GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEERING
S O I L A N D F O U N D AT I O N P R I N C I P L E S
AND PRACTICE, FIFTH EDITION
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Richard L. Handy, Ph.D., is a Distinguished Professor Emeritus in the

Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering at Iowa
State University. He is also the founder of Handy Geotechnical Instruments, a
company that manufactures innovative soil testing devices. Dr. Handy is the
author of The Day the House Fell and co-author of the Third and Fourth Editions
of Soil Engineering. Recognized as a scientist as well as an engineer, he is a Fellow
in the Geological Society of America and also in the American Association for the
Advancement of Science.

M. G. Spangler (deceased) was a Research Professor at Iowa State University

and is well-known internationally as the author of the ‘‘Marston-Spangler theory
for loads on underground conduits.’’ He also conducted seminal research on
pressures on retaining walls and many other topics. He was a recipient of the
Marston Medal at Iowa State University and was an Honorary Member
of ASCE.
GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING
SOIL AND FOUNDATION
PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE,
FIFTH EDITION

R. L. Handy
M. G. Spangler

New York Chic ago Sa n Fra ncisco Lisbon London Ma drid Mexico City
Milan New Delhi Sa n Jua n Seoul Singapore Sydney Toronto
Copyright © 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved. Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act of 1976,
no part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without
the prior written permission of the publisher.

ISBN: 978-0-07-150871-1

MHID: 0-07-150871-6

The material in this eBook also appears in the print version of this title: ISBN: 978-0-07-148120-5,
MHID: 0-07-148120-6.

All trademarks are trademarks of their respective owners. Rather than put a trademark symbol after every occurrence of a trademarked name,
we use names in an editorial fashion only, and to the benefit of the trademark owner, with no intention of infringement of the trademark. Where
such designations appear in this book, they have been printed with initial caps.

McGraw-Hill eBooks are available at special quantity discounts to use as premiums and sales promotions, or for use in corporate training
programs. To contact a representative please e-mail us at bulksales@mcgraw-hill.com.

Information has been obtained by McGraw-Hill from sources believed to be reliable. However, because of the possibility of human or
mechanical error by our sources, McGraw-Hill, or others, McGraw-Hill does not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy, or completeness of any
information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions or the results obtained from the use of such information.

TERMS OF USE

This is a copyrighted work and The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. (“McGrawHill”) and its licensors reserve all rights in and to the work. Use
of this work is subject to these terms. Except as permitted under the Copyright Act of 1976 and the right to store and retrieve one copy of the
work, you may not decompile, disassemble, reverse engineer, reproduce, modify, create derivative works based upon, transmit, distribute,
disseminate, sell, publish or sublicense the work or any part of it without McGraw-Hill’s prior consent. You may use the work for your own
noncommercial and personal use; any other use of the work is strictly prohibited. Your right to use the work may be terminated if you fail to
comply with these terms.

THE WORK IS PROVIDED “AS IS.” McGRAW-HILL AND ITS LICENSORS MAKE NO GUARANTEES OR WARRANTIES
AS TO THE ACCURACY, ADEQUACY OR COMPLETENESS OF OR RESULTS TO BE OBTAINED FROM USING THE WORK,
INCLUDING ANY INFORMATION THAT CAN BE ACCESSED THROUGH THE WORK VIA HYPERLINK OR OTHERWISE, AND
EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ANY WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO IMPLIED WARRAN-
TIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. McGraw-Hill and its licensors do not warrant or
guarantee that the functions contained in the work will meet your requirements or that its operation will be uninterrupted or error free. Neither
McGraw-Hill nor its licensors shall be liable to you or anyone else for any inaccuracy, error or omission, regardless of cause, in the work or for
any damages resulting therefrom. McGraw-Hill has no responsibility for the content of any information accessed through the work. Under no
circumstances shall McGraw-Hill and/or its licensors be liable for any indirect, incidental, special, punitive, consequential or similar damages
that result from the use of or inability to use the work, even if any of them has been advised of the possibility of such damages. This limitation
of liability shall apply to any claim or cause whatsoever whether such claim or cause arises in contract, tort or otherwise.
Contents at a Glance

1 Introduction ...................................................... 1

2 Igneous Rocks, Ultimate Sources

for Soils .......................................................... 18

3 Special Problems with Sedimentary

Rocks .............................................................. 38

4 Soils That Are Sediments ................................. 59

5 The Soil Profile ................................................ 99

6 Soil Minerals ................................................. 121

7 Particle Size and Gradation........................... 143

8 Soil Fabric and Structure ............................... 166

9 Soil Density and Unit Weight......................... 180

10 Soil Water..................................................... 194

11 Pore Water Pressure, Capillary Water,

and Frost Action............................................ 208
v
vi Contents at a Glance

12 Soil Consistency and Engineering

Classification................................................. 246

13 Compaction................................................... 280

14 Seepage........................................................ 318

15 Stress Distribution in Soil............................... 369

16 Settlement..................................................... 399

17 Time-Rate of Settlement ................................ 438

18 Soil Shear Strength ....................................... 470

19 Lateral Stress and Retaining Walls ................ 518

20 Mechanically Stabilized Earth

(MSE) Walls and an Introduction
to Soil Nailing ............................................... 573

21 Slope Stability and Landslides....................... 590

22 Bearing Capacity of Shallow

Foundations .................................................. 638

23 Deep Foundations ......................................... 668

24 Intermediate Foundations and Ground

Improvement ................................................ 712
 Contents at a Glance vii

25 Underground Conduits.................................. 740

26 In Situ Soil and Rock Tests............................. 780

27 Introduction to Soil Dynamics........................ 831

28 Geotechnical Investigation
and Report.................................................... 870

A Elastic Solutions for Horizontal Pressures

on Retaining Walls Resulting from Surface
Loads.............................................................. 883

Index.................................................................. 887
This page intentionally left blank
Contents

Preface ............................................................................... xix

Acknowledgments ............................................................. xxi
SI and Conversion Factors ............................................. xxiii

1 Introduction ...................................................... 1
1.1 Branches of Mechanics ..............................................1
1.2 Branches of Geotechnical Engineering ......................1
1.3 Why Soil is Different .................................................2
1.4 Site Investigation .......................................................4
1.5 Soil Tests....................................................................6
1.6 Soil Water ..................................................................6
1.7 Soil Variability and the
‘‘Factor of Safety’’ .....................................................6
1.8 Ancient Applications of Geotechnical Engineering...7
1.9 Early Literature on Soil Engineering.........................7
1.10 Nineteenth-Century Developments............................8
1.11 Soil Moisture Studies.................................................9
1.12 Marston’s Experiments ............................................ 10
1.13 Terzaghi’s Contributions ......................................... 10
1.14 Soil as a Construction Material............................... 11
1.15 Soil Classification .................................................... 11
1.16 Landslides ................................................................ 12
1.17 Foundations ............................................................. 12
1.18 Soil Dynamics and Computer
Modeling .................................................................. 13
1.19 Geotextiles, Geomembranes, Geonets .....................14
1.20 On Being a Geotechnical Engineer..........................14
1.21 Geotechnical Engineers and Engineering
Geologists ................................................................ 15

2 Igneous Rocks, Ultimate Sources

for Soils .......................................................... 18
2.1 Geology and the Geological Cycle ............................ 18
ix
x Contents

2.2 Weathering and Soil Minerals ................................... 21

2.3 Geomorphology and Airphoto Interpretation ..........23
2.4 The Human Story of Plate Tectonics ........................ 24
2.5 Volcanic Rocks and Volcanoes ................................. 28
2.6 Occurrences of Granite.............................................. 33

3 Special Problems with Sedimentary

Rocks .............................................................. 38
3.1 Sedimentary Rocks .................................................... 38
3.2 The Geological Time Scale ........................................ 39
3.3 Classification of Sedimentary Rocks .........................39
3.4 Metamorphic Rocks .................................................. 51
3.5 Faults and Earthquakes............................................. 52
3.6 Subsidence over Underground Mines........................ 54

4 Soils That Are Sediments ................................. 59

4.1 Sediments in Engineering......................................... 59
4.2 Sediments and Geography ....................................... 60
4.3 Gravity Deposits...................................................... 63
4.4 Deposits from Ice .................................................... 67
4.5 Glacio-Fluvial Deposits ........................................... 74
4.6 Alluvial Deposits...................................................... 77
4.7 Sea and Lake Deposits ............................................ 86
4.8 Eolian Sands ............................................................ 89
4.9 Eolian Silt, or Loess ................................................ 92
4.10 Man-Made Fill......................................................... 95
4.11 Summary.................................................................. 96

5 The Soil Profile ................................................ 99

5.1 Soil Profiles in Engineering ....................................... 99
5.2 Development of a Soil Profile ................................. 100
5.3 Factors Influencing a Soil Profile............................ 105
5.4 Implications from Buried Soil Profiles (Paleosols).. 108
5.5 Groundwater and Soil Color................................... 109
5.6 Agronomic Soil Maps.............................................. 113

6 Soil Minerals ................................................. 121

6.1 Introduction............................................................. 121
 Contents xi

6.2 X-ray Diffraction and Geotechnical

Engineering .............................................................. 122
6.3 Clay Mineralogy ...................................................... 126
6.4 Problems with Air-Drying Soil Samples.................. 136
6.5 Lime Stabilization of Expansive Clay ..................... 137
6.6 Non-Clay Minerals .................................................. 138

7 Particle Size and Gradation........................... 143

7.1 Grain Sizes and Orders of Magnitude..................... 143
7.2 Gradation Curves .................................................... 143
7.3 Defining Size Grades ............................................... 146
7.4 Measuring Particle Sizes .......................................... 148
7.5 Uses of Particle Size Data ....................................... 153
7.6 Describing Particle Shape ........................................ 158
7.7 Textural Classification of Soils................................ 159
7.8 Specific Gravity of Soil Particles ............................. 161

8 Soil Fabric and Structure ............................... 166

8.1 Some Important Relationships ................................ 166
8.2 Granular Soil Fabric ............................................... 167
8.3 Cohesive Soil Fabric................................................ 170
8.4 Sensitivity................................................................. 173
8.5 Soil Macrostructure ................................................. 176

9 Soil Density and Unit Weight......................... 180

9.1 Density and Moisture Content ................................ 180
9.2 Solid þ Liquid and Gas .......................................... 182
9.3 Dry Unit Weight...................................................... 184
9.4 Saturated and Submerged Unit Weight .................. 185
9.5 Values for Specific Gravity...................................... 188
9.6 Factors Affecting Soil Unit Weight......................... 188
9.7 Measuring Soil Moisture Contents.......................... 190

10 Soil Water..................................................... 194

10.1 The Hydrological Cycle ......................................... 194
10.2 Groundwater.......................................................... 195
10.3 Classification of Soil Water ................................... 198
10.4 Movement of Water............................................... 199
10.5 The Dipolar Nature of Water ............................... 200
xii Contents

10.6 Differential Thermal Analysis (DTA).................... 201

10.7 Colloidal Fraction of Clay..................................... 202
10.8 Summary of Attractive and Repulsive
Forces Involving Water and Soil Minerals............ 206

11 Pore Water Pressure, Capillary Water,

and Frost Action............................................ 208
11.1 Putting It Together .............................................. 208
11.2 Effective Stress ..................................................... 209
11.3 Negative Pore Water Pressure ............................. 212
11.4 Positive and Negative Pressures from
Surface Tension.................................................... 216
11.5 Soil Mechanics of Unsaturated Soils ................... 219
11.6 Sorption Curves ................................................... 224
11.7 Measuring Matric Potential ................................. 227
11.8 Frost Heave.......................................................... 229
11.9 Depth of Freezing ................................................ 232
11.10 Permafrost............................................................ 237
11.11 Summary .............................................................. 242

12 Soil Consistency and Engineering

Classification................................................. 246
12.1 Classification and Soil Behavior .......................... 246
12.2 Measuring the Liquid Limit................................. 248
12.3 Measuring the Plastic Limit................................. 250
12.4 Direct Applications of LL and PL
to Field Situations................................................ 251
12.5 The Plasticity Index ............................................. 252
12.6 Activity Index and Clay Mineralogy ................... 253
12.7 Liquid Limit and Collapsibility ........................... 254
12.8 Consistency Limits and Expansive Soils.............. 255
12.9 Plasticity Index vs. Liquid Limit ......................... 260
12.10 A Soil Classification Based on the
A-Line .................................................................. 260
12.11 Field Use of the Unified Soil
Classification System............................................ 266
12.12 The AASHTO System of Soil
Classification ........................................................ 269
 Contents xiii

12.13 Limitations and Comparisons of

Soil Classification Systems................................... 274
12.14 Other Descriptive Limits...................................... 275
12.15 Summary .............................................................. 277

13 Compaction................................................... 280
13.1 Historical Background ......................................... 280
13.2 Proctor’s Discovery.............................................. 281
13.3 Zero Air Voids Line............................................. 284
13.4 Compacting in Layers.......................................... 284
13.5 Out Goes the Air, Not the Water........................ 288
13.6 Compaction of Granular Soils............................. 290
13.7 Compaction Specifications for
Fine-Grained Soils ............................................... 292
13.8 Special Problems with Compaction
of Expansive Clays............................................... 297
13.9 Strength and Modulus of Compacted Soil
Specimens............................................................. 299
13.10 Gradation and Compacted Density..................... 300
13.11 Field Density Tests .............................................. 301
13.12 Field Compaction Equipment.............................. 304
13.13 Chemical Compaction Aids ................................. 304
13.14 Statistics of Compaction ...................................... 305
13.15 Particle Stacking .................................................. 312
13.16 Summary .............................................................. 313

14 Seepage........................................................ 318
14.1 Gravitational Flow of Water in Soil ................... 318
14.2 Mechanics of Gravitational Flow ........................ 320
14.3 Measuring Hydraulic Conductivity
of Soil................................................................... 325
14.4 Laboratory Measurements of k ........................... 326
14.5 Field Tests for Hydraulic
Conductivity......................................................... 332
14.6 Managing the Groundwater Table ...................... 341
14.7 Flow Nets............................................................. 345
14.8 How to Draw a Flow Net ................................... 350
xiv Contents

14.9 Hydrostatic Uplift Pressure

on a Structure ...................................................... 355
14.10 Seepage Force and Quicksand ............................. 356
14.11 Flow Nets in Earth Dams.................................... 360

15 Stress Distribution in Soil............................... 369

15.1 Stress Is Where You Find It................................ 369
15.2 Taking the Measure of Stress .............................. 370
15.3 Theory of Elasticity ............................................. 371
15.4 Poisson’s Ratio .................................................... 375
15.5 Elastic Stress-Strain Relations ............................. 377
15.6 Criteria for Elastic Behavior................................ 378
15.7 Integration of the Boussinesq Equation .............. 379
15.8 Using the Newmark Coefficients ......................... 384
15.9 Newmark Influence Chart ................................... 389
15.10 Other Solutions .................................................... 391

16 Settlement..................................................... 399
16.1 Slow But Sure ...................................................... 399
16.2 Differential Settlement ......................................... 401
16.3 Soil Mechanics of Compression........................... 405
16.4 Terzaghi’s Theory for Primary
Consolidation ....................................................... 407
16.5 Analysis of Consolidation Test
Data ..................................................................... 409
16.6 Relation Between Void Ratio and
Settlement............................................................. 415
16.7 Defining a Preconsolidation Pressure .................. 420
16.8 Some Ways to Reduce Error ............................... 422
16.9 Some Special e-log P Relationships..................... 426
16.10 Settlement of Structures on Sand ........................ 429
16.11 Allowable Settlement ........................................... 434

17 Time-Rate of Settlement ................................ 438

17.1 Overview ................................................................ 438
17.2 Terzaghi’s Theory .................................................. 438
17.3 Determining Cv ...................................................... 444
17.4 FORE..................................................................... 448
17.5 Correcting Systematic Errors Affecting
Consolidation Time ............................................... 454
 Contents xv

17.6 Secondary Consolidation ....................................... 457

17.7 Monitoring Settlement ........................................... 463

18 Soil Shear Strength ....................................... 470

18.1 Overview .............................................................. 470
18.2 Sliding Friction .................................................... 472
18.3 Dilatancy: A Second Component of
Internal Friction................................................... 476
18.4 Direct Shear Tests................................................ 477
18.5 Cohesion .............................................................. 481
18.6 Soil Creep............................................................. 487
18.7 Pore Water Pressure and Shear Strength............. 488
18.8 Compressive Strength .......................................... 492
18.9 Stress Paths .......................................................... 501
18.10 Conduct of a Triaxial Test .................................. 509
18.11 Importance of Field Observations ....................... 513

19 Lateral Stress and Retaining Walls ................ 518

19.1 Overview .............................................................. 518
19.2 Design Requirements ........................................... 521
19.3 Active, Passive, and At-Rest
Earth Pressures .................................................... 525
19.4 Rankine’s Theory of Active and Passive
Earth Pressures .................................................... 528
19.5 Predicting Stability............................................... 533
19.6 Coulomb’s Analysis for Active Earth
Pressure ................................................................ 539
19.7 Cohesion .............................................................. 542
19.8 Wall Friction........................................................ 543
19.9 Fascia Walls ......................................................... 551
19.10 K0, the Coefficient of Earth Pressure
at Rest.................................................................. 553
19.11 Should Soil Be Compacted Next to
a Retaining Wall?................................................. 555
19.12 Surcharge Loads .................................................. 557
19.13 Along the Waterfront: Anchored
Bulkheads............................................................. 562
19.14 Down in the Trenches: Braced
Excavations .......................................................... 567
xvi Contents

20 Mechanically Stabilized Earth

(MSE) Walls and an Introduction
to Soil Nailing ............................................... 573
20.1 Overview ................................................................ 573
20.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) ................... 574
20.3 Design of MSE Walls ............................................ 577
20.4 Soil Nailing ............................................................ 583
20.5 Summary................................................................ 587

21 Slope Stability and Landslides....................... 590

21.1 Cut Slopes vs. Built-Up Slopes.............................. 590
21.2 Slopes in Cohesive Soils......................................... 596
21.3 Landslides .............................................................. 601
21.4 Slopes Where the Most Critical Slip
Surface Is Not Known........................................... 606
21.5 Solutions for Circular and Log Spiral
Shear Failures ........................................................ 613
21.6 Solutions for Noncircular Surfaces........................ 617
21.7 Rummaging Around for the Best
Slip Surface ............................................................ 620
21.8 Stopping Landslides............................................... 623
21.9 Special Problems with Earth Dams ....................... 626

22 Bearing Capacity of Shallow

Foundations .................................................. 638
22.1 Overview ................................................................ 638
22.2 Foundation Bearing Capacity................................ 639
22.3 Terzaghi Bearing Capacity Theory........................ 648
22.4 Analysis Using a Method of Slices........................ 656
22.5 Bearing Capacities for Special Cases ..................... 658
22.6 The Type B Problem, Settlement........................... 660
22.7 Proportioning Footings for Equal Settlement ....... 662
22.8 Summary................................................................ 665

23 Deep Foundations ......................................... 668

23.1 Overview .............................................................. 668
23.2 Pile Foundations .................................................. 669
23.3 Pile Driving .......................................................... 675
23.4 Drilled Piers and Augercast Piles ........................ 681
 Contents xvii

23.5 Soil Mechanics of Piles and Piers ........................ 685

23.6 Load Tests............................................................ 693
23.7 End Bearing on Rock .......................................... 699
23.8 Pile Groups .......................................................... 700
23.9 Settlement of Pile Groups.................................... 704
23.10 Special Topics ...................................................... 705

24 Intermediate Foundations and Ground

Improvement ................................................ 712
24.1 Overview ................................................................ 712
24.2 Stone Columns....................................................... 713
24.3 Mixed-In-Place Piers.............................................. 718
24.4 Rammed Aggregate PiersTM (RAP)....................... 719
24.5 Settlement of Foundations Supported by
Rammed Aggregate Piers ...................................... 726
24.6 Pressure Grouting .................................................. 732

25 Underground Conduits.................................. 740

25.1 Introduction ......................................................... 740
25.2 Soil Loads on Ditch Conduits ............................. 741
25.3 Pipe Jacking and Tunneling................................. 749
25.4 Positive Projecting Conduit ................................. 750
25.5 Marston’s Imperfect Ditch................................... 757
25.6 Surface Loads ...................................................... 760
25.7 Supporting Strength of Conduit .......................... 761
25.8 Additional Requirements ..................................... 768
25.9 Internal Pressure .................................................. 769
25.10 Flexible Conduit .................................................. 771

26 In Situ Soil and Rock Tests............................. 780

26.1 Overview .............................................................. 780
26.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)......................... 784
26.3 Cone Penetration Tests ........................................ 790
26.4 Vane Shear ........................................................... 796
26.5 Borehole Shear Test ............................................. 798
26.6 Pressuremeters...................................................... 802
26.7 The Dilatometer................................................... 807
26.8 Lateral Stress with the K0 Stepped Blade ............ 811
26.9 Statistical Treatment of Data .............................. 815
26.10 Summary .............................................................. 826
xviii Contents

27 Introduction to Soil Dynamics........................ 831

27.1 Dynamic Loading Conditions ............................... 831
27.2 Earthquakes ........................................................... 833
27.3 Induced Vibrations ................................................ 847
27.4 Pile Driving and Blasting....................................... 857
27.5 Vibratory Compactors ........................................... 859
27.6 Seismic Surveys ...................................................... 860

28 Geotechnical Investigation
and Report.................................................... 870
28.1 Overview ................................................................ 870
28.2 Proposal: Where Writing Counts .......................... 872
28.3 The Geotechnical Engineer as an
Expert Witness ...................................................... 877

A Elastic Solutions for Horizontal Pressures

on Retaining Walls Resulting from Surface
Loads.............................................................. 883
Index................................................................................. 887
Preface

Over 50 years ago the late Professor M. G. Spangler put this train on the track
with the first edition of Soil Engineering—at a time when the engineer’s fast track
was a slide rule. The goal, stated in the Preface of the first edition, was to present
material ‘‘in the simplest possible manner’’ and ‘‘to lead the reader through
appropriate phases of the basic sciences of geology, pedology, soil physics,
and physical chemistry and to illustrate the applications of these sciences in soil
mechanics and soil engineering.’’
The present senior author has attempted to continue to fulfill those goals in this,
the fifth edition, while introducing many new concepts and methods developed
over the ensuing decades. There has been a shift in emphasis away from highway
engineering applications, earth dams, and underground conduits, and more
emphasis on foundations, retaining walls, landslides, and in-situ testing, topics
that form the nucleus of the geotechnical engineer’s repertoire. Materials that are
unique to this textbook should make it equally useful for practicing engineers and
for classroom instruction.

xix
This page intentionally left blank
Acknowledgments

The author wishes to acknowledge the many individuals who have given
freely of their time and advice while bearing none of the responsibility.
Dr. Alan Lutenegger, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, contributed to
the outline, and the manuscript was reviewed by Dr. David White, Iowa
State University. Others who have read selected sections or chapters include
Dr. John Schmertmann, Dr. Nathanial Fox, Dr. Kord Wissman, Mr. Michael
Lustig, Mr. Max Calhoon, Mr. Dwayne McAninch, Mr. Roger Failmezger, and
Attorney Richard Garberson. Many other colleagues and former students have
made valuable suggestions; they know who they are. Most important was my wife,
Kathryn, for her unique combination of patience and encouragement. A special
thanks goes to the editor Larry Hager, the project manager Andy Baxter, and
many others who helped to pull it all together.

xxi
This page intentionally left blank
SI and Conversion Factors

In this edition dimensions are given in both English and SI (Système

International) units. Problems may be worked in either system. While SI is
being adopted in academic circles, U.S. federal agencies, and professional
societies, a working knowledge of the English system will be required in the U.S.
for some years to come, so students and engineers caught in the transition must of
necessity learn both.

Mass vs. Force

In the SI the unit of mass is the kilogram; in the English system it is the slug.
Corresponding designations for forces are the newton (SI) and the pound
(English). Engineering emphasize forces, not masses; hence our basic units in the
two systems are the newton and the pound. Grams and kilograms, being units of
mass, require conversion to force by being multiplied by the acceleration of
gravity. Weight is a force developed by a certain mass in a certain gravitational
field. Another distinction is that force is a vector quantity and has direction,
whereas mass does not. Thus a mass acted on by gravity gives a gravitational force
that is directed downward.

Density vs. Unit Weight

An important fundamental property of soil is its mass per unit volume, or density.
However, since engineering deals with forces, the force equivalent of density is unit
weight, in newtons per cubic meter or pounds per cubic foot. Unit weight is the
preferred measure and should be used and designated as such. Units of density are
g/cm3 (grams per cubic centimeter) or kg/m3 (kilograms per cubic meter), and
it is incorrect to refer to a ‘‘density’’ in pounds per cubic foot because pounds
are force. Unit weight, being a force term, has direction, and acts downward.
It should be emphasized that the terms ‘‘density’’ and ‘‘unit weight’’ strictly
speaking are not interchangeable. Density is of course convertible to unit weight
by Newton’s law: force ¼ mass
g (acceleration of gravity). On a unit volume
basis, unit weight ¼ density
g.
xxiii
xxiv SI and Conversion Factors

Stress
Stress is defined as a force per unit area. Thus stress is in N/m2 (newtons per
square meter), which also is called the pascal in SI, or it may be in lb/ft2 (psf or
pounds per square foot) or lb/in.2 (psi or pounds per square inch). Stress is not in
units of kg/cm2, which is mass per unit area and has no physical meaning.
Therefore, even though kg/cm2 (kilograms per square centimeter) is the common
metric unit in the older European literature and still is widely used, it is incorrect
and should be converted to kilopascals: 1 kg/cm2 ¼ 100 kPa.

Summary
Some mass- and force-derived units commonly used in geotechnical engineering
are shown below. Inconsistencies occur in both the English and cgs systems due to
use of force terms for mass and vice versa.

English SI cgs

Mass, M slug kilogram gram

Force, F pound, ton newton gram force, tonnea
Stress, FL2 pound/inch2 newton/meter2 gram force/centimeter2
Unit weight, FL3 pound/foot3 newton/meter3 gram force/centimeter3
Density, ML3 pound mass/foot3 kilogram/meter3 gram/centimeter3

a
Use of a force term for mass or a mass term for force is applicable only with a specific
gravitational field.

The conversions in this book are based on the mean acceleration of Earth’s
gravitational field, g ¼ 9.80665 m/s2.

Preferred SI Prefixes
The SI uses preferred multipliers in steps of 103:

G ¼ giga ¼ 109

M ¼ mega ¼ 106

k ¼ kilo ¼ 103

(No prefix) ¼ 100 ¼ 1

m ¼ milli ¼ 103

m ¼ micro ¼ 106
 SI and Conversion Factors xxv

n ¼ nano ¼ 109

p ¼ pico ¼ 1012

The prefixes mega, kilo, milli, and micro are the most commonly used in
geotechnical engineering. Prefixes are selected so that numbers are between
0.1 and 1000, except in tabular presentations where the rule may give way to
consistency. Example: 0.7 m or 700 mm are acceptable; 0.0007 km is not.

Allowable Units
The above arrangement becomes a bit fanciful when one considers appropriate
units for area or volume, since 103 steps in linear dimensions translate into
106 steps in area dimensions and 109 steps in volume dimensions. That is,
1 mm3 ¼ 109 m3, and 1,000,000 mm3 equals only 0.001 m3. Therefore, for
area or volume, cm2 and cm3 are allowed, 1 cm equaling 102 m. Then
1,000,000 mm3 ¼ 1000 cm3 ¼ 0.001 m3.

The preferred unit for angle is radians, but degrees and fractions (not minutes and
seconds) are allowed and will be used in this text unless specifically noted.

Computers and Significant Figures

In spite of their apparent infallibility, modern digital calculators and computers
automatically contribute an error that all too frequently is copied into answers––
the error being to show too many digits in the output. The output therefore
is not the answer, but must be interpreted. For example, unless directed otherwise,
a digital calculator will solve the following problem thusly:
9:71
1:3 ¼ 12:623 Answer ðincorrectÞ
In an engineering report this answer would be incorrect and should be marked wrong,
because it implies five-figure precision but one of the multipliers, 1.3, shows only
two-figure precision. The answer therefore should show two significant figures:
9:71
1:3 ¼ 13: Answer
Multiplication, division, and trigonometric functions do not change the number
of valid significant figures. Summing or averaging increases the number of
significant figures and is a basis for statistical measurements, whereas subtraction
decreases the number of significant figures by removing from the front:
129:71  129:11 ¼ 0:60
(5 significant figures reduced to 2 significant figures)

This is important in engineering measurement because when an accurate

difference is wanted it should be directly measured, not obtained by subtracting
two measured values.
xxvi SI and Conversion Factors

The number of significant figures in an answer is a rough indication of

measurement precision:

Example Implied measurement precision

2 50% ¼ 1 significant figure ¼ estimation or approximate measurement

2.2 5% ¼ 2 significant figures ¼ rough measurement
2.22 0.5% ¼ 3 significant figures ¼ ordinary measurement
2.222 0.05% ¼ 4 significant figures ¼ precise measurement
2.2222 0.005% ¼ 5 significant figures ¼ very precise measurement, usually
attainable only by repetitive determinations and statistical averaging
2.22222 0.0005% ¼ 6 significant figures ¼ the highest order of precision

The number of valid figures depends on variability of the property measured, high
variability giving few legitimate significant figures. Soils are quite variable.

Example
Three soil samples from the same location are found to contain 9.6%, 6.3%, and 4.0%
gravel. What is the average percentage of gravel?

Calculator answer: ð9:6 þ 6:3 þ 4:0Þ ¼ 6:63333333. . . %

If one were to screen 100 tons of this soil, it is very unlikely that 6.63333333 . . . tons would
be gravel. Inspection of the raw data shows there is no more than one significant figure,
and the average therefore should be reported as 7%. This implies that about 7 tons,
or about 6 to 8 tons, may be expected to be gravel. For a better estimate, a statistical
procedure may be used.

Precision and Accuracy

The above discussions of significant figures and rounding relate only to precision,
or exactness of a measurement or test. Precision is evaluated by re-measuring
several times under identical conditions and noting the reproducibility of the data.
However, because a measurement is precise does not mean that it is accurate.
In fact, many precise measures are inaccurate because ‘‘accuracy’’ implies the
measurement accurately evaluates that which is intended to be evaluated. Income
tax, for example, may be precisely calculated to the nearest penny and still can be
inaccurate enough to constitute a felony.

Rounding
An extra figure should be carried in calculations to reduce rounding error,
but the final answer must be rounded to reflect the minimum number of
significant figures of the contributing data. The standard recommended by
 SI and Conversion Factors xxvii

ASTM is to round a final digit 5 (five) upward if the preceding digit is odd.
For example, 15.50
12.10 ¼ 187.55 rounds to 187.6. Many calculators always
round 5 upward.

Conversion Factors
Length
1 in. ¼ 25.4 mm 1 mm ¼ 0.0397 in.
1 ft ¼ 0.3048 m 1 m ¼ 3.281 ft
1 mile ¼ 1.609 km 1 km ¼ 0.6214 mile

Area
1 in.2 ¼ 645.2 mm2 1 mm2 ¼ 0.00155 in.2
¼ 6.452 cm2 1 cm2 ¼ 0.155 in.2
1 ft ¼ 0.0929 m2
2
1 m2 ¼ 10.764 ft2
1 acre ¼ 4047 m2 1 m2 ¼ 0.000247 acre

Volume
1 in.3 ¼ 16,390 mm3 1 mm3 ¼ 0.0000610 in.3
¼ 16.39 cm3 1 cm3 ¼ 0.0610 in.3
1 ft ¼ 0.02832 m3
3
1 m3 ¼ 35.31 ft3
1 yd3 ¼ 0.7646 m3 1 m3 ¼ 1.308 yd3

Force
1 lb ¼ 4.448 N 1 N ¼ 0.2248 lb
1 kip ¼ 4.448 kN 1 kN ¼ 0.2248 kip
1 ton ¼ 8.896 kN 1 kN ¼ 0.1124 ton
1 dyne ¼ 10 mN

Force per Unit Length

1 lb/ft ¼ 14.59 N/m 1 N/m ¼ 0.0685 lb/ft
1 dyne/cm ¼ 1 mN/m

Stress (Force per Unit Area) (1 Pa ¼ 1 N/m2)

1 lb/in.2 (psi) ¼ 6.895 kPa 1 kPa ¼ 0.1450 lb/in.2
1 lb/ft2 (psf) ¼ 47.88 Pa 1 kPa ¼ 20.89 lb/ft2
1 ton/ft2 (Tsf) ¼ 95.76 kPa 1 Pa ¼ 0.0104 ton/ft2
1 atm ¼ 101.3 kPa 1 kPa ¼ 0.009869 atm
1 bar ¼ 100 kPa 1 kPa ¼ 0.0100 bar

Unit Weight (Force per Unit Volume)

1 lb/ft3 ¼ 0.1571 kN/m3 1 kN/m3 ¼ 6.366 lb/ft3
xxviii SI and Conversion Factors

Mass-Force and Density-Unit Weight Conversions on Earth

1 kg ¼ 2.205 lb ¼ 9.807 N
1 tonne (1000 kg) ¼ 2205 lb ¼ 1.102 tons ¼ 9.807 kN
1 kg/m2 ¼ 0.2048 lb/ft2
1 kg/cm2 ¼ 14.22 lb/in.2 ¼ 1.024 tons/ft2 ¼ 98.07 kPa
1 Mg/m2 ¼ 204.8 lb/ft2 ¼ 9.807 kPa
Water
1 g/cm3 ¼ 1 Mg/m3 ¼ 62.4 lb/ft3 ¼ 9.807 kN/m3
1 Introduction

1.1 BRANCHES OF MECHANICS

‘‘Mechanics’’ may be defined as that part of physical science that treats of the
action of forces on masses. There are many branches of mechanics, each appli-
cable to a particular kind of mass or classification of matter. Mechanics pertaining
to astronomical bodies is called celestial mechanics. The mechanics of gases is
called pneumatics; of water, hydraulics; of solid bodies in motion, dynamics; of
solid bodies at rest, statics; of heat-energy transfer, thermodynamics; and so on.
Similarly, the branch of mechanics that deals with the action of forces on soil
masses is called soil mechanics, and on rocks, rock mechanics.

1.2 BRANCHES OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

The practice of engineering that involves application of the principles of soil

mechanics is called soil engineering. Similarly, the practice of engineering that
involves application of the principles of rock mechanics may be called rock
engineering. Because rock mechanics for the most part grew out of soil mechanics,
a close relationship exists between these engineering disciplines, which now are
collectively referred to as geotechnical engineering.

Foundation engineering is the application of geotechnical engineering for the

design of foundations for structures including buildings, walls, and embankments;
the total load supported by a foundation obviously must not exceed the
supporting capacity of the underlying soil. Less obvious, but also of critical
importance, is that settlement of the completed structure must not be excessive
or uneven.

1
2 Geotechnical Engineering

Geotechnical engineering also is involved in highway engineering and in

engineering for dams.

A more recent application of geotechnical engineering is geoenviron-

mental engineering, which involves assessment, prevention, and mitigation of
ground and surface water pollution from landfills, lagoons, and hazardous
waste sites.

1.3 WHY SOIL IS DIFFERENT

It is important to recognize that soils are different from all other construction
materials. A list of top 11 differences is as follows, ranging from the obvious to the
esoteric. An understanding and utilization of these characteristics occupy a major
portion of this book, and of geotechnical engineering.
1. Soil is cheap—usually—and therefore is our most abundant construc-
tion material. Railway and highway embankments comprise the longest
man-made structures in the world, and earth dams are the largest, many
exceeding the bulk of the Great Pyramid. The interior of the Great Wall
is soil.
2. The weight of the soil itself is a major factor in design, in some instances
being so large that it cannot even support itself, so we have a landslide.
Virtually every structure ultimately derives its support from soil or from
rock; those that don’t either fly, float, or fall over.
3. Soils are extremely variable, ranging from a harsh jumble of angular rock
fragments on a steep mountain slope to massive billows of sand in dunes,
to gentle ripples of sand on a beach, to free-standing hills of loessial silt,
to soft, viscous gumbo that can mire a tank.
4. Whereas most construction materials are specified and manufactured to a
given purpose, soils are simply there, to be either used or avoided depending
on the good or bad qualities they may possess. A geotechnical engineer should
have a sufficient understanding of geology and soil science to reliably identify,
test, and evaluate the relevant soil properties and property variations at a site.
For example, many soils become stiffer and stronger with increasing depth
because of compression under the weight of the overburden. This property
is utilized by building foundations on piles that transfer load downward to
stiffer soils or strata.
5. Soils are not homogeneous solids, but are composed of mixtures of discrete
particles that are in contact and surround jagged, spider-like voids that are
filled with varying amounts of water and air. The properties of soils depend in
part on packing of the particles, which is why soils often are compacted
prior to being used to support pavements or foundations.
 Introduction 3

Figure 1.1
Soils are
particulate and
respond to
external load by
developing
friction at the grain
contacts. As a
result the K ratio of
horizontal to
vertical stress is
quite variable, and
depends on the
stress history and
loading conditions.

6. When soil particles are disturbed they can exhibit a kind of mob behavior,
jamming into each other like elbows on a New York subway. This can either
markedly increase or decrease the soil strength. A decrease in strength
explains why landslides continue to move until they find a more level
geometry. Soils can be tricky.
7. Horizontal pressure from soil is an important consideration for design of
retaining walls, but also is highly variable. Whereas the K ratio of horizontal
to vertical stress in a liquid is 1.0, and for a rigid solid is 0, in soils the ratio
depends on the resistance of particles to sliding. This is illustrated in Fig. 1.1.
K for soils typically varies from 0.2 to 0.5, but can be much higher if high
horizontal stress is inherited from overburden that has been removed by
erosion.
8. Horizontal pressure depends on whether a soil is pushing or is being pushed.
For example, soil piled against a retaining wall usually will exert much less
pressure than if it is being pushed by a bulldozer. The reason for this is
illustrated by changing directions of the friction arrows in the lower part
of Fig. 1.1—whichever stress is higher, vertical or horizontal, determines
the directions of the friction arrows and the K ratio. A bulldozer that is
designed on the basis of the wrong K will have a built-in anchor. Soils can
be very tricky.
9. An unsaturated soil derives part of its strength from the pull or suction
of capillary water—the same pull that draws water up into a fine straw
as shown at the right in Fig. 1.2. Then when the soil becomes saturated it
loses this part of its strength. Some wind-blown loess soils that have never been
saturated therefore collapse under their own weight if they become saturated.
10. Compressing a saturated soil causes stress to be carried in part by
grain-to-grain contact and in part by pressure from the pore water, as
4 Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 1.2
Pressure in
pore water can
be positive
or negative,
respectively
decreasing or
increasing
frictional strength.

shown at the left in Fig. 1.2. As pore water pressure increases, friction
between the grains decreases and the soil becomes weaker. Measurement and
control of pore water pressure therefore can be a major factor influencing
construction.
11. Certain soil clay minerals blow up like an accordion when wet with water,
and can exert enough pressure to lift pavements, floors, and foundations, and
push in walls. This may come as a surprise, but the cost of repairs of damages
caused by expansive clays exceeds that from landslides and earthquakes,
and runs to billions of dollars per year.

This list is not complete, partly because geotechnical engineering is relatively

new and the era of discovery is not over. Soils are complex materials, and tests are
required to identify, evaluate, and effectively use them. Curtailing an investigation
to save money up front will increase overall cost as the design then must be overly
conservative to allow for any unrecognized problems. A competent geotechnical
investigation is essential if problems are to be avoided, and it is axiomatic that
the investigation that is not conducted prior to construction probably will
be conducted later, when repairs are needed or the matter goes to court. The
problems depicted in Fig. 1.3 went to court.

1.4 SITE INVESTIGATION

1.4.1 Site Geology

The first step in a site investigation is to identify the geological conditions, which
can profoundly influence the plan and methods of the investigation. For example,
borings performed on a hill whose flanks reveal a persistent rock outcrop will be
far different from those performed in a river floodplain where rock may be tens or
hundreds of meters deep. A preliminary assessment is made through recognition
of surface features, reference to geological and agricultural soil maps, and records
from prior borings in the vicinity.
 Introduction 5

Figure 1.3
This could have
been avoided.
Fill soil was
identified by
drilling, so part of
the house was
supported on piles.
What was not
recognized was
that the fill was on
top of an old
landslide that was
reactivated by
weight of the fill.

1.4.2 Site Walkabout

A site visit by a geotechnical engineer may be somewhat bewildering to spectators
as the engineer pokes around in adjacent hillsides or ravines, or even goes across the
street or around the corner to observe existing structures. Such a seemingly casual
inspection of nearby areas can provide important clues to site conditions and geo-
logy. For example, soil or rock layers exposed in a nearby ravine may be the same as
those underlying the site—but don’t count on it without other confirmation.

Often the most important clues to landslides or expansive clays are signs of
distress in existing structures. Such clues can be as subtle as a pavement heaved
up in the middle, or a scarp or step that may be devoid of vegetation or may
support a line of younger trees extending laterally across a hillside. A series of
shallow depressions can warn of the existence of subterranean caverns, or a mine
or tunnel. Such observations can be extremely important because the causes can
be missed by routine pattern boring; borings can reveal only what is encountered
by drilling, not what is in between. Regardless of how many holes are bored,
soil conditions between the borings are interpolated based on circumstantial
evidence, a knowledge of the local geology, and general observations.

1.4.3 Drilling Program

The purpose of exploration drilling is to identify, sample, and test the soils.
Drilling programs sometimes are laid out without a preliminary site visit but only
if the engineer is familiar with and experienced in the area. Sometimes an initial
investigation is made to select or evaluate different possible building sites and give
information relative to design and construction. A design not only must be safe,
it must be ‘‘buildable’’ within the economic and time constraints of a project.
6 Geotechnical Engineering

1.5 SOIL TESTS

Testing is required to evaluate soils at a particular site, and normally are con-
ducted as part of the boring program. Relatively undisturbed samples are taken
for laboratory testing, and in recent years there has been a rapid increase in the
use of rapid tests that are performed in situ in order to save time and money.

The footprint and complexity of a structure help to define appropriate depths and
patterns of borings, and the tests that should be performed. Statistical methods
are used to evaluate the results, and show that the more variable the soil, the more
data are required for an accurate characterization of its properties. It also is
important to define and identify different soils at a site in order to evaluate the
properties of each instead of mixing apples and random dog turds.

One challenge for geotechnical engineers is to not only convince clients and their
representatives of the need for a proper investigation, but also to heed the results.
For example, when a pile foundation was recommended for an elaborate marble-
faced building, the architect objected that he was not going to approve putting
money into the ground ‘‘where it would not show.’’ An argument was made that
without an adequate foundation the consequences indeed would show, and the
building was put on piles.

1.6 SOIL WATER

Architects or structural engineers who are not accustomed to dealing with the
vagaries and inconsistencies of nature may regard soil as perverse and lacking in
manners. What other material is so variable and so dependent on its environment?
Even a change in the elevation of the groundwater table can have adverse effects.
An important clue that may be overlooked is the soil color, gray indicating
seasonal wet conditions.

1.7 SOIL VARIABILITY AND THE ‘‘FACTOR OF SAFETY’’

Factor of safety is defined as a ratio between a design value and a failure value.
For example, if a rope breaks under load X, the allowable load must be
reduced by a factor of safety or the rope will break. Factors of safety in
geotechnical engineering tend to be generous, often 3 to 5, to ensure that
everything remains on the safe side. The more variable the soil, the less able one
is to accurately define its average or most critical properties, and the higher
the factor of safety. Thus ‘‘factor of safety’’ therefore in part is a ‘‘factor of
ignorance,’’ although it seldom is stated in this way, at least to a client. The less
 Introduction 7

variable the soil and the more comprehensive the investigation, the lower can be
the factor of safety.

Increasing a factor of safety by as little as 0.5 can add substantially to cost, so it

often is advantageous to try and trim the factor of safety by having more soil tests
and improving statistical reliability of the results. Thus, an inexpensive test that is
performed many times may be more accurate and create more confidence than an
expensive and more sophisticated test that can be performed only a few times for
the same amount of money.

The factor of safety also may be lower where occasional failures are acceptable.
An example is highways, where periodic repairs of weak spots is more cost-
effective than overdesign of an entire project. On the other hand, an earth dam
whose failure would endanger thousands of lives obviously requires a more
reliable and conservative investigation and factor of safety.

1.8 ANCIENT APPLICATIONS OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

The first human uses of soil and rock as engineering materials is lost in antiquity.
Neanderthal or his predecessors may have been the first to recognize the
advantage of structural engineering as they used a log to bridge a stream, but most
effort probably was focused on simply staying alive. As glaciers receded, climatic
changes raised lake levels, so people of the early Iron Age supported their lakeside
dwellings on piles. Paved highways existed in Egypt several thousand years B.C.E.,
and were used by the pyramid builders for transportation of the construction
materials. Remnants of underground cisterns, drains, tunnels, and aqueducts, and
many other structures involving soil, have been unearthed at the sites of early
Middle Eastern civilizations. Ancient engineers encountered and solved many
practical problems in soil engineering, based on experience and trial and error.

Some primitive structures reveal an unexpected level of sophistication. Early stone

arches as well as Inuit (Eskimo) igloos follow the ideal shape of a catenary similar
to the St. Louis Arch, so sides do not sustain any bending moment, compared
with the circular arches and domes of classical European architecture that
required lateral support from columns and flying buttresses. There is a Darwinian
factor in engineering, survival of the fittest.

1.9 EARLY LITERATURE ON SOIL ENGINEERING

In 1687, a French military engineer named Vauban set forth empirical rules and
formulas for the design and construction of revetments to withstand lateral soil
pressures, and nearly 200 years later, Wheeler, in his Manual of Civil Engineering,
recommended the rules of Vauban for U.S. Military Cadets.
8 Geotechnical Engineering

In 1691 Bullet, of the French Royal Academy of Architecture, presented the first
theory of lateral earth pressures based on the principles of mechanics. It was he
who introduced the concept of a ‘‘sliding wedge’’ of soil against a retaining wall.
He assumed that the slip angle was 458, which later was shown to be an
oversimplification.

Coulomb in 1773 applied the principle of maxima and minima to the sliding-
wedge theory to determine the most critical wedge angle, and showed that it
depends in part on internal frictional properties of the soil. His formulas, while
now recognized as simplifications, still are in use today and are the basis for many
computer programs. It therefore is important to know the assumptions and
limitations of a computer program prior to committing it to use.

Another important contribution by Coulomb was to recognize the concept that

shearing resistance of soil involves two separate components, cohesion and
friction. An empirical formula embodying these components now is almost
universally accepted and used in geotechnical engineering practice, and is referred
to as the Coulomb equation.

Coulomb’s interest and insight into soil problems were inspired by his profession
as a military engineer. After retiring as a result of ill health he invented the torsion
balance while seeking a prize for inventing a frictionless navigational compass.
He did not win the prize, but found a better use for his instrument by measuring
the faint attractive and repulsive forces caused by electrical charges. He at first
assumed that the attractions were inversely proportional to the separation
distance, but his experiments then established that they relate to the square of the
distance. Couomb’s inverse square law governs not only electrostatic attractions,
but also gravitational forces and, ironically, navigation of orbiting satellites.

1.10 NINETEENTH-CENTURY DEVELOPMENTS

In 1856 Rankine, in his treatise ‘‘On the Stability of Loose Earth,’’ employed the
concept of soil internal friction to retaining wall problems. His analysis gave a
quasi-hydrostatic distribution of pressure that agreed with Coulomb’s analysis
based on a sliding wedge, but by application of the theory of conjugate stresses
Rankine concluded that the resultant pressure on a wall acts parallel to the surface
of the backfill instead of horizontally. The contributions of Rankine and
Coulomb are regarded as classic and have served engineers well over the years, but
are now known to be simplifications that are not precisely realized in engineering
practice. For example, both theories predict that the resultant of pressure on a
retaining wall acts at one-third of the height of the wall, whereas measurements
indicate that it is higher because of partial support of the soil by wall friction and
arching action. The consequent increase in overturning moment is covered by the
factor of safety.
 Introduction 9

Also in 1856, two other concepts were introduced that play an important role in
soil engineering. These are Darcy’s Law defining gravitational flow of water
through porous media such as soils, and Stokes’ Law describing the equilibrium
velocity of solid particles settling in liquids. Stokes’ Law is used for measurement
of fine soil particle sizes from their settlement rates.

Another important contribution in the field of soil pressures is that of

Sir Benjamin Baker in 1881. Baker observed that the slip surface for a bank
failure is not planar as indicated by the Rankine and Coulomb analyses, but
incorporates vertically oriented cracks at the upper end. Decades earlier, in 1846,
the internal structure of landslides was investigated in the field by Alexandre
Collin, whose detailed cross-sections showed a curved instead of a flat slip
surface. Collin’s work unfortunately escaped the attention or was ignored by later
workers, who perhaps were more taken with the classical theory, and was
rediscovered only in recent years.

In 1871, Otto Mohr devised a simple graphical means for presentation and
analysis of stress data, and ‘‘Mohr’s circle’’ has become an invaluable tool for
the modern geotechnical engineer. Mohr later confirmed and generalized the
Coulomb failure criterion by relating to experimental findings, and Coulomb’s
earlier description of components of shearing strength sometimes is referred to as
the ‘‘Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope.’’

Another nineteenth-century contribution that was destined to become extremely

useful in modern soil engineering was the solution by a mathematician,
Boussinesq (pronounced Boo-sin-esk). By use of elastic analysis, in 1885 he
showed that stresses from a point load on the surface of soil should dissipate in
three-dimensional space much like ripples from a stone thrown in water. Although
soil is far from being an ideal elastic material, pressure measurements indicate that
the Boussinesq solution is appropriate for determining pressures from founda-
tions and for computing lateral pressures on retaining walls from loads applied at
the surface of the soil backfill.

1.11 SOIL MOISTURE STUDIES

Early in the twentieth century soil scientists employed by the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture were active in the study of the mechanics of soil moisture.
Among these was Briggs, who suggested a classification of soil moisture.
Concurrently Buckingham proposed the concept of capillary potential and
conductivity, which has led to a better understanding of the forces responsible for
the retention and movement of capillary water in soils. Haines and Fisher
developed an important concept of soil cohesion resulting from capillary forces
or suction of water in soils that tends to pull soil grains together and increase
friction.
10 Geotechnical Engineering

In 1911 a Swedish scientist, Atterberg, by observing the properties of soils being

molded in the hands, suggested two simple tests to determine upper and lower
limiting moisture contents through which a soil exhibits the properties of a plastic
solid. These tests for the ‘‘liquid limit’’ and ‘‘plastic limit,’’ respectively, now form
the basis for most engineering classification systems of soils.

1.12 MARSTON’S EXPERIMENTS

In the early 1900s at Iowa State College (now University), Anson Marston began
full-scale studies of soil loads on pipes in ditches. He later extended the studies to
include soil loads on culverts under soil embankments, which can result in a many-
fold increase in vertical pressure on the pipe. Marston’s work was extended by
Spangler to include the response of flexible culvert pipes to these kinds of loads.

Marston’s research perhaps is most notable because he introduced full-scale

experimentation, and then attempted to explain the results from theoretical
considerations. Then, perhaps most importantly, he presented the results in a
simplified form that could be readily understood and used by practicing engineers.

1.13 TERZAGHI’S CONTRIBUTIONS

As a professor at Robert College in Turkey, Karl Terzaghi investigated a variety

of soil problems and proposed the term ‘‘Erdbaumechanik’’ (soil mechanics) in
1925. For this and subsequent contributions Terzaghi is considered the ‘‘father of
modern soil mechanics.’’

Terzaghi’s innovative concepts derive in part from his educational background

in both mechanical engineering and geology. His classical and widely used theory
to explain the time-rate of consolidation of saturated soils is an adaptation of
heat flow theory of thermodynamics. Terzaghi also proposed a theory for friction
in soils that is used in mechanical engineering for friction in bearings.

An important part of Terzaghi’s work was to verify his theories experimentally.

He devised and constructed the first consolidometer, a device that now is
commonplace in soil mechanics laboratories.

Again utilizing his background in mechanical engineering, Terzaghi proposed a

widely used theory for foundation bearing capacity that is an adaptation of
Prandtl’s theory for a metal punch. He then reduced complicated mathematical
relationships to a form that is readily understood and used by engineers. The
relation between a diversified background and creativity is the topic of a book
by Arthur Koestler (1964), who defined it as a ‘‘juxtaposition of conflicting
matrices.’’
 Introduction 11

Terzaghi also conducted full-scale studies of pressures on retaining walls in order

to test the Coulomb and Rankine theories, and dared to suggest that they might
be oversimplified by ignoring an influence from soil arching.

What Is the Classical Approach?

The research methods of Marston, Terzaghi, and many others may be regarded
as the ‘‘classical approach’’ in geotechnical engineering research. This involves:
(1) field observation by a trained eye, (2) development of a theory to try and
explain the observations, (3) experimentation to test and if necessary modify the
theory, and (4) simplifications to put the new-found knowledge into practice.
A fifth element is to maintain a positive outlook and never give up. Research
that omits one or more of these steps may be fatally flawed. For example, it
recently has become commonplace to publish computer-based analyses without
experimental verifications in unintended support of the adage, ‘‘garbage in,
garbage out.’’

In 1943, Terzaghi summarized classical soil mechanics theories in a book

appropriately titled Theoretical Soil Mechanics, which still is in print. In 1948 he
collaborated with a former student, Ralph Peck, to stress practical applications in
another important book, Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, which remains in
print in revised editions.

1.14 SOIL AS A CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL

In 1906 C. M. Strahan, a county engineer in Georgia, began a systematic study of

the distribution of particle sizes in gravel-road surfaces in relation to road quality
and performance. Strahan’s conclusions from these correlative studies provided
the basis for later research in granular soil stabilization that now plays an
important role in the design and construction of highways and airport runways.

A contribution of outstanding importance based purely on experimentation is

that of Proctor, who in 1933 defined modern principles of soil compaction by
showing a relationship between compaction energy, moisture content, and density
of a compacted soil. Proctor’s test and its derivatives now are standards used in
construction of virtually all soil structures including earth embankments, levees,
earth dams, and subgrades for foundations or pavements.

1.15 SOIL CLASSIFICATION

In the 1920s, Terzaghi and Hogentogler introduced a scheme for soil classifi-
cation that became the basis for the ‘‘AASHTO classification’’ used in highway
work. In the 1940s, Arthur Casagrande of Harvard University introduced
12 Geotechnical Engineering

a soil classification for use by the U.S. Army in World War II, later named
the ‘‘Unified Classification,’’ and now used by most foundation engineers.
Casagrande also made improvements in laboratory tests, including a mechanical
device to measure the liquid limit that is based on a cog-wheel invention by
Leonardo da Vinci. This device is now standard equipment in all soil mechanics
laboratories.

1.16 LANDSLIDES

Field investigations, soil sampling, and testing gained new impetus and respect
after a series of landslides was investigated by a committee appointed by the
Swedish Royal Board of State Railways and chaired by Wolmar Fellenius.
The results, published in 1922, included a simple method of analysis that remains
the basis for a variety of modern computerized methods for evaluation of slope
stability. In 1948, a textbook by MIT professor Donald W. Taylor contained
considerable original material for the analysis of slope stability, with charts
that were developed with the aid of his graduate students.

Starting in the l950s, contributions towards a better understanding of clays,

soil compressibility, and landslides came from Norway and the Norwegian
Geotechnical Institute, led by Laurits Bjerrum and N. Janbu. In England,
A. W. Bishop and A. W. Skempton respectively presented a new slope stability
model and a theory explaining how slope failures in clays may be delayed
for many decades. Purdue University pioneered the use of computers to solve
slope stability problems, publishing a computer program that is widely used and
is the basis for later copyrighted programs.

Engineering geologists use a different but more general approach to landslides

by using their occurrences as a basis for landslide susceptibility maps that are
particularly useful in planning. The geotechnical engineer should be aware of the
availability of these maps in order to perform an intelligent investigation of
a specific site.

1.17 FOUNDATIONS

As previously mentioned, while many bearing capacity theories have been

proposed and used, the theory that forms the basis for most modern investiga-
tions is that of Terzaghi. In Canada, G. G. Meyerhoff extended and modified
Terzaghi’s bearing capacity theory, and at Duke University, A. Vesic suggested
modifications based on model studies with sands. In the 1960s, T. W. Lambe of
MIT introduced a new approach to the prediction of settlement called the ‘‘stress
path method.’’ One difficulty was the inability to accurately measure lateral
soil stresses in the field, and the 1970s saw the introduction of new methods
 Introduction 13

including self-boring ‘‘pressuremeters’’ in France and in England, and more

recently the ‘‘Ko Stepped Blade’’ in the U.S. As demonstrated by Terzaghi with
his consolidometer, new instrumentation can lead to new discoveries.

The problem of sample disturbance was addressed by John Schmertmann in

connection with settlement preditions, and by C. C. Ladd in connection with shear
strength testing. An approach that is gaining favor is to test the soil in situ, with
a variety of electronically instrumented cone-tipped penetration devices such as
the ‘‘piezocone,’’ which also monitors pore water pressure. The spade-shaped
‘‘Dilatometer’’ developed in Italy by Marchetti is used to measure modulus and
predict settlement. The ‘‘Borehole Shear Test’’ developed in the U.S. measures
drained or effective stress shear strength in situ, thereby avoiding disturbances
from sampling.

Two important textbook references that emphasize a scientific approach to geo-

technical engineering include Soil Mechanics by T. W. Lambe and R. V. Whitman,
and Fundamentals of Soil Behavior by J. K. Mitchell.

1.18 SOIL DYNAMICS AND COMPUTER MODELING

Certain behaviors of soils in earthquakes, such as the development of quicksand

or sand ‘‘liquefaction,’’ contribute much of the damage to buildings. Studies of
soil dynamics in relation to earthquake damage were pioneered by H. Bolton Seed
and his associates at the University of California, Berkeley, and later by
T. L. Youd. Influences of machine vibrations were studied by D. D. Barkan in
Russia, and more recently by F. E. Richart at the University of Michigan.

Pile driving also involves soil dynamics, and procedures have been developed
based on computer modeling of soil reactions during pile driving, a concept
introduced in 1957 by a practicing foundation engineer, E. A. L. Smith.

The computer revolution also led to computer modeling of complex

soil mechanics problems by finite element analysis. This requires mathematical
modeling of soil strength and volume change behavior, which is difficult as these
tend to be discontinuous functions. Emphasis has been directed toward refined
laboratory testing to define idealized ‘‘constitutive equations’’ to describe
soil behavior under widely varying stress environments, a problem that may be
open-ended without some guiding theory.

As pile driving has gone out of favor in populated areas, alternatives have been
introduced including drilled-and-filled concrete shafts. Major advances in design
were made by Lyman Reece and Michael O’Neill in Texas, who developed design
procedures based on full-scale load tests. A more recent and rapidly growing
method involves replacing the concrete with aggregate that is rammed in place
14 Geotechnical Engineering

(Rammed Aggregate PiersTM) in order to increase lateral stress and strength of the
surrounding soil.

1.19 GEOTEXTILES, GEOMEMBRANES, GEONETS

Another recent innovation in geotechnical engineering is the use of geosynthetic

materials for drains, filters, lagoon linings, or tensile reinforcement within soil.
Each use requires its own material properties, such as permeability (or imper-
meability), tensile strength, and toughness. Current uses of geosynthetics include
acting as a separator or filter under landfills or between different soil layers, and
as tensile members to improve foundation bearing capacity or stability of slopes
and retaining walls.

1.20 ON BEING A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER

As implied by the above discussions, geotechnical engineering involves a broad

knowledge base that includes soil mechanics and geology, and to a lesser degree
groundwater hydrology, soil science, mineralogy, and statistics. This complexity
precludes a ‘‘handbook approach’’ except at a technician level, and the M.S. or
M.E. normally is considered the entry-level degree for a geotechnical engineer.
One of the attractions of geotechnical engineering is that every new assignment is
essentially a research project that will require a written report, so the preferred
graduate degree is with thesis. Supporting course work includes courses in
geology, agronomic soil survey, engineering mechanics, statistics, soil physics, clay
mineralogy, and groundwater hydrology.

The demand for geotechnical engineers continues to increase as building expands

into difficult or marginal sites. In many areas an environmental as well as an
engineering assessment of a building site is required before building permits are
granted. Insurance policies normally do not cover damages from wars or ground
movements and leave it to owners and builders to try and avoid all wars and
ground movements.

Most geotechnical engineers are consulting engineers, and others are employed by
government agencies, highway departments, and universities. Doctorate degrees
are mandatory in academia, and are increasingly common at higher levels in
consulting.

Regardless of the level of academic training, the beginning consulting geotechnical

engineer often starts by performing mundane chores in the field, identifying and
describing soil samples as they come from borings. The next steps are to prescribe
and/or perform appropriate soil tests, interpret and summarize the test results,
and write reports under the direction of a senior engineer. All reports preferably
 Introduction 15

will be reviewed by another geotechnical engineer. Communication skills

obviously are essential. Computers and word processing are standard and make
it easy to incorporate standardized ‘‘boiler plate’’ that can include discussions
of area geology, and disclaimers prepared with the assistance of a lawyer.

1.21 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS

Whereas geotechnical engineering is engineering applied to geological materials,

engineering geology is geology applied to engineering problems. The two profes-
sions often share professional activities. The difference is mainly one of emphasis.
Engineering geologists usually are trained first as scientists so they may approach
a problem systematiclly, identifying all aspects and determining their relevance
through classifications and correlations. Geotechnical engineers usually are
trained first as engineers, and may prefer to look at a problem in simplified
terms in order to solve it mathematically and arrive at an answer.

Engineers sometimes view geologists as being ready to devote a lifetime of study

to a problem when the report must go out tomorrow, and geologists may see
engineers as oversimplifying the problem to the point where important aspects
are ignored or overlooked, and not fully appreciating the consequences from
meddling with Mother Nature. Some consequences are readily predictable—
straightening a river increases its gradient and erosion potential and takes out
bridges. Sometimes where a geologist sees a river, an engineer sees a dam and
reservoir. The geologist sees a reservoir that eventually and inevitably will be
clogged with sediment. By combining the strengths from various specialties,
engineers and scientists can form an alliance that can solve problems in a timely
manner and hopefully minimize future screw-ups. Then all they have to do is
convince the politicians.

Problems
1.1. Define: (a) mechanics; (b) soil mechanics; (c) soil engineering;
(d) geotechnical engineering.
1.2. Name some applications of geotechnical engineering.
1.3. Look up C. A. Coulomb in an encyclopedia and indicate whether the writer
of that article was well informed concerning his engineering contributions.
1.4. List the names of six scientists and engineers whose contributions currently
are being used in geotechnical engineering practice, and state the nature
of each.
1.5. Who is considered the father of modern soil mechanics? Why?
1.6. Discuss features of geotechnical engineering that distinguish this field from
structural engineering.
16 Geotechnical Engineering

1.7. Which approach, that of the geotechnical engineer, the engineering geologist,
or both, is most appropriate to solve the following problems:
(a) Preparing a map of landslide hazards for zoning purposes, based on
landslide occurrence in relation to rock type.
(b) Figuring out how best to stop a landslide and restore an appropriate
factor of safety.
(c) Quantifying factors involved in a foundation failure, to be used as
a basis for prorating damages in a lawsuit.
(d) Identifying potential leaky bedrock around the edge of a water storage
reservoir.
(e) Designing erosion protection for a beach.
1.8. Look up information on Three Gorges Dam on the Yellow River in
China and suggest some methods that might be used to reduce or prevent
sedimentation of the reservoir.
1.9. What difficulty might be experienced as a result of straightening a river
immediately upstream from a bridge? Why?

Selected References
Atterberg, A. (1911). ‘‘Über die physikalische Bodenuntersuchung, und Über die Plastizität
der Tone.’’ Internationale Mitteilungen für Bodenkunde 1 (Part 1): 10.
Baker, Benjamin (1981). ‘‘The Actual Lateral Pressure of Earthwork.’’ Proc. Inst. Civ.
Engrs. (London) 65 (Part 3).
Boussinesq, J. (1885). Application des Potentiels à l’Étude de l’Équilibre et du Mouvement
des Solids Élastiques. Gauthier-Villars, Paris.
Briggs, Lyman J., and McLane, John W. (1907). ‘‘The Moisture Equivalent of Soils.’’ Bull.
45, U.S. Bureau of Soils, Washington, D.C.
Buckingham, E. (1907). ‘‘Studies on the Movement of Soil Moisture.’’ Bull. 38, U.S.
Bureau of Soils, Washington, D.C.
Casagrande, Arthur (1948). ‘‘Classification and Identification of Soils.’’ Trans. Am. Soc.
Civ. Eng. 113, 901.
Collin, Alexandre (1846). Landslides in Clay. Transl. from French by W. R. Schriever.
University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1956.
Coulomb, C. A. (1976). ‘‘Essai sur une Application des Règles de Maximis et Minimis à
Quelques Problèmes de Statique, Relatifs à l’Architecture.’’ Me´moires de
Mathe´matique & de Physique, pre´sente´s à l’Acade´mie Royale des Sciences par divers
Savans, & lus dans ses Assemble´es, 7, 1773, pp. 343–82, Paris. English transl. by
J. Heyman, Coulomb’s Memoir on Statics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
1972.
Darcy, H. (1856). ‘‘Les Fontaines Publiques de la Ville de Dijon.’’ Dijon, Paris.
Koestler, Arthur (1964). The Act of Creation. The Macmillan Co., New York.
Lambe, T. W., and Whitman, R. V. (1959). Soil Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Marston, A., and Anderson, A. O. (1913). ‘‘The Theory of Loads on Pipes in Ditches and
Tests of Cement and Clay Drain Tile and Sewer Pipe.’’ Bull. 31 of the Iowa
Engineering Experiment Station, Ames, Iowa.
Mitchell, J. K. and Soga, K. (2005) Fundamentals of Soil Behavior, 3rd ed. John Wiley &
Sons, New York.
 Introduction 17

Mohr, Otto (1871,2). ‘‘Berträge zur Theorie des Erddruckes.’’ Z. Arch. u. Ing. Ver.
Hanover. 17:344, and 18:67 and 245.
Proctor, R. R. (1933). ‘‘Fundamental Principles of Soil Compaction.’’ Engineering News-
Record (Aug. 31 and Sept. 7, 21, and 28).
Rankine, W. J. M. (1857). ‘‘On the Stability of Loose Earth.’’ Phil. Trans. Royal Soc.,
London.
Stokes, C. G. (1851). ‘‘On the Effect of the Internal Friction of Fluids on the Motion of
Pendulums.’’ Trans. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 9 (Part 2): 8–106.
Strahan, C. M. (1932). ‘‘Research Work on Semi-Gravel, Topsoil and Sand-Clay, and
Other Road Materials in Georgia.’’ Bull. Univ. of Georgia 22, No. 5-a.
Taylor, D. W. (1948). Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Terzaghi, Karl (1925). Erdbaumechanik auf bodenphysicalischer Grundlage. Franz Deuticke,
Leipzig and Vienna.
Terzaghi, Karl, and Peck, Ralph (1967). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 2nd ed.
John Wiley & Sons, New York.