Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Soil & Tillage Research 97 (2007) 91–106

www.elsevier.com/locate/still

Mechanical behaviour of an undisturbed soil subjected

to loadings: Effects of load and contact area
Mathieu Lamandé a,*, Per Schjønning a, Frede A. Tøgersen b
a
University of Aarhus, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Agroecology and Environment,
Research Centre Foulum, P.O. Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
b
University of Aarhus, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Genetics and Biotechnology,
Research Centre Foulum, P.O. Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
Received 30 May 2007; received in revised form 30 August 2007; accepted 1 September 2007

Abstract
This paper deals with the stresses and deformations induced by loading an undisturbed soil. Measurements of vertical stress and
displacement were performed in two dimensions in large soil bins. The experiment included four loading treatments with two loads
(F = 43 kN and 2F = 85 kN) and two contact areas (A = 0.45 m2 and 2A = 0.90 m2). The loads were applied by stiff plates to a very
homogeneous and undisturbed loamy soil established in the soil bins 12 years prior to the tests. Twenty-one pressure transducers and
nine displacement transducers were inserted horizontally from an inspection tunnel with minimal disturbance of soil. Vertical stress
measurements included four depths (30, 50, 70 and 90 cm) and two to seven positions from the centre of load. Measured vertical
stresses were compared to vertical stresses calculated with the Söhne model. Measured vertical displacements were used to evaluate
the structural failure criterion. Doubling the contact area reduced stresses and strains in the topsoil, but load determined stresses and
strains in the subsoil, which supports the elasticity theory. The Söhne model predicted the stresses in the soil profile with a maximum
bias of 7 and 27 kPa for the low and high load, respectively. The best prediction was obtained with a concentration factor n  5–6
and n  8–9 for the low and high load, respectively. This indicates that the concentration factor depends on both soil mechanical
characteristics and loading conditions. The model underestimated stresses when the soil deformation was large. No plastic strain
was recorded if the calculated major principal stress was smaller than the precompression stress. For soil directly under the load
axis, strain increased with increases in both the calculated major principal stress, if higher than precompression stress, and in the
calculated minor principal stress. In contrast, for soil at the periphery of the loaded area plastic strain related better to the calculated
minor principal stress and did not relate to the calculated major principal stress. This indicates that shear failure may be important,
especially near the limits of the loaded area. More studies are urgently needed to evaluate the performance of the Söhne model in the
field and to better understand the mechanical behaviour of pedologically mature soils.
# 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Soil compaction; Elasticity theory; Söhne model; Stress concentration; Soil deformation; Precompression stress; Shear failure

1. Introduction cause soil deformation detrimental to key soil pro-

For heavy machinery, stresses in the soil profile may
exceed the internal strength of the soil and thereby
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +45 8999 1831; fax: +45 8999 1719.
E-mail address: Mathieu.Lamande@agrsci.dk (M. Lamandé).
cesses. Due to significant problems in stress measure-
ments for undisturbed soil profiles, few comprehensive
evaluations of stress transmission in real soils loaded
with agricultural machinery have been performed and
compared to predicted stresses according to the
elasticity theory (Gupta et al., 1985; Keller and
Arvidsson, 2004). Boussinesq (1885) described the

0167-1987/$ – see front matter # 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.still.2007.09.002
92 M. Lamandé et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 97 (2007) 91–106
propagation of principal stresses for the case of a
vertical point-load resting on a semi-infinite elastic
medium. Fröhlich (1934) introduced the concentration
factor n in the Boussinesq equation to take into account
that soil is not a truly elastic material, and that stresses
are more or less concentrated around the load axis,
depending on soil strength. One crucial consequence of
assuming elasticity is that stresses acting on a given
point in the soil profile are additive. The vertical stress
component at that point may thus be calculated as the
result of several surface point loads (Söhne, 1953).
The summation procedure by Söhne (1953) led to the
following statement: if the normal stress remains
unchanged and the contact area is multiplied by a
factor b, stresses will reach b times deeper into the soil
(Koolen and Kuipers, 1983). Where the same force per
unit area is applied, the stress in the subsoil will increase
with the size of the loaded area (at a given point in the
subsoil: the larger the contact area, the higher the
stresses). Speaking in terms of wheels, a wide tyre with
double the wheel load and contact area compared with a
narrow tyre will impose higher stresses in the subsoil
than the narrow tyre (Olsen, 1994). This is a key issue
when considering technical solutions to the compaction
problem in agriculture. Modern, wide tyres are able to
carry very high loads without inducing extreme stresses
in the very topsoil. We need to know, which stresses are
transmitted to the subsoil.
As soils become softer, the concentration factor n is
anticipated to increase (e.g. Koolen and Kuipers, 1983),
yielding more concentrated and deeper reaching
stresses under the load axis. Söhne (1958) suggested
n values for different soil firmnesses – from 4 to 6 for
hard to soft soil, respectively – resulting from empirical
combinations of both the bulk density and the water
status of soil. Ram (1984) determined concentration
factors experimentally for a remoulded loamy soil with
three different bulk densities at a constant water content.
The concentration factor decreased from 5.4 to 1.5 with
an increase of bulk density from 1.24 to 1.63 Mg m3,
supporting the trend proposed by Söhne (1958) but with
much lower estimated n values for a hard soil. Horn
(1993) observed that the concentration factor was not
only related to the soil mechanical characteristics but
also to the conditions of loading (load and contact area).
To our knowledge, the relation between the concentra-
tion factor and the soil mechanical characteristic has not
been evaluated in two dimensions for a naturally
structured soil.
Compaction of soil will only occur if the stresses
exceed the strength of the soil. Any discussion on
soil compaction per se should of course include a
comparison of stress and strength because principles of
stress transmission are academic in a soil conservation
context if the stress at specific horizons does not induce
persistent deformation. Prevention of compaction has to
be based on knowledge of the relation between stress
and strain at any point in the soil and more specifically
the stress limits at which permanent deformation of soil
occurs. Horn (1981) proposed the precompression stress
for this purpose. The precompression stress is the
maximum major principal stress a soil can resist without
major plastic deformation and compaction (e.g. van den
Akker and Schjønning, 2004). It is obtained at the point
with maximum curvature of the stress–strain curve (e.g.
Gregory et al., 2006). A mechanically applied stress
above the precompression stress results in a non-
reversible compression (the structural failure criterion;
Dawidowski and Koolen, 2004). Several soil compac-
tion models are based on the combination of the
prediction of stress according to the elasticity theory
and the prediction of compaction according to the
structural failure criterion (e.g. van den Akker, 2004;
Keller et al., 2007).
The first objective of this study was to evaluate the
Boussinesq–Fröhlich theory of stress transmission in a
structured, undisturbed soil. More specifically, we
wanted to (i) quantify the effects of load and contact
area on vertical stresses in the soil profile, and (ii)
evaluate the concentration of stresses along the load
axis. The second objective was to better understand the
mechanical behaviour of an undisturbed soil subjected
to stresses. We quantified the impact of stresses on
physical properties and compared it with the predicted
impact using data from compression and shear tests on
undisturbed soil samples.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Soil
The experimental part of this study took place in the
semi-field facilities at Research Centre Foulum, Den-
mark. These include four lanes of soil bins each 40 m
long, 2.7 m wide and 1.5 m deep. Each lane is divided
into 25 units by concrete walls to 30 cm below the soil
surface, which enables realistic tillage operations with
all traffic on the concrete walls. The bins were filled
with soil in 1993. Large quantities of soil were
excavated from three Danish locations with different
soil texture, respecting its vertical pedological differ-
entiation. The soil was air-dried and crumbled to
aggregates <20 mm. The soil bin units were filled with
soil in 10 cm increments and packed to the dry bulk
 M. Lamandé et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 97 (2007) 91–106
Table 1
Textural composition of the investigated sandy loam soil
Horizon (m) Organic matter (g 100 g1)
A (0–0.2) 2.4
B (0.2–0.6) 0.5
C (0.6–1.3) 0.3
density found in the field (A horizon, 1.5 Mg m3; B
and C horizons, 1.6 Mg m3) by careful application of
the exact weight of soil.
The soil was exposed to years of freeze-thaw and
dry-wet cycles as well as frequent tillage, allowing soil
structure to develop. The annual excess precipitation
amounted to 200–400 mm percolating the soil primarily
during the winter. Tillage was performed to 0.2 m depth
with a one-furrow moldboard plough, pulled by a tractor
driving on the top of the concrete walls. Secondary
tillage was carried out with a rotary harrow and drilling
of seeds with a traditional drill. The soil was cropped
primarily with small grain cereals. However, at the
beginning of the period, alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.)
was frequently grown due to its high potential for deep
rooting in virgin soil. We selected these test conditions
because we wanted a structured soil with no potential
textural gradients or high heterogeneity of field soils.
Our tests were applied to a sandy loam soil derived from
Weichselian glacial till (Table 1).
2.2. Construction and insertion of transducers
We constructed cylindrical steel transducer hous-
ings (52 mm 1, 80 mm length) to accommodate a load
cell (DS Europe Series BC 302) and a small oil-holding
container. The cylinder was constructed from two
close-fitting parts, where a push on one section will
Fig. 1. Transducer housing (52 mm 1, 80 mm length) accommodating a load cell (LC) and an oil-holding container (C). When the two parts are
pushed relative to each other, the diameter of the housing is expanded, enabling a good contact between soil and the load cell piston. See text for a
detailed description of the insertion procedure.
93
Texture (g 100 g1)
<2 mm 2–20 mm 20–63 mm 63–200 mm 200–2000 mm
17.7 13.1 17.8 29.5 19.5
20.8 15.0 14.5 27.0 22.3
21.9 16.9 11.6 26.7 22.6
cause it to be displaced relative to the other section
resulting in a wider diameter by wedging the cylinder in
the hole (Fig. 1). Vertical stress was transmitted to the
load cell by a plastic piston (3.14 cm2), the top of which
followed exactly the curvature of the upper half of the
cylinder. A screw at the end of the transducer housing
could activate the wedge system. Vertical displacement
of the soil was measured using the method described by
Arvidsson and Andersson (1997). A pressure transdu-
cer, situated outside the soil, was connected to an oil-
filled container situated in the soil by a plastic tube.
Changes in oil pressure, recorded by the pressure
transducer, were proportional to the vertical displace-
ment of the soil.
Horizontal holes were made for the insertion of
transducer housings from an inspection tunnel next to the
soil bins. We used a hydraulic jack to push a stainless steel
soil corer (54 mm outer 1, 50 mm inner 1) two metres
horizontally into the soil. The jack was attached to a level
trestle located in the inspection tunnel to ensure
horizontality of holes. The edge of the corer tube was
sharpened, and the first few millimetres given a smaller
inner diameter. This was to minimize compaction around
the corer and friction between the soil and the inner part
of the tube. The corer was extracted for every 0.5 m bored
and emptied. The amount of material was compared to
the expected to check that only a minimum compaction
occurred during the coring phase. Each transducer
94 M. Lamandé et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 97 (2007) 91–106
housing was then inserted one by one into the hole with a
specially constructed rest. The wedge system was
activated by a long screwdriver and ensured a good
contact between soil and the load cell. The wedge was
activated until a predetermined low force, as read on the
computer screen, had confirmed that contact between the
transducer and the soil had been achieved. A number of
transducer housings could be installed in the same hole,
allowing several vertical stress and vertical displacement
measurements across the loaded plates (see Section 2.3).
Cables and tubes from the inner transducer housings were
taken through their outside neighbours along pre-bored
holes. All transducer housings were able to move
vertically independently of each other. See Lamandé
et al. (2006) for more details about the measuring system.
Kirby (1999a,b) showed that the compaction of the
surrounding soil during the insertion of sensors, the
difference in stiffness between the sensors and the soil,
and the size and shape of the sensor could lead to an
overestimation of stresses. With the methodology
developed here, the soil disturbances relating to the
insertion of the sensors were minimized as described,
and sensor size was optimised (by minimizing the
height to length ratio). In addition, the cylindrical shape
of the sensor avoided sharp corners. However, the
transducer housings have a higher stiffness compared to
the soil, which influences the accuracy of the stress
measurements.
2.3. Treatments and test procedure
Our study was performed in 2005 (12 years after
establishing the soil bins) and included four loading
treatments. A reference treatment (AF) with a well-
defined load (F = 43 kN) and contact area (A = 0.45 m2)
was compared to three other treatments: one doubling the
load (A2F), one doubling the contact area (2AF) and one
doubling the load as well as the contact area (2A2F). Six
soil bins were available for the investigations. This
allowed two replicate soil bins for two treatments (AF
and 2AF) and one bin for each of the two other treatments
(A2F and 2A2F). The loads were applied to rigid 0.45 m2
(0.45 m  1.0 m) and 0.90 m2 (0.90 m  1.0 m) plates.
A mesh of load cells could detect no deflection of the
plates when loaded onto a concrete floor (data not
shown). We are thus able to anticipate the vertical
pressure applied to the plate to be uniformly distributed.
The load was delivered by a wagon (4377 or 8637 kg) that
was lifted by a hydraulic jack (Fig. 2). The top 10 cm of
the soil was carefully scraped off to obtain a completely
level and horizontal surface. This ensured a perfect
contact between the plates and the soil. The plate was
Fig. 2. The load was delivered by a wagon to a stiff plate through a
hydraulic jack (8637 kg on axle and 0.45 m2 plate in this situation).
placed on the soil surface in the centre of the soil bin. The
load was applied twice: the first time with a full load for
0.5 s and the second time with a full load for 3 s a few
minutes later. Twenty-one stress transducers, nine of
them including an oil-filled container connected to
pressure transducers, were inserted at four depths below
the loaded area (seven at 0.3 and 0.5 m depth, five at
0.7 m and two at 0.9 m depth). The four lines of
transducers were installed with different distances from a
vertical line in order to avoid disturbance of the stress
field to be monitored. The stress- and displacement
transducers were located at four distances from the centre
of the loaded area (0, 0.08 (0.9 m depth: 0.04), 0.24,
0.40 m; Fig. 3). We installed ‘dummy’ transducer
housings between those carrying transducers. Measure-
ments were acquired in 2 ms bursts at 2 kHz (500 ms)
during the loading event. Typical measurements of
vertical stress and displacement at 0.3 m depth under the
centre of the plate are shown on Fig. 4 for a test where
4377 kg was delivered to the plate of 0.45 m2.
2.4. Measurements of soil mechanical and physical
properties
We sampled 100-cm3 soil cores (61 mm inner 1,
34 mm height) from the 8–12, 23–27, 38–42, 58–62, 78–
82 and 98–102 cm depths below the loading surfaces
(sample group I). The cores were collected in a line across
the loaded area with 11 cm between core centres.
Additional cores (sample group II) were sampled at the
same depths but next to the loaded area (close to the
concrete walls of the bin). The cores from sample group I
were used for determination of the dry bulk density.
Six cores per depth from group II were saturated with
water on tension tables and used for determination of
the soil water characteristics with a standard technique.
The parametric model of van Genuchten (1980) was
 M. Lamandé et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 97 (2007) 91–106 95

Fig. 3. A cross section of a soil bin. Twenty-one stress transducers, nine of them including an oil-filled container, were inserted at four depths below
the loaded area (0.3, 0.5, 0.7 and 0.9 m). The transducer housings were located at four distances from the centre of the loaded area (0 or 0.04, 0.08,
0.24, 0.40 m). Empty housings were inserted to fill up the bored hole throughout its length.

fitted to the retention curves using function nls in the
statistical programming environment R (R Development
Core Team, 2005) to calculate the water potential from
the volumetric water content at the time of compaction
tests. Porosity for each soil horizon was calculated from
our measurement of bulk density and particle density
measured for this soil by Jacobsen (1989).
Six cores per depth from group II were taken to a
confined compression test at field water content. We
used strain-controlled stress application as suggested by
Koolen (1974) and applied the technique described by
Schjønning (1991). Precompression stress Pc was
estimated using the method described by Gregory
et al. (2006). The asymmetrical Gompertz sigmoidal
function was fitted to the compression data using nls
procedure in R. Precompression stress was estimated as
the point of maximal curvature derived from the
curvature function. We finally used twelve cores per
depth from group II for measurement of shear strength
with the torsional shearing device described by
Schjønning (1986). For each depth, two replicate soil
cores were subjected to six levels of normal load (range
36–186 kPa). The torque was measured during the
rotation of a shear annulus with a mean rate of
46 mm min1. The maximum shear strength, tmax, was
estimated from the relation between strain and shear
strength. Cohesion c and angle of internal friction w
were calculated from the Coulomb model using normal
stress as effective stress (Schjønning, 1986).

2.5. Calculations

2.5.1. Vertical stress

Vertical stresses was calculated by summation
(Söhne, 1953) for the 21 positions of vertical stress
measurement in the soil profile (Section 2.3):
Xn Xn
nPi
ðs z Þi ¼ 2
cosn ui
i¼1 i¼1
2pr i

where sz is the vertical stress, P is the vertical point

Fig. 4. Example of measured vertical stress and displacement during
load, r and u are the polar coordinates and n is the
the loading procedure (first loading for treatment AF, 0.3 m depth, concentration factor introduced by Fröhlich (1934). We
under the centre of the plate). used the statistical programming environment R with
96 M. Lamandé et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 97 (2007) 91–106

n = 6. In addition, the concentration factor was esti- 2A2F) were applied only to one test bin unit. A pre-
mated for each treatment with a non-linear least squares condition for a correct test of treatment effects by the
fitting (function nls in R). The root mean square error described model is thus identical initial physical con-
(RMSE) and bias of prediction was used for evaluating ditions within all soil bin units. Due to the meticulous
the fit to measured data: procedure followed when establishing the test units, we
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi find this assumption fulfilled. Similar approaches have
1X n been described by Crowder and Hand (1990). We used
RMSE ¼ d 2 and the SAS 8.0 package (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC,
n i¼1 i
USA) for these calculations.
1X n
bias ¼ di where d i ¼ s predicted  s measured
n i¼1 2.5.2. Major principal stress
We used SoilFlex (Keller et al., 2007) to calculate the
Treatment effects were analysed by a mixed model major principal stress using the analytical equations
taking into account the fixed effects of treatment and developed by Söhne (1958). Calculations were per-
depth and the random effects of test bin unit nested formed for four conditions corresponding to the four
within treatment and the interaction between depth and treatments (combination of two contact areas and two
test bin unit. We note that two treatments (A2F and loads) assuming a uniform contact pressure. The stress

Table 2
Selected soil properties for the sandy loam soil studied

Figures in brackets denote standard error (n = 6).

a
Calculated from the field water content and the water retention characteristics by use of the van Genuchten (1980) equation. bDegree of saturation.
c
Bulk density giving rise to water saturation (rt(s = 1) = (1  Vw)  rr, where Vw is field water content and rr is particle density).
d
From Jacobsen (1989); Campbell b gives the slope of a log–log plot of water potential and water content.
 M. Lamandé et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 97 (2007) 91–106
Table 3
Soil mechanical properties
Depth (m)
0.1
Precompression stress, Pc (kPa) 47 (14)
Cohesion, c (kPa) 13 (6)
Internal angle of friction, w (8) 40
Tan w 0.85 (0.05)
Figures in brackets denote standard error (n = 6).
distribution on the contact area between a soil and a
rigid body might not be uniform but definitions in the
literature are contradictory. Craig (2005) mention a
stress distribution concave parabolic on clay and convex
parabolic on sand, while Balakrishna et al. (1992)
reports studies where the stress distribution was
concave parabolic on sand. Calculated major principal
stress was compared to the precompression stress
(Section 2.4), in order to test its ability to represent the
structural strength of the soil.
3. Results
3.1. Soil characteristics
The soil bulk densities were close to the targets
aimed at in 1993: 1.6 Mg m3 for original B and C
horizons and 1.5 Mg m3 for the A horizon (Table 2;
also see Fig. 3). The lower value of the very topsoil is
due to annual tillage. These data reflect the tendency of
graded, morainic soils to gain a high density by natural
processes (Ehlers and Claupein, 1994). The values of
the b-parameter suggested by Campbell (1974) indicate
that the soil in the bins is less structured than soil in the
field (Table 2). The soil thus represents an intermediate
step between a remoulded soil column in the laboratory
and the pedologically mature soil in the field. There
were only small differences in the water-holding
capacity of the different soil layers (Table 2; only
selected potentials are shown). The water content at the
time of compaction treatments corresponded to an
increasing (less negative) water potential with depth
(Table 2). The data indicate that the soil was drained to a
lower water content than field capacity, which is
normally approximately 100 hPa matric potential for
Danish soil types (Schjønning and Rasmussen, 2000).
The degree of saturation increased with depth and
ranged from 0.37 to 0.65. For all depths the soil should
be compacted to bulk densities above 2 g cm3 to reach
saturation (Table 2).
97
0.25 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
51 (8) 43 (8) 40 (7) 38 (5) 33 (7)
27 (6) 34 (4) 29 (5) 19 (4) 29 (9)
37 40 40 43 36
0.76 (0.05) 0.83 (0.04) 0.85 (0.04) 0.93 (0.03) 0.73 (0.07)
The Gompertz function fitted well to the data from
the uniaxial confined compression tests. We estimated
precompression stress between 33 and 51 kPa for the six
depths (Table 3). These values were low compared to
soils with similar texture (e.g. Arvidsson and Keller,
2004). Even if the dry bulk density in the soil bins had
been identical to the original soil, the structure of the
soil in the bins was young (12 years) and the soil had
never been trafficked. The highest precompression
values were obtained for the two upper soil layers (0.1
and 0.25 m at 47 and 51 kPa, respectively, probably
because of better structural regeneration from effects of
climate, tillage, root growth and other biotic processes.
Soil cohesion, c, was estimated to range between 13
and 34 kPa for the six depths (Table 3). As for Pc, these
estimates are lower than often seen for agricultural soils
close to field capacity (e.g. Schjønning, 1991, 1999),
which may be explained by a poorly developed
structure. We measured a lower cohesion in the plough
layer (0–0.2 m) than in the subsoil. A higher cohesion
was expected in the plough layer than in the other
horizons because it increases with decreasing degree of
saturation S and increasing matric head h (Koolen and
Kuipers, 1983; Schjønning, 1999). The angle of internal
friction, w, was rather similar for all depths (Table 3)
and generally tended to be high compared to values for
the top 40 cm of seven Danish soils including the one
tested in this study (Schjønning, 1991, 1999).
3.2. Stress
Measured stresses are presented in Fig. 5 and
Table 4. The highest stresses were measured at 0.3 m
depth near the load centre (black and dark-grey circles)
and the lowest stresses were measured at 0.9 m depth
and/or far from the centre (all grey tones rhombi; light
grey and white circles and squares). For the treatments
including the large loading plate (2AF and 2A2F) the
decrease in stress with depth was lower than predicted,
especially at 0.9 m depth in treatment 2A2F. The range
in predicted values was low for these treatments
98 M. Lamandé et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 97 (2007) 91–106

Fig. 5. Calculated vertical stress according to Söhne (1953; n = 6) related to measured vertical stress for the four treatments (AF, A2F, 2AF, 2A2F) at
four depths: 0.3 m (circles), 0.5 m (squares), 0.7 m (triangles), 0.9 m (rhombi); and at four distances from the load centre: below the centre (black),
0.8 m (dark grey), 0.24 m (light grey), and 0.4 m (white).

because, according to the summation principle in the
Söhne model, for a given depth, the sensors are situated
closer to the same isobar.
The four combinations of contact area and load
resulted in three theoretical contact stresses applied to
the soil surface (black squares in Fig. 6): 95 kPa for AF
and 2A2F, 48 kPa for 2AF, and 188 kPa for A2F. At
0.3 m depth, the measured stress averaged for the
sensors located close (0, 0.04 and 0.08 m) to the load
axis were grouped in three, with significant differences
reflecting the contact area stresses of the treatments
(2AF < AF = 2A2F < A2F; Fig. 6). At 0.5 and 0.7 m

Table 4
Mean measured vertical stresses (kPa) for the four treatments, the four soil depths, and the five positions relative to the load axis
Treatments Depth (m) Position across the plate (m)
0a 0.04b 0.08b 0.24b 0.4 b
AF 0.3 88 (1) 88 (10) 56 (6) 13 (3)
0.5 58 (0) 52 (8) 51 (7) 14 (3)
0.7 49 (8) 43 (2) 36 (5)
0.9 29 (4)
2AF 0.3 34 (9) 34 (10) 49 (9) 36 (5)
0.5 28 (8) 61 (8) 35 (6) 27 (2)
0.7 54 (16) 30 (6) 25 (4)
0.9 17 (3)
c
2A2F 0.3 NA 75 (10) 106 (5) 94 (10)
0.5 66 79 (16) 63 (18) 67 (8)
0.7 42 55 (15) 68 (0)
0.9 101 (5)
A2F 0.3 208 179 (6) 118 (32) 0 (4)
0.5 141 134 (12) 93 (11) 43 (9)
0.7 119 96 (0) 80 (1)
0.9 83 (1)
Figures in brackets denote standard error.
a
For AF and 2AF, n = 2; for 2A2F and A2F, n = 1.
b
For AF and 2AF, n = 4; for 2A2F and A2F, n = 2.
c
Missing value due to poor contact between soil and sensor.
 M. Lamandé et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 97 (2007) 91–106 99

Fig. 6. Vertical stress in the soil profile for sensors located maximum 0.08 m from the load axis. Left: average measured stress with standard error;
for each depth, different letters indicate significant differences between treatments (P = 0.05). Right: the same data as on the left plus the Söhne-
predicted vertical stress (lines, n = 6) for the same coordinates.

depth, the A2F treatment gave a significantly higher
stress than the other treatments, while these could not be
distinguished statistically. At 0.9 m depth, the measured
stress was significantly lower for AF and 2AF than for
A2F and 2A2F. Inclusion of the Söhne-predicted
stresses in the plot revealed that generally the
measurements followed the predictions, including a
fit to the stress in the contact area calculated from the
load and loading area (Fig. 6, right). An exception is the
A2F, where we measured higher stresses than predicted.
The root mean square error (RMSE) and bias of
predictions for all the positions for the four treatments
are presented in Fig. 7. In terms of the root mean square
error (RMSE), the model fitted better for the low
(43 kN, AF and 2AF) than for the high load (85 kN,
A2F and 2A2F), irrespective of the contact area (Fig. 7,
left). For the two treatments with the large contact area
(2AF and 2A2F), and in a smaller extent for AF, the
RMSE was only slightly affected by changing the
concentration factor from 4 to 12. The bias indicates
model underestimation of stresses for the A2F
treatment, which is a quantification of the observations
in Fig. 6 (right) for n = 6. Variation in the concentration
factor could not account for the problem (Fig. 7, right).
No or only a minor bias was found for the three other
treatments (AF, 2AF and 2A2F). While the treatments
with the low load had a minimum RMSE for n  6 (5.5
and 6.4 for 2AF and AF, respectively), a much higher
concentration factor was needed to optimise the fit for
the high load (9.2 and 8.5 for A2F and 2A2F,
respectively) (Fig. 7, left).
In order to have a more detailed picture of the fit by
Söhne’s model in two dimensions, the RMSE, the
coefficient of variance (CV, the relative RMSE), and bias
were calculated for stress transducers grouped according
to three locations in the soil profile (Table 5). In these
calculations, we used a concentration factor of n = 6
because this value would normally be chosen for

Fig. 7. Root mean square error (RMSE) and bias of prediction according to Söhne (1953) calculated for different values of the concentration factor n
for all positions in the soil profile.
100 M. Lamandé et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 97 (2007) 91–106

Table 5
Root mean square error (RMSE), coefficient of variance (CV, relative root mean square error) and bias of prediction according to Söhne (1953)
calculated for n = 6 for stresses measured in three locations in the soil profile: close to the load axis (0 and 0.08 m) at 0.3 and 0.5 m depth (load axis,
top), far from the load axis (0.24 and 0.4 m) at 0.3 and 0.5 m depth (periphery, top) and close to the load axis (0, 0.04 and 0.08 m) at 0.7 and 0.9 m
depth (load axis, bottom)
Locations in the soil profile AF 2AF 2A2F A2F
Load axis, top RMSE (kPa) 17 21 21 30
CV (%) 23 55 28 18
Bias (kPa) 3 5 9 27
Periphery, top RMSE (kPa) 15 13 27 33
CV (%) 43 36 33 52
Bias (kPa) 7 3 16 11
Load axis, bottom RMSE (kPa) 9 17 35 20
CV (%) 24 57 49 21
Bias (kPa) 1 2 8 18

modelling a ‘soft’ soil such as the one tested here. In other
words, the data in Table 5 quantify the absolute and
relative accuracies of prediction for specific parts of the
loaded profile. The first group comprises stresses
measured close to the load axis (0 and 0.08 m) at the
0.3 and 0.5 m depths (load axis, top), the second group
the stresses measured far from the load axis (0.24 and
0.4 m) at the 0.3 and 0.5 m depths (periphery, top), and
the third group the stresses measured close to the load
axis (0, 0.04 and 0.08 m) at the 0.7 and 0.9 m depths (load
axis, bottom). The prediction accuracy in absolute values
(RMSE) calculated for all stress sensors at a concentra-
tion factor of n = 6 was greater for the high (27 kPa)
than the low load (15 kPa), and was nearly independent
of the loaded area (Fig. 7). However, from Table 5 it
appears that close to the load axis the accuracy is
influenced by soil depth. For the AF and A2F the RMSE
is smaller for the deep horizons than for the topsoil. That
is, the Söhne model gives better predictions for the deeper
layers. In contrast, for the 2A2F treatment the prediction
accuracy is better at the top than at depth. The prediction
accuracy relative to the measured stress level (CV) is
similar at the top and at the bottom of the soil profile near
the load axis for AF and 2AF. For A2F and especially for
2A2F, the relative accuracy is better at the top than at the
bottom of the profile near the load axis. For the two
treatments including the low load (AF and 2AF), the
bias is generally small (7 to +5 kPa, Table 5) and
independent of the location in the soil profile. This means
that the predictions are central estimates of the stress and
that the prediction accuracy (RMSE) relates to stochastic
variability. In contrast, there is generally a considerable
bias for the estimates below the high loads (Table 5). It
appears that the underestimation of stresses already
noticed from Fig. 7 (right) for the A2F is true for all parts
of the soil profile. For the 2A2F treatment, the poor
prediction accuracy is due to an overestimation of stress
in the load axis of upper soil layers but an under-
estimation in the deeper layers and in the periphery of
the top layers (Table 5). It ought to be added, however,
that for 2A2F, the average 8 kPa bias covers a
considerable overestimation (bias = +17 kPa) at 0.7 m
depth and a dramatic underestimation (bias = 45 kPa)
at 0.9 m depth (Fig. 6). Finally, the data in Table 5
indicate that the Söhne predicted stresses for transducers
located vertically below or outside the edge of the
small plate (periphery, top) are lower than measured (7
and 16 kPa bias for the AF and A2F treatments,
respectively).
3.3. Stress impact
The vertical normal strain, e1, calculated as the
vertical displacement relative to the thickness of
specific soil layers was significantly larger for the
A2F treatment for all soil layers except the 0.7–1.3 m
(Fig. 8). For the deepest layer (0.7–1.3 m), the AF and
2AF treatments had similar vertical strains, which again
were lower than strains for the A2F and 2A2F
treatments. However, the trend was not significant.
Thus, the differences in strain between treatments seem
to be related to the specific pressures for the upper
layers and to the load for the lowest layer.
Throughout the soil profile dry bulk densities were
higher for the A2F than for other treatments (Fig. 9).
The treatment effect was significant when averaged for
the profile (P = 0.02), but not at specific soil depths.
3.4. Criterion for structural failure
We used the SoilFlex model (Keller et al., 2007) to
calculate the major and minor principal stresses s1 and
 M. Lamandé et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 97 (2007) 91–106
Fig. 8. Vertical normal strain in the soil profile for the four treatments
(AF, 2AF, A2F, 2A2F) for four layers (0–0.3 m, 0.3–0.5 m, 0.5–0.7 m,
0.7–1.3 m). Bars indicate standard error. Different letters indicate
significant differences between treatments (P = 0.05). In A2F, strains
were underestimated because the maximum range of some transducers
was reached.
s3 at all soil depths and at two positions under the
loaded plates (the load centre and 0.24 m from the load
centre). We point out that we never measured any
significant strain for s1 values lower than Pc (data not
shown). There were missing values for A2F because of
vertical displacements over the sensors’ range. Due to
the low values of precompression stress of our soil, only
few predicted major principal stresses were lower than
the precompression stress (treatment 2AF).
For the two treatments with the high load (A2F and
2A2F), the increase in measured strain was not
proportional to the increase in stress exceeding the
Fig. 9. Dry bulk density in the soil profile after the two loadings for
the four treatments (AF, 2AF, A2F, 2A2F). Averages based on four
cores sampled under the loaded plates. Bars indicate standard error. At
a given depth, the differences between treatments were not significant
(P = 0.31).
101
Fig. 10. Vertical normal strain related to the difference between major
principal stress (s1) and precompression stress (Pc), and to the ratio of
minor principal stress (s3) by major principal stress (s1) at the load
axis (black symbols) and at 0.24 m from the load axis (grey symbols)
and for three layers (circles, 0.3–0.5 m; squares, 0.5–0.7 m; triangles,
0.7–1.3 m). Figures in brackets denote standard errors (n = 2 at load
axis; n = 4 at 0.24 m from load axis).
precompression stress (s1  Pc). At the load axis for
treatments AF and 2AF, the stress–strain relationship
was close to what could be expected from the
compression test, i.e. stress exceeding the precompres-
sion stress gave rise to an increase in strain. A regression
analysis for AF and 2AF data with major principal
stresses higher than the precompression stress explained
47% of the variation and indicated no significant
interception on the strain axis (i.e., vertical strain = 0 at
s1 = Pc).
In Fig. 10 we have related both the difference
between s1 and the precompression stress (s1  Pc) and
the ratio s3/s1 to the vertical normal strain for the
corresponding three soil layers. The data relate to the
first load test for treatment AF. The strains measured
were on average about the same for sensors positioned
at the load axis (black symbols) and 0.24 m from this
axis (grey symbols), but they were associated with
different stress levels above the precompression stress.
For example, for the upper layer, the average strain at
the load axis was 0.032 and it was related to an excess
stress s1  Pc = 40 kPa. In contrast, the average strain
at 0.24 m from the axis was exactly the same (0.032) but
was related to s1  Pc = 0 kPa. For both positions the
ratio s3/s1 increased with decreasing depth.
In Fig. 11 the estimated concentration factor is
related to the average vertical displacements for the
whole profile measured during the two loadings in the
four treatments. For both loadings the concentration
102 M. Lamandé et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 97 (2007) 91–106
Fig. 11. Estimated concentration factor against average vertical dis-
placement for the whole profile for the four treatments (black circles,
AF; white circles, 2AF; black triangles, A2F; white triangles, 2A2F)
and for the two loadings (‘‘1’’, first loading; ‘‘2’’, second loading).
factor increased with the vertical displacement. For
each treatment, the estimated concentration factor was
lower for the second loading than for the first loading.
4. Discussion
4.1. Stress transmission in the soil profile
Our results confirm the implication from the
summation principle in the model (Olsen, 1994): in
the upper soil layers (<0.3 m depth) the measured
stresses were close to those in the contact area, while the
load determined the level of stress in the deeper soil
layers (Fig. 6). The result is in accordance with Dexter
et al. (1988) and Smith and Dickson (1990). It has
practical implications in terms of the development of
practices avoiding soil compaction. It means that the
only way to reduce stresses in the subsoil would be to
reduce the weight of the machinery.
Even if the general principle of the model is valid, the
accuracy of predicted stress in a given part of the soil
profile may be poor. The data in Table 5 indicate that the
deviation from the 1:1 line for 2AF in Fig. 5 was not due
to any structure in data: there was no trend in bias and
the variability (RMSE) was about identical for the three
parts of the loaded profile. Thus, the predictions for the
first loadings with the small load seem to be rather
unbiased (7 to +5 kPa) with an accuracy (RMSE) of
8–20 kPa (Table 5). In contrast, the predictions for the
first loadings with the high load were rather uncertain
(RMSE 20–35 kPa; Table 5). Very importantly, our
results also show that the Söhne model underestimated
stresses for all parts of the loaded profile when loading a
small area with a high load (A2F; Table 5). For the
2A2F treatment (corresponding to a high load carried
by a wide wheel), the model overestimated the stress in
the topsoil at the load axis but underestimated the
stresses in the deepest layer along the load axis
(bias = 45 kPa at 0.9 m depth) as well as in the upper
soil layers far from the load axis (Table 5).
4.2. Concentration of stress along the load axis
According to the Fröhlich theory, a concentration
factor matching the soil mechanical state should
improve prediction accuracy. The n value for a medium
that follows the Hooke’s law is 3. For all treatments, the
best fit with the Söhne model was found for
concentration factors higher than 3. The vertical stress
transmission in our soil was thus more vertical and more
concentrated around the load axis than in an isotropic
and elastic medium. This may be interpreted as a plastic
behaviour of the soil (Smith et al., 2000). Estimated
concentration factors for treatments with the low load
(2AF and AF) were close to the value of n = 5 given by
Koolen and Kuipers (1983) for a soft soil, or n = 6 given
by Söhne (1958) for a wet soil. This is in accordance
with: (i) the observed structure of the soil, which was 12
years old and thus had limited development; (ii) the
history of the soil: the soil had never been trafficked
after installation in the bins. In contrast, the estimates of
concentration factor n were much higher than expected
for the two treatments with the high load (A2F and
2A2F). Söhne’s description of firmness relates to
combinations of both bulk density and water content
of soil (Söhne, 1953). In our study, the estimated values
of n were different even if the initial dry bulk density
and water content were not different between treat-
ments. It means that the concentration factor is not only
influenced by soil mechanical characteristics but also by
the characteristics of load application. We varied only
two aspects of load application: the load and the contact
area. The concentration factor increased significantly
with load (P = 0.04). This has previously been observed
also by Horn (1993). The decrease in concentration
factor with the increase of contact area mentioned by
the same author was not significant in our study
(P = 0.16). Neither did we find a significant interaction
between load and contact area (P = 0.98). Smith et al.
(2000) also recognized that the concentration factor was
dependent on the loading characteristics. The higher
values of n for the high loads may be due to the non-
negligible deformation of the subsoil during the
application of load for the A2F and 2A2F treatments
(Fig. 8), which is contradictory to model assumptions.
When considering all the loadings, the model-optimis-
 M. Lamandé et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 97 (2007) 91–106
ing concentration factor seemed to increase non-
linearly with the vertical displacement (Fig. 11). When
the vertical displacement was small or null, the
concentration factor was close to 5.5 for the first
loading and 4.5 for the second loading (2AF, Fig. 11).
Our calculations showed that adjustment of the
concentration factor led to small improvements of the
predictions (Fig. 7).
Some authors have reported stress distributions and
soil deformation due to stresses that could not be
accounted for by the Söhne model (e.g. Danfors, 1974;
Trautner and Arvidsson, 2003). Obviously such results
were due to breakdown of one or more preconditions for
the validity of the Söhne model. Håkansson and Reeder
(1994) hypothesized that ‘‘the occurrence of deep
vertical cracks in dry swelling/shrinking soils lead to the
transmission of stresses into deep subsoil layers without
attenuation’’. Soil is a heterogeneous assemblage of
structural units held together with physico-chemical
and biological bonding agents (e.g. Dexter, 1988).
Studies in fragmentation of soils have shown that the
strength of structural units is very scale-dependent (e.g.
Skidmore and Powers, 1982). Based on these facts, it
might be expected that soil would not obey the
requirements for the elastic Söhne model also at high
water contents. Thus, Trautner (2003) suggested that a
distinct element model designed for describing stresses
in pavements and constructed roads might better predict
stress transmission in soil (Ullidtz, 1998). Such a model
would imply a much more concentrated (vertical) stress
transmission than the Söhne model based on elasticity.
In our study we recorded stresses also for the sensors
located outside the small loading plate (AF and A2F;
0.24 and 0.4 m; Fig. 5). We also note that these stresses
were even higher than predicted by the Söhne model
(Table 5). In addition, our results indicate that a high
concentration factor (yielding a high concentration of
stress along the load axis) was not always able to
account for bias in the predictions. The Söhne model in
its present appearance did not perform perfectly when
the loading induced soil deformation. The model might
perhaps be improved by allowing for a deformation-
dependent choice of the concentration factor.
4.3. Soil mechanical behaviour at high loads
Our results have indicated that the Söhne model for
the low load could provide central estimates of stresses
in the soil profile with a bias of about 5–7 kPa. However,
the model had problems for both treatments with the
high load. It appeared that even a regulation of the
concentration factor could not account for the observed
103
soil behaviour. Guérif (1984) showed that the compres-
sibility of the whole soil profile was a combination of
the relative compressibility of each soil layer. Con-
sidering soil layers A and B where A is the upper layer,
he measured that compaction occurred in layer B when
the rigidity of the upper layer A overcame the
compressibility of layer B. We measured an increase
in bulk density under 0.4 m depth for the two treatments
with the high load only (A2F and 2A2F). Only for these
two treatments did the final dry bulk density in the
plough layer (0–0.2 m) reach the dry bulk density at
0.25 m depth. The rigidity of a material can be due to
its structure, to the aggregation of particles and/or to
the degree of saturation because the water is not
compressible (Hadas, 1994). Taking into account the
low degree of saturation in the plough layer (S = 0.37,
Table 2), we assume that the rigidity of this layer
overcame the compressibility at 0.25 cm depth because
of structural changes due to compaction. Below 0.4 m
depth, the degree of saturation was higher (S = 0.57,
Table 2), and compaction may have occurred due partly
to structural changes and partly to the incompressibility
of water even if the final bulk density was lower than a
value giving rise to water saturation (Table 2). For the
A2F and 2A2F treatments, we measured average
vertical displacements for the soil profile of 34.2 mm
and 7.4 mm, respectively. These significant deforma-
tions took place within a few seconds. The soil
hydraulic conductivity has most probably not allowed
the distribution of water among soil pores, and parts of
the pore system may thus have been saturated. More
studies are needed to elucidate soil behaviour when
heavily loaded. However, irrespective of the mechanical
and physical processes involved, the Söhne model
seems to be a poor tool for prediction of stresses in soils
loaded above some upper limit that may be different
from soil to soil.
4.4. Precompression stress for prediction of soil
structural failure
The concept of precompression stress implies that
loading a soil above this limit will induce irreversible
deformation, while stresses below the limit will cause
only elastic strain (Lebert and Horn, 1991; Horn, 1993).
The stress state in soil during loading events may be
different to that in an uniaxial confined compression
test (e.g. Keller, 2004), and the suitability of such a
test in soil compaction contexts has been questioned
(e.g. Arvidsson and Keller, 2004; Keller et al., 2004).
However, in this study we never recorded any
significant soil deformation at major principal stresses
104 M. Lamandé et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 97 (2007) 91–106
below the precompression stress. In addition, at the load
axis there was a positive correlation between soil
vertical normal strain and the stress exceeding the
precompression stress (black symbols in Fig. 10). This
indicates that the mechanical behaviour of soil under the
centre of a loaded area may be comparable to what
happens during a compression test. It is important to
note, however, that the above was only observed for a
moderate load. At high loads, we could not identify any
structure in data. Moreover, the ratio s3/s1 increased
with increasing strain and was smaller than 0.5, which is
the ratio of an ideal uniaxial compression (Koolen and
Kuipers, 1983) (Fig. 10). This indicates that strains
measured at the load axis may result from both
compression and shear deformation.
The mechanical behaviour of soil seemed to be
rather different to expectations when the distance from
the load axis increased (grey symbols on Fig. 10). This
can be partly explained by the slight underestimation of
the major principal stress for these positions (Table 5).
However, the high strains we have observed at levels of
vertical stress equivalent to the precompression stress
(s1  Pc  0 kPa) are probably due to shear failure.
This hypothesis is supported by the increase of strain
with the ratio s3/s1 (Fig. 10). As we only measured
vertical stress and vertical deformation, this hypothesis
cannot be supported further. Future studies are
encouraged to include measurements of horizontal
stress and strain.
Our data indicated that the stresses measured at the
second loading were very close to those measured at the
first loading (data not shown). Nevertheless, the
additional, plastic strains measured after the second
loading were as large as those measured after the first
loading (Fig. 11). This means that the ‘‘precompres-
sion’’ of the soil at the first loading did not prevent
further compaction with the same stress. Taking into
account the discussion above, we interpret this as an
influence of loading time. The first loading event
induced a full load for about 0.5 s, while the second was
allowed to impact the soil for approximately 3 s. This
further complicates the evaluation of the precompres-
sion stress as a suitable parameter for predicting
structural failure during mechanical loadings.
5. Conclusions
Our results showed that stress transmission in a
structured, undisturbed soil could be qualitatively
described by the Boussinesq–Fröhlich equation: the
contact stress determined the stresses in the topsoil,
while stresses in the subsoil were primarily dependent
on the load. The accuracy of the quantitative prediction
was much poorer for the high than for the low load,
which we hypothesize was due to large vertical
deformations measured in the heavily loaded soil. It
means that the concentration factor depends on both soil
properties and on loading conditions. The model for
stress propagation has to be improved to accurately
predict soil compaction especially when loading
impacts on soil physical properties are significant. This
may perhaps be accomplished by a feedback function
correcting the stress propagation from the expected soil
deformation. However, in this study the prediction
accuracy at high loads was unsatisfactory even with
regulation of the concentration factor. Our results
indicate that the precompression stress may be a
relevant stress limit for prediction of soil failure at
isotropic stress conditions (at the load axis). However,
the results also indicate that shear failure may contribute
significantly to deformation of soil at a distance from
the load axis.
Acknowledgements
This work was financed partly by the Danish
Research Council for Technology and Production
Sciences and partly by the Faculty of Agricultural
Sciences, Aarhus University. The development of the
described methodology was inspired by ideas of Dr.
Andreas Trautner. The technical assistance of Finn H.
Christensen, Michael Koppelgaard and Stig T. Ras-
mussen is gratefully acknowledged. The trailer used for
applying the loads was kindly made available by Dr. J.
Arvidsson, the Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences. The soil compaction models SOCOMO and
SoilFlex were kindly provided by Dr. J.J.H. van den
Akker and Dr. T. Keller, respectively. The authors are
indebted to Dr. K. Kristensen for advice on the
statistical analyses.
References
Arvidsson, J., Andersson, S., 1997. Determination of soil displace-
ment by measuring the pressure of a column of liquid. In:
Proceedings of the 14th ISTRO Conference, Pulawy, Poland,
pp. 47–50.
Arvidsson, J., Keller, T., 2004. Soil precompression stress I. A survey
of Swedish arable soils. Soil Till. Res. 77, 85–95.
Balakrishna, C.K., Srinavasa Murthy, B.R., Nagaraj, T.S., 1992. Stress
distribution beneath rigid circular foundations on sands. Int. J.
Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 16, 65–72.
Boussinesq, J., 1885. Application des potentiels à l’étude de l’équi-
libre et des mouvements des solides élastiques. Gauthier-Villars,
Paris, 30 p.
 M. Lamandé et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 97 (2007) 91–106
Campbell, G.S., 1974. A simple method for determining unsaturated
conductivity from moisture retention data. Soil Sci. 117,
311–411.
Craig, R.F., 2005. Craig’s Soil Mechanics, seventh ed. Spon Press,
London and New York, 447 p.
Crowder, M.J., Hand, D.J., 1990. Analysis of repeated measures.
Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability 41. Chapman
and Hall, London, 257 p.
Danfors, B., 1974. Packing I Alven (Compaction in the Subsoil).
Report S24, Swedish Inst. Agric. Eng., Uppsala, Sweden, 91 p.
Dawidowski, J.B., Koolen, J., 2004. Computerized determination of
the preconsolidation stress in compaction testing of field core
samples. Soil Till. Res. 31, 277–282.
Dexter, A.R., Horn, R., Holloway, R., Jakobsen, B.F., 1988. Pressure
transmission beneath wheels in soils on the Eyre peninsula of
South Australia. J. Terramech. 25, 135–147.
Dexter, A.R., 1988. Advances in characterization of soil structure. Soil
Till. Res. 11, 199–238.
Ehlers, W., Claupein, W., 1994. Approaches towards conservation
tillage in Germany. In: Carter, M.R. (Ed.), Conservation Tillage in
Temperate Agroecosystems. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
Fröhlich, O.K., 1934. Druckverteilung im Baugrunde (Pressure dis-
tribution in foundation soils). Springer Verlag, Wien.
Gregory, A.S., Whalley, W.R., Watts, C.W., Bird, N.R.A., Hallett,
P.D., Whitmore, A.P., 2006. Calculation of the compression index
and precompression stress from soil compression test data. Soil
Till. Res. 89, 45–57.
Guérif, J., 1984. The influence of water-content gradient and structure
anisotropy on soil compressibility. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 29, 367–
374.
Gupta, S.C., Hadas, A., Voorhees, W.B., Wolf, D., Larson, W.E.,
Schneider, E.C., 1985. Field testing of a soil compaction model.
In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Soil Dynamics,
Auburn, AL, USA, pp. 979–994.
Hadas, A., 1994. Soil compaction caused by high axle loads—
review of concepts and experimental data. Soil Till. Res. 29,
253–276.
Horn, R., 1981. Eine Methode zur Ermittlung der Druckbelastung von
Böden anhand von Drucksetzungsversuchen. Zeitschrift für Kul-
turtechnik und Flurbereinigung 22. Verlag Paul Parey, Berlin und
Hamburg, pp. 20–26.
Horn, R., 1993. Mechanical properties of structured unsatured soils.
Soil Tech. 6, 47–75.
Håkansson, I., Reeder, R., 1994. Subsoil compaction by vehicles with
high axle load – extent, persistence and crop response. Soil Till.
Res. 29, 277–304.
Jacobsen, O.H., 1989. Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity for some
Danish soils: methods and characterization of soils. Tidsskrift for
Planteavls Specialserie nr. S2030.
Keller, T., 2004. Soil compaction and soil tillage-studies in agricul-
tural soil mechanics. PhD thesis, Swedish University of Agricul-
tural Sciences, Uppsala.
Keller, T., Arvidsson, J., 2004. Technical solutions to reduce the risk of
subsoil compaction: effects of dual wheels, tandem wheels and
tyre inflation pressure on stress propagation in soil. Soil Till. Res.
79, 191–205.
Keller, T., Arvidsson, J., Dawidowski, J.B., Koolen, A.J., 2004.
Precompression stress II. A comparaison of different compaction
tests and stress-displacement behaviour of the soil during wheel-
ing. Soil Till. Res. 77, 97–108.
Keller, T., Défossez, P., Weisskopf, P., Arvidsson, J., Richard, G.,
2007. SoilFlex: A model for prediction of soil stresses and soil
105
compaction due to agricultural field traffic including a synthesis of
analytical approaches. Soil Till. Res. 93, 391–411.
Kirby, J.M., 1999a. Soil stress measurement: Part I. Transducer in a
uniform stress field. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 72, 151–160.
Kirby, J.M., 1999b. Soil stress measurement: Part II. Transducer
beneath a circular loaded area. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 73, 141–149.
Koolen, A.J., 1974. A method for soil compactibility determination. J.
Agric. Eng. Res. 19, 271–278.
Koolen, A.J., Kuipers, H., 1983. Agricultural Soil Mechanics.
Springer, New York (USA).
Lamandé, M., Schjønning, P., Drøscher, P., Steffensen, F.S.F., Ras-
mussen, S.T., Koppelgaard, M.K., 2006. Measuring vertical stress
and displacement in two dimensions in soil during a wheeling
event. In: Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the International
Soil Tillage Research Organization, Kiel, Germany, September
2006, pp. 293–297.
Lebert, M., Horn, R., 1991. A method to predict mechanical strength
of agricultural soils. Soil Till. Res. 19, 275–286.
Olsen, H.J., 1994. Calculation of subsoil stresses. Soil Till. Res. 29,
111–123.
R Development Core Team, 2005. R: A language and environment for
statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing,
Vienna, Austria, ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL: http://www.R-pro-
ject.org.
Ram, R.B., 1984. Pressure measurement in the soil under the load. Soil
Till. Res. 4, 137–145.
Schjønning, P., 1986. Shear strength determination in undisturbed soil
at controlled water potential. Soil Till. Res. 8, 171–179.
Schjønning, P., 1991. Soil mechanical properties of seven Danish soils
(in Danish). Report No. S2176, The Danish Institute of Plant and
Soil Science, Copenhagen, 33 pp.
Schjønning, P., 1999. Mechanical properties of Danish soils—a review
of existing knowledge with special emphasis on soil spatial
variability. In: Van den Akker, J.J.H., Arvidson, J., Horn, R.
(Eds.), Experiences with the Impact and Prevention of Subsoil
Compaction in the European Community. Proceedings of the First
Workshop of the Concerted Action ‘Experiences with the Impact
of Subsoil Compaction on Soil, Crop Growth and Environment
and Ways to Prevent Subsoil Compaction’, 28–30 May, 1998,
Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 290–303.
Schjønning, P., Rasmussen, K.J., 2000. Soil strength and soil pore
characteristics for direct drilled and ploughed soils. Soil Till. Res.
57, 69–82.
Skidmore, E.L., Powers, D.H., 1982. Dry soil aggregate stability:
energy based index. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 46, 1274–1279.
Smith, D.L.O., Dickson, J.W., 1990. Contributions of vehicle weight
and ground pressure to soil compaction. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 46,
13–29.
Smith, R., Ellies, A., Horn, R., 2000. Modified Boussinesq’s equation
for nonuniform tire loading. J. Terramech. 37, 207–222.
Söhne, W., 1953. Druckverteilung im Boden und Bodenformung unter
Schleppereiffen (Pressure distribution in the soil and soil defor-
mation under tractor tyres). Grundlagen der Landtechnik 5, 49–63.
Söhne, W., 1958. Fundamentals of pressure distribution and soil
compaction under tractor tyres. Agric. Eng. 39, 276–282, 290.
Trautner, A., 2003. On soil behaviour during field traffic. PhD thesis,
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.
Trautner, A., Arvidsson, J., 2003. Subsoil compaction caused by
machinery traffic on a Swedish Eutric Cambisol at different soil
water contents. Soil Till. Res. 73, 107–118.
Ullidtz, 1998. Modelling Flexible Pavement Response and Perfor-
mance. Polyteknisk Forlag, 205 p.
106 M. Lamandé et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 97 (2007) 91–106

van den Akker, J.J.H., 2004. SOCOMO: a soil compaction model to
calculate soil stresses and the subsoil carrying capacity. Soil Till.
Res. 79, 113–127.
van den Akker, J.J.H., Schjønning, P., 2004. Subsoil compaction and
ways to prevent it. In: Schjønning, P., Elmholt, S., Christensen,
B.T. (Eds.), Managing Soil Quality: Challenges in Modern Agri-
culture. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp. 163–184.
van Genuchten, M.Th., 1980. A closed-form equation for predicting
the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
J. 44, 892–898.