DISCUSSIONS AND CLOSURES

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM on 04/21/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Discussion of Active Earth Pressure on

Retaining Wall for c- Soil Backfill under
Seismic Loading Condition by S. K.
Shukla, S. K. Gupta, and N. Sivakugan

a2 = p cos cos + q

5a

a1 = p sin +

5b

a0 = p sin sin + q

5c

d2 = cos + + cos

6a

d1 = sin + + +

6b

d0 = sin + + sin

6c

May 2009, Vol. 135, No. 5, pp. 690696.

DOI: 10.1061/ASCEGT.1943-5606.0000003
1

Venanzio R. Greco
1

Dept. of Structural Engineering, Univ. of Calabria, 87036 Rende Cs,

Italy. E-mail: venanziogreco@strutture.unical.it

The authors paper is welcome because it makes up for a lack in

the original method of Coulomb and renders it applicable to c-
soil backfills. Such a backfill type could be studied with the
method of Rankine but this does not have the versatility of Coulombs method for analyzing thrust wedges with various geometrical shapes and subject to surcharges. Therefore, the paper is
very important for geotechnical engineering practice.
However, the formulation is limited to backfills with a horizontal profile = 0, walls with a vertical backface = / 2, and
no friction between backfill and wall backface = 0. Moreover,
it does not take the presence of tension cracks, which are probably present in a cohesive soil subjected to a reduction in the
lateral stress, into account. This discussion aims to contribute to
the approach followed by the authors by extending the field of
applicability of the method to:
1. Backfills with an inclined profile 0, walls with an inclined backface / 2, and a friction angle between
wall and backfill soil; and
2. Backfills with tension cracks up to a depth of zc.

Formulation for Inclined Backfill and Wall Backface

With reference to Fig. 1, where the geometry of the thrust wedge
ABC and the forces acting on it are shown, the equilibrium conditions of forces lead to the following relation for the thrust Pae
Pae = W

1 kv sin +
C cos
1

cos sin + + sin + +

with

q=

7a

2c sin
cos
h sin

7b

and, using Eq. 22 of the original paper, we can write

c cos
q
=2
cos sin = 2m cos sin
p
h 1 kv

dPae
=0
d tan

the thrust Pae is maximized for that value of solving the quadratic equation
a1d2 a2d1tan2 2a0d2 a2d0tan + a0d1 a1d0 = 0
9
which gives the critical value of the inclination angle maximizing the thrust Pae in general geometrical conditions.
A

sin sin
1
W = h2
2
sin2 sin

k hW

h sin
sin sin

/2

'

Pa

Introducing Eqs. 2 and 3 in Eq. 1, we have

a2 tan2 a1 tan + a0
1
Pae = h2
2
d2 tan2 d1 tan + d0

k vW
C

and C = force on AC due to cohesion

where

7c

Because Eq. 9 of the original paper is equivalent to the condition

where W = weight of the thrust wedge ABC

C = c

1 kv sin
cos sin2

p=

/2

Fig. 1. Cross section of a wall and the thrust wedge ABC without
tension cracks

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010 / 1583

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1585-1587.

A'

B' B"
zc

sin cos
sin( )

zc k W
v

hc = h zc

/2

Pa

sin cos
.
sin

12

In the second member of Eq. 11, the first term represents the
weight of the triangle BBB, the second that of the parallelogram
BBAA B is on the vertical crossing point B, and the third that
of the triangle BCA.
The force C acting on CA is given by

hc
/2

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM on 04/21/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

k hW
h

zc

d soil
cracke

'

R
C = c

Fig. 2. Cross section of a wall and the thrust wedge BCAA with
tension cracks

Obviously, if = / 2, = 0, and = 0 as in the original paper,

the value of c given by Eq. 9 is equal to that given by Eq. 11
of the original paper. In this case, in fact, the coefficients of Eq.
9 becomes

hc sin
sin sin

13

Introducing Eqs. 1113 in Eq. 1, we have

b2 tan2 b1 tan + b0
1
Pae = h2c
2
d2 tan2 d1 tan + d0

14

b2 = p0 cos + p1 cos cos + q

15a

b1 = p0 sin + + p1 sin +

15b

b0 = p0 sin + p1 sin sin + q

15c

16a

where

a1d2 a2d1 = psin cos + 2m cos2 10a

a0d2 a2d0 = pcos sin + m sin 2

10b

a0d1 a1d0 = pcos sin + 2m cos2

10c
with

and the solution of Eq. 9 is given by Eq. 11 of the original

paper.
The influence of the angles , , and on the values of c and
Pae is relevant. For example, in the specific case of = 24, c
= 5 kPa, H = 5 m, = 20 kN/ m3, = 80, = 15, = 12, kh = 0.2
and kv = 0.1, Eq. 9 gives c = 32.5 and Pae = 137.4 kN/ m Eq.
4, while the inappropriate use of Eqs. 11 and 14 of the
original paper leads to c = 48.0 and Pae = 121.6 kN/ m.

p0 =

p1 =

If we suppose that tension cracks are vertical as shown by the

application of Rankines method to materials not resistant to traction and extended up to depth zc, the thrust wedge is limited by
the slip surface CA inclined at and by the tension crack AA.
Therefore the thrust wedge is the quadrilateral BCAA and its
weight is given by
cos sin
cos cos
1
+ zchc
W = z2c
2
sin sin
sin

where Fig. 2

11

cos cos
sin

1 kv zc cos sin
2
+
cos
hc sin
sin2

q=

Soils with Tension Cracks

sin sin
1
+ h2c
2
sin2 sin

1 kv zc
cos hc

2c cos
sin
hc sin

16b

17

Eq. 8 leads to the quadratic equation

b1d2 b2d1tan2 2b0d2 b2d0tan + b0d1 b1d0 = 0
18
which gives the critical value of the inclination angle c in the
presence of tension cracks up to depth zc. In absence of tension
cracks, p0 = 0, p1 = p and Eq. 18 reduces to Eq. 9.
With the previous numerical data, if we calculate the depth zc
of the tension cracks with the equation zc = 2c / cos /
1-sin, we have zc = 0.77, hc = 4.19 m, c = 30.8, and Pae
= 143.4 kN/ m. In this case, the tension crack presence leads to an
increase of 4% in the value of Pae, but if c = 10 kPa, this increase
becomes 17%.

1584 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1585-1587.

Closure to Active Earth Pressure on

Retaining Wall for c- Soil Backfill under
Seismic Loading Condition by S. K. Shukla,
S. K. Gupta, and N. Sivakugan
May 2009, Vol. 135, No. 5, pp. 690696.

Sanjay Kumar Shukla1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM on 04/21/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

References
Das, B. M. 2008. Fundamentals of geotechnical engineering, 3rd Ed.,
Thomson, Mason, Ohio.
Lambe, T. W., and Whitman, R. V. 1979. Soil mechanics, SI Version,
Wiley, New York.

DOI: 10.1061/ASCEGT.1943-5606.0000003

2008. Alternatively, one can use its value obtained from the
field observations.

Assoc. Prof. and Program Leader, Discipline of Civil Engineering,

School of Engineering, Edith Cowan Univ., 270 Joondalup Dr., Joondalup, WA 6027, Australia. E-mail: s.shukla@ecu.edu.au

The writer thanks the discusser for finding our paper very important for geotechnical engineering practice. The discusser has extended our expression for the total active earth pressure for its
applicability to backfills with inclined profile, walls with inclined
backface, friction angle between wall and backfill soil, and backfills with tension crack. The discusser is greatly appreciated for
this highly valuable contribution. Derivation of Eqs. 1 to 18
presented by the discusser has been checked carefully, and they
have been found to be correct. However, readers should note the
corrections as mentioned below:
1. Eq. 1 contains and , which refer to the effective angle
of shearing resistance; it should contain only .
2. In Eq. 10b, cos should be replaced by sin .
3. In Eqs. 15a-c, q should be replaced by another symbol, say
q0, because q refers to a different expression in Eq. 7b.
It should be noted that we have explained through Eq. 24 in
the original paper how one can use our analytical expression for
estimating active earth pressure on a retaining wall from the c-
soil backfill under seismic loading condition, considering tension
crack. It appears that the discusser has not noticed this fact; however, the approach adopted in the discussion is appreciated.
One of the interesting observations is that Eq. 9 and Eq. 18
can be expressed in the determinant form, respectively, as follows

tan2 2 tan 1

tan2 2 tan 1

a0
d0

a1
d1

a2 = 0
d2

and

b0
d0

b1
d1

b2 = 0
d2

The above determinant form of equations can easily be remembered by the readers for their use while making the calculation for the total active force. The readers should also note the
following:
1. The symbol used in the equations of the discussion is given
by Eq. 21 of our paper.
2. The discusser has suggested to use the expression for the
depth of tension crack
zc =

2c

cos
1 sin

without any reference. This value is based on Rankines

analysis of active earth pressure from the c- soil backfill
under static condition Lambe and Whitman 1979; Das

Discussion of Use of SPT Blow Counts to

Estimate Shear Strength Properties of
Soils: Energy Balance Approach by
H. Hettiarachchi and T. Brown
June 2009, Vol. 135, No. 6, pp. 830834.

DOI: 10.1061/ASCEGT.1943-5606.0000016

Fernando Schnaid1; Edgar Odebrecht2; and

Bianca O. Lobo3
1

Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Civil Engineering, Federal Univ. of Rio Grande do

Sul, Av. Osvaldo Aranha, 993 andar-90035-190 Porto Alegre, Rio
Grande do Sul, Brazil. E-mail: farnando@ufrgs.br
2
Asst. Prof., Dept. of Civil Engineering, State Univ. of Santa Catarina,
Rua Machado de Assis, 277-Ap. 602-89204-390-Joinville, Santa
Catarina, Brazil. E-mail: edgar@geoforma.com.br
3
Asst. Prof., Dept. of Civil Engineering, Federal Univ. of Santa Catarina,
Servido Corintians, 97-Ap. 704-88040-100-Florianpolis, Santa
Catarina, Brazil. E-mail: lobo_bianca@yahoo.com.br

The authors proposed approach for interpretation of SPT test results appears to have the right framework given the fact that energy concepts have been incorporated to the prediction of soil
properties. However, the approach relies on a number of assumptions that the writers find difficult to accept. In particular it has
been argued that possible loss of wave energy in a long rod could
be partially compensated by the extra weight added by the long
rods, leading to the assumption that energy losses are negligible.
This hypothesis emerges from a recent ASCE paper published
by Odebrecht et al. 2005 that states that the sampler energy can
be conveniently expressed as a function of nominal potential energy E*, sampler final penetration, and weight of both hammer
and rods. The influence of rod length produces two opposite effects: wave energy losses increase with increasing rod length and
in a long composition of rods the gain in potential energy from
rod weight is significant and may partially compensate measured
energy losses. This conclusion is directly derived from the system energy delivered to the sampler Esampler by considering the
combined effects of the hammer potential energy Eh and rod
potential energy Er
ESampler = 31Eh + 2Er = 31H + M hg + 2M rg
1
where M h = hammer weight; M r = rod weight; g = gravity acceleration; = sampler penetration; H = height of fall; and 1, 2, and
3 = efficiency coefficients. In this proposed equation, both hammer and rod potential energies are a function of and the length
of the rod in addition to the M h and H, whereas efficiency is not
affected by . These principles have been extensively evaluated

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010 / 1585

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1585-1587.

&''(' *+,
"

&''(' *+,

"

"#

"$

"$

"

" %&
" '&

" %&
" '&

"!

-./01 *2,

-./01 *2,

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM on 04/21/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

"#

"

"!

#!

#!

$!

$!

Fig. 1. a Rod energy losses error American standard; b rod energy losses error Brazilian standard

by numerical analysis to demonstrate that energy losses from

wave propagation cannot be entirely compensated by the rod potential energy Odebrecht et al. 2005, which is illustrated in Fig.
18 of the original paper.
This effect is demonstrated in Fig. 1, in which errors introduced by the misinterpretation of energy balance are related to
rod length. The error is defined as
Error =

rod
Esampler
0.6E*
100
0.6E*

rod
= 32M rg is the contribution of the rod energy
where Esampler

and E the nominal potential energy corrected to the reference

value of 60%. Note that Fig. 1a relates to American standards
whereas Fig. 1b refers to Brazilian standards. From these figures
it is observed that a 30-m-long rod in loose sand Nspt = 3
""

C02: CD 02: CD.CE

"!

C02: F9GG *CD 1= CE,

CE D9<:H=21

$"

/0102030 4 56789:0 *%))&,

;<7=>?1 *%)(),

$!

yields an error of about 40% i.e., the contribution of the rod

energy is larger than losses produced by wave propagation. Only
in dense sand Nspt = 40 the error is negligible.
The authors could argue that despite simplified considerations,
the angle of internal friction is derived with reasonable accuracy. The database adopted to validate the method might partially
explain this apparently successful application. Friction angles
from Tables 1 and 3 of the original paper fall in a very narrow
band from 28 to 35, despite the wide range of associated SPT
blow counts 7 N60 97. These adopted values are significantly lower than reported data published by the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation De Mello 1971 and by Hatanaka and Uschida
1996, as illustrated in Fig. 2 after Schnaid et al. 2009. To
enable a direct comparison to published data, the blow count N60
used by the authors had to be corrected to N160 adopting the
value of CN = 100/ v0.5 proposed by Liao and Whitmann
1986.
Since the database shows some discrepancy with preceding
experience, there appears to be enough evidence to question the
proposed approach and to suggest caution in using the method for
engineering works until proven by practical experience.

/<1190?078789 4 @?=A2 * !!),

#"

References

#!
"
!
!

%!

#!

$!

"!

&!

'!

(!

)!

%!!

%%!

% !

*+%,&! . /0102030 4 56789:0 *%))&,

*+%,&! . ;<7=>?1 *%)(),
*+%,&! . /<1190?078789 4 @?=A2 * !!),

Fig. 2. Peak friction angle of sands from SPT resistance

%#!

De Mello, V. F. B. 1971 The standard penetration test. Proc., 4th Pan

American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, Puerto rico, 187.
Hatanaka, M., and Uchida, A. 1996. Empirical correlation between
penetration resistance and effective friction of sand soil. Soil Found.,
364, 19.
Liao, S. S. C., and Whitman, R. V. 1986. Overburden correction factors for SPT in sand. J. Geotech. Engrg., 1123, 373377.

1586 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1585-1587.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM on 04/21/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Odebrecht, E., Schnaid, F., Rocha, M. M., and Bernardes, G. P. 2005.

Energy efficiency for standard penetration test. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 13110, 12521263.
Schnaid, F., Odebrecht, E., Rocha, M. M., and Bernardes, G. P. 2009.
Prediction of soil proprieties from the concepts of energy transfer in
dynamic penetration tests. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1358,
10921100.

Closure to Use of SPT Blow Counts to

Estimate Shear Strength Properties of
Soils: Energy Balance Approach by
H. Hettiarachchi and T. Brown
June 2009, Vol. 135, No. 6, pp. 830834.

DOI: 10.1061/ASCEGT.1943-5606.0000016

Discussion of Reliability-Based
Economic Design Optimization of Spread
Foundations by Y. Wang
Vol. 135, No. 7, July 1, 2009, pp. 954959.

Hiroshan Hettiarachchi1
1

the discussers compare the results produced by the proposed

model with data from published literature and two other models.
For blow counts in the range of 2040 the proposed model produces friction angles from 2832. For the same range of blow
counts, other data/methods provide friction angles as high as 46.
The authors are in agreement with the discussers about using
caution in using the proposed equations until they are proven by
experience. In addition the writers also believe that the proposed
model parameters may have to be fine-tuned for different types of
material.

DOI: 10.1061/ASCEGT.1943-5606.0000013

Asst. Prof., Dept. of Civil Engineering, Lawrence Technological Univ.,

21000 West Ten Mile Rd., Southfield, MI 48075. E-mail:
hiroshan@ltu.edu

The writers wish to thank discussers for their interest in this paper
and also for the constructive criticism. The discussers comments
opened up a discussion on the importance of incorporating SPT
rod weight into the formulation of energy balance equations.
It may be true that the proposed equations could have been
improved by incorporating SPT rod weight. However, the writers
are skeptical about the degree of improvement it can make. The
discussers suggest that the proposed equations may cause 40%
error for 30-m-long rod in loose sand with N = 3, but agree that
for the same depth, the error may be negligible in dense sand. If
a 30-m-long rod is used during an SPT, obviously the test must
have been conducted at least at a depth greater than 25 m. At
deeper depths such as 25 m, it is rare to find sand that can give
blow counts as low as 3. According to the error analysis presented
by the discussers Fig. 1, shallower depths produce relatively low
error for a wide range of N values. Fig. 1 also suggests that at
deeper depths the proposed equations produce considerable error
only for very low N values. Therefore, Fig. 1 indirectly supports
the practical level of accuracy produced of the proposed equations
even in their current forms.
The writers also have a concern about the way the discussers
define error. If they are attempting to quantify the error due to the
omission of rod weight, it is more meaningful to define the error
as the energy difference between the two methods with rod energy and without rod energy compared to the energy given by the
more detailed method with rod energy. It is not clear why the
discussers would define the error as the difference between the
rod energy and hammer energy.
The discussers argument on predicting a narrow 2835 friction angles from 7 to 97 wide range of SPT blow counts is also
misleading. It is true that the writers used a 792 wide range of
SPT blow counts to estimate the model parameters. However, the
blow count data used in the verification was only limited to 1169
and it produced a reasonable range of 2835 friction angles. As
discussed in the paper, one of the attractive features of the proposed model is its ability to slightly underpredict. While few
other widely used models are overpredicting friction angles, the
proposed model provided more conservative answers. This is also
clearly indicated in Fig. 2 provided by the discussers. In Fig, 2,

Sarat Kumar Das1 and Manas Ranjan Das2

1

Assoc. Prof., Civil Engineering Dept., National Institute of Technology

Rourkela, Orissa-769008, India. E-mail: saratdas@rediffmail.com;
sarat@nitrkl.ac.in
2
Asst. Prof., Dept. of Civil Engineering, ITER, SOA Univ., Orissa769008, India. E-mail: manasdas.iter@gmail.com

The author has proposed reliability-based economic design optimization framework of spread foundation comprising of reliability based design methodology, construction cost estimate and cost
optimization. The author has discussed the economically optimized design in the line proposed in available literature Wang
and Kulhawy 2008. Both in this paper and in Wang and Kulhawy
2008, the approach is expressed as a constrained optimization
process, in which the objective is to minimize the total construction cost. Design parameters, such as the dimensions of the foundations have been treated as variables, which vary in the ranges
constrained by design requirement including ultimate limit state
ULS and serviceability limit state SLS requirements. The optimization model has been set up in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet
and has been solved using the Excel function solver. As the above
problems are nonlinear it is solved using generalized reduced gradient GRG algorithm in solver. The GRG method is a direct
method of solving a constrained optimization problem, unlike the
Lagrange multiplier method that is solved as a sequential unconstrained optimization problem. The GRG method is based on the
principles of elimination of variables using equality constraint
Deb 2005. The optimization method is a numerical method and
Table 1. Comparison of Spread Footing Designs
Design variable

Design
option
Optimized
Wang and
Kulhawy
2008
Present study

Width Length Depth

B
L
D
m
m
m

Optimized
value

Constraints

Cost
USD

Factor of
safety
against Settlement
bearing
mm

1.86

2.30

1.38

1086.00

2.97

25.01

2.06

2.12

0.50

959.10

3.00

25.00

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010 / 1587

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1585-1587.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM on 04/21/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

depends upon the initial value guess of the design variable.

As it is very much difficult to predict global optimum of such
points it is required that the problems should be checked with
different initial point. Another important aspect of the constrained
optimization problem is constraint violation, which needs to be
checked for the optimized value. However, such a study is neither
discussed in Wang and Kulhawy 2008 nor in this paper. The
discussers have made such a study based on the results of Wang
and Kulhawy 2008 and observed different trends in the obtained
results in terms of optimized values and the design parameters.
The results are shown in Table 1 and it can be seen that the
obtained optimized value is less than that given in Wang and
Kulhawy 2008. The constraint violations are also better and the
depth of the foundation is more practical considering it as a reinforced concrete foundation. This also shows that it is very much
important to consider different initial point to arrive at optimized

value. The discussers have also faced similar difficulties while

optimizing the problems using MS Excel solver.
As discussed above both the constraints are the inequality type
and the GRG method is based on the principle of elimination of
variable using equality constraint. Hence the discusser would requests the author to verify the constraint violation of the results
for their problem and also should be checked with different initial
point before drawing their conclusions.

References
Deb, K. 2005. Optimization for engineering design algorithms and examples, PHI Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India.
Wang, Y., and Kulhawy, F. H. 2008. Economic design optimization of
foundations. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1348, 10971105.

1588 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1585-1587.