basic properties of Ottawa and Nevada sand used in
the experiments.
 EL GANAINY ET AL. ON TACTILE PRESSURE SENSORS 155

TABLE 1 Lateral stresses measurements centrifuge testing program.

Test Sand OCR Pore fluid Model boxa amax (g) Purpose
b
T1 Ottawa/Nevada 1 Dry test Narrow rigid box No shaking Calibrating sensors using known soil
Dr ¼ 75 % Weight (horizontal sensors)
c
T2 Ottawa 2 Dry test Wide rigid box No shaking Measuring water and soil lateral stresses
Dr ¼ 75 % (Vertical sensors)

T3d Ottawa 4 25cp 1-D Large 10 Cycles 0.01 g Measure soil lateral stresses
Dr ¼ 75 % Viscous fluid Laminar box 20 Cycles 0.15 g (Vertical sensors)

T4 Nevada 1 Dry test Narrow Rigid box No shaking Measuring soil lateral stresses
Dr ¼ 75 % (Vertical sensors)

T5 Nevada 1 Dry test 1-D Large No shaking Measuring soil lateral stresses
Dr ¼ 75 % Laminar box (Vertical sensors)

Note: In all tests: measurements were recorded at 25 and 50 g; Dr (%), relative density of the soil deposit; OCR, overconsolidation ratio; amax (g), prototype peak
input acceleration at model base; f, prototype frequency of input motion ¼ 20 Hz.
a
Rigid boxes dimensions: wide rigid box (length 0.91 m  width 0.61 m  height 0.36 m); narrow rigid box (length 0.88 m  width 0.39 m  height 0.36 m).
b
Two calibration models were built; one with Ottawa sand and one with Nevada sand.
c
Prior to building the soil model, the box was filled with only water and spun to 50 g. The lateral pressure was measured at 25 and 50 g, and compared with the
lateral hydrostatic pressure for calibration validation.
d
Test was done in collaboration with Lucas (2010).

Sensors Lamination
Tactile sensors are water-resistant but not waterproof and the
joint adhesive will rapidly dissolve when submerged. Thus using
them, without waterproofing, to measure the contact pressure
in saturated sands can result in the destruction of the sensor
and will definitely yield unreliable results. To solve this prob-
lem, the sensors are laminated with clear plastic sheets to make
them waterproof. Two Teflon sheets are then glued to the faces
of the laminated sensors to reduce friction with the soil at the
interface.
Tactile sensors are made of thin polyester sheets; thus, they
cannot withstand high temperatures. The majority of commer-
cial lamination devices use heat to bond the laminate material.
Therefore, a cold adhesive lamination process is used instead.
Figure 4 shows the tools used in the lamination process. During
lamination, the sensor passes between the drums of the laminat-
ing machine forcing any entrapped air between the two polyes-
ter sheets, constituting the sensor, to be squeezed out. To ensure
a successful and reliable lamination, the sensor should have
vents to release this air.
Tekscan sensors are either internally or externally vented.
Internally vented sensors have a path for the entrapped air to go
through the sensor handle that can be eventually vented by
punching a small hole, as shown in Fig. 5-1. Externally vented
sensors have micro tubes along the side of the sensor that act as
air vents. Laminating these sensors will close the vents. To
extend these vents outside of the lamination, two shrink tubes
can be attached to the vents, as shown in Fig. 5-2. Proper venti-
lation is extremely important because the sensors cannot oper-
ate as a sealed gauge.
Figures 6 and 7 show the lamination procedure for inter-
nally and externally vented sensors, respectively. In the current
FIG. 4 Cold lamination process tools.

TABLE 2 Basic properties of Ottawa and Nevada sand used in the

centrifuge testing program.

Property Ottawa sand Nevada sand

D10 (mm) 0.155 0.09

D50 (mm) 0.258 0.15
Specific gravity, Gs 2.665 2.67
Minimum void ratio, emin 0.61 0.511
Maximum void ratio, emax 0.80 0.887
Minimum dry unit weight, cmin (kN/m3) 14.75 14.85
Maximum dry unit weight, cmax (kN/m3) 16.53 16.77
156 Geotechnical Testing Journal
FIG. 5 (1) Internally vented sensors; and (2) externally vented sensors.
FIG. 6
Lamination procedure for internally vented sensors: (1) feed
a lamination sheet; (2) peel the laminate back and pull to
expose the adhesive sheet; (3) slowly feed the leading edge
of the sensor while rotating the laminator drum; (4)
continue rotating the drum while pulling the adhesive sheet;
(5) after finishing this side, pinch a small hole in the sensor’s
handle; (6) cut a strip of about 1 in. (0.0254 m) from the
lamination; (7) repeat steps 1–4 for the other side of the
sensor; (8) after finishing this side, peel the protective paper
sheet of the lamination; and (9) trim the lamination around
the sensor leaving a 1 in. (0.0254 m) wide strip.
study, tactile pressure sensor model No. 5250 was used. These
are internally vented and consist of two 0.0001-m thick polyes-
ter sheets with a square active sensing grid of 0.2459 m length
and a pressure range of 25 psi (172 kPa) (Tekscan, Inc. 2003).
Two sensors were laminated, conditioned, and equilibrated
using a rubber air bladder. Two Teflon sheets were then glued
to the sensor faces using a thin layer of vacuum grease. Figure 8
shows the tactile sensor after preparation.
Sensor Calibration Model
A rigid container, of length 0.88 m, width 0.39 m, and height
0.36 m, was used for the calibration model. Load was applied to
the sensor through the self-weight of a uniform layer of dense
Ottawa sand (test T1). A 1 in. (0.0254 m) thick layer of sand
was placed inside the box by dry pluviation and evenly com-
pacted to a relative density of 75 %. The sensor was placed hori-
zontally, as shown in Figs. 9-1. Finally, a layer of 2 in.
(0.0508 m) thick sand was pluviated over the sensor and evenly
compacted. The thickness of the top layer was limited to 2 in.
(0.0508 m) because of the limitation of the sensor handle length
to enable placing the acquisition handle on the sand surface
away from the sensor. The acquisition handle was then attached
to the sensor and placed on the sand surface beside it. Figure 9-2
shows the calibration model ready for spin up.
The sensor was calibrated at 30 and 60 g using the two-
point calibration scheme. These correspond to vertical stresses
of about 21 and 48 kPa, respectively, and were chosen to be rep-
resentative of the range of maximum stresses that the sensor is

FIG. 7
Lamination procedure for externally vented sensors: (1) tape
two shrink tubes to the external air vents; (2) feed a
lamination sheet, peel the laminate back and pull to expose
the adhesive sheet; (3) slowly feed the leading edge of the
sensor while rotating the laminator drum and pulling the
adhesive sheet; (4) cut a strip of about 1 in. (0.0254 m) from
the lamination; (5) repeat steps 2 and 3 for the other side of
the sensor then peel the protective paper sheet; and (6) trim
the lamination around the sensor leaving a 1 in. (0.0254 m)
wide strip.
expected to measure during testing (upper bound of approxi-
mately 103 kPa).
Measuring Lateral Hydrostatic
Pressure
The calibrated sensor was first used to measure the lateral
hydrostatic pressure by filling the model box with only water,
while fastening it to one of the walls using duct tape (test T2).
The box was filled until the water level coincided with the top-
most row of sensels. This is to measure the lateral hydrostatic
pressure distribution starting with a zero value at the top of the
sensor. This experiment was essential for two reasons: (1) to
validate the proposed approach of calibrating sensors in flight,
because the comparison with the theoretical lateral hydrostatic
pressure will involve no assumption for the lateral pressure
coefficient, and (2) to validate the assumption that sensors cali-
brated with dry sand can be used to measure the contact stresses
in saturated sand. This assumption need to be verified because
of the practical difficulties associated with placing the acquisi-
tion handle in calibration models where water or saturated sand
is used. Figure 10 shows the measured and theoretical hydro-
FIG. 8 Tekscan tactile sensors model No. 5250 after lamination.
EL GANAINY ET AL. ON TACTILE PRESSURE SENSORS 157
static pressure at two different g levels: 25 and 50 g. The com-
parison shows excellent agreement between the measured and
theoretical lateral hydrostatic pressure distribution with model
depth.
Measuring the at-Rest Lateral Earth
Pressure Coefficient of Ottawa
Sand
The calibrated sensor is now ready for use in a soil model. The
at rest lateral earth pressure coefficient, Ko, of an Ottawa sand
deposit dry pluviated at 75 % relative density, was measured in
a centrifuge experiment (test T2). The model was built in a wide
rigid container of length 0.91 m, width 0.61 m, and height
0.36 m. The sensor was taped to a thin flexible aluminum plate
at its top edge, using duct tape, and then clamped in the middle
of a wide rigid box to eliminate boundary effects and to simulate
the at rest condition. The purpose of the aluminum plate is to
hold the sensor completely vertical while pluviating and com-
pacting the sand around it. The sand was placed in 1 in.
(0.0254 m) thick lifts and compacted to the target relative den-
sity. The sensor was temporarily detached and the aluminum
plate was slowly pulled up from behind the sensor by 1 in.
(0.0254 m) for the first two lifts. This was followed by placing
the next sand lift and pulling up the plate from behind by 1 in.
(0.0254 m) every placed sand lift. This two-step process was
continued successively until the sand level coincided with the
top row of sensels. Again, this is to measure the lateral earth
pressure distribution starting with a zero value at the top of the
sensor. Figure 11-1 shows the experimental setup of test T2 and
Fig. 11-2 shows the completed model ready for spin up.
The model was spun to a maximum g-level of 50 g. Read-
ings of the lateral soil pressure were taken at 25 and 50 g. The
model was then spun down to 1 g and then re-spun again to
25 g to assess the effect of overconsolidation on the lateral earth
pressure coefficient. Figure 12 shows the measured distributions
158 Geotechnical Testing Journal
FIG. 9
Calibration model: (1) tactile sensor placed over 1 in.
(0.0254 m) of sand; and (2) tactile sensor placed
sandwiched in 3 in. (0.0762 m) of sand ready for spin up.
of the lateral earth pressure with depth for the normally and
over-consolidated soil deposits at 25 and 50 g.
Fitting the measured lateral earth pressure distribution
using a linear regression analysis, the at rest lateral earth pres-
sure coefficient of the 75 % relative density normally consoli-
dated Ottawa sand deposit was found to be very close to 0.5.
Lateral soil pressure measured at both 25 and 50 g showed
excellent agreement with the Ko ¼ 0.5 distribution line except
near the bottom of the sensor where a slight decrease in the lat-
eral pressures were measured, as shown in Fig. 12. This is a
direct consequence of the boundary effect imposed by the bot-
tom of the rigid box on restraining adjacent soil elements from
FIG. 10 Measured and theoretical hydrostatic pressure at 25 and 50 g.
vertical and lateral straining. This Ko value compares well with
the simplified Jaky’s formula for the lateral earth pressure coeffi-
cient at rest of similar normally consolidated granular soil
deposits (Jaky 1948; Schmidt 1966; Michalowski 2005), which
simplified in a widely accepted form as:
(1) Ko ¼ 1  sin /0
where /0 is the effective angle on internal friction, which was
determined to be in the range of 30 to 32 degrees for the tested
Ottawa sands.
Following the same fitting approach for the measured over-
consolidated data, overconsolidating the soil deposit to an OCR
of 2 increased the lateral earth pressure coefficient at rest by
about 12 % to 0.56. Similar to the normally consolidated case,
the measured lateral pressures of the overconsolidated sand fits
well the Ko ¼ 0.56 distribution line except near the bottom
boundary where a slight decrease in the soil lateral pressures
were measured, as shown in Fig. 12. Although Schnaid and
Houlsby (1991) reported values for Ko in the range between 1.0
and 2.0 for “heavily” overconsolidated deposits, the measured
Ko value of 0.56 for the “lightly” overconsolidated soil deposit of
OCR ¼ 2 agrees well with other empirical correlations that is
applicable for a wide ranges of OCR. Worth (1972) proposed an
empirical correlation for calculating the coefficient of lateral
earth pressure at rest for overconsolidated sand as a function of
OCR and Poisson’s ratio () as follows:
h  i
(2) Ko ¼ ð1  sin /0 ÞOCR  ðOCR  1Þ
1
where Poisson’s ratio () ¼ 0.1 to 0.3 for loose sand, and 0.3 to
0.4 for dense sand. Equation 2 predicts Ko to be about 0.6 for a
dense sand deposit overconsolidated to an OCR of 2. Mayne
and Kulhawy (1982) proposed a correlation between Ko and
OCR irrespective of Poisson’s ratio that builds on Jaky’s simpli-
fied formula as follows:
0
(3) Ko ¼ ð1  sin /0 ÞOCRsin /
which yields a Ko of about 0.7 for overconsolidated sand deposit
of OCR ¼ 2.

FIG. 11
(1) Experimental setup of a tactile sensor during model
preparation; and (2) rigid box model ready for spin up.
Overconsolidation and
Pre-Shaking Effects
To investigate the effects of overconsolidation and pre-shaking
on the lateral earth pressure coefficient, K, of Ottawa sand, a
centrifuge model (test T3) was built in the 1-D large laminar
box available at the geotechnical centrifuge facility at Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute. The laminar box is composed of a stack of
rectangular rings separated by linear roller bearings and
arranged to permit relative movement in the longitudinal direc-
tion, during base shaking, with minimal friction between the
FIG. 12 Lateral earth pressure distribution for NC and OC dry Ottawa sand.
EL GANAINY ET AL. ON TACTILE PRESSURE SENSORS 159
rings. More detailed information about this container can be
found on the facility website (www.nees.rpi.edu).
An Ottawa sand deposit was placed in the laminar box by
dry pluviation at 75 % relative density and saturated with 25 cP
viscous fluid. The tactile sensor was placed against one of the
two longitudinal sides of the box, parallel to the direction of
motion of the laminar rings. The sensor was first taped to the
box side, using duct tape, to restrain it while building the model.
As the sand layers were placed, the tape was removed gradually
until it was completely gone after finishing building the model.
This allowed the laminar rings to move freely during base shak-
ing without being laterally restrained by the sensor. The box
was placed on an inclined table at 2 degrees with the horizontal
(model units) along the direction of movement of the rings and
installed over a base shaking simulating machine mounted on
the centrifuge basket. More details about this experiment can be
found in El Ganainy (2012).
The model was first spun to 25 g and then to 100 g for con-
solidation. After, it was spun down to 25 g to simulate the stress
conditions in an overconsolidated soil deposit with an OCR ¼ 4.
The model was then shaken with 10 sinusoidal cycles of 0.01 g
(nondestructive motion) followed by 20 sinusoidal cycles of
0.15 g, both at 2 Hz excitation frequency (all prototype units).
Figure 13 shows the measured effective lateral earth pressure dis-
tributions for the normally consolidated (NC), overconsolidated
(OC), and pre-shaken soil deposits at 25 g, together with the
theoretical linear fit of the data and the lateral earth pressure
coefficient, K, back calculated using a linear regression analysis.
As shown in Fig. 13, the lateral earth pressure coefficient, K,
of the NC saturated Ottawa sand deposit was found to be about
0.5. Overconsolidating the soil deposit to an OCR ¼ 4 increased
the K value by 22 % to K ¼ 0.61. Pre-shaking has similar effect
of increasing the K value. An increase of about 33 % to
K ¼ 0.81, from the pre-shaken K was measured after applying a
strong base shaking of 20 sinusoidal cycles of 0.15 g at 2 Hz ex-
citation frequency.
It should be noted that tactile sensors measure total stresses.
The effective stresses reported herein were estimated by sub-
tracting the hydrostatic pressure from the total stresses. Total
160 Geotechnical Testing Journal
FIG. 13 Effective lateral earth pressure distribution for NC, OC, and pre-
shaken saturated Ottawa sand at 25 g.
stresses reported after shaking were measured after excess pore
pressure built up during shaking has completely dissipated,
which was confirmed by pore pressure measurements. Thus, if
tactile sensors were to be used in applications where pore pres-
sures are unknown (e.g., undrained shearing), pore pressures
should be measured simultaneously to estimate the effective
stresses.
Boundary Condition Effects on Ko
Another set of two experiments were prepared to investigate the
effects of the boundary conditions of the model (i.e., the compli-
ance of the box walls), if any, on the measured lateral soil pres-
sures (tests T4 and T5). For the purpose of these tests, dry
Nevada sand was used for model preparation and dry pluviated
to 75 % relative density. A Tekscan tactile sensor model No.
5250 was laminated, conditioned, and equilibrated using the
FIG. 14
Experimental setup: (1) test T4—narrow rigid box model;
and (2) test T5—1-D large laminar box model: (2.1) 1-D large
laminar box, and (2.2) tactile sensor installation.
standard procedure. It was then calibrated inflight, in a separate
experiment similar to test T1, using Nevada sand as the calibra-
tion load.
The main difference between the two tests was the model
box. Test T4 was built in a narrow rigid container of length
0.88 m, width 0.39 m, and height 0.36 m, while test T5 was built
in the 1-D large laminar box. In each of the two experiments,
the sensor was placed in a vertical position at the middle of the
model box parallel to its longitudinal side. The same technique
used in test T2 for placing the sensor while building the model,
was used in tests T4 and T5. Figure 14 shows the experimental
setup of the two tests.
Each model was spun to 50 g and the lateral earth pressure
distribution was recorded. Figures 15 and 16 show the measured
lateral earth pressure distributions for tests T4 and T5, respec-
tively. Shown on the same figures are the theoretical lateral
earth pressure distribution of normally consolidated Nevada
sand at 75 % relative density and a distribution line representing
the lower bound of the measured data at 60 % of the theoretical
pressure distribution. A theoretical value of Ko ¼ 0.45 was
selected based on direct shear box and triaxial test results con-
ducted at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute on the same sand
with the same relative density. Furthermore, it was consistent
with data reported in the literature on the same sand by the
VELACS project team (Krstelj and Prevost 1992; Popescu and
Prevost 1993, 1995).
Comparing the lateral earth pressure distributions meas-
ured in these two different containers, shown in Figs. 15 and 16,
with those measured in the wide rigid container, shown in Fig.
12, yields the following remarks:
(1) The lateral earth pressure distribution measured in a
wide rigid container shows excellent agreement with a
linear distribution, as presented in Fig. 12.
(2) For the narrow rigid container, the relative flexibility of
the box combined with the boundaries being closer to
the sensor has a large impact on the measured lateral

FIG. 15 Lateral earth pressure distribution for NC dry Nevada sand at 50 g
(test T4—narrow rigid box).
earth pressure distribution. The lateral deformation of
the model box walls during spin up induces lateral stress
relief on the sensors, reducing the measured lateral
stresses. This effect is clearly observed in the measured
lateral pressures, shown in Fig. 15, especially near the
ground surface. Near the bottom boundary of the box,
this stress relief effect diminishes as a result of the walls
being fixed at the base. Thus, the measured lateral pres-
sures approach the theoretical values near the bottom of
the box.
(3) The stress relief effect is even more noticeable in the
more flexible 1-D large laminar container. This is an
effect of the container design wherein the individual
FIG. 16 Lateral earth pressure distribution for NC dry Nevada sand at 50 g
(test T5—1-D large laminar box).
EL GANAINY ET AL. ON TACTILE PRESSURE SENSORS 161
laminar rings are allowed to independently deform later-
ally without being restrained at the base of the box. As
illustrated in Fig. 16, the stress relief effect extends over
the entire model height.
Conclusions
The proposed preparation procedure of laminating tactile pres-
sure sensors with waterproof plastic sheets combined with Tef-
lon at the interface, proved to be an effective way for producing
waterproof, durable, and reliable sensors suitable for measuring
soil contact stresses in dry and saturated soil deposits. Calibrat-
ing tactile sensors inflight, by pressurizing them with the same
material of the production test, proved to be a promising
approach because it utilizes the same stress conditions and envi-
ronment in which the sensors are going to be used for testing.
Furthermore, sensors calibrated using dry sand can be effec-
tively used in measuring the contact stresses in saturated sand
deposits.
The lateral earth pressure coefficient at rest, Ko, of a nor-
mally consolidated Ottawa sand deposit at 75 % relative density
was found to be about 0.5. Overconsolidation has the effect of
increasing the lateral earth pressure coefficient. An increase of
approximately 12 % from the normally consolidated value was
recorded for an overconsolidated Ottawa sand deposit having
an OCR ¼ 2, whereas for an OCR ¼ 4, an increase of about
22 % was measured. As expected, pre-shaking has the similar
effect and an increase of 33 % from the pre-shaken value was
recorded after a base shaking of 20 sinusoidal cycles of 0.15 g at
2 Hz excitation frequency.
Finally, the flexibility of the model box used in the centri-
fuge experiment tend to reduce the recorded lateral earth pres-
sures from the at rest values because of the lateral stress relief
associated with the lateral deformation of the container during
spin up. The recorded lateral earth pressures in flexible contain-
ers are more comparable with active lateral earth pressures.
Therefore, it is recommended that to achieve the lateral earth
pressure at rest in centrifuge models is to build them in a wide
rigid container to minimize the effects of the boundary condi-
tions. The container flexibility has relatively no effect on the lat-
eral earth pressure where the active or passive earth pressure
will be measured behind retaining walls, around tunnels, and
pipelines crossing active fault lines, etc.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many individuals have contributed to the work done in this pa-
per, either by advice or by facilitating and helping in the centri-
fuge experimental work. The writers would like to thank the
staff at the Center for Earthquake Engineering Simulation
(CEES) at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Professor Ricardo
Dobry (RPI), Daisy Lucas (RPI), Mauricio Miguel Garcia
Theran (UNCC), and Professor Mark Muszynski (Gonzaga).
162 Geotechnical Testing Journal
References
Dave, S. M. and Dasaka, S. M., 2011, “A Review on Pressure
Measurement Using Earth Pressure Cell,” Int. J. Earth Sci.
Eng., Vol. 4, No. 6, pp. 1031–1034.
El Ganainy, H., 2012, “Lateral Spreading and Liquefaction
Assessment of Cohesionless Soils in the Free Field: An Inves-
tigation Using Centrifuge Testing,” Ph.D. dissertation,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Girão, P. S., Postolache, O., and Pereira, J. M. D., 2007, “Tactile
Sensors and Their Use in Industrial, Robotic and Medical
Applications,” Proceedings of the IMEKO 20th TC3, 3rd
TC16 and 1st TC22 International Conference Cultivating
Metrological Knowledge, Merida, Mexico, Nov 27–30, 2007.
Gourvenec, S. M. and Powrie, W. 1999, “Three Dimensional Fi-
nite Element Analysis of Diaphragm Wall Installation,” Geo-
technique, Vol. 49, No. 6, pp. 801–823.
Ha, D., Abdoun, T., O’Rourke, M. J., Symans, M. D., O’Rourke,
T. D., Palmer, M. C., and Stewart, H. E., 2008, “Centrifuge
Modeling of Earthquake Faulting Effects on Buried HDPE
Pipelines Crossing Fault Zones,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., Vol. 134, No. 10, pp. 1501–1515.
Jaky, J., 1944, “The Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest,” J. Soc.
Hung. Archit. Eng., Vol. 78, No. 22, pp. 355–358.
Jaky, J., 1948, “Pressure in Silos,” Proceedings of the 2nd Interna-
tional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engi-
neering, Vol. 1, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 103–107.
Kramer, S. L., 1996, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Pren-
tice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Krstelj, I. and Prevost, J. H., 1992, “Dynamic Effects in a Satu-
rated Layered Soil Deposit: Centrifuge Modeling,” Soil Dyn.
Earthq. Eng., Vol. 11, pp. 485–496.
Lambe, T. W. and Whitman, R. V., 1969, Soil Mechanics, John
Wiley and Sons, New York.
Lucas, D., 2010, “Effect of Soil Compressibility on Sand
Response to Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading,” M.Sc. the-
sis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Luo, Z. P., Berglund, L. J., and An, K. N., 1998, “Validation of
F-Scan Pressure Sensor System: A Technical Note,” J. Rehab.
Res. Dev., Vol. 35, pp. 186–191.
Mayne, P. W. and Kulhawy, F. H., 1982, “Ko—OCR Relation-
ships in Soil,” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., Vol. 108, No. 60, pp.
851–872.
Michalowski, R. L., 2005, “Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest,”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., Vol. 131, No. 11, pp.
1429–1433.
Nikolinakou, M., Whittle, A., Savidis, S., and Schran, U., 2011,
“Prediction and Interpretation of the Performance of a Deep
Excavation in Berlin Sand,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
Vol. 137, No. 11, pp. 1047–1061.
Paikowsky, S. G. and Hajduk, E. L., 1997, “Calibration and Use
of Grid-Based Tactile Pressure Sensors in Granular Materi-
al,” Geotech. Testing J., Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 218–241.
Paikowsky, S. G., Palmer, C. J., and Dimillio, A. F., 2000,
“Visual Observation and Measurement of Aerial Stress Dis-
tribution under a Rigid Strip Footing,” Geotechnical Special
Publications 94, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston,
VA, pp. 148–169.
Paikowsky, S. G., Rowles, L. E., and Tien, H. S., 2003,
“Visualization Measurements of Stress around a Trap Door,”
Proceedings of the 12th Pan American Conference and 39th
Rock Mechanics Symposium, VGE Publications, Cambridge,
MA, pp. 1171–1177.
Paikowsky, S. G., Palmer, C. J., and Rowles, L. E., 2006, “The
Use of Tactile Sensor Technology for Measuring Soil Stress
Distribution,” Proceedings of the GeoCongress 2006—Geo-
technical Engineering in the Information Technology Age,
ASCE, Atlanta, GA.
Paikowsky, S. G., Tien, H. S., and Rolwes, L. E., 2010,
“Observing and Measuring Arching in Ideal and Natural
Granular Materials,” Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Physical Modeling in Geotechnics (ICPMG
2010), Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 373–378.
Palmer, M. C., O’Rourke, T. D., Stewart, H. E., O’Rourke, M. J.,
and Symans, M., 2006, “Large Displacement Soil-Structure
Interaction Test Facility for Lifelines,” Proceedings of the 8th
US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering and
100th Anniversary Earthquake Conference Commemorating
the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, EERI, San Francisco,
CA.
Palmer, M. C., O’Rourke, T. D., Olson, N. A., Abdoun, T., Ha,
D., and O’Rourke, M. J., 2009, “Tactile Pressure Sensors for
Soil-Structure Interaction Assessment,” J. Geotech. Geoen-
viron. Eng., Vol. 135, No. 11, pp. 1638–1645.
Podoloff, R. M. and Benjamin, M., 1989, “Tactile Sensor for
Analyzing Dental Occlusion,” SOMA Eng. Hum. Body, Vol.
3, No. 3, pp. 1–6.
Popescu, R. and Prevost, J. H., 1993, “Centrifuge Validation of a
Numerical Model for Dynamic Soil Liquefaction,” Soil Dyn.
Earthq. Eng., Vol. 12, pp. 73–90.
Popescu, R. and Prevost, J. H., 1995, “Reliability Assessment of
Centrifuge Soil Test Results,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., Vol. 14,
pp. 93–101.
Sadrekarimi, A., 2011, “Seismic Displacement of Broken-Back
Gravity Quay Walls,” J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean
Eng., Vol. 137, No. 2, pp. 75–84.
Schnaid, F. and Houlsby, G. T., 1991, “Measurement of the
Properties of Sand by the Cohesion Pressuremeter Test,” Soil
Mechanics Report Number 113/91, University of Oxford,
Oxford, U.K., 35 p.
Schmidt B., 1966, “Earth Pressures at Rest Related to Stress His-
tory,” Can. Geotech. J., Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 239–242.
Selig, E. T., 1989, “In Situ Stress Measurements,” Proceedings of
the Symposium on the State- of-the-Art of Pavement Response
Monitoring Systems for Roads and Airfields, Report 89-23,
U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Labora-
tory, Hanover, NH, pp. 162–168.
Springman, S., Nater, P., Chikatamarla, R., and Laue, J., 2002,
“Use of Flexible Tactile Pressure Sensors in Geotechnical
Centrifuges,” International Conference on Physical Modeling
in Geotechnical Engineering, St. John’s, Canada, pp. 113–118.
Stith, J. C., 2005, “Railroad Track Pressure Measurements at the
Rail/Tie Interface Using Tekscan Sensors,” M.S. thesis, Uni-
versity of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Sumiya, T., Suzuki, Y., Kasahara, T., and Ogata, H., 1998,
“Sensing Stability and Dynamic Response of the F-Scan in-
Shoe Sensing System: A Technical Note,” J. Rehab. Res. Dev.,
Vol. 35, pp. 192–200.
Tekscan, Inc., 2003, Tekscan I—Scan Equilibration and Calibra-
tion Practical Suggestions, Tekscan Inc., South Boston, MA.
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B., 1948, Soil Mechanics in Engineer-
ing Practice, John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Tessari, A., Sasanakul, I., and Abdoun, T., 2010, “Advanced
Sensing in Geotechnical Centrifuge Models,” Proceedings of
the 7th International Conference on Physical Modeling in Geo-
technics (ICPMG 2010), Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 395—400.
Weiler, W. A. and Kulhawy, F. H., 1982, “Factors Affecting
Stress Cell Measurements in Soil,” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., Vol.
108, No. 12, pp. 1529–1548.
Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Thu Jan 2 10:37:47 EDT 2014
Downloaded/printed by
Hesham El Ganainy (Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States)
Pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.
View publication stats
EL GANAINY ET AL. ON TACTILE PRESSURE SENSORS 163
Whittle, A. J., Hashash, Y. M. A., and Whitman, R. V., 1993,
“Analysis of Deep Excavation in Boston,” J. Geotech. Eng.,
Vol. 119, No. 1, pp. 69–90.
Worth, C. P., 1972, “General Theories of Earth Pressure and
Deformation” Proceedings of the 5th European Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, Ma-
drid, Spain, pp. 33–52.