Journal of GeoEngineering, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.

029-038, March 2018

Yue, Veenstra: Prediction of Active Zone Depth in Oklahoma Using Soil Matric Suction 29
http://dx.doi.org/10.6310/jog.201803_13(1).3

PREDICTION OF ACTIVE ZONE DEPTH IN OKLAHOMA USING

SOIL MATRIC SUCTION
Er Yue 1 and John N. Veenstra 2

ABSTRACT
Soil matric suction is an important parameter in unsaturated soils, and it controls the shrink-swell properties of expansive soils.
Matric suction variations cause volume change in expansive soils, which further causes damages to pavements and foundations.
This study made use of field measurements of matric suction obtained from the Oklahoma Mesonet to estimate active zone depth in
Oklahoma. The long-term matric suction measurement indicated a seasonal pattern of matric suction variation. The matric suction
at shallower depth of soil is more sensitive to the climatic conditions. An empirical equation was used to calculate the active zone
depth. Most parts of Oklahoma have an active zone depth ranging from 1 to 3 m, depending on the soil properties and climatic
conditions. The diffusion coefficient is an important parameter controlling the active zone depth. Field measurements of matric
suction from the Oklahoma Mesonet and the Department of Energy’s Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) network were
used to verify the active zone depth obtained from this study.

Key words: Matric suction, active zone depth, diffusion coefficient.

1. INTRODUCTION and Vu 2003). The heave is the vertical swelling of expansive

Expansive soils with the potential to shrink or swell are
distributed over most of the United States. Much structural
damage occurs in areas where expansive soils are known to exist
(Rogers et al. 1993). As a result, any geotechnical site
investigation for a building or pavement on expansive soils must
include the evaluation of shrink-swell properties of the soil and
environmental conditions that contribute to soil moisture flow
(Nelson and Miller 1992). The shrink-swell properties of
expansive soils are controlled by soil matric suction. The theory
of soil suction has been used by geotechnical engineers for
solving the problems caused by expansive soils for many years.
The zone in which swelling and shrinkage occur in wet and dry
periods or the zone of soil suction variation is referred to as the
active zone (Nelson et al. 2001). The active zone depth is a
fundamental parameter for foundation design, and it varies with
season and location (Bell 1999). Below the active zone, no
significant moisture variation occurs due to climatic conditions
(McKeen and Johnson 1990). It has been proved that most of the
moisture movements occur near the soil surface or within the
active zone (Nelson et al. 2001). Through the active zone, water
vapor is slowly released to the atmosphere. Establishing the
depth of active zone is essential in the analysis of volume change
of expansive soils. Evaluating the active zone by examining soil
suction profile is one of the applications of soil suction theory in
engineering practice (Nevels 1995).
The evaluation of seasonal soil suction variations is critical
to the analysis of volume change of expansive soils. An
important application of soil suction in engineering practice is
predicting the heave of expansive soils (Lytton 1994; Fredlund
Manuscript received August 9, 2017; revised January 31, 2018; ac-
cepted February 1, 2018.
1 study are: (1) utilizing the long-term measured in-situ soil matric
Postdoctoral Research Associate (corresponding author), Wyoming
Technology Transfer Center, University of Wyoming, WY 82071,
USA (e-mail: eyue@uwyo.edu).
2
Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Oklahoma State University, Oklahoma, USA.
soils in response to wetting conditions. The heave prediction
should be the first step in designing foundations and other ground
supported structures (Nelson et al. 2014). When a lightly-loaded
structure is built on expansive soils, the climatic conditions
significantly impact on the distress provided by the soils.
Increased moisture content in soils will cause soils to expand and
increase the lateral pressure applied to the foundation
(Bobrowsky 2013). During the dry season, evapotranspiration
from the soil surface and vegetation cover will take the moisture
out of soils, and soil cracks will form. The depth of surface
cracks in expansive soils influences the depth of the active zone.
During the wet season, precipitation and surface runoff can fill
the cracks and even travel through the cracks. The water that
travels beneath a pavement will remain there and soak into the
soil on each side of the crack, and eventually, cause swelling
(Post-Tensioning Institute 1980).
The active zone depth is a fundamental parameter for
foundation design. The capability to predict moisture movement
in the soil is critical for engineers to formulate a picture of what
the soil surface and structure interface will be (Nelson and Miller
1992). Soil-structure interaction should always be considered in
foundation and pavement design. If environmental conditions and
the groundwater table stay constant long enough to reach equilib-
rium conditions, soil matric suction will decrease linearly from
the soil surface with maximum suction to the groundwater table
with zero suction. However, in reality, this condition rarely
occurs because environmental conditions are changing all the
time (Morris et al. 1992). Geotechnical engineers are interested
in the soil moisture/matric suction distribution when dealing with
expansive soils. Based on the field data and existing theoretical
models, geotechnical engineers are capable of predicting
expansive soil behaviors (Nevels 1995). The objectives of this
suction data from the Oklahoma Mesonet to evaluate matric
suction profile and pattern of temporal matric suction variation
under different climatic conditions; (2) investigating active zone
depth by using an empirical equation, which requires the
30 Journal of GeoEngineering, Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2018
evaluation of field measurement of soil matric suction and
diffusion coefficient; and (3) evaluating how the climatic
conditions can affect the active zone depth. To calculate the
active zone depth, an empirical equation proposed by McKeen
and Johnson (1990) is used in this study. In this methodology, the
active zone depth is a function of seasonal soil matric suction
variation, climate frequency, and field diffusion coefficient. To
determine the spatial distribution of the active zone depth,
ArcGIS software was used to create choropleth maps. The
choropleth map offers an easy way to display how a
measurement varies across a geographic area, or it shows the
level of variability within a region.
2. DATA AND METHODOLOGY
2.1 The Soil Moisture Network in Oklahoma
The State of Oklahoma is a region with complex climatic
conditions and geological features, consisting of mountains,
streams, and lakes in different parts of the State (Johnson 2008).
The climate of Oklahoma ranges from humid subtropical in the
east to semi-arid in the west (The Oklahoma Climatological
Survey 2011). The terrain of Oklahoma varies from nearly flat in
the west to rolling in the east, and it has a general slope upward
from east to west across the State (Arndt 2003). Based on the soil
survey data from the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), western Oklahoma contains brown to light-brown
loamy soils with clay; central Oklahoma has the dark loamy soils
with clayey to loamy subsoils; and soils in eastern Oklahoma are
often brown to light-brown silty soils with clayey subsoils
(Carter and Gregory 2008). More than 75% of Oklahoma
bedrock units are potential sources for expansive soils with
shrink-swell characteristics (Luza and Johnson 2005). The
volume change of expansive soils typically happens in regions
with dry periods followed by wet periods. The precipitation in
Oklahoma varies by season. Winter is the season with the lowest
precipitation and spring is the season with the highest
precipitation (Johnson 2008). Due to Oklahoma’s soil and
climatic characteristics, the problem caused by expansive soils is
one of the main geologic hazards in Oklahoma. As a result, it is
critical to characterize Oklahoma’s soil moisture and suction
properties and how they change in response to climatic condi-
tions.
The State of Oklahoma has a world-class network of
environmental monitoring stations  the Oklahoma Mesonet,
which consists of 120 automated stations collecting a variety of
real-time hydrometeorological and soil parameters. Due to the
need for soil moisture measurement in Oklahoma, the Oklahoma
Mesonet installed the Campbell Scientific 229-L heat dissipation
matric potential sensor at four depths (5 cm, 25 cm, 60 cm, and
75 cm) at some stations to measure soil moisture conditions since
1996 (Illston et al. 2008). The Campbell Scientific 229-L heat
dissipation matric potential sensor consists of a thermocouple and
a resistance heater housed in a hypodermic needle, and the
hypodermic needle is embedded in a ceramic matrix (Campbell
Scientific, Inc 2009). This sensor records a temperature change
after a 50-mA electric current is sent through the resistance
heater. The temperature change after the electric current is
directly related to the matric suction of soil near the sensor
(Basara and Crawford 2000). A central ingest system at the
Oklahoma Climatological Survey (OCS) at the University of
Oklahoma remotely collects the temperature change data every
30 minutes, and the Oklahoma Mesonet provides daily averaged
normalized temperature change, Tref, which can be used to
calculate soil matric suction (Illston et al. 2008). The equation
used by the Oklahoma Mesonet to determine soil matric suction
is
u  c exp (a Tref ) (1)
where u is soil matric suction (kPa); a and c are calibration
constants, which are set as 1.788C1 and 0.717 kPa, respectively,
and they were calibrated by a series of laboratory tests conducted
by the Mesonet researchers (Reece 1996); Tref is measured
temperature difference (C). There were 74 Mesonet stations
selected for this study. The selection was made to use one station
in each of the 77 counties in Oklahoma. However, three counties
do not have the sensors for suction measurement, since the
Mesonet gradually installed the sensors at some stations during
the 1990s due to the sensor reliability and affordability (Basara
and Crawford 2000). Any Mesonet sites that do not have soil
moisture sensors are due to issues beyond control such as
bedrock at that depth or nearby irrigation causing invalid
readings (Illston et al. 2008). As a result, 74 stations were
selected in 74 counties. Figure 1 shows the geologic features in
Oklahoma (Heran et al. 2003) and the spatial distribution of
selected Mesonet stations.
2.2 Previous Field Investigations into Active Zone
Depth
Several field investigations were conducted in Oklahoma to
evaluate soil suction and active zone depth. Nevels (1995)
measured in situ total and matric suction of a soil sample
obtained in Sulphur, Oklahoma (the city is located in central
Oklahoma). The suction was measured by the filter paper method
on thin-walled tube samples taken in February 1994. By
evaluating the initial and final suction profiles versus depth,
Nevels (1995) indicated an estimated active zone depth at 3.17 m.
Collins and Miller (2013) conducted cone penetration test (CPT)
and standard penetration test (SPT) at two sites near Norman,
Oklahoma (the city is located in central Oklahoma) to predict
changes in soil moisture. Both CPT and SPT results showed
noticeable moisture variations to a depth of roughly 1.5 m at each
site with little change below this depth, so a 1.5 m depth of the
active zone was predicted for both sites. In addition to research
and field investigations conducted in Oklahoma, some
neighboring states have done some similar investigations.
Typical values of active zone depths in Texas range from 1 m to
5 m, although values up to 10 m have also been reported (Wray
1987; McKeen and Johnson 1990). Durkee (2000) conducted the
field and laboratory tests as well as numerical modeling to
evaluate the active zone depth for expansive soil test site located
at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado. His
research indicated that the active zone depth was approximately
equal to the depth of soil moisture fluctuation, which ranged
from 1.5 m to 2.1 m.
 Yue, Veenstra: Prediction of Active Zone Depth in Oklahoma Using Soil Matric Suction
Fig. 1 Oklahoma geologic map and selected Mesonet stations with station ID
2.3 Determination of Active Zone Depth
Mitchell (1979) analyzed seasonal soil suction variation in
expansive soils. He pointed out that the climate, drainage, and
vegetation type controlled the moisture flow at the soil surface.
Mitchell’s research indicated that the suction change is a periodic
function of time. The suction change at the soil surface is given
by:
u(0, t )  Ue  U0 cos (2nt ) (2)
where u(0, t) is the suction at the soil surface (pF or kPa); Ue is
the equilibrium suction (pF or kPa); U0 is the amplitude of suc-
tion variation (pF or kPa), which is equal to the difference be-
tween the equilibrium matric suction and the minimum suction
during wet periods, or the difference between the equilibrium
matric suction and the maximum suction during dry periods; n is
climate frequency number, which is the number of cycles of wet-
ting and drying in a year. Based on Eq. (2), Mitchell developed
the suction u(y, t) at any depth y:
  n 0.5   
 n 0.5  
u (y, t )  U e  U 0 exp     y  cos 2nt     y 
           
(3)
where u(y, t) is the suction at depth y (m) and time t (days) (pF or
kPa);  is diffusion coefficient (cm2/s). Equation (3) indicates
that the suction at any depth depends on the diffusion coefficient.
The diffusion coefficient is not constant in soil. As a result, the
suction profile can be determined by the diffusion coefficient.
Bai et al. (2007) tested the water diffusion coefficients of
horizontal soil columns obtained in a wetland in China. Their
tests revealed that the water diffusion coefficients of wetland
soils had a significant positive correlation with the soil water
volumetric contents, and they increased exponentially with
increases in the soil water volumetric contents.
31
Based on Mitchell’s (1979) approach, McKeen and Johnson
(1990) proposed an equation to calculate active zone depth using
diffusion coefficient and matric suction data:
 2U 0 
ln  
ΔU max 
Z  (4)
nπ
α
where Z is active zone depth (m); U0 is the amplitude of suction
variation (pF or kPa); Umax is maximum suction change, which
is the difference between the maximum and minimum extremes
or envelopes of the suction profile for a given depth; n is climate
frequency number, which is the number of cycles of wetting and
drying in a year (cycles/year). Umax is the maximum suction
change below which the soil volume change is considered
insignificant. Umax is usually assumed based on long-term
moisture conditions and previous studies. Richards and Chan
(1971) analyzed moisture changes that occurred in pavements
and subgrades of sealed roads. They found that there is no soil
volume variation in pavements when the suction change was
smaller than 0.1 pF. In addition, El-Garhy and Wray (2004) used
a computer program called SUCH (SUCtion-Heave) to evaluate a
relationship among the edge moisture variation distance, the
amplitude of suction change, the diffusion coefficient of the soil,
and the active zone depth. They also set Umax as 0.1 pF to
determine the distribution of soil suction in the expansive soil
mass under a covered area. As a result, the maximum suction
change was set as 0.1 pF in this study.
To calculate the active zone depth, a diffusion coefficient
must be determined first. The soil diffusion approach is relatively
new in geotechnical practice, so only a little research on soil
diffusivity has been conducted in clay material (Chemkhi and
Zagrouba 2005). Since the diffusion coefficient is one of the
critical factors that influence the matric suction variation, a good
engineering judgement on the diffusion coefficient is necessary
32 Journal of GeoEngineering, Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2018
(Aubeny and Long 2007). This study applied Mitchell’s (1979)
seasonal soil suction variation approach to determine diffusion
coefficient. Equation (3) indicates that matric suction at any
depth decreases as a function of the diffusion coefficient. The
matric suction at the depth y lags behind that at the soil surface
(y = 0) by a time equal to
y 1
t (5)
2 n
where t is time lag in matric suction between two depths; y is
depth measured from the soil surface. This relationship had been
confirmed by the field measurements of the matric suction profile
(Mitchell 1979). If the matric suction at the soil surface and
certain depths is measured, and if the time lag in matric suction
between two depths is measured, the diffusion coefficient can be
determined from Eq. (6):
y2
 (6)
t 4n
2
where  is diffusion coefficient; y is depth measured from the
soil surface; t is time lag in matric suction between two depths; n
is climate frequency number. Mitchell (1979) used this equation
to determine the diffusion coefficient for an expansive soil in an
open field in Adelaide, Australia. A time lag of three months was
observed from the soil surface to 1.2 m depth during a 12 months
period. Mitchell estimated  = 5.9  104 cm2/s by using Eq. (6).
Aubeny and Long (2007) compared different methods of field
estimates of diffusion coefficient including Eq. (6). They
indicated that the diffusion coefficient estimated by Eq. (6)
highly depends on the matric suction waveform and the surface
suction variation, which can affect the diffusion coefficient up to
nearly two orders of magnitude greater than the laboratory range.
2.4 Determination of Seasonal Variation of Matric
Suction
It is difficult to use one single sinusoidal equation to
represent long-term variations of matric suction. Some research
simplified the dataset by separating the long-term data into short-
term data and paying attention to specific short-term data. Visser
et al. (2006) used 20 years (1980 ~ 2000) of daily phreatic sur-
face depth and daily meteorological data to forecast water table
depth and soil moisture profiles. In their research, to test model
performance, they selected three sets of 5-year periods, which
can be considered as representing relative dry, average, and
relative wet climatic conditions. Similar to Visser et al.’s (2006)
method, based on the duration and availability of matric suction
data, this study selected three 2-year periods to represent
relatively dry, average, and relatively wet conditions from 2000
to 2014. Figure 2 shows the statewide annual total precipitation
from 2000 to 2014. According to the Oklahoma Climatological
Survey, the statewide average annual precipitation from 1895 to
2016 was 85.7 cm. Three sets of 2-year periods are 2001-2002
(average), 2007-2008 (relatively wet), and 2011-2012 (relatively
dry).
Soil matric suction measured at 60 cm was analyzed in this
study since the Oklahoma Mesonet decommissioned sensors at
75 cm depth in January 2011. However, it should be noted that
geotechnical engineers are more interested in suction at a deeper
Fig. 2 Statewide annual total precipitation
depth than at or near the soil surface, usually from a few tens of
centimeters down to five meters, since the deeper depths are less
affected by the surface conditions and the more stable
performance of suction (Wray 1987; Nichol et al. 2003; Nguyen
et al. 2010).
A curve fitting method was used to analyze the sinusoidal
pattern of matric suction variations. Curve fitting constructs a
curve and/or a mathematical function to best fit a series of data
points. Origin software (OriginLab Corporation, Northampton,
MA) was used to complete the curve fitting process. Origin is a
scientific graphing and data analysis software. It has a nonlinear
curve fitting tool that includes more than 200 built-in fitting
functions. The function for sinusoid fitting is
 x  xc 
y  y0  A  sin  
 
(7)

where y0 is offset; A is amplitude; xc is phase shift;  is period.
By comparing Eqs. (2) and (7), y0 is the equilibrium suction (Ue);
A is the amplitude of suction variation (U0); 365/2 is the
climate frequency number (n), which is the number of wetting
and drying cycles per year.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Seasonal Variation of Matric Suction
Of all 74 stations selected in this study, 54 stations have
sensors installed at 60 cm depth. The matric suction data from
these 54 stations were input individually into Origin software for
curve fitting. After the fitting process, by comparing the fitting
curve and actual measured points for each station, stations with
an R-square larger than 0.5 were selected for further calculation
of the active zone depth. There is no general rule of what values
of R-square are high, adequate, or low. In some pipeline
constructions in geotechnical engineering, an R-square of
pipeline repair rate and ground velocity larger than 0.7 was
considered as acceptable (O’Rourke and Bonneau 2007). Figure
3 shows typical two-year measured matric suction at 5 cm, 25 cm,
and 60 cm depths in Central Oklahoma. When doing the curve
fitting, the unit of matric suction was converted from kPa to pF,
since the matric suction in pF is the logarithmic form. A
logarithmic form is more useful when the rate of change in the
data increases or decreases quickly.
The plots of matric suction values of most of Mesonet
stations indicate seasonal trends during a given period. Matric
suction is low from November to March and starts to increase
from April to July. Matric suction reaches the maximum in
August and September and starts to decline in October.
 Yue, Veenstra: Prediction of Active Zone Depth in Oklahoma Using Soil Matric Suction 33

(a) 5 cm depth, R-square for fitting model: 0.58 (b) 25 cm depth, R-square for fitting model: 0.69

(c) 60 cm depth, R-square for fitting model: 0.79

Fig. 3 Typical two-year measured matric suction at 5 cm, 25 cm, and 60 cm depths in Central Oklahoma and fitting curves

3.2 Determination of Diffusion Coefficient
Since the diffusion coefficient is a function of water content,
it will vary when water content varies. A wide range of diffusion
coefficients was reported from previous literature. Aubeny and
Long (2007) tested diffusion coefficient of soil samples obtained
in several Texas sites (Fort Worth, Austin, and Waco) in the
laboratory. The tests yielded a range of diffusion coefficients
from 2.7 cm2/day to 8.2 cm2/day. However, by estimating
diffusion coefficient using Eq. (3), McKeen and Johnson (1990)
reported the diffusion coefficient for Dallas/Fort Worth as
151 cm2/day, which indicated that the field values of diffusion
coefficient could be much greater than the laboratory values to
nearly two orders of magnitude.
This study used Eq. (6) to determine the diffusion
coefficient. Time lags were estimated by the field measurements
of matric suction at 25 cm and 60 cm depths, since matric suction
at 25 cm depth had a better sinusoidal pattern than that at the soil
surface due to the less effect of near-surface climatic conditions.
The time lag is the time of maximum matric suction at 60 cm
depth minus the time of maximum matric suction at 25 cm depth.
Figure 4 shows a set of matric suction measured at 25 cm and
60 cm depths at two stations. Since a two-year period of suction
was evaluated, the time lag was the average of the time
difference at the maximum suction between 25 cm and 60 cm
depths during these two years. From Fig. 4, for BUTL station,
there was a 20-day time lag at the maximum suction between the
two depths in June 2011 and 34-day time lag from April to June
in 2012. As a result, the time lag for the BUTL station was
27 days during 2011-2012. For the LANE station, there was a
three-day time lag in September 2007 and nine-day time lag in
August 2008, so the time lag for the LANE station was six days
during 2007-2008. Based on the analysis of all selected Mesonet
stations, the time lag between 25 cm and 60 cm depths ranged
from one day to more than 60 days.

(a) BUTL station (b) LANE station

Fig. 4 Field measurements of matric suction at 25 cm and 60 cm depths

34 Journal of GeoEngineering, Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2018
Figure 5 provides the spatial distribution of the diffusion
coefficient under different moisture conditions in Oklahoma.
Generally, no matter under dry, average, or wet conditions,
eastern Oklahoma has higher diffusion coefficient than western
Oklahoma, which means the higher the water content, the higher
the diffusion coefficient. However, since only stations with an R-
square larger than 0.5 were selected for diffusion coefficient and
active zone depth determination, the spatial distribution of
selected Mesonet stations were different in three moisture
conditions, which may lead some uncertainties in the magnitude
of the diffusion coefficient. The numbers of selected stations (R-
square  0.5 from curve fitting) under dry, average, and wet
conditions are 38, 27, and 18, respectively. The number of
selected stations under the wet condition is much less than that
under dry and average conditions because the sinusoidal pattern
observed under the wet condition is generated by the forces
between removing and replenishing soil moisture. Evapotranspi-
ration and growing vegetation remove soil moisture and frequent
precipitation replenishes soil moisture, which make soil matric
suction varies frequently that cannot fit a sinusoidal pattern well.
Under the average condition, even though the statewide precipi-
(a) Dry period
(c) Average period
Fig. 5 Spatial distribution of diffusion coefficient
tation is average, evapotranspiration is still high due to vegetation
coverage and increased surface temperatures during summer. As
a result, the forces between removing and replenishing soil
moisture are muted. Under the dry condition, the moisture
replenishment to the soil is limited and the soil moisture is
dominated by the water removal force, so the annual sinusoidal
patterns of soil moisture reveal an obvious phase shift (Illston et
al. 2004). The diffusion coefficient ranged between 100 cm 2/day
to 500 cm2/day for most parts of Oklahoma during dry and wet
periods. However, the diffusion coefficient was smaller than
150 cm2/day for the whole State of Oklahoma during the average
period.
3.3 Determination of Active Zone Depth
As presented in Fig. 6, the spatial distribution of the active
zone depth is similar to the spatial distribution of diffusion
coefficient. The active zone depth is deeper in eastern Oklahoma,
and shallower in western Oklahoma under all three moisture
conditions, and most parts of Oklahoma had an active zone depth
ranging from 1 to 3 m.
(b) Wet period
 Yue, Veenstra: Prediction of Active Zone Depth in Oklahoma Using Soil Matric Suction 35

(a) Dry period (b) Wet period

(c) Average period

Fig. 6 Spatial distribution of active zone depth

4. FIELD MEASUREMENT FOR VALIDATION

To evaluate if the empirical equation provides an accurate
active zone depth estimate, field measurements of matric suction
from the Oklahoma Mesonet and the Department of Energy’s
Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) network were used
to verify the active zone depth calculated in this study. The ARM
network collects, processes, quality-checks, stores, and
distributes various climate measurements in climate-critical
locations (ARM Climate Research Facility 2016). It has 21
automated sites in Oklahoma and Kansas (12 sites in Oklahoma
and 9 sites in Kansas), called Soil Water and Temperature
System (SWATS). This system provides hourly measurements of
soil temperature and moisture. The ARM network uses the same Fig. 7 Selected Mesonet stations (with station ID) and ARM
soil moisture sensor (Campbell Scientific 229-L sensor) as the sites (with site name)
Oklahoma Mesonet to provide estimates of matric suction
(Swenson et al. 2008). Although the ARM network has less fitting process. Wet period (2007-2008) of field measurements
dense spatial coverage than the Oklahoma Mesonet, the from the Oklahoma Mesonet were not included in validation due
availability of the ARM data allows the exploration of soil to the large quantity of missing data at 75 cm during that period.
moisture below the 75 cm limit of the Oklahoma Mesonet. At an The missing data is due to station mechanical problems, commu-
ARM site, soil moisture sensors are installed at up to eight nication problems, and/or data quality assurance procedures not
different depths in the soil profile: 5 cm, 15 cm, 25 cm, 35 cm, applied (The Oklahoma Mesonet 2016). As a result, 13 Mesonet
60 cm, 85 cm, 125 cm, and 175 cm below the soil surface. Two stations were selected for field validation because they (1) have
profiles (east and west) of sensors, located 1 m apart from each active zone values; and (2) have soil moisture sensors installed at
other, are installed at each site for replication and redundancy of 75 cm depth. There are 12 ARM sites in Oklahoma. Of all 12
measurements (Bond 2005). Figure 7 shows the selected Mesonet ARM sites, seven ARM sites have the soil moisture sensors
and ARM stations. Of all 74 stations selected in this study, 29 installed deeper than 85 cm. Those seven sites were selected for
stations have sensors installed at 75 cm depth. Of all 29 stations, field validation, since geotechnical engineers are interested in
13 stations have the values of the active zone depth in both dry soil moisture in deeper depth up to five meters (Wray 1987;
(2011-2012) and average (2001-2002) periods from the curving Nichol et al. 2003; Nguyen et al. 2010).
36 Journal of GeoEngineering, Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2018

4.1 Validation by Measurements from the Oklahoma

Mesonet
Vertical matric suction profiles were developed based on
field measurements for all selected Mesonet and ARM stations.
The field measurements of matric suction could predict the
equilibrium suction and the depth to the equilibrium suction,
which is the active zone depth (Nelson et al. 2001).
Figure 8 presents the monthly average matric suction,
plotted as a function of depth, for two Mesonet stations. Figures
8(a), 8(b), and 8(d) indicate a wide range of matric suction
measured at 75 cm or 60 cm, which imply that even below 75 cm
(a) ARNE 2001-2002
or 60 cm, matric suction variation is still significant. As a result,
the active zone depth for ARNE was greater than 75 cm during
2001-2002 and greater than 60 cm during 2011-2012; and the
active zone depth for LANE was greater than 60 cm during
2011-2012. In Fig. 8(c), the matric suction varied from 10 kPa to
50 kPa at 75 cm. Based on the relatively small range of matric
suction variation, the active zone depth for LANE station could
be predicted as 75 cm during 2001-2002.
Table 1 summarizes the active zone depths obtained from
measurements at the Oklahoma Mesonet and the empirical
equation used in this study. Except for the LANE station during
2001-2002, all the other nine selected stations had significant
matric suction variations at the deepest depths (either 60 cm or (b) ARNE 2011-2012
75 cm) where the moisture sensors were installed. Due to the
limitation of the moisture sensor depths, it is difficult to
determine the active zone depth from the field measurement.
Thus, it is difficult to evaluate whether the empirical equation
provides an accurate result.

4.2 Validation by Measurements from the ARM

Network
Only the average period (2001-2002) of field measurements
from the ARM network was included in validation due to the
large quantity of missing data during wet and dry periods. Figure
9 presents the matric suction profiles for Byron and Cordell,
(c) LANE 2001-2002
which indicate that there is a small matric suction variation at
175 cm for both sites. As a result, the active zone depths for
Byron and Cordell during 2001-2002 were predicted as 175 cm.

Table 1 Active zone depth compared with the Mesonet

measurement
Active zone depth Active zone depth
Mesonet (Mesonet measurement) (m) (empirical equation) (m)
station ID 2001-2002 2011-2012 2001-2002 2011-2012
(Average period) (Dry period) (Average period) (Dry period)
ARNE > 0.75 > 0.6 0.70 2.47
BEAV > 0.75 > 0.6 0.74 0.46 (d) LANE 2011-2012
BUTL > 0.75 > 0.6 1.02 0.59
CHER > 0.75 > 0.6 0.51 0.33 Fig. 8 Matric suction profiles for ARNE and LANE stations
CHEY > 0.75 > 0.6 1.29 0.24
HOBA > 0.75 > 0.6 0.98 0.99
Table 2 summarizes the active zone depths obtained from
HOLL > 0.75 > 0.6 2.36 0.78
measurements at the ARM network and the empirical equation
KETC > 0.75 > 0.6 1.18 0.76
used in this study. Since the active zone depth is calculated based
LANE 0.75 > 0.6 2.55 1.13 on the Mesonet stations, and the ARM sites are in different
MAYR > 0.75 > 0.6 1.15 0.97 locations, only the range of the active zone depth obtained from
MIAM > 0.75 > 0.6 1.53 0.89 Fig. 6(c) can be used for comparison. Except for Byron and
WAUR > 0.75 > 0.6 0.93 1.19 Meeker, field measurements from other sites are in good
WIST > 0.75 > 0.6 2.67 2.29 agreement with the results from the empirical equation.
 Yue, Veenstra: Prediction of Active Zone Depth in Oklahoma Using Soil Matric Suction 37

empirical equation, including matric suction, climate frequency,

and diffusion coefficient, to determine the active zone depth. The
following conclusions were drawn:
1. The analysis of time series plots of matric suction indicated
different seasonal soil moisture trends during a year. Overall,
the deeper depths (60 cm and 75 cm) had less temporal
variability than those of the shallower depths (5 cm and
25 cm).
2. Contour maps of active zone depth indicated that the active
zone depth varies year by year. However, no matter under
(a) Byron 2001-2002
what moisture conditions, most parts of Oklahoma have the
active zone depth ranging from 1 m to 3 m. Eastern
Oklahoma has a little deeper active zone depth than western
Oklahoma due to the more frequent moisture fluctuations.
3. The active zone depth is highly sensitive to the diffusion
coefficient. The diffusion coefficient plays a significant role
in governing the rate of moisture penetration in the soil.
Since the diffusion coefficient was determined by the matric
suction, the active zone depth is related to the matric suction.
The lower the matric suction, the higher the diffusion
coefficient, the deeper the active zone depth.
4. Field measurements of matric suction from the Oklahoma
(b) Cordell 2001-2002 Mesonet and the ARM network were used to verify the
results of active zone depth calculated from the empirical
Fig. 9 Matric suction profiles for Byron and Cordell equation. Due to the limitation of the depth of sensors at the
Oklahoma Mesonet, the small spatial coverage of the ARM
Table 2 Active zone depth compared with the ARM network, as well as the available data from both networks, a
measurement
complete validation for the whole state was not carried out.
However, based on the available field measurements, the
Active zone depth Active zone depth active zone depths calculated from the empirical equation
(ARM measurement) (m), (empirical equation) (m), are in good agreement with the field measurements at five
ARM Site 2001-2002 2001-2002
ARM sites during 2001-2002.
(Average period) (Average period)
5. Previous field investigations indicated that some parts of
Byron 1.75 0.5-1
Oklahoma had an active zone depth ranging from
Ringwood 1.75 1-2 approximately 1.5 m to 3 m. By comparing the results
Vici > 1.75 1-2 obtained in this study with previous field investigations, the
Cordell 1.75 1-2 results in this study are in good agreement with previous
Seminole 1.25 1-2 research and field investigations.
Cyril > 1.25 1-2
REFERENCES
Meeker 0.85 1-2
ARM Climate Research Facility. (2016) ARM’s Uniquely Continuous
Climate Observations. Retrieved November 6, 2017, from
5. CONCLUSIONS https://www.arm.gov/about/history
Arndt, D. (2003). The Climate of Oklahoma. Retrieved January 20,
The performance of geotechnical structures highly depends 2015, from http://cig.mesonet.org/climateatlas/doc60.html
on the soil behavior and near-surface climatic conditions. To Aubeny, C. and Long, X. (2007). “Moisture diffusion in shallow clay
understand the unsaturated flow properties of expansive soils, masses.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engi-
accurate field investigation is required. The Oklahoma Mesonet neering, ASCE, 133(10), 12411248, doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
and the ARM network provide continuous matric suction 1090-0241(2007)133:10(1241).
measurements by a thermal conductivity sensor. The field Bai, J., Deng, W., Cui, B., and Ouyang, H. (2007). “Water diffusion
coefficients of horizontal soil columns from natural saline-
measurements of matric suction indicated a clear seasonal pattern
alkaline wetlands in a semiarid area.” Eurasian Soil Science,
of matric suction variations in response to climatic conditions,
40(6), 660664, doi.org/10.1134/S1064229307060075.
more specifically, to precipitation, evapotranspiration, and runoff. Basara, J.B. and Crawford, T.M. (2000). “Improved installation
The matric suction data can be used to estimate both equilibrium procedures for deep-layer soil moisture measurements.” Journal
suction and active zone depth. The active zone depth and the of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 17(6), 879884,
matric suction variations within this zone directly influence the doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426(2000)017%3c0879:IIPFDL%3e2.0.
shrink-swell properties of expansive soils. The realistic CO;2.
evaluation of the active zone is essential to prevent structures Bell, F.G. (1999). Geological Hazards: Their Assessment, Avoidance
affected by soil behavior within this zone. This study used an and Mitigation. E & FN SPON.
38 Journal of GeoEngineering, Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2018
Bobrowsky, P.T. (2013). Encyclopedia of Natural Hazards. Springer.
Bond, D. (2005). Soil Water and Temperature System (SWATS)
Handbook. The U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science,
and Office of Biological and Environmental Research.
Campbell Scientific, Inc. (2009). 229 Heat Dissipation Matric Water
Potential Sensor. Instruction Manual.
Carter, B.J. and Gregory, M.S. (2008). Soil Map of Oklahoma. Earth
Sciences and Mineral Resources of Oklahoma. Educational
Publication 9, Oklahoma Geological Survey.
Chemkhi, S. and Zagrouba, F. (2005). “Water diffusion coefficient in
clay material from drying data.” Desalination, 185(1-3),
491498, doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2005.04.052.
Collins, R.W. and Miller, G.A. (2013). Interpretation of in Situ Tests
as Affected by Soil Suction. Oklahoma Transportation Center No.
OTCREOS11. 1-45-F.
Durkee, D.B. (2000). Active Zone Depth and Edge Moisture Varia-
tion Distance in Expansive Soils. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department
of Civil Engineering, Colorado State University, USA.
El-Garhy, B.M. and Wray, W.K. (2004). “Method for calculating the
edge moisture variation distance.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 130(9), 945955,
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:9(945).
Fredlund, D.G. and Vu, H.Q. (2003). “Numerical modelling of
swelling and shrinking soils around slabs-on-ground.” Proc.,
Post-Tensioning Institute Annual Technical Conference, Hun-
tington Beach.
Heran, W.D., Green, G., and Stoeser, D.B. (2003). A Digital Geologic
Map Database of Oklahoma, U. S. Geological Survey Open File
Report 03-247.
Illston, B.G., Basara, J.B., and Crawford, K.C. (2004). “Seasonal to
interannual variations of soil moisture measured in Oklahoma.”
International Journal of Climatology, 24(15), 18831896,
doi.org/10.1002/joc.1077.
Illston, B.G., Basara, J.B., Fiebrich, C.A., Crawford, K.C., Hunt, E.,
Fisher, D.K., Ellictt, R., Fiebrich, C.A., Crawford, K.C., Humes,
K., and Hunt, E. (2008). “Mesoscale monitoring of soil moisture
across a statewide network.” Journal of Atmospheric and
Oceanic Technology, 25(2), 167182, doi.org/10.1175/
2007JTECHA993.1.
Johnson, H.L. (2008). Climate of Oklahoma. Erath Sciences and
Mineral Resources of Oklahoma, Educational Publication 9,
Oklahoma Geological Survey.
Luza, K.V. and Johnson, K.S. (2005). Geologic Hazards in Oklahoma.
Oklahoma Geological Survey.
Lytton, R.L. (1994). “Prediction of movement in expansive clays.”
Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and
Embankments, ASCE, Geotechnical Special Publication 40,
18271845.
McKeen, R.G. and Johnson, L.D. (1990). “Climate-controlled soil
design parameters for mat foundations.” Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, 116(7), 10731094, doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9410(1990)116:7(1073).
Mitchell, P.W. (1979). The Structural Analysis of Footings on
Expansive Soil. Kenneth W. G. Smith & Associates. Research
Report No. I, Webb & Son, Adelaide, Australia.
Morris, P.H., Graham, J., and Williams, D.J. (1992). “Cracking in
drying soils.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 29(2), 263277,
http://doi.org/10.1139/t92-030.
Nelson, J.D. and Miller, D.J. (1992). Expansive Soils: Problems and
Practice in Foundation and Pavement Engineering, John Wiley
& Sons.
Nelson, J.D., Overton, D.D., and Durkee, D.B. (2001). “Depth of
wetting and the active zone.” Proceedings of the Expansive Clay
Soils and Vegetative Influence on Shallow Foundations, ASCE,
Houston, 95109, doi.org/10.1061/40592(270)6.
Nelson, J.D., Chao, K.C., Overton, D.D., and Nelson, E.J. (2014).
Foundation Engineering for Expansive Soils. John Wiley &
Sons.
Nevels, J.B. (1995). “The use of soil suction in analysis of pavement
cracking.” Soil Suction Applications in Geotechnical Engineer-
ing Practice, ASCE, Geotechnical Special Publication 48,
1437.
Nichol, C., Smith, L., and Beckie, R. (2003). “Long-term measure-
ment of matric suction using thermal conductivity sensors.”
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 40(3), 587597, doi.org/10.
1139/t03-012.
Nguyen, Q., Fredlund, D.G., Samarasekera, L., and Marjerison, B.L.
(2010). “Seasonal pattern of matric suctions in highway
subgrades.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 47(3), 267280,
doi.org/10.1139/T09-099.
O’Rourke, T.D. and Bonneau, A.L. (2007). “Lifeline performance
under extreme loading during earthquakes.” Earthquake
Geotechnical Engineering: 4th International Conference on
Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering-Invited Lectures, 6,
407432, doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5893-6_17.
Post-Tensioning Institute. (1980). Design and Construction of Post-
Tensioned Slabs-on-Ground. Phoenix, Arizona.
Reece, C.F. (1996). “Evaluation of a line heat dissipation sensor for
measuring soil matric potential.” Soil Science Society of America
Journal, 60(4), 10221028, doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1996.
03615995006000040009x.
Richards, B.G. and Chan, C.Y. (1971). “Theoretical analyses of sub-
grade moisture under Australian environmental conditions and
their practical implications.” Australian Road Research, 4(6),
3249.
Rogers, J.D., Olshansky, R., and Rogers, R.B. (1993). “Damage to
foundations from expansive soils.” Claims People, 3(4), 14.
Swenson, S., Famiglietti, J., Basara, J., & Wahr, J. (2008). “Estimat-
ing profile soil moisture and groundwater variations using
GRACE and Oklahoma Mesonet soil moisture data.” Water
Resources Research, 44(1), W01413, doi.org/10.1029/
2007WR006057.
The Oklahoma Climatological Survey. (2011). Climate of Oklahoma.
Retrieved January 20, 2015, from http://climate.ok.gov/index.
php/site/page/climate_of_oklahoma
The Oklahoma Mesonet. (2016). Data Descriptions. Retrieved Janu-
ary 4, 2018, from https://www.mesonet.org/index.php/site/
about/data_descriptions
Visser, A., Stuurman, R., and Bierkens, M.F. (2006). “Real-time
forecasting of water table depth and soil moisture profiles.” Ad-
vances in Water Resources, 29(5), 692706, doi.org/10.1016/
j.advwatres.2005.07.011.
Wray, W.K. (1987). “Evaluation of static equilibrium soil suction
envelopes for predicting climate-induced soil suction changes
occurring beneath covered surfaces.” Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference on Expansive Soils, 1, 235240.