Session 5

Soil — Structure Interaction — General Report

Interaction Sol — Structure

H.G. POULOS Professor in Civil Engineering, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

1. IN T R O D U C T IO N particular value is the summary of solutions for

This general report has two objectives:
(i) to review some of the more significant
developments in the area of soil-
structure interaction analysis since
1977.
(ii) to review the papers presented to this
Session.
Attention in the first section will be concen­
trated on methods and applications of analytical
techniques to problems involving static loading.
Excluded from consideration will be problems
involving dynamic loading and problems related
to rock mechanics. Soil-structure interaction
will be interpreted in the widest sense, and
will cover problems ranging from loading over
portion of a soil mass to problems involving
interaction between the soil, the foundation and
the superstructure.
a plate on an elastic half-space, which is of
direct value for design of raft foundations.
Two comprehensive general reviews have also been
published. Hooper (1978) summarises methods and
solutions for the linear elastic analysis of
foundations under static loading, including
rafts, pile groups, pile-raft foundations and
problems in which superstructure stiffness is
allowed for. Meyerhof (1979) considers a simi­
lar range of problems but also summarises some
available data on allowable deformation of
structures. A feature of Meyerhof's paper is
the compact and clear re-presentation of a
number of theoretical and experimental results
in a readily-useable form, e.g. Fig.l shows
solutions for a uniformly loaded square piled
raft on an elastic soil.
— F lexib le S e m i-F le x ib le I S e m i-R ig id
- 1 i Ti i i i r
(A fte r Hain and Lee 1978)

2. SOME S IG N IF IC A N T DEVELOPMENTS S IN C E 1977

Methods of analysing soil-structure interaction
problems can be broadly classified into one or
more of the following categories: analytical
(closed-form), finite differences, boundary
elements, finite elements. Recent analyses have
tended to concentrate on the latter two
approaches, and in particular, the finite elem­
ent approach, and hence this review will reflect
that concentration. While the finite element
method is generally considered to be the most
versatile approach, it should be emphasised that
many problems can be solved quite economically
and accurately by boundary element approaches,
and Hobbs et al (1978) and Randolph (1980) have
demonstrated the close agreement between
solutions from each approach. 10J 10'
( 1 - O E rIr
A number of books dealing specifically with R elative S tiffn e s s Kr
( 1 - v2)E sB 3
soil-structure interaction problems and their
solutions have appeared recently, and among the Fig.1 Total and Differential Settlements
most significant are those by Desai & Christian and Bending Moment for Uniformly
(1977), which covers a wide range of problems Loaded Square Piled Raft on Elastic
and gives a useful introduction to analysis Soil. (Meyerhof, 1979).
techniques, Gudehus (1977), Zienkiewicz (1978)
and Selvadurai (1979a). The latter presents an In attempting to review in greater detail some
exhaustive treatment of analytical methods for of the developments in soil-structure inter­
the solution of problems involving beam and action analysis, the following aspects will be
plates on a soil mass characterised by either a dealt with:
Winkler material or an elastic continuum. Of

307
(i) development of numerical techniques
(ii) modelling of soil behaviour
(iii) modelling of construction history
(iv) parametric solutions
(v) interpretation of field loading tests
(vi) analysis of reinforced soil
(vii) structure-foundation-soil interaction
and settlement criteria
(viii) comparisons between theory and
measurement.
2.1 Development of Numerical Techniques
The analytical tools available to the geotech-
nical engineer have become increasingly power­
ful and versatile as new and more sophisticated
numerical techniques have been developed. While
such developments generally demand more and
more computer space, there is at the same time
recognition of the need to also develop methods
which can utilize mini-or micro-computers, in
which case storage economy, rather than comput­
ing time, becomes the prime concern. An exam­
ple of such a method is described by Verruijt
(1980) for finite element solution of field
problems. Problems involving in excess of 100
degrees of freedom can be fitted into a memory
space of 8 kilobytes, although the calculations
may take several hours to complete.
An aspect of numerical analysis which is of
interest to the geotechnical engineer is the
preparation of data, particularly for finite-
element analyses. This has proved to be a very
time-consuming procedure in the past, but the
development of mesh-generation routines has
allowed meshes to be much more rapidly and
accurately generated, checked and altered e.g.
Imafuku et al (1980) have described a general­
ised method for automatic generation of meshes
containing various types of elements.
In this sub-section developments in the follow­
ing areas, mostly associated with finite elem­
ent analysis, will be outlined: solution of
equations, nonlinear analysis techniques, treat­
ment of boundaries and interfaces, economical
solution of three-dimensional problems, incor­
poration of consolidation and time effects, and
large-strain analyses.
Solution of Equations: Various schemes are now
available for more economical solution of large
sets of simultaneous equations e.g. frontal
solution techniques (Hinton and Owen, 1977) and
the approach described by Gupta and Tanji (1977)
for large, sparse, unsymmetric equation sets.
Hofmeister (1978) has presented a program for
solution of fully-populated unsymmetric matrices
while Cooke (1978) has outlined an efficient
out-of-core solution strategy for large systems
of equations such as those which specify nodal
point time derivatives in finite element models
of transient flow problems. The relative mer­
its of band-scheme and frontal solution schemes
for the solution of linearised algebraic equat­
ions resulting from nonlinear finite element
analyses is discussed by Agarwal et al (1980).
They conclude that band-schemes are more
versatile.
308
Nonlinear Analysis Techniques: The variable
stiffness, initial stress, and initial strain
techniques for nonlinear finite element analysis
are well known and widely used. A modified
initial strain technique which can be applied to
both hardening and ideally plastic materials has
been described by Vermeer (1979) and is similar
in nature to the viscoplastic procedure devel­
oped by Zienkiewicz and Cormeau (1974). The
application of the initial stress approach to
soil-structure interaction analysis has been
described by Rowe et al (1978) who apply it to
problems involving a substructuring technique.
This approach avoids computational difficulties
which may arise in cases where there is a large
difference between the stiffness of the soil and
the structure.
The efficiency of the substructuring technique
has been emphasised by Anand (1980) who has dis­
cussed the possibility of combining sub-struct-
uring and mesh-refinement techniques to obtain
efficient and accurate solutions. He also con­
cludes that, unless very accurate stress or
strain distributions are required, the use of
constant strain triangular elements is adequate
for nonlinear problems.
Some recent investigations have given more care­
ful consideration to the prediction of collapse
loads in elasto-plastic soil masses, and it has
been recognised that collapse loads are commonly
over-predicted by employing the usual criteria
for collapse e.g. failure for the solution to
coverage after a specified large number of iter­
ations. Rowe and Davis (19 77) have incorporated
special "rupture" lines into their analysis
which then allows violation of strain compati­
bility between adjacent elements. They have
shown that, with appropriate choice of rupture
line location, good agreement can be obtained
between the finite-element-predicted values of
collapse loads and those obtained from classical
plasticity theory. Toh and Sloan (1980) have
adopted a different approach, and in considering
the load-deformation characteristics of purely
cohesive elasto-plastic soils, have used a mixed
variational formulation similar to that earlier
employed by Nagtegaal et al (1974). For the
case of a strip footing, the bearing capacity is
more closely predicted than by conventional
techniques, although it is still about 8% larger
than the correct solution. The major advantage
of this approach is that the number of elements
necessary to obtain a reasonable collapse load
prediction is less than with conventional
techniques.
Treatment of Boundaries and Interfaces: The
accuracy of solutions to elastic and elasto-
plastic problems is influenced by the chosen
location of the boundaries, particularly the
lateral boundary. To avoid the necessity of
using an excessively large finite element mesh,
the concept of a "superelement" has been devel­
oped (e.g. by Balaam, 1978) for problems in
which a large portion of the soil mass remains
elastic for the entire loading process. The
soil mass is divided into two sections, one
which may exhibit elasto-plastic behaviour, and
the other which always remains elastic. The
stiffness matrix for this latter section, the
"super-element", may be generated and directly
added into the total stiffness matrix of the
elasto-plastic section, thus leading to consid­
erable savings in both storage and computation
time. This procedure is essentially a sub­
structuring approach, and a similar process has
been described by Pircher and Beer (1977) , while
Cavendish et al (1977) have formulated sub­
structured "macro-elements" for use in problems
involving high stress concentrations. Similar
concepts have been employed by Kausel and
Roesset (1977) for dynamic wave propagation in
layered soils. Another means of effecting econ­
omies is proposed by Gupta (1978) who has devel­
oped a transition element which makes it possi­
ble to match one element with two elements side
by side, and thus allows for easier transitions
from fine to coarse meshes.
The importance of incorporating soil-structure
interfaces into the analysis of certain types of
problems has been increasingly recognised (e.g.
see the paper by Mineiro et al to this Confer­
ence) , and a variety of procedures have been
developed to allow for modelling of the inter­
face properties. These include the use of joint
elements, the use of bond-link springs (e.g.
Herrmann, 1978), and the application of the sub­
structure approach (Rowe et al, 1978). The lat­
ter authors demonstrate that the substructure
approach avoids convergence problems which may
arise when using the other approaches, and that
frictional and dilatant behaviour of an inter­
face can readily be specified.
Economical Solution of Three-Dimensional Prob­
lems: Full three-dimensional finite element
analyses, although they are occasionally carried
out for major projects and problems, are still
too costly and cumbersome for most routine appli­
cations. In some three-dimensional cases, a
plane strain solution may suffice for practical
purposes, and Hobbs et al (1978) present an
example which illustrates this point. However,
for problems in which the geometry of the
structure and the material properties are
axially-symmetric, but the load is not, an
efficient means of analysis involves the expan­
sion of the displacement field in terms of a
Fourier series. This procedure was developed
for elastic materials by Wilson (1965) and an
example of its utilisation for soil-structure
interaction problems is the analysis of later­
ally loaded piles described by Randolph (1978).
Winnicki and Zienkiewicz (1979) have demon­
strated how this procedure can be extended to
plastic or visco-plastic materials and have
found that, for a footing load-deflection prob­
lem, the computer time required by this approach
is only about one-sixth of that using a full
three-dimensional analysis.
Another procedure for the economical solution of
two and three-dimensional problems involving
soil layers has been described by Small and
Booker (1979). The procedure is based on devel­
oping the solution into its Fourier or Bessel
components, and obtaining a solution for the
soil layers subjected to periodic loading. By
superposition of these solutions, any form of
surface loading can be treated, and a two-or-
three-dimensional problem is thus reduced
effectively to a one-dimensional problem as the
soil profile only has to be discretized in the
vertical direction. The procedure is suffici­
ently compact that it can be implemented on a
mini-computer.
Incorporation of Consolidation and Time Effects:
Customarily, the analysis of soil-structure
interaction problems involving clay soils is
carried out either for short-term (undrained)
conditions, or for long-term (drained) condit­
ions, using appropriate sets of soil parameters.
However, the development of finite element con­
solidation analyses has enabled analyses to be
made of soil-structure interaction problems in­
volving time-dependency due to consolidation.
Efficient means of solving consolidation prob­
lems of horizontally layered soils have been
developed by Booker and Small (1979). Problems
involving non-linear constitutive relationships
for soil have been solved by several authors,
including Small et al (1976), Zienkiewicz et al
(1978) , Sagaseta et al (1979) and Carter et al
(19 79) . The latter authors have demonstrated
that, for the problem of consolidation around a
pile after driving, solutions using elastic and
elasto-plastic stress-strain laws give very sim­
ilar results. Osaimi and Clough (1979) have
demonstrated how pore pressure dissipation can
be incorporated into analyses of excavations of
both linear and non-linear soil masses. They
have shown that significant pore pressure dissi­
pation may occur during the excavation period,
so that the assumption of undrained conditions
may not be appropriate, particularly for silty
soils. They have also found, like Carter et al
(1979) , that the consideration of non-linear
soil behaviour does not lead to significantly
different rates of pore pressure dissipation
from those computed on the assumption of linear
behaviour.
Time-dependency due to creep has also been con­
sidered. Brown and Booker (1979) have solved
the problem of a raft foundation on a visco­
elastic soil mass by converting the problem into
an equivalent elastic problem via a Laplace
transformation, obtaining a solution to this
problem using finite elements, converting this
solution into the form of an eigenvector expan­
sion, and then re-transforming the solution back
by inverting the Laplace transform. This
approach can be applied to any visco-elastic
soil model. Kim and Kuhlemeyer (1977) describe
a variable stiffness finite element approach
which gives stable solutions for relatively
large time intervals for which the initial strain
method may not be adequate. Other examples of
analyses incorporating non-linear creep have
been described by Sekiguchi and Shibata (1979) ,
Thamm (1979) , and Redman (1980), who have all
investigated the problem of an embankment on a
soil layer.
Analyses involving both consolidation and creep
have also been developed (e.g. Booker and Small,
1977 ; Gioda and Cividini, 1979) but they do
not appear to have been widely employed for soil
structure interaction problems as yet because of
their relatively high cost.
Large-Strain Analyses: Although the vast major­
ity of geotechnical problems are analyzed on the
assumption of infinitesimal strains, there are
some problems in which the strains developed may
be considerable and for which a finite-strain
analysis would be more appropriate e.g. the con­
struction of an embankment on very soft clay.
Such an analysis has been described for an
elasto-plastic material by Carter et al (1979a)
309
in which plastic failure is treated by a general
yield condition and plastic deformation by an
arbitrary flow rule. They conclude that the
major effects of finite strain analyses arise
from the geometry changes and that the develop­
ment of plastic zones is governed by the ratio
of Young's modulus to yield stress; this latter
conclusion is confirmed by Yamada and Wifi
1977). The inclusion of consolidation into
large-strain problems has been described by
Carter et al (1977) for elastic soils and Carter
et al (1979) for elasto-plastic soils.
2.2 Modelling of Soil Behaviour
The quest has continued to develop a model of
soil behaviour which embraces all aspects of
behaviour under static and cyclic loading, and a
great variety of constitutive relationships
have been proposed. Reviews of some of these
relationships have been made by Morgenstern
(1975), Nelson (1977), Hardin (1978), Desai
(1979) and Gudehus (1979). Most soil models can
be classified broadly into the following
categories:
(i) li n e a r e l a s t i c
(ii) nonlinear elastic
(iii) elastic-plastic
(iv) endochronic
(V) hypoelastic
The limitations of the linear elastic model are
well recognized, and its main purpose is to
provide a basis for parametric studies to be
made for soil-structure interaction problems.
The deficiencies of nonlinear elastic models
(such as the hyperbolic model) are now better
appreciated but they continue to be widely used.
For some problems, such models give quite sat­
isfactory solutions, but they become quite
unsatisfactory for assessing the plastic deform­
ations and ultimate load behaviour in problems
involving rotation of principal stress direct­
ions. This occurs because of the inherent
assumption that the direction of plastic princi­
pal strain increments coincides with that of
principal stress increments, whereas in an
elasto-plastic material, it coincides with the
direction of overall principal stress. An
illustration of the unsatisfactory nature of a
nonlinear elastic model is shown in Fig.2 for a
strip footing on a soil mass. Two soil models
are used, a bilinear elastic and a simple
elastic-plastic model. For the case of a weight­
less soil (K0=l), the two load-settlement curves
are similar, but for an initial stress state
involving a horizontal stress greater than the
vertical, there is a vast difference between the
two solutions because of the rotation of princi­
pal stresses during loading; the bilinear soil
model gives a much "weaker" response.
The work-hardening elasto-plastic models devel­
oped at Cambridge continue to be explored and
utilized. Banerjee and Stipho (1978) find that
the Cam-Clay model, both with associated and
non-associated flow rules, gives better predict­
ions than the modified Cam-Clay model for the
behaviour of normally consolidated and lightly
overconsolidated kaolin in triaxial tests. How­
ever, there is by no means unanimous agreement
on this point, and Chaudry and Balasubramanian
310
(197R) contend that the modified theory predicts
the behaviour of Bangkok clay more accurately.
Dimcnsionlcss S e ttle m e n t ^
cB
Fig.2 Load-Deflection Curves for Strip Footing
More complicated elasto-plastic work-hardening
models have been developed, amongst others, by
Prevost (1979), Mroz et al (1978,1979), Nova
(1979) and Ghaboussi and Momen (1979). Prevost's
model incorporates both isotropic and kinematic
hardening rules by using a series of nested
yield surfaces, and can model the nonlinear
anisotropic behaviour of soils under drained or
undrained loading. It can also be used to model
the effects of cyclic loading. The model of
Mroz et al involves similar concepts, although
it has some limitations in accurately predicting
K0 consolidation and swelling lines. There is
still some debate over the form of the yield
surface and the applicability of the normality
rule in such models, and Tsotsas and Hatzigogos
(1979) suggest that a Tresca yield criterion may
be more appropriate than the von Mises under
some circumstances and that the use of a non­
associated flow rule is a more faithful repres­
entation of real soil behaviour than the associ­
ated flow rule.
Endochronic models have been proposed by Bazant
and Krizek (1976) and Ansal et al (1979) to
describe the behaviour of soil under cyclic
shear, and this approach has been extended by
Dungar and Nuh (19 80) to incorporate critical
state concepts and also to allow for the effects
of grain crushing.
A soil model incorporating the concepts of hypo-
elasticity and critical state theory has been
proposed by Davis and Mullenger (1978). Mroz
(1980) has compared the behaviour of hypoelastic
and plastic soil models and has shown that the
two are equivalent for the loading process, but
differ in defining unloading or reverse loading
patterns. He demonstrates that the loading-
unloading criteria used in hypoelasticity may
result in an unrealistic prediction of material
response for some loading paths, and in partic­
ular, for cyclic loading.
The effects of creep have been incorporated into
a nonlinear elastic-plastic model by Suklje
(1978) while Zienkiewicz et al (1977) have
developed an elastic-viscoplastic model,
although its use has been oriented more towards
obtaining collapse solutions for plastic media
than for analyzing time-dependent creep. An
elastic-viscoplastic model for the undrained
behaviour of clays has been devised by Redman
(1980) and used for investigating the undrained
creep behaviour of a clay loaded by a footing
or an embankment.
Recent attempts have been made to develop ana­
lytical models of soil behaviour by assembling
and analyzing arrangements of particles by com­
puter, both for granular materials (Cundall and
Strack,1979) and clays (Scott and Craig, 1980).
Such computer experiments should lead to an
improved qualitative understanding of the mech­
anical behaviour of soils, particularly under
cyclic loading, but it is doubtful whether
these models will prove quantitatively useful
for soil-structure interaction analyses.
An area of research which has not received suf­
ficient attention is the influence of the con­
stitutive model of the soil on the solution of
various boundary value and soil-structure
interaction problems. One example of such an
investigation is that by Zienkiewicz et al
(1978) who examined the effect of various
elastic-plastic soil models on the load-
settlement behaviour of a strip footing. How­
ever, there is much scope for further investi­
gations to establish the necessary complexity
of soil models for various classes of problems.
2.3 Modelling of Construction History
Perhaps the first significant soil-structure
interaction analysis in which construction
effects were modelled was that described by
Clough and Woodward (1967) for the stresses and
displacements within and beneath an embankment
on a soil layer. A discussion of alternative
procedures for simulating embankment construct­
ion is given by Kulhawy (1977).
In analysing the construction of retaining
structures, the effects of placement and pre­
stressing of bracing or anchors can be readily
included into the finite element analysis by
the introduction of appropriate spring or bar
elements (Clough et al, 1979). An alternative
approach has been used by Simpson et al (1979)
in which ground anchors are modelled by equiva­
lent point loads at the wall and by equivalent
pressures applied in the anchored zone within
the ground. Clough and Tsui (1977) warn that
there are some processes which cannot be pre­
cisely modelled e.g. wedging between braces and
walls of braced excavations, and these can have
a significant effect on the wall behaviour.
Rosenberg et al (1977) have analyzed an inter­
esting problem involving the interaction
between a church steeple foundation and an
adjacent slurry trench wall. A deep excavation
was to be made adjacent to the steeple and a
tied-back slurry trench wall support system was
to retain the sides of the excavation. An
incremental plane strain finite element analysis
was carried out using a hyperbolic stress-
strain relationship for the soil. Despite the
limitation of this model and some simplifi­
cations made in simulating the wall construct­
ion, the predicted movements around the excav­
ation were in fair agreement with those meas­
ured. However, it should be mentioned that the
use of nonlinear elastic soil models (such as
the hyperbolic model) may lead to inaccurately
predicted deflections as significant rotation of
principal stresses occurs.
For pile foundations, the importance of initial
stresses in the pile due to installation has
been emphasized by Holloway et al (1978). For
a driven pile, they have described a variant of
the wave-equation analysis to predict the init­
ial stresses in the pile, which are then used
as a starting point for the subsequent load-
settlement analysis of the pile. The influence
of pile driving on the surrounding soil has been
studied by several recent investigators
(Randolph et al, 1979; Desai, 1978; Bilotta,
1978), and from comparisons with full scale
measurements and also small scale model tests
(Burghignoli and Caruana, 1979), the pore pres­
sure increases due to driving have been shown to
be quite accurately predicted by theory.
Another example of construction modelling is
that described by Withiam and Kulhawy (1979),
who have simulated the whole construction hist­
ory of a cast-in-situ pile (drilled shaft).
The steps modelled are shaft excavation, slurry
placement, concrete replacement of the slurry,
concrete curing, and subsequent loading of the
pile. The interface is modelled by an axisym-
metric interface element and the stress-
deformation properties of the soil and interface
are represented by nonlinear stress-dependent
relationships. Reasonable agreement between
predicted and measured load-settlement behaviour
has been found for a model shaft (0.15m diam­
eter, 1.5m long) in dense dry sand.
2.4 Parametric Solutions
One of the significant features of soil-
structure interaction research in the past four
years has been the increased concentration on
producing parametric studies of the behaviour of
soil-structure systems. The majority of these
studies have been performed for simple elastic
or elasto-plastic soil models, although some
have involved the use of more complicated non­
linear models. Despite the simplicity of the
soil models the resulting solutions are inval­
uable in providing at least a first stage in
design and in giving the geotechnical engineer
a "feel" for the problem, and its sensitivity to
the input parameters. Preliminary analyses and
designs using available parametric solutions
should always be carried out before indulging
in more refined procedures. Some of the pub­
lished solutions, for a number of broad categ­
ories of problems, will be mentioned below.
Shallow Foundations: Although the literature
abounds with solutions to shallow foundation
problems, a number of useful new solutions have
nevertheless been published. Uzan et al (1980)
have obtained solutions for the settlement of a
circular loaded area on a two-layer elastic
system with an underlying rigid base. Analyti­
cal solutions for the stresses beneath a rigid
rectangular footing on a homogeneous elastic
half-space are presented by Mullen et al (1980) ,
while Zinovev (1979) has presented a solution
for the settlement of an annular ring foundation
on a finite layer. Brown and Gibson (1979) have
311
 considered the case of a rectangular area on a
finite elastic layer whose modulus increases
linearly with depth, and have presented settle­
ment influence factors for different rectangle
proportions, Poisson's ratios and degrees of
non-homogeneity. Stresses and displacements
beneath an embankment on a one or two-layer
elastic soil have been plotted by Bangratz and
Mandagaran (1978).. Solutions for strip and
circular footings resting on a non-homogeneous
soil mass with an overlying "crust" have been
presented by Rowe and Booker (1980a, 1980b).
The results are conveniently presented as cor­
rection factors to be applied to the solutions
for a soil with no crust, and give a clear
indication of the significant reduction in
settlement which can result when a stiffer
crust is present. Brown (1978) has obtained
solutions for stiff square and rectangular
rafts resting on a homogeneous half-space and
subjected to various patterns of concentrated
load, and has presented distributions of
reaction and bending moment for length to
breadth ratios ranging between 1 and 5.
Pile Foundations: A number of techniques have
been used to obtain solutions for axially and
laterally loaded piles. Randolph and Wroth
(1978) have developed approximate closed-form
solutions for a single axially loaded pile in
an elastic soil (either homogeneous or non-
homogeneous) , and have shown that those sol­
utions agree well with those from finite
element and boundary element analyses. They
have also extended their analysis to the case
of pile groups (Randolph and Wroth, 1979) and
find the results to be in close agreement with
those of Banerjee (1979) who used a boundary
element analysis. Another series of solutions
for a single pile in a non-homogeneous soil
whose modulus increases linearly with depth has
been presented by Poulos (1979). Pells and
Turner (1979) have obtained parametric solut­
ions for the settlement and load distribution
along relatively short piles socketted into
rock or very stiff soil, and have demonstrated
Fig.3 Comparison of Solutions for Laterally Loaded Pile in
Soil with Linearly Varying Modulus (Williams, 1979)
312
how these solutions may be used to design rock
sockets.
Solutions for a laterally loaded pile have been
presented by Banerjee and Davies (1978) for the
case of a non-homogeneous soil whose modulus
increases linearly with depth. Finite element
solutions for this problem have been obtained
by Randolph (1980), Kuhlemeyer (1979) and
Baguelin et al (1977, 1979) . Deflections and
rotations computed from these solutions are
typically 10 to 20% smaller than those given by
the simplified boundary element solutions of
Poulos (1971), and this difference reflects the
effect of the shape of the pile, and the errors
involved in idealizing the pile as a thin strip,
which is done by Poulos. However, an important
point regarding these solutions has been empha­
sized by Williams (1980), who plots solutions
from a number of theories and shows that the
variation of deflection and rotation with pile
stiffness is very similar in all cases (see
Fig.3). This therefore implies that any of the
solutions may be used, with equal accuracy, to
backfigure the soil modulus from a pile load
test,and this modulus may be used to predict
the subsequent behaviour of other piles.
Parametric solutions for a vertically-loaded
pile-raft foundation, obtained from a finite
element analysis, have been presented by Hain
and Lee (1978). These solutions indicate the
effect of pile and raft characteristics on the
settlements, differential settlement and raft
moments (see Fig.l).
Anchors: A variety of solutions for the load-
deflection behaviour of a plate anchor in an
elastic mass have been published. Rowe and
Booker (1979a) have obtained solutions for an
inclined rectangular anchor plate while
Selvadurai (1978) and Rowe and Booker (1979b)
have obtained corresponding solutions for hori­
zontal anchor plates of various shapes. The
latter analysis makes provision for the anchor-
soil interface condition breakaway between the
rh
anchor and the underlying soil and interaction
between groups of anchors. A parametric study
of the behaviour of multiple underream anchors
is given by Rowe and Booker (19 80c) who investi­
gate such factors as spacing and inclination of
the anchor plates. Selvadurai (1979b) consid­
ers the axisymmetric flexure of a circular plate
embedded in an infinite elastic mass and exam­
ines the effects of relative rigidity of the
plate and the extent of the external load. The
case of a rigid eccentrically loaded plate is
analyzed by Selvadurai (1980).
Solutions have also been obtained for cylindri­
cal anchors. Kay and Qamar (1978) have pres­
ented a parametric study, using a numerical
analysis which is based on the Mindlin elastic
equations. Luk and Keer (1980) obtain an
analytical solution by means of Hankel integral
transforms, and investigate the effects of
length to diameter ratio and soil Poisson's
ratio on the stress distribution and displace­
ment of the anchor.
Retaining Structures: Finite element studies
have been used to study the behaviour of braced
excavations by Clough et al (1979) and to
investigate the relative importance of various
key parameters at different levels of stability.
Both field data and finite element analyses
have been used to establish behaviour trends
and it has been shown that the soil shear
strength, the wall system stiffness, the con­
struction sequence and the degree of anisotropy
influence the movements increasingly as the
stability situation becomes more critical. The
effect of a berm on the movement and stability
of a wall has been examined by Clough and Denby
(1977) who find that the effectiveness of the
berm decreases as failure is approached and the
stability number increases. A more detailed
study of the effects of clay anisotropy on
braced wall behaviour has been made by Clough
and Hansen (1980) who find that the primary
influence of the anisotropy is in increasing
the potential for basal heave relative to iso­
tropic conditions. A modified technique for
analyzing basal heave is suggested to allow for
anisotropy. On the basis of both finite element
analysis and field data, Mana and Clough (1980)
have evolved a simplified procedure for predict­
ing the wall and soil movements for excavations
in clay deposits supported by crosslot braced
walls. The evolution of such design procedures
is an ideal end point of analytical studies
which, when combined with appropriate field
data, provide the design engineer with a means
of making quick assessments of the influence of
changes in design parameters.
Buried Structures: The increasing use of large-
span metal culverts and conduits has led to
renewed interest in the analysis of flexible
buried pipelines. On the basis of analytical
and finite element solutions for circular pipes
buried in an elastic soil mass, Abel and Kay
(1976) developed a series of useful design
charts from which thrust, moment and deflection
in a pipe can be estimated. More recently, a
significant paper has been published by Duncan
(1979) who has used a nonlinear finite element
analysis to examine the interaction between a
flexible metal culvert and the surrounding
backfill. The analysis simulates the placement
of backfill and the subsequent application of
live loads. The importance of the ring com­
pression stiffness as well as the bending stiff­
ness, has been emphasized, and a simplified
design procedure has been evolved. Comparisons
between the theoretical results and field meas­
urements have confirmed the suitability of the
approach. A sophisticated finite element model
of a buried concrete pipe has been developed by
Krizek and McQuade (1978).
Some attention has also been paid to longitud­
inal pipeline-soil interaction, although
extensive parametric solutions have not been
presented. Baria et al (1979) describe a fin­
ite element analysis in which the pipeline is
represented by straight or curved pipe elements,
while the surrounding soil is modelled by
boundary elements which exhibit nonlinear
elastic behaviour; in effect, these soil elem­
ents are non-interacting springs which have
specified elastic-plastic responses for verti­
cal, lateral and longitudinal movements. A
similar analysis has been described by Crofts
et al (1977) to determine the horizontal move­
ment of a long shallow buried pipeline due to
nearby excavation and backfilling of a long
deep parallel trench.
2.5 Interpretation of Field Loading Tests
The significance of soil parameters in geotech-
nical analysis and design has been emphasized
by the devotion of a complete regional confer­
ence, in 19 79 in Brighton, England, to the
subject of design parameters, and the allocat­
ion of sessions at this present Conference to
Laboratory Testing, and to In-Situ Testing.
The increasing interest in development of new
types of in-situ tests has meant that corres­
ponding theoretical solutions must be developed
to allow proper interpretation of the test
results. For example, Selvadurai and Nicholas
(1979) have obtained an elastic solution for
the assessment of a screw plate test, and this
test has been found to yield values of un­
drained modulus similar to those inferred from
empirical relationships based on shear strength
data (Selvadurai et al, 1980). Selvadurai and
Nicholas1 solution has also been used to
interpret the downhole plate bearing test dev­
eloped by Kay and Mitchell (1980). Another
useful solution has been obtained by Selvadurai
(1979c) who considers the interaction between a
rigid circular test plate and an anchor located
at some depth along the axis of the plate. The
solution enables the results of cable-jacked
plate tests to be interpreted more accurately.
It is found that the anchor only interacts
significantly with the plate if the anchor is
located less than four diameters below the
plate.
Madhav and Krishna (1977), Selvadurai and Osier
(1979), and Selvadurai (1979d) have obtained
elastic solutions for the torque-rotation
relationship for a deeply-embedded vane. Madhav
and Krishna have used a numerical boundary
element technique while the other solutions
have been obtained analytically. However, the
solutions agree well and can be used to deduce
the undrained soil modulus in a clay from the
measured torque-rotation relationship from a
field vane test, provided disturbance effects
are not too severe.
313
Frank and Orsi (1979) describe the frictional
probe test, a device for measuring the equiva­
lent modulus around a vertically loaded pile,
and then present two analyses to allow inter­
pretation of the test, the first based on the
Mindlin elastic equation and the second on a
finite element analysis. The results obtained
from this device appear to be reasonably con­
sistent with values obtained from a self-boring
pressuremeter.
Marchetti (19 80) has described a "flat dilat-
ometer", a new type of thin flat circular steel
membrane which is jacked into the ground and
then expanded. When interpreted in terms of
elastic theory, the results of this test give
the modulus of the soil and also information on
the in-situ horizontal stress and in clays, the
undrained shear strength. While not free from
problems of disturbance and uncertain time
effects during and after installation, it does
appear to give data that is consistent with
previous experience.
2.6 Analysis of Reinforced Soil
The increased use of reinforced earth as a con­
struction material has stimulated interest in
analyzing the mechanisms of interaction between
a soil and stiffer reinforcing materials. Fin­
ite element analyses provide a very useful tool
for examining this soil-structure interaction
problem, and a considerable number of approaches
have been developed. Chang and Forsyth (1977)
have described the analysis of a reinforced
earth wall using a composite elastic model for
the steel reinforcing strips and the soil. The
construction sequence has also been modelled
and the computed soil stresses and horizontal
movements have been found to compare favourably
with those measured. Naylor and Richards (1978)
have developed an analysis procedure in which
the reinforced earth is idealized as a homogen­
eous material with the strips attached to the
elastic soil matrix by a conceptual shear zone.
For a condition of no slip between soil and
reinforcement, a large shear modulus is assigned
to this shear zone, but slippage can be stim­
ulated by allowing relaxation of this shear mod­
ulus. This analysis differs from some others
which treat the reinforcement strips discretely;
however, as Naylor and Richards points out, some
of these replace the strip by an equivalent two-
dimensional sheet element and this intercepts
the vertical transfer of shear through the soil.
This problem has been recognized by Brown and
Poulos (19 78) who adopt an alternative approach
involving the use of equivalent nodal forces to
represent the reinforcement. Slip between the
soil and the reinforcement is allowed for and
the soil is modelled as an elasto-plastic mater­
ial. The analysis is incremental and allows
simulation of construction by the addition of
layers of soil and reinforcement. It has been
found to give reasonable predictions of the
failure heights of reinforced earth embankments.
Other finite element analyses of reinforced
earth structures have been reported by Al-
Hussaini and Johnson (1979), Herrmann and Al-
Yassin (1979), and Corte (1977) . Andrawes et
al (1978) point out that the present technique
of using parallel multi-layer soil inclusion
systems does not necessarily lead to the most
efficient nor equal usage of the layers in the
314
system, since some of the inclusions will be
either at an inappropriate orientation or out­
side the zone of tensile strains. They consider
that the representation of soil-inclusion syst­
ems as single equivalent anisotropic media is
thus not wholly justifiable.
A soil-reinforcement problem of a slightly dif­
ferent nature has been analyzed by Ohta et al
(19 80) who have examined the influence of trans­
verse surface reinforcement beneath an embank­
ment on soft clay. This reinforcement is shown
to considerably reduce the amount of deformation
of the foundation and improve the bearing cap­
acity. The theoretical finite element analysis
has used the non-linear Sekiguchi-Ohta soil
model and models the transverse reinforcement at
the base of the embankment as a thin elastic
band with an appropriate modulus. Good agree­
ment is found between the theory and the meas­
ured performance of a full-scale embankment.
The use of piles to improve slope stability has
been given some attention by Ito et al (1979)
who have described a design approach utilizing
a plastic analysis for the pressure on the piles
due to the moving soil mass, together with a
subgrade reaction analysis of the piles. This
problem has also been studied in a different
fashion by Rowe and Poulos (1979) who have used
a plane strain elasto-plastic finite element
analysis. The piles have been represented as a
plane strain (continuous) pile row of equivalent
stiffness. The analysis indicates that, under
most practical circumstances, piles do not sig­
nificantly increase the safety factor against
slope failure unless they are very stiff and
restrained at the head and/or the tip.
2.7 Structure-Foundation-Soil Interaction and
Settlement Criteria
Although the incorporation of the superstructure
into the analysis of foundation behaviour has
been achieved by several means, there exist few
guidelines to assist the designer in deciding
whether or not inclusion of the superstructure
is necessary for an economical foundation design.
Some guidance has been provided in an earlier
paper by Brown (19 75) who examines the import­
ance of superstructure stiffness with regard to
its effect on differential settlement, bending
moments in the structure and column loads, for
a plane frame with pin-based columns, supported
by a strip footing. A very useful extension of
this type of investigation has been made by Hain
and Lee (1980), who have examined the effect of
interaction between a three-dimensional frame
structure and a raft foundation. The effect on
column loads, raft differential settlement and
maximum moments is considered for 3-bay and 5-
bay multistorey structures. The soil is consid­
ered to be an isotropic elastic mass with either
a constant modulus or a modulus which increases
linearly with depth. The results of the analy­
sis are presented in terms of two relative
stiffness parameters indicating the stiffness
of the structure relative to the soil, and the
stiffness of the raft relative to the soil.
Inclusion of the effects of the superstructure
generally leads to decreased differential settle­
ments and bending moments in the raft, and the
conditions under which these effects will be
significant are indicated by the solutions.
A case in which the superstructure stiffness has
been found to have a considerable influence is
described by Focht et al (1978) in relation to a
multistorey building in Houston, Texas, sup­
ported by a mat foundation. Measurements indi­
cated that the differential settlements of the
mat tended to develop primarily during appli­
cation of the structural load, although they
continued at a reduced rate for several years
thereafter. The approximate analysis used gave
qualitatively comparable results when compared
with the measured performance, but it was clear
that a realistic settlement prediction needed
to include consideration of interaction between
the structure and the foundation.
Another case of multistorey building has been
analyzed by Popovic and Sarac (1979) in which
the structure is founded on a heterogeneous
foundation composed of two zones with different
geotechnical characteristics, divided by a
near-vertical boundary beneath the building. A
two-stage analysis was carried out in which a
sub-structuring technique was adopted to allow
a more detailed analysis of the superstructure
and the soil immediately below it. The analysis
revealed that the proposed box foundation would
act almost rigidly, but that there would be a
significant tilt of the structure, and that
high shear stresses would be induced in the
vertical walls of the structure.
An interaction problem of a somewhat different
nature has been analyzed by Small et al (1980)
who examine the problem of a circular storage
tank on a single soil layer. A substructure
approach is adopted whereby the equations gov­
erning the behaviour of the soil, the circular
base plate and the cylindrical walls of the
tank are developed, and then combined to obtain
the complete system behaviour. A parametric
study is made of the effects of the tank base
thickness on differential deflections and radial
moments in the tank.
There still exists a need for more data on tol­
erable settlements and differential settlements
of various types of structure. In relation to
storage tanks, a very useful review of the per­
formance and acceptable deformations is given
by Penman (1978).
Measurements show that such flexible structures
can withstand considerable centre-to-edge dif­
ferential settlements, but that distortions
around the shell may cause problems with oper­
ations of the tank. Unfortunately, on a soil
which is (nominally) laterally homogeneous,
potential differential settlements around the
shell cannot be predicted unless a statistical
approach, incorporating spatial variability of
soil modulus, is adopted. Further data on tol­
erable settlements of oil tanks, provided by
Bell and Iwakiri (1980) , is consistent with
earlier data, but also indicates that reverse
curvature of the tank floor ("humping") is a
more severe condition than the normal "dishing"
settlement pattern.
Information on the allowable settlements of an
agricultural building was obtained from a series
of tests described by Zhukov et al (1979). Non-
uniform settlements were imposed on the pier
and beam system of a single-storey concrete­
framed agricultural building with lightweight
aggregate panels separated by compressible fil­
ler material. The structure was found to per­
form satisfactorily with angular rotations as
large as 1/100. As upper design limits, an
angular rotation of 1/150 and a maximum settle­
ment of 100mm were suggested by the authors.
Further data is provided in a paper to this
Session by Chan et al, which will be reviewed
subsequently.
2.8 Comparisons Between Theory and Measurement
Comparisons between theoretical and measured
behaviour of soil-structure systems may be use­
ful in at least two ways:
(i) they may establish whether the geotech­
nical engineer can predict the system
behaviour prior to its construction.
Successful prediction requires the use
of an appropriate theory together with
correctly chosen soil parameters, with
the emphasis being perhaps on selection
of the soil parameters (Lambe, 1973)
(ii) they may indicate whether the theoret­
ical approach adopted predicts the
correct trends of behaviour and
whether it accurately reflects the
effects of variations in the soil or
structure parameters. In this case,
the emphasis is on the applicability
of the theory, rather than selection
of soil parameters.
In the context of this Session, attention will
be concentrated on some comparisons which have
the latter objective i.e. to investigate the
applicability of various soil-structure inter­
action analyses. Once an analysis method has
been demonstrated to be sound, attention may
then be concentrated on means of determining
the appropriate soil parameters. If this can
bebe successfully and expeditiously achieved,
then a useful design approach will have been
evolved, particularly if the theoretical results
can be expressed in terms of parametric plots.
The approaches developed by Mana and Clough
(1980) for braced excavations, and Duncan (1979)
for buried culverts, are good examples of this
evolutionary process.
Burland (1977) has summarized a number of cases
in which field measurements have been used in
the design and construction of foundations, and
compared with the results of theoretical (prim­
arily finite element) computations. Such cases
have led to increased confidence in the ability
of these analyses to model the field behaviour,
provided appropriate soil parameters are input.
Case studies of excavations and retaining
structures described by Simpson et al (1979) and
Roth et al (1979) have illustrated the sensitiv­
ity of the analyses to variations in soil param­
eters and have indicated which parameters are
most significant.
Pile foundations provide a good example of the
use of field measurements to verify and modify
analytical techniques. Many comparisons have
been reported e.g. Trofimenkov et al (1977),
Banerjee (1979) , Ottaviani and Marchetti (1979) ,
Hain and Lee (1978), Wiesner and Brown (1979) ,
Poulos (1980), Cooke, Price and Tarr (1980).
315
These have demonstrated the applicability of
theoretical analysis to the prediction of axial
and lateral response of piles, using either
boundary element or finite element techniques.
They have shown that the effects on these res­
ponses of such parameters as pile dimensions,
pile stiffness and soil compressibility can be
adequately predicted by the theory, and that it
is feasible to use data from pile load tests to
predict the behaviour of prototype piles or pile
groups. On the basis of such data, some empiri­
cal relationships between soil modulus and
other more readily-measured parameters have been
developed. The studies of Cooke, Price and Tarr
(1980), have also indicated that soil is better
modelled as an elastic material whose modulus
increases with depth than as a homogeneous
elastic mass.
Some comparisons between theoretical and field
performance may serve another very useful purp­
ose, to alert the geotechnical engineer to
practical difficulties which cannot always be
modelled or forseen. Such an example is the
paper by Chang et al (1980), which analyzes the
tests on a corrugated metal arch described by
Selig et al (1979). A finite element analysis
incorporating non-linear soil properties and
incremental construction simulation has been
used. Good agreement has been found between
theory and measurement after the backfill level
is above the crown, but major discrepancies
between measured and predicted behaviour have
been observed during the earlier stages of con­
struction. The authors suggest that this dis­
crepancy could be caused by incorrect modelling
of the effect of compaction during backfilling
and the slip at the bolted seams of the culvert,
which would permit a circumferential shortening
of the structure shell. The recognition of such
practical details and the difficulties of pre­
cise analytical modelling and choice of suitable
soil parameters, serve as warnings to the geo­
technical engineer against excessive confidence
in his ability to successfully predict the
behaviour of soil-structure systems, regardless
of the high level of sophistication of the avail­
able analytical tools.
3, R E V IE W OF PAPERS S U B M IT T E D
Although covering a wide range of topics the 57
papers to this session can be divided into the
following categories:
(i) general theoretical approaches
(10 papers)
(ii) shallow foundations (9 papers)
(iii) deep foundations (5 papers)
(iv) retaining structures and anchors
(13 papers)
(v) buried pipes and structures (6 papers)
(vi) structure-foundation-soil interaction
(7 papers)
(vii) tolerable settlements (1 paper)
(viii) miscellaneous, including embankments,
soil and soil-interface properties,
and offshore structures (6 papers)
316
3.1 General Theoretical Approaches
The papers included in this grouping cover
methods of analyzing the load-deformation and
stability characteristics of foundations.
Zhang et al propose a method of settlement
analysis in which nonlinearity of soil response
is taken into account. For vertical stresses
less than the preconsolidation pressure, the
soil is assumed to behave one-dimensionally,
and the appropriate modulus is determined from
the results of in-situ shear wave tests coupled
with triaxial compression tests. For vertical
stress in excess of the overburden, the soil
modulus is assumed to be dependent on the shear
strain, the lateral stress and the stress
changes due to the foundation. In applying
their method, the authors suggest that the
foundation be divided into a number of smaller
elements in order to compute stresses, moduli
and settlements at various points and depths
below the foundation. However, no account is
taken of the rigidity of the foundation or the
structure, and the foundation stresses are pre­
sumably calculated from conventional elastic
theory. The approach is used to calculate
settlements of a building in Beijing, for which
detailed settlement observations were made.
Good agreement between measured and observed
settlement was found, although the use of a
linear settlement analysis produced almost as
good agreement with the measured settlements.
Denver has applied the concepts of statically
and kinematically admissible solutions, widely
used in plasticity problems, to obtain lower
and upper bounds for the settlement of a cir­
cular footing on a layered elastic soil mass.
These bounds are based on the energy of the
foundation-soil system. Strain influence
curves presented in the paper enable rapid eval­
uation of upper and lower bounds of settlement.
For a two-layer problem, the Author shows that
the difference between upper and lower bounds
increases as the modular ratio of the layers
departs from unity, although it is found that
the settlement can generally be reasonably est­
imated to be equal to the maximum value (i.e.
the upper bound) which is obtained from the
statically admissible solution. For example,
TO S E S S IO N 5 for the two-layer problem with E i=3E2,
the correct settlement factor is 1.12, which is
almost identical with Denver's upper bound of
1.13 (the lower bound here is 0.88). When est­
imating the settlement of multi-layer profiles,
the approach, although approximate, may be an
attractive alternative to the use of the approx­
imate Steinbrenner approach or more sophisti­
cated numerical techniques.
The paper by Gorbunov-Possadov et al consists
of three parts. The first is concerned with
the application of plasticity theory to a much-
investigated problem, that of the bearing cap­
acity of a rigid strip on a sand mass. The
wide range of possible solutions, depending on
the assumptions made in the analysis, is
emphasized. The second part deals with the
finite element analysis of a rigid plate on an
elasto-plastic medium and illustrates the
change in contact pressure distribution which
occurs as failure is approached. The final
part describes a simple approximate analysis
for the stability of a footing adjacent to a
slurry trench, assuming a circular slip surface
emanating from the side of the trench. Such an
approach, though it may be useful for design,
may not necessarily reflect the true failure
mode of the foundation-trench system, partic­
ularly if the trench and footing are reasonably
widely-separated.
Mikheev et al present a very brief account of a
probabilistic approach to the design of
structure-foundation systems which utilizes the
concept of reliability functions. Such funct­
ions are dependent on the variability of the
foundation stiffness which is in turn dependent
on the variability of the soil properties. The
reliability of the system is stated to increase
with increasing superstructure rigidity. Con­
sideration is also given to the incorporation of
consolidation into the analysis, although no
details are given of the manner in which this is
achieved. While the concepts presented in this
paper are interesting and are slowly gaining the
attention of geotechnical engineers, the brevity
of presentation precludes a full understanding
of the Authors' approach.
Mustafayev describes an analysis for the behav­
iour of a strip foundation on a collapsing or
swelling soil, modelled as a Winkler material
whose stiffness may vary with moisture content.
The paper presents a general form of analytical
solution for the static behaviour of the strip
and also its natural frequency. Unfortunately,
no numerical results are given to indicate the
significance of the softening or collapse of
the soil on the behaviour of the strip.
Dietrich examines the circumstances under which
soil-structure problems may be analyzed using
the Winkler hypothesis, which assumes that the
reaction at a point beneath the foundation is
dependent solely on the deflection at this
point. As is well known, the application of
this hypothesis leads to considerable analytical
simplifications with many problems. It is
argued that Winkler's hypothesis applies for the
following broad situations:
(i) statically-loaded beam-type structures
on a half space
(ii) certain classes of soils for which
deformations are restricted to a
limited zone beneath the found­
ations; two such cases are the
"Gibson" soil whose modulus increased
linearly with depth from zero at the
surface, and the Author's "psammic"
soil model, which represents an
assembly of rigid heavy grains whose
interface behaviour is governed by
Coulomb friction
(iii) a foundation on a thin elastic layer
whose depth is small compared to the
foundation dimensions.
It would have been useful if the Author had re­
inforced his arguments for the applicability of
the Winkler hypothesis by presenting some num­
erical examples comparing solutions from this
theory with those from the correct two-or three-
dimensional continuum theory. In the experience
of the Reporter the form of loading may also
have some influence in determining how accurate
a Winkler solution is for a particular problem;
for example, quite satisfactory accuracy may be
obtained for problems involving concentrated
loading but poor results are found for uniform­
ly distributed loading. Also, it is doubtful
whether the Winkler principle applies to sub­
surface loading problems; for example, for a
pile within a Gibson soil, available elastic
solutions indicate that the pile causes
deflections of the soil away from the pile,
which violates the Winkler hypothesis.
Myslivec describes a method for determining at-
rest lateral pressures in "loose" and "fully-
overconsolidated" soils. The method relies on
the concept of a mobilized friction angle o
which is derived from Jaky's empirical expres­
sion relating the coefficient of earth pressure
at rest (for a normally-consolidated soil) to
the soil friction angle. The Author then uses
the angle $0 in active and passive wedge
analyses to determine earth pressures at rest
for situations involving soil with a sloping
surface or soil confined between two walls.
This approach is,at best, questionable, as it
involves the use of a theory of failure for a
non-failure condition and also involves the
assumption of a constant value of the mobilized
friction angle <}>0• Furthermore, it considers
only the limiting cases of a loose soil and a
"fully-over consolidated" soil, whereas what is
required is a continuous variation of the at-
rest lateral pressure coefficient with over­
consolidated ratio.
Santos and Quera develop an analysis for the
behaviour of a strip foundation on an elastic
half-space, taking account of the possible
effects of interface roughness. The distribut­
ions of contact vertical and shear stresses are
represented by power series and compatibility
between strip and soil displacements is imposed
in order to obtain the required solution.
Results are presented for a uniformly loaded
strip and these indicate that strip roughness
causes a slight reduction in maximum deflection
and moment in the strip, this reduction becom­
ing more pronounced as the strip becomes more
flexible or as the soil Poisson's ratio v
decreases. If v = 0.5, strip roughness has no
effect as no interface shear stresses are dev­
eloped; this result is consistent with previ­
ous results of Parkes (1956) and Schiffman
(1963) .
Nakai describes a nonlinear soil model in which
the total strain increments are the sum of the
increments of plastic shear strains, plastic
volume consolidation strains, and elastic
strains. The failure criterion is expressed in
terms of the three stress invariants, and
account is taken of such factors as intermedi­
ate principal stress and dilatancy under aniso­
tropic stress conditions; however, eleven par­
ameters are required to describe the soil
behaviour. The behaviour of the model is shown
to be in good agreement with that of a sand
subjected to various types of triaxial test.
The model is then incorporated into a finite
element analysis of two problems, a uniform
strip load on a soil layer, and a vertical
retaining wall. The failure load of the strip
is considerably greater than that given by
Terzaghi's theory (which is itself an upper
bound for a rigid plastic material) and it
would appear doubtful whether this difference
317
could be attributed entirely to the effects of
intermediate principal stress as the Author
suggests. At least part of this difference may
arise from the numerical analysis, as reliable
finite element solutions for collapse loads are
notoriously difficult to obtain. No details of
the numerical techniques adopted are given by
the Author. The retaining wall analysis clear­
ly illustrates the differences in the mechan­
isms of active and passive failure, and the
different deflections required to develop fail­
ure in each case.
Bugrov et al discuss the analysis of foundation-
soil interaction in which non-linearity of both
the soil and the reinforced concrete foundation
are incorporated. Their results indicate that,
in zones in which cracks occur, the rigidity of
the foundation decreases considerably and a
significant redistribution of moments occurs.
An example of the foundation of a tall chimney
shows that the moments are decreased by almost
50% because of nonlinear behaviour of the con­
crete. The inclusion of the superstructure
into the analysis leads to further reductions
in both moment and deflection of the found­
ation. Load-settlement curves are also given
for a strip footing on an elasto-plastic soil
layer having an associated flow rule, indicat­
ing the effects of the soil strength parameters.
However, the curves given do not appear to con­
verge to a reliable value of bearing capacity,
and unfortunately, few details of the analyti­
cal and numerical procedures are given in the
paper. Nevertheless, the paper does point to
the difficulties of accurately assessing the
stiffness of a foundation if idealized as an
elastic-plastic material.
3.2 Shallow Foundations
The paper by Gatti and Jori considers the
influence of crrep on the behaviour of a strip
foundation on either a Winkler medium or an
elastic half-space. The analysis incorporates
creep of the strip footing and also creep of
the elastic half-space, although in the latter
case, the solution is approximate only as a
time-dependent soil Young's modulus is speci­
fied but otherwise the elastic solutions for a
time-independent material are used. The sol­
utions presented indicate that the effects of
creep of the strip become more important with
increasing flexibility of the strip, and that
these effects are also related to the load
position. For the concentrated loads analyzed,
there is quite close agreement between the sol­
utions for the Winkler and elastic masses.
With the incorporation of a time-dependent mod­
ulus in the elastic mass, the strip deflections
increase with time, but the variation of maxi­
mum moment with time depends on the creep par­
ameters of the strip and soil. Strip creep
tends to reduce bending moments with time
whereas soil creep causes an increase in moment
with time.
Time effects on foundation slab behaviour are
also discussed by Egorov and Budin. The res­
ults of field measurements on a foundation slab
supporting a multistorey building on soft clay
are presented. It is found that the majority
of settlement has occurred during construction,
due in part to the presence in the clay of sand
layers which accelerate consolidation. The
318
post-construction settlements appear to increase
linearly with log time, suggesting the occur­
rence of creep in the clay. Despite the large
average settlement of about 45 cm, the slab has
performed satisfactorily. The paper subsequent­
ly presents the results of tests on slabs, and
pile-supported beams on clay to examine time
effects. In the slab tests, the stresses in the
slab first increase with time and then decrease,
and this is a characteristic which Gatti and
Jori demonstrate theoretically in their paper.
Significant stress re-distribution with time
also occurs in the pile-supported beams.
Three papers deal specifically with bearing cap­
acity problems. Two of these consider the bear­
ing capacity of interacting strip footings on
sand. The paper by Dembicki et al describes
the results of model tests carried out on both
a model soil and a real soil. On the basis of
the observations from these tests, an approxi­
mate analysis is developed to determine the
bearing capacity of interacting footings, for a
range of footing spacings, load inclinations
and soil friction angles. Footing interaction
leads to increased bearing capacity, this effect
becoming more pronounced as the spacing between
footings decreases, or the friction angle
increases. With three or more footings, the
inner footings develop a higher bearing capacity
than the outer ones. The effect of interaction
becomes negligible once the spacing between the
footings exceeds about 3 or 4 footing breadths.
Pula and Rybak present the results of an approx­
imate theoretical analysis based on plasticity
theory. The effects of footing spacing and
soil friction angle are investigated and the
broad conclusions reached are consistent with
those of Dembicki et al. The numerical solut­
ions, while not identical, are similar, as
illustrated in Fig.4 for a specific case.
The results of field tests on groups of three
footings are also presented by Pula and Ryback,
and these show very satisfactory agreement with
the theoretical results, thus suggesting that
the theory, despite the approximations involved,
provides a useful means of estimating bearing
capacity interaction for footings on sand.
B B
Fig.4 Comparison Between Solutions for
Bearing Capacity Interaction
Between Strip Footings on Sand
Bauer et al report the results of an extensive
experimental programme to investigate the ulti­
mate bearing capacity of footings at various
locations within a granular slope. The effects
of footing position, footing size and load
inclination are investigated by tests on 300 mm
and 600 ram footings within a 2 to 1 slope of
dense silica sand. The test results are presen­
ted in terms of contours of the bearing capacity
factor Nyg and it is found that, contrary to
theoretical results (but as found by other
experimenters), Nyq is scale-dependent. For
vertical loading, Nyq tends to decrease as
the footing size increases, whereas the reverse
is true for loading inclined at 15° to the
vertical. Very significant reductions in bear­
ing capacity occur for inclined loading, the
maximum reduction being about 70% for the
smaller footings. The paper is a valuable
source of experimental data as well as serving
its original aim of directly providing data for
the design of spread footings on bridge
approach embankments.
The paper by Sorotchan et al presents the
results of some measurements on contact pres­
sures beneath strip foundations and compares
these with calculations based on elastic half­
space theory, elastic layer theory, and sub­
grade reaction theory. Tests have been per­
formed on a rectangular slab supported on a
soil mass which is more compressible near the
centre than the edges, and a slab which is
stiffened near the centre. It is argued that
the latter type of foundation should result in
more uniform contact pressures than a convent­
ional slab and this is borne out by the meas­
urements. The authors find that the best pre­
dictions of contact pressure are those from the
subgrade reaction theory, using a variable sub­
grade modulus along the foundation. The paper
also provides some empirical equations for the
estimation of ultimate bearing capacity and
settlement of pile foundations.
An interesting series of tests is described by
Stefanoff and Jellev, who have measured the
distribution of vertical and horizontal dis­
placements beneath a 1.15m square slab resting
on a coarse sand layer 6 m deep. Measured dis­
placement contours are presented for various
sections inside and outside the slab, for vari­
ous load levels during first loading, and also
for a second repeated loading sequence (in fact
four one-way loading load cycles were perform­
ed) . The measurements clearly indicate the
changing pattern of deformation as the load
increases and reveal that the horizontal move­
ments are quite small compared to the vertical
movements. Stabilization of displacements
(shakedown) appeared to occur after the third
or fourth loading cycle. The distribution of
contact pressures between the slab and sand was
also measured and found to change markedly as
the load level increased. The authors were
unable to obtain satisfactory agreement between
the measured displacements and those calculated
from either a nonlinear finite element analysis
or a linear elastic analysis. The type of non­
linear model used in the finite element
analysis is not described. The results in this
paper should provide a very valuable source of
experimental data for research workers inter­
ested in analyzing the static or repeated load­
ing behaviour of foundations on sand.
Another experimental investigation involving
the measurement of stresses and displacements
around and beneath a loaded plate is described
by Minkov et al. Tests were carried out on
round and square plates of various size on both
natural loess and loess with an overlying cem­
ent-stabilized layer. Some scale effect is
found for the small plates but for plates having
an area in excess of about 0.5m2, the back-
figured soil modulus is virtually independent of
plate size. For the natural loess, the dis­
placements are quite localized in the region of
the plate, but when the stiffer stabilized layer
over the loess is present, there is a much wider
"spread" of the displacements. The pressure of
the stabilized layer also leads to very signifi­
cant reductions in settlement. The Authors
report that the use of the Burmister two-layer
elastic theory predicts settlements which are
within 10% of the measured values.
Blumel and Lackner present the results of time-
settlement observations for 8 square concrete
pad foundations each supporting a steel tube
mast 350 m in height. The original subsoil con­
ditions consisted of a layer of peat overlying
layers of medium to find sand, but before con­
struction of the mast foundation, the peat was
removed and replaced by sand which was densi-
fied by vibroflotation. The post-construction
settlements of the pads were found to be time-
dependent and to be still increasing slightly
even 1 year after construction. This may be due
possibly to consolidation of finer soil lenses
between the sand layers and also to the effects
of repeated loading caused by wind-induced
oscillations of the structure. A feature of the
measurements was the considerable variability of
the measured settlements, which ranged from
about 2 cm to 6 cm. Theoretical calculations
based on oedometer tests indicated a range of
2 cm to 4.5cm, using the extreme values of lab­
oratory compressibility. This field study
emphasizes once again the difficulty of predict­
ing settlements of foundations on sand deposits.
A novel type of foundation has been described
by Broms et al in which an open cylindrical
tubular element is inserted into the soil and a
slab or plate inside the cylinder is loaded.
The cylinder and the soil are found to act
essentially as a rigid unit, provided that the
depth of soil within the cylinder is at least
equal to the diameter of the cylinder. After
presenting an approximate design approach to
estimate the ultimate load capacity and settle­
ment of the foundation unit, the results of a
series of model tests in sand are given. Meas­
urements of axial and radial stress distribut­
ions indicate that the maximum axial load in
the cylinder occurs about half-way along its
length and is of the order of 75% of the axial
load applied to the plate, while high radial
stresses are developed near the top and bottom
of the cylinder. Increasing the depth of the
cylinder increases the ultimate bearing capacity
significantly and reduces the settlement, and in
essence, the cylinder-soil system behaves as a
short closed-end pile. This type of foundation
utilizes several principles of soil-structure
interaction and is potentially a very useful
system, particularly in situations where loose
sand layers are underlain by denser deposits.
It would appear to be ideally suited to more
careful analysis by finite element methods in
order to study such effects as the relative
flexibility and size of the cylinder.
3.3 Deep Foundations
319
Hazivar has described an elastic analysis for
the settlement behaviour of a relatively short
vertically loaded open tubular caisson. Use is
made of the Mindlin equations of elasticity,
but it is assumed that the caisson skin is rep­
resented only by a single cylindrical element
with constant' skin friction while the load on
the base annulus is represented by a circular
line load. Solutions for settlement of the
caisson are obtained by imposing displacement
compatibility and vertical load equilibrium con­
ditions on the problem. The assumptions made
by Hazivar, while making the analysis more
tractable, limit the application of his results
to relatively rigid caissons for which a con-
stand distribution of skin friction is a not-
unreasonable assumption. However, for rela­
tively compressible caissons (e.g. caissons in
very stiff soil), this assumption is not
unreasonable and consequently the solutions
obtained are unreliable; this is clearly seen
in his Fig.4 where, for modular ratios of
caisson to soil of 100 or less, very large ten­
sile base loads are computed. The results of
model tests in sand are also described. Tests
have been carried out in concrete cylinders for
three conditions: only the base acting, only
the shaft acting, and both base and shaft acting.
It is found that, in the essentially elastic
range, the caisson load at a given settlement
when both base and shaft are acting is approxi­
mately equal to the sum of the separate shaft
and base loads. The proportions of shaft and
base load are reasonably consistent with the
theory; the caisson is relatively rigid in
this case and hence the theoretical solutions
should be reasonably reliable. The model tests
also indicate that, in the elastic range, the
"silo effect" of the sand within the caisson is
not very significant, and that only about
10-20% of the shaft load is carried by internal
friction. However, at higher loads, there is a
substantial additional contribution from the
silo effect, leading to an increase in bearing
capacity because of the "plugging" of the sand
within the caisson. The paper gives useful
insight into the behaviour of open caissons,
but the theoretical results should be used with
caution, particularly for low ratios of caisson
to soil modulus.
Difficulties in the interpretation of uplift
load distribution data on bored piles (drilled
shafts) are discussed by Stewart and Kulhawy.
They firstly review published data which
suggests that the load distribution with depth
can reasonably be considered as parabolic i.e.
that a linear distribution of skin friction
with depth occurs. They then discuss some
problems which may arise in deducing skin
friction distributions from measured load
distributions. These include:
(i) the interaction between the rein­
forcing steel and the concrete;
because of tensile loading and
shrinkage, the concrete may crack
and thereby result in non-uniform
strain distribution across the pile
section;
(ii) the influence of residual loads in
the pile on the interpretation of
the skin friction from the measured
loads;
320
(iii) the presence of tip tension or
tip suction; the latter dis­
sipates with time but tip tension
(in soils which can sustain
tension) may be relied on for
long-term loads.
The paper gives some useful advice on ways of
allowing for the various factors above and
should be carefully studied by those involved
in field measurements of pile load transfer
characteristics.
The paper by Jesenak et al is concerned with
the stability of a stiff rectangular prismatic
foundation subjected to inclined loading. The
first part of the paper gives the results of
field model tests and indicates the importance
of surface roughness and soil density on the
ultimate load capacity. The back-calculated
lateral pressure coefficient is found to be
greater than the at-rest coefficient K0 . Some
results of plane strain finite element analyses
using a nonlinear elastic soil model are then
presented to show the development of the plas­
tic zones around the foundation with increasing
load. The final part of the paper presents a
design method which combines theories for vert­
ical and horizontal loading to produce a
relationship between load capacity and load
inclination for both frictional soils and
purely cohesive soils. The design curve for
sands agrees quite well with the results of the
finite element analysis. This paper combines
analysis and experiment to develop a design
approach which should prove of considerable
value to geotechnical engineers.
Parikh and Pal present the results of plane
strain finiteelement analyses relating sub­
grade reaction coefficients to the elastic soil
and pile moduli for a single circular pile in
an elastic soil mass. Vertical, lateral and
torsional loading is considered and in each
case, the results are presented as simple
equations. The interaction between two piles
is then analysed in similar fashion and cor­
rection factors to the single pile coefficients
are presented. The use of these single and
two-pile coefficients in a subgrade reaction
analysis of a pile leads to solutions which the
Authors state are in close agreement with those
from elastic theory. It is perhaps difficult
to understand why it should be considered
necessary to perform an elastic analysis in
order to obtain subgrade reaction coefficients
when use could be made directly of elastic
theory to evaluate the pile response for all
three modes of loading. Apart from the usual
shortcomings of subgrade reaction theory in not
taking account of continuity of the soil along
the pile, the evaluation of the subgrade mod­
ulus requires the prior evaluation of the
Young's modulus of the soil. Nevertheless, the
results presented in the paper are interesting,
particularly those for interaction between two
piles.
Bolya et al have statistically processed the
results of some 300 load tests on slurry trench
wall foundations in order to obtain empirical
load-settlement relationships for design pur­
poses. They classify the soil profiles into 8
groups, depending on the predominant nature of
the soil along the skin and below the base.
For each case, the load Q and settlement S are'
related by the function Q s ASB+C^113, where A,
B, C are functions of the soil type and skin
surface area. The Authors then demonstrate
that the use of the above function leads to less
scatter and better agreement with the measured
ultimate loads (from which the functions were
derived) than conventional calculations of load
capacity based on the theories of Caquot and
Kerisel, and Kezdi.
While the paper presents a useful summary of a
considerable amount of data, it must be borne
in mind that it may be hazardous to apply the
empirical equations data to walls having dif­
ferent size and depth to those for which the
data has been obtained (unfortunately, no
range of the wall sizes considered is quoted).
The effects of variation of the soil or wall
parameters on the wall behaviour is still
best determined from a rational analysis
involving proper consideration of soil-wall
interaction.
3.4 Retaining Structures and Anchors
A variety of problems are treated here, includ­
ing tieback anchored walls, diaphragm walls,
conventional retaining walls, anchor behaviour
under static and cyclic loads, and anchor-wall
interaction.
Arslan et al present a very interesting paper
which is divided into two parts: first, the
evolution of an elasto-plastic constitutive
model of cohesionless soil, and second, the
application of this model to the analysis of a
tieback anchored wall. The soil model described
considers strains to be divided into three com­
ponents, an elastic strain, a contractive-
plastic strain, and a dilative-plastic strain.
All three components are described in terms of
functions of the stress invariants, and the
basic parameters can be derived from triaxial
consolidation and compression tests. The model
is shown to predict very satisfactorily the
response of a sand to a variety of stress paths.
The second part of the paper presents the
results of a series of finite element analyses
of a tieback anchor wall, and discusses the
influence of anchor prestress on the behaviour
of the wall. The soil is represented by 4-node
serendipity elements, the wall by beam elements,
the anchors by bar elements, and joint elements
are also used at the wall-soil interface. The
process of excavation of the soil and instal­
lation and prestressing of the anchors is sim­
ulated in the analysis. The results indicate
that the earth pressure distribution and anchor
forces closely reflect the design prestress
values used, and that almost any distribution
of earth pressure and anchor force may be
achieved by appropriate construction measures.
When a prestress of 80% or more of the con-
ventionally-calculated design load is applied
to an anchor, there is little subsequent change
in the anchor force as excavation proceeds.
However, if no prestress is used, the anchor
forces increase significantly during excav­
ation, and the consequent movement of the wall
is much greater than in the case of prestressed
anchors. The Authors conclude that prestress
of anchors is mandatory to avoid damage to
neighbouring structures. The findings in this
paper are broadly consistent with those of
22. Volyme 4
Clough and Tsui (1974) who used a hyperbolic
stress-strain formulation for the soil. Thus,
while it is obviously of advantage to use as
realistic a soil model as possible in an
analysis, it nevertheless appears possible to
obtain results of design value by using simpler
soil models. An interesting extension of this
study would be to compare the present analysis
results with those using alternative repres­
entations of soil behaviour.
Another analytical study of a multi-anchored
tieback wall is described by Mineiro et al,
this study being associated with the design of
excavations for proposed multi-storey building
in Luanda, Angola. Finite elements were again
used, and the soil, wall, anchors and the soil-
wall interface were modelled by appropriate
elements. The soil was considered as a non­
linear anisotropic elastic material, with the
stress-strain curves apparently being fed into
the program. Few details of the soil model are
given in the paper. Incremental excavation,
and anchor installation and prestressing were
also simulated. In order to limit displacement
to acceptable level, it was decided, on the
basis of the results of the analysis, to reduce
the depth of the first stage excavation by 1.5m
and increase the anchor prestress by 25%.
Another interesting aspect of this paper is the
comparison of the results of the nonlinear
incremental excavation analysis with those from
a linear elastic single-stage analysis. The
computed earth pressures were found to be
similar magnitude, as also were the maximum
wall deflections and wall moments. However,
the distribution of deflections in the region
just behind the wall, and the distribution of
bending moments, were rather different. The
Authors consider the representation of the
soil-wall interface by joint elements are an
essential part of the analysis, although they
present no results to indicate how different
the solutions would be if perfect adhesion
between the wall and soil were assumed. Never­
theless, the paper is a good example of the use
of a soil-structure interaction analysis as a
design tool. Future publication of any meas­
urements of the actual wall performance and
comparisons with the predictions would be
extremely valuable.
A further example of finite element analysis
of an anchored wall is given by Pitilakis, who
examines the influence of the position of a
single horizontal anchor on the behaviour of
the wall. The soil, considered to be a sand,
is modelled by a hyperbolic model while the
anchor and wall are represented by linear
elastic elements. The progress of excavation
is again simulated in a number of stages.
Because of the soil model adopted, some doubts
must exist about the accuracy of the computed
displacements, particularly vertical, behind
the wall; however, these are generally found
to be relatively small, particularly for a
rigid wall. The analyses indicate that consid­
erable interaction can occur between the wall
and the anchor, even if the anchor is located
well away from the wall, at a distance determ­
ined by conventional design rules. The pres­
sure distribution above excavation level is
almost unaffected by anchor position, but the
tie force, the wall displacement and the pres­
sure distribution below excavation level may
321
all be significantly affected, particularly if
the wall is relatively flexible. Increased
anchor length then can lead to increased wall
displacement and anchor force. The effect of
the distance between anchor and wall becomes
more important as the depth of the anchor
decreases. This conclusion is consistent with
that reached by Rowe (1978) from an analysis
using an elasto-plastic soil model; however,
the latter study indicates less dependence of
the anchor force on anchor-wall distance and
wall flexibility than does Pitlakis'.
A different approach to the analysis of strutted
diaphragm walls is adopted by Martak, who
employs subgrade-reaction theory and adopts a
power-law distribution of subgrade modulus with
depth. He argues that this approach is cheaper
and faster than finite element analyses, the
results of which are sensitive to the constit­
utive law used or the mesh adopted. Martak
also considets that time-dependency of deform­
ations due to creep should be included in the
analysis. He presents the results of inclin­
ometer measurements on diaphragm walls for the
Vienna Underground to emphasize this point and
to indicate the general pattern of behaviour as
excavation and strut installation proceeds. The
analysis Martak proposes is an incremental one
in which the conditions existing at the end of
each excavation stage are used as initial con­
ditions for the next excavation stage. A series
of solutions are then presented to illustrate
that such an incremental analysis gives quite
different bending moments, deflections and
strut forces from an analysis which assumes
zero deflection at each strut location after it
is installed. The effects of the subgrade mod­
ulus distribution are also indicated. Martak1s
approach obviously involves simplifications
which could be overcome by finite element
analysis, but it nevertheless can yield behav­
iour similar to that found from the field
measurements. The crucial aspect of the
analysis, as with many simplified analytical
techniques, is the choice of the values and
distribution of subgrade modulus.
Mejzlik and Mencl consider a rigid retaining
wall in a cutting in clay and address two
problems:
(i) the stability of the slope during
excavation and
(ii) the earth pressure on the wall,
which is apparently located at
the toe of the slope.
An incremental finite element analysis is used
to obtain solutions for the stress distribution
in the slope after excavation, using a stress-
dependent soil model, full details of which are
not given in the paper. Various values of the
at-rest lateral pressure coefficient K0 are
considered. The stresses acting on the wall
are taken to be horizontal stresses in the
slope at the wall location, and as expected
increase as the value of Ko increases. The
stability of the cutting is assessed by the
finite element method, and also by an approxi­
mate approach, the "horizontal forces equilib­
rium method", which utilizes the slope stresses
computed by the finite element analysis* As
pointed out by the Authors, this method
322
has some limitations, principally that it uses
non-failure stresses in a failure analysis.
The two approaches are said to give reasonably
similar safety factors, but ones which are
significantly lower than the "classical" method
(presumably the slip circle method). The cri­
terion for failure of the slope in the finite
element analysis is not detailed. The method
described in the paper may be of some use for
design purposes, but the installation and pres­
ence of the rigid wall is not properly consid­
ered, and some redistribution of stress must
take place within the slope and adjacent to the
wall. Moreover, the solutions presented in the
paper are for a specific set of soil parameters,
and there is no indication of the sensitivity of
these solutions to variations in the soil
parameters.
The paper by Balay et al presents the results of
field measurements of earth pressure, anchor
force and deflection of two sheetpile walls and
a concrete diaphragm wall. Results are given
for the initial lateral pressures on the wall,
the displacements and pressure changes due to
excavation and the application of the anchor
force, and the effects of time. In all cases,
there is a time-dependent increase in deflect­
ion, particularly above the anchor level. In
addition, the initial pressures behind the
diaphragm wall are considered to be largely
determined by the properties of the concrete
and the construction procedure. Theoretical
calculations of the behaviour of the walls are
also made using a subgrade reaction approach in
which the modulus values are backfigured from
the pressure and deflection measurements. In
the case of the diaphragm wall, an elasto-
plastic finite element analysis is also per­
formed using the results of pressure-meter and
triaxial tests to determine the required soil
parameters. Fair agreement is found with the
measurements in the case of one of the sheet­
pile walls, but the agreement is not particu­
larly good for the diaphragm wall. The
Authors conclude that both calculation methods
only enable a very approximate estimate of the
real wall behaviour to be determined; however,
some of the difficulty in predicting the real
behaviour must lie in the choice of soil para­
meters, and in the case of the finite element
analysis, it is possible that better results
may have been obtained if more appropriate soil
parameters were chosen. Certainly, there have
been other cases of good agreement between cal­
culation and theory reported (e.g. Clough and
Denby,(19 77); Roth et al,(1979)).
A further case study is presented by Kerisel et
al who describe measurements of the behaviour
of a 30 m wall with ten levels of prestressed
inclined anchors. Earth pressures, wall and
soil movements and anchor forces were measured
during the course of construction of the wall,
which was composed of a series of reinforced
concrete panels 3 m high by 5 m wide by 0.5 m
thick. The measurements revealed that the soil
and wall movements were small (less than 20 mm)
and that the soil movements beneath the toe of
the wall were confined to a small zone. Some
changes in anchor loads were measured during
construction, but these were relatively small.
The satisfactory performance of the wall was
attributed largely to the effects of the
anchors, a conclusion which is consistent with
the findings of Arslan et al. A theoretical
analysis of the problem was also carried out,
using a subgrade reaction analysis with the wall
represented by a beam. The construction proced­
ure was modelled in the analysis, and an "elasto-
plastic" subgrade modulus, increasing linearly
with depth, was assumed. The analysis was found
to give a satisfactory indication of the pres­
sures on the wall and of the order of wall
deflections.
The use of "anchor slab" retaining walls in
China is described by Lee et al, this being a
wall composed of a series of anchored face pan­
els, typically 3 - 4 m high. A simple design
method for the internal and external stability
of such a wall, based on Rankine earth pressure
theory, is presented. The results of three
groups of full scale field tests on anchor slabs
are then presented, but unfortunately no compar­
isons between the measured ultimate loads and
theoretical methods of calculation are made.
Finally, two useful general observations are
made from measurements on anchor slab walls:
(i) the earth pressures on the face panel
gradually increase with time, but
reach a maximum value between the
active and at-rest pressures
(ii) the influence of temporary loads is
small compared to the earth pressure.
A field test of monumental proportions has been
described by Thompson et al. A 26 m high pile
of limestone (4 ship loads totalling 70 000 t)
was placed behind a bulkhead ore dock structure
in Canada, the objective being to examine the
current and future stability of the ore dock.
The test loading, which took place over a
period of 3 days, resulted in excess pore pres­
sures in a critical clay layer of 0.73 times
the applied pressure, maximum lateral movements
of the bulkhead of 13 mm, and stress relaxation
in the anchor rod of 55 MPa which decreased
with time. However, rapid dissipation of the
excess pore pressures was found to occur, and
because of this, it was finally concluded that
stage loading of the dock could increase the
strength of the clay sufficiently to allow the
full required loading of ore pellets to be
applied within one year. This conclusion was
reached on the basis of effective stress stab­
ility analyses using the monitored pore pres­
sures. No allowance was made for the shear
resistance contribution of the bulkhead struct­
ure. Elastic finite element analyses were also
carried out, using parameters derived from
pressuremeter tests. Details of the modelling
of the anchors and bulkhead are not given.
However, the results were found to parallel
the observed behaviour and also indicated that
relaxation of the anchor rods would occur.
Monitored and computed deformations were com­
parable, thus indicating that elastic analyses
can still play a useful part in geotechnical
analysis.
Pinelo and Matos Fernandes investigate the
behaviour of a ground anchor and how the rep­
resentation of the ground anchor influences
the computer response of a tie-back diaphragm
wall. The first part of the paper gives the
results of an elastic analysis of the behaviour-
of a ground anchor, as determined from an axi-
symmetric finite element model which incorpor­
ates the steel, the grout, the soil and the
soil-grout interface. The important effect of
the ratio of anchor and soil moduli is empha­
sized; this ratio plays a similar role in
determining the load distribution along a pile.
The influence of nonlinear anchor response is
also examined, although the method of incorpor­
ating nonlinearity, by simulating all the grout
by means of joint elements, appears quite
questionable. There is no indication of the
model behaviour adopted for the sand in which
the anchors are located. The second part of
the paper discusses the simulation of anchor
behaviour in plane-strain finite element
analyses of tieback walls. It is argued that a
nonlinear spring provides a suitable model of
anchor behaviour, using an iterative analysis
which adjusts the spring stiffness according to
the load level. The incorporation of nonlinear
anchor behaviour is shown to give considerably
larger wall and soil deflections than if linear
anchor response is assumed, although the vari­
ation in anchor loads during excavation is
slightly less.
The importance of accurate prediction of grout­
ed anchor behaviour is also emphasized by
Petrasovits. However, he adopts a completely
different approach to the previous paper in
order to predict the load-deformation relation­
ship for an anchor. A series of field tests on
grouted anchors in sandy gravel is first des­
cribed, and data is presented on the load dis­
tribution along an anchor with increasing load
level. The general characteristics of anchor
behaviour are similar to those found by Pinelo
and Matos Fernandes, with the majority of load
being carried in the upper part of the anchor,
and very little load reaching the lower part.
The Author then presents model test evidence
to indicate that the ultimate anchor load cap­
acity cannot be reliably predicted from labor­
atory triaxial test data, since the backfigured
anchor-sand friction angle significantly
exceeds the internal friction angle of the
soil. This phenomenon is attributed to the
effects of dilatancy which (presumably) in­
creases the normal stress between the anchor
and sand. In the final section of the paper,
the Author presents an analysis to predict the
load-deformation response of an anchor. This
analysis is, in effect, a subgrade reaction
analysis in which an "elasto-plastic" shear
stress versus displacement relationship is
postulated. This model therefore requires the
specification of two key quantities: the lim­
iting anchor-soil friction and the limiting
interface deflection at which slip occurs. Not
surprisingly, both parameters have a signifi­
cant influence on the load distribution in the
anchor. Such an approach, although perhaps
attractive, is presently limited to a homogen­
eous soil and involves difficulties in appli­
cation to real situations because of the
uncertainty as to the appropriate value of the
limiting deflection and the effects of anchor
size on this value (e.g. is it related to
anchor diameter? Similar controversies are
present in relation to some analyses of pile
foundations). It also requires pre-determin-
ation of the limiting anchor-soil adhesion, a
quantity which the Author finds cannot be
•determined by conventional methods of calcul­
323
ation. Despite these limitations, the analysis
does appear to give remarkably good predictions
of the load distribution in an anchor (bearing
in mind of course that the limiting interface
deflection has in fact been determined from the
test itself). The comparisons, not directly
plotted by Petrasovits, are shown in Fig.5.
z
Fig.5 Comparison Between Theoretical and
Measured Load Distributions for
Tests of Petrasovits.
Costa Nunes and Dringenberg describe a case
history involving the use of vertical anchors
to stabilize the base of a large excavation
which was showing signs of instability before
the required depth had been reached. Three
possible solutions were considered; grouting
of the subsoil, increasing the depth of pene­
tration of the slurry trench retaining wall and
prestressing the bottom of the excavation. The
latter solution was chosen, and two different
procedures were used. In one area, horizontal
precast concrete plates, 12m below the final
excavation level, were used, and these were
preloaded to 600 kN. In the second area,
double vertical grouted anchors were used, the
lower anchor in each being well below final
excavation level and the upper anchor being
just below the final excavation level. Subse­
quent measurements of settlements adjacent to
the excavation indicated that both types of
anchor were successful in stabilizing the
excavation.
The final paper in this group, by Hanna and Al-
Mosawe, reports the results of a series of
laboratory model tests on model anchor plates
in dry sand. The major objective of these
tests was to investigate the effect of cyclic
loading on the behaviour of prestressed anchors,
and in particular, to examine the effects of
applied load level and amplitude and of pre­
stress load level. The major conclusions
reached are:
(i) prestressing an anchor improves its
life and reduces the amount of move­
ment which occurs during repeated
loading, but it does not fully
prevent movement
(ii) repeated loading caused a gradual
loss in prestress of the anchor,
this loss being more severe as
the applied load amplitude
increases
(iii) alternating loading (involving load
reversal) is a more severe form of
cyclic loading than (one-way)
repeated loading
(iv) the static load capacity of an
anchor is increased by one-way
324
repeated loading, but decreased
by two-way alternate loading
(v) the sand above the anchor plate
exhibits some crushing due to the
cyclic loading, the amount of
breakdown due to crushing being
related to the number of load cycles
and the applied load level.
This paper is clearly presented and should
provide a valuable source of data for future
investigations into phenomena associated with
cyclic loading of anchors and piles in sand.
The data should also provide engineers with a
better "feel" for the design of anchors which
are to be subjected to cyclic loads. However,
it should be remembered that the tests are only
for one value of density of the sand and that
the performance of anchors under cyclic load
could well be quite different for dense and
loose sands. In general, the cyclic response
of anchors may possibly be better described in
terms of the levels of cyclic strain rather than
of cyclic load.
3.5 Buried Pipes and Structures
Burghignoli presents a very interesting and
useful paper in which elastic solutions are
presented for a flexible deforming strip at the
base of a finite elastic layer. The solution
is obtained by first obtaining stresses and
displacements within an elastic layer due to
arbitrary deformations at the base of the
layer; these solutions are then combined with
the equation of flexure of the strip by impos­
ing displacement compatibility between the soil
and strip and using a finite difference
analysis. Dimensionless results are presented
for the distribution of contact pressure on the
strip due to overburden for various values of
relative strip stiffness, relative layer depth,
and two degrees of moment restraint at the ends
of the strip. The non-uniformity of contact
pressures becomes more pronounced as the strip
stiffness increases or the end restraint of the
strip decreases. The effect of layer depth is
relatively small. Solutions are also plotted
for the surface vertical displacements of the
layer and a very interesting feature of the
results is that the distribution of surface
displacement is similar to the error function
proposed by Peck (1969a). The results in this
paper are of direct value for the design of the
upper horizontal slab of artificial tunnels
although it would have been very useful to also
have had solutions for bending moments in the
strip. The results also provide "benchmark"
solutions which will be useful for assessing
the accuracy of finite element solutions for
the analysis of buried structures.
Davydov et al describe very concisely a general
approach to the analysis of underground struct­
ures in which the details of the structure are
modelled by finite elements and the surrounding
layer of soil or rock is represented by an
elastic mass. This approach is, in effect, a
type of substructure analysis. The paper
defines a suitable boundary between the elastic
mass and the finite element mesh and outlines
the appropriate boundary conditions. The
Authors consider that the use of this method
enables determination of the optimum shape of
underground opening and also the degree to
which the concrete lining or the rock needs to
be impregnated with polymerizing liquids. Some
discussion of this latter procedure is given by
the Authors.
The application of the finite element method to
the analysis of buried metal culverts in sand
is described by Habib et al. A non-linear soil
model which obeys an isotropic hardening law
and involves a non-associated flow rule is emp­
loyed. The required parameters can be determ­
ined from drained triaxial tests. Numerical
results are presented for two cases, a single
circular culvert, and a pair of culverts. For
the single culvert, the effect of the soil-
culvert interface condition is investigated and
found to have a relatively small influence on
normal stress, moment and deflection. The
mechanics of soil-culvert interaction are
further depicted by diagrams indicating zones
of equal stress ratio for the cases of gravity
loading only, and for a surface loading above
the culvert. The accurate prediction of
culvert deflections in a nonlinear soil would
probably require simulation of the construction
of the culvert as well as the external loading
(if any). It is not clear in the paper whether
such a construction analysis has been performed,
although it would appear not.
Measurements of the stress distribution around
a 1.6m diameter concrete pipe in a trench,
during and after backfilling, are presented by
Fuqlsanq. The pile was instrumented with a
number of Cambridge-type pressure cells, enab­
ling both normal and tangential stresses to be
measured separately. The measurements, when
interpreted in terms of vertical and horizontal
loads on the pipe, indicate a reasonably uni­
form distribution of vertical load, and a hori­
zontal load which is relatively uniform along
the upper half of the pipe, but decreases
rapidly below mid-height. Both vertical and
horizontal loads increase almost proportionally
with increasing fill height, and tend to gen­
erally increase with time (due in part to
seasonal factors) after completion of back­
filling. The measured loads are compared with
those from current American and Danish design
procedures, which are based on the Marston-
Spangler theory. There is reasonable agreement
with the American design load distributions,
although the measured horizontal loads are
larger near the top of the pipe and smaller in
the lower part. The Danish code gives a much
more conservative distribution. The paper
gives a useful comparison between measured
behaviour and design assumptions and it would
be interesting to also compare the measurements
with the results of a finite element analysis.
Krauthammer considers a different problem, that
of a shallow-buried reinforced concrete box
structure, and concentrates on the behaviour of
the structure itself. The results of a field
test are presented and it is shown that, even
with a shallow depth of burial of 0.3m for a
0.6m square cross-section box, the ultimate
surface pressure is of the order of 4 times
higher than the structural capacity of the roof
slab evaluated by conventional structural cal­
culations. The major contribution to this
enhanced structural resistance is considered to
be membrane action of the roof slab which under­
goes large deformations. Soil-structure inter­
action, causing arching over the roof, also
appears to contribute about 20%-30% to the
additional structural resistance, a value which
is similar to that calculated from conventional
soil mechanics theories.
The paper by Viergever describes measurements
carried out on the stresses and pore pressures
around a 0.3m diameter sewer pipe supported on
piles. The pipe was constructed in a trench
excavated between sheetpiles, and measurements
were made for a period of two years, with a
dynamic test being carried out by passing a
truck over the location of the sewerpipe. The
measured load in the pipes just after construct­
ion was found to be in good agreement with that
calculated from an approach not detailed in the
paper. Shortly after construction of the pipe,
an adjacent trench was excavated and it was
deduced that significant horizontal forces were
induced in the supporting piles. Filling of
this trench resulted in a reduction of the
horizontal forces, and in the ensuing two years,
little change in these horizontal forces occur­
red. The "dynamic" tests with the truck travel­
ling over the sewerpipe caused an increase in
vertical pressure on the pipe, but very small
additional horizontal stresses. Increases in
porewater pressures tended to dissipate rapidly.
The average excess pore pressure and total
stresses due to the truck are said to be linear­
ly proportional to the load, thus implying that
elastic theory might provide a suitable theoret­
ical basis for calculation of the soil-pipe
interaction due to surface loading. However, no
such calculations appear to have been made by
the Author.
3.6 Structure-Foundation-Soil Interaction
The paper by Sparks et al is primarily concerned
with presenting relatively simple approaches for
analysing structure-foundation interaction when
the foundation response is nonlinear. A series
of empirical relationships between load and
settlement are first presented and suggestions
are made for the modification of these relation­
ships if the soil is susceptible to swelling or
can collapse upon wetting. Oedometer tests are
suggested for estimating the expansive or col­
lapsing strains due to adding small increments
of water. Unfortunately, the accuracy of these
empirical representations of foundation behaviour
is not discussed. Suggestions are also made for
the modification of the load-settlement relation­
ships when the footing load is eccentric, and the
results of undetailed tests are used to obtain a
ratio of vertical and rotational stiffnesses of
surface footings. This stiffness ratio is gener­
ally quite different from that obtained from
elastic theory and is independent of load level,
although in reality, it would be significantly
influenced by the load level. All these relat­
ionships would probably be more satisfactorily
obtained from finite element analysis, rather
than from tests (presumably on a model scale).
Moreover, some consideration of the stiffness of
the system under horizontal loading will gener­
ally be necessary. A number of methods are then
considered for determining the behaviour of a
structure-foundation system, and particular
attention is paid to an iterative approach and a
matrix method of analysis. The paper would have
been enhanced if more emphasis had been given to
325
discussing the significance which swelling or
collapsing of a soil may have on the behaviour
of the structure-foundation system.
Bobe et al outline an approach to the incorpor-
ation of superstructure rigidity into a found­
ation analysis, with particular reference to
concrete core-wall structures. The analysis
involves the consideration of the foundation
slab as a plate and the soil as an elastic half­
space, with approximate modifications for the
effects of soil yielding beneath the plate.
Finite differences are used to solve the plate
equation after imposing compatibility between
soil and plate deflections. The effect of the
superstructure stiffness is incorporated by
assuming unknown vertical zones between the
foundation plate and the structure walls and
imposing displacement compatibility conditions
to iteratively solve for these forces. The
Authors suggest that an alternative means of
simulating the superstructure stiffness is to
impose a given (measured or empirical) deflect­
ion pattern on the foundation and imply that
this is the approach being pursued for further
research. Though this approach may be potent­
ially useful in practice, it is more valid
theoretically to work with a defined super­
structure stiffness (although this may of course
be difficult to assess), and determine the
differential settlement pattern of the found­
ation. An example presented by the Authors
highlights the significant effect of super­
structure rigidity, particularly on the computed
bending moments in the foundation, and indicates
that in the problem analysed, there is a
decreased longitudinal moment in the slab as the
building rigidity increases.
Another analytical approach for the interaction
between a framed structure, a mat or continuous
footing foundation and the underlying soil is
described by Demeneghi. The unknown reactions
between the foundation and the soil are repres­
ented by a series of "blocks" of uniformly
distributed loading. Expressions are pres­
ented for the action of the structure, which is
assumed to have beams and columns of constant
stiffness and whicjj is more or less symmetri­
cally loaded so that lateral effects can be
ignored; these expressions give the displace­
ments and rotations of the structure at found-
level in terms of the unknown reactions. By
expressing the foundation displacements in terms
of these unknown reactions and the constrained
soil modulus values, and imposing compatibility
of deflections and rotations, the resulting
equations can be solved to determine the un­
known contact pressures, and the deflections
and rotations of the foundation. This method
appears to be similar to that employed by
several other researchers, and is less versatile
than others which can allow for variations in
superstructure stiffness with height. Further­
more, the paper presents no examples to indi­
cate circumstances under which consideration
of the superstructure stiffness might be
important in reducing differential settlements.
Biernatowski and Pytel discuss the extension of
the analysis of superstructure-foundation-soil
interaction to allow for incorporation of the
effects of random variations in the soil com­
pressibility and applied loads. They consider
the case of a multistorey multibay frame rest­
326
ing on pad foundations, and characterize the
structure as a beam of equivalent effective
rigidity (possibly varying along its length).
The soil is represented by a rheological model
which can simulate creep effects if required,
and the displacements and reactions at the
location of each footing are taken to be random
variables, arising from variability of the
loads and soil compressibility. The reliabil­
ity of the entire system is then defined in
terms of the reliability of each component,
which can be determined once the variability of
the reactions is determined. Three examples of
the application of this approach are given,
each involving the same frame, but a different
soil model. Approaches such as this deserve
close study, but because of the necessary brev­
ity of the paper, the details of the necessary
calculations are not easy to follow, and the
notation is sometimes obscure. It would also
be useful for those not well-versed in reliabil­
ity theory to have some indication of the sig­
nificance of the computed reliability number in
the examples quoted.
Ruben and Benarroch address the problem of a
structure founded on a slab resting on expansive
clay. For domestic applications, this type of
foundation is found to perform far more satis­
factorily than isolated foundations. The
Authors outline a method of analysis for determ­
ining the effect of foundation movements on the
behaviour of the structure. It presupposes
linear behaviour of the system and a knowledge
of the movements of the slab at certain chosen
locations beneath the slab. By imposing unit
movements at each of these locations, the bend­
ing moments and forces in the structure are
determined by a structural analysis, and an
influence matrix for the action of unit found­
ation movements is developed. By inputting the
estimated deflections into the analysis, the
overall response of the structure to foundation
movements arising from swelling or shrinking of
the soil can be evaluated. While this method is
reasonable in principle the most difficult prob­
lem in applying it is to estimate the magnitude
of the foundation movements. The Authors give
little guidance on this matter, and it would
appear that a more satisfactory approach would
be to first consider the interaction between the
expansive soil and the slab using, for example,
an approach such as that described by Richards
(1973) .
Becue et al describe the settlement analysis of
a 66m diameter nuclear reactor in which the
effect of the structure was taken into account.
In their initial predictions, the Authors used
soil parameters derived from laboratory triaxial
tests in which the modulus values were found to
be stress and strain-dependent. Elastic behav­
iour of the various soil layers was assumed in
the analysis, with the appropriate stress levels
being estimated from the Boussinesq stress
distributions. Two analyses were performed, one
an axisymmetric analysis, and the other a true
three-dimensional analysis. A photo-elastic
model was also analyzed. The three approaches
predicted similar settlements and differential
settlements, although the distribution of settle­
ment varied somewhat. The measured settlements
were only about one-half of those predicted,
and the Authors attribute this discrepancy to
their conservative estimation of the soil par­
ameters. The settlement measurements made
during construction are instructive and indi­
cate a progressively large effect of the super­
structure rigidity in reducing differential
settlements. The load-settlement relationship
is also reasonably linear over a wide range of
load, thus suggesting that the use of an elastic
soil model (with appropriate modulus values) can
provide reasonable practical predictions of
foundation behaviour. This case history is a
useful addition to the geotechnical literature,
but would have been even more interesting if it
had presented a settlement prediction in which
the effects of superstructure rigidity were not
allowed for so that the significance of incor­
porating superstructure-foundation interaction
could be assessed.
3.7 Tolerable Settlements
Only one paper, that by Chan, Ting and Toh,
deals with settlement criteria for building
damage, but this paper contains some extremely
interesting data. A high wall, forming part of
an existing building, was founded on loose to
medium and dense sand, and was instrumented
during sheet pile installation excavation
foundation pile driving and construction at the
adjacent site. Measurements of the progress
with time of settlement, tilt and strain of the
wall were made; the initial strains were
assumed to be zero at the commencement of the
measurements. Fortuitously, visible cracking
occurred at one of the measurement points during
construction of the adjacent foundations, and it
was therefore possible to assess various crit­
eria for structural damage. Cracking could have
been due to the effects of pile driving as well
as the effects of differential settlement, and
in order to try and determine the primary source
of cracking, the Authors undertook a finite
element analysis of the wall, using the measured
settlements at the various locations as input
movements. This analysis indicated that the
predicted wall strains were in reasonable agree­
ment with those measured, thus suggesting that
the measured strains were caused by permanent
settlement rather than vibrations due to pile
driving. Various damage criteria, involving
tensile strain, maximum settlement, maximum
differential settlement, angular distortion and
deflection ratio, were compared with the corres­
ponding values measured at the onset of cracking.
The measured values of maximum differential
settlement and the angular distortion were in
close agreement with those suggested by previous
investigators but the measured tensile strain
and maximum settlement were about 50% higher,
and the measured deflection ratio (as used by
Polshin and Tokar) was about 84% lower. Overall,
for this case, the angular distortion criterion
of Skempton and McDonald appears to be most
suitable. Other interesting features from the
measurements are that
(i) up to the onset of visible crack­
ing, the maximum settlement and
angular distortion vary linearly
with the tensile strain;
(ii) for all the criteria, there is a__
change in the trend of the
relationship with strain after
visible cracking occurs e.g. the
additional settlement to produce
a given additional tensile strain
is now much greater than before.
More detailed studies of the type described in
this paper will provide much needed data and
will eventually enable a more accurate assess­
ment to be made of the applicability of the
currently used damage criteria for structures.
3.8 Miscellaneous
Three of the papers in this classification
deal with embankments, one describes an unusual
load test to determine soil modulus, one
describes investigations into the behaviour of
concrete-soil interfaces,and the last deals
with model tests of offshore gravity structures.
Recordon et al present four case histories in
which measured settlements are compared with
predicted values. Three cases involve embank­
ments, and the other involves a structure con­
structed on fill placed over the natural soil
profile. In all cases, settlements were pre­
dicted using conventional one-dimensional con­
solidation theory, and in two cases, secondary
compression was allowed for. One case was also
analysed by an elastic plane strain finite
element analysis. In the latter case, settle­
ments are found to be underpredicted while
horizontal movements are overpredicted, a
problem which has been encountered previously
in other cases; however, the calculated dist­
ributions of displacement agree quite well with
those measured. The other three cases all
indicate differences between measured and pre­
dicted behaviour, in particular, the use of a
laboratory-determined value of consolidation
coefficient once again leads to a gross under­
estimate of the rate of settlement. The Auth­
ors are pragmatic about their case studies and
discuss a number of possible reasons for the
differences found between predicted and meas­
ured settlements; principally, they acknowl­
edge the imprecise knowledge of subsoil con­
ditions, inadequate understanding of real soil
behaviour and the difficulty of carrying out
proper three-dimensional analyses. In conclud­
ing their clearly-written paper, the Authors
state that the currently-used methods of
settlement prediction are probably adequate for
practical purposes; however, it should be
remarked that, in some cases, a relatively
small increase in sophistication of analysis,
such as using a two-dimensional rather than a
one-dimensional analysis, may serve to consid­
erably improve settlement prediction, partic­
ularly in relation to rate of settlement.
Jones and Rust describe a case history involv­
ing the construction of an embankment 400m
long and 5m high on loose sands and soft silty
clays. Preliminary analyses indicated that
stability and settlement problems were to be
expected and consequently instrumentation was
installed in the foundation soil to control
the rate of construction and monitor the per­
formance of the embankment. Measurements of
horizontal movement, settlement and pore pres­
sure were made. Significant deformations and
excess pore pressures were measured and it was
concluded that further deformations would take
place. Consequently, in the design of pile
foundations for a bridge at the end of the
embankment, it was considered necessary to
make allowance for negative skin friction and
327
lateral loads due to the post-construction soil
movements. Predictions of the time-settlement
behaviour of the embankment were made, using
cone data to.predict the final settlement magni­
tude and conventional consolidation theory to
predict settlement rates. The values of con­
solidation coefficient cv from various lab­
oratory tests and from a field permeability test
varied widely. A value based on results from a
large-diameter oedometer (Rowe cell) was used,
but resulted in an over-prediction of settlement
in the early stages of consolidation. An int­
eresting feature of the paper was the use of
probabilistic stability calculations to estimate
the probability of failure at different safety
factors. This paper is a good example of the
application of the "observational approach"
described by Peck (1969b), and demonstrates the
value of field measurements in cases where
uncertainties exist.
A very interesting application of a relatively
new material, polystyrene foam, to embankment
construction has been described by Rugg and
Sorlie. Expanded polystyrene is extremely
lightcompared with other lightweight mater­
ials, it is durable, easy to handle, reasonably
strong and is readily available. It is there­
fore very useful as a material for embankments
over very soft soils or for transitions between
embankments and bridges (or other structures)
founded on piles or bedrock, where differential
settlements would be a problem. It also has
some disadvantages, primarily its inflammability,
and susceptibility to chemical attack, and it
also increases the tendency to icing on the road
surface.' However, these disadvantages can be
overcome by suitable design of a road pavement
above the foam, generally consisting of a rein­
forced slab over a layer of gravel, with a
bitumen-based surface seal. Three case records
of successful application of polystyrene foam
are described, repair of a road across a bog,
construction of a new road on a bog, and con­
struction of a road embankment adjoining a
bridge abutment. This paper should stimulate
much interest in those engineers concerned with
problems of embankments and roads over very
compressible soils.
A novel example of large-scale field testing is
described by Pinto and Esteves who have per­
formed a loading test on one corner of a large
slab in order to determine the modulus of the
underlying material. By means of a finite
element analysis, they relate the deflection at
the measuring points on the slab to the modulus
of the supporting soil (presumably on the
assumption of the soil being an isotropic homo­
geneous half-space). Measurements of the
deflection at these points thus enable the
modulus value to be back-figured. In this case,
the value so determined is quite close to that
initially estimated by the Authors. This paper
demonstrates that useful field data can be
obtained from unusual test procedures by
judicious use of theory to interpret the field
measuremenis.
Huck and Saxena consider the fundamental behav­
iour of a soil-concrete interface and derive a
model in which the soil is idealized as a series
of spherical particles of known size and the
concrete surface is modelled as a flat plane
with spherical caps protruding from it, these
328
representing the roughness or asperities of the
surface. Two mechanisms are considered to act,
one being adhesion due to shearing of the soft­
er material, and the other being plowing, i.e.
pushing of the material in front of the asper­
ity. A model of interface behaviour is
derived on the basis of these mechanisms; how­
ever, full details of the utilization of this
model are not given, and in addition, there
appear to be some inconsistencies (perhaps typ­
ographical) in the derivation of equations (4)
and (8) of the paper. The second part of the
paper reports the results of tests performed
in a ring simple shear device on sand-concrete
and clay-concrete interfaces. In each case,
"smooth" and "rough" concrete faces were
employed. The results indicate at least two
interesting features:
(i) There is, in terms of the convent­
ional Coulomb friction concept, an
adhesion between the sand and con­
crete, which increases with inter­
face roughness; however, the
interface friction angle is not
influenced by this roughness;
(ii) the adhesion developed between the
smooth concrete and the clay is
greater than that between the rough
concrete and the clay. This is
attributed to the effect of the
greater number of asperities in the
case of rough interface causing
failure to propagate along inclined
planes through the soil between the
asperities.
Some measure of agreement between the experi­
mental results and the predictions from the
Authors model is reported, although details
are not given. In view of the importance of
modelling interface behaviour in some soil-
structure interaction problems, data such as
that contained in this paper is of consider­
able value, and it is to be hoped that further
data will be published in the future to better
define the significance of interface roughness.
The paper by Craig and Al-Saoudi presents *
results of model tests of offshore gravity
structures, tested at unit gravity and at
increased acceleration levels, under both
static and cyclic loading. One of the main
aims of the paper is to assess the benefits of
skirts beneath a structure on its deformation
and stability. The tests carried out at unit
gravity reveal that, under static loading, the
presence of skirts increases the lateral fail­
ure load, the extent of this increase depend­
ing on the skirt penetration and configur­
ation. Deflections and rotations are decreas­
ed by the presence of the skirts. Under cyc­
lic loading however, the benefits obtained by
addition of the skirts are much less, and the
mode of failure is significantly different
from that under static loading, being governed
by the weakening of clay near foundation level
under the effects of cyclic loading. The tests
carried out in the centrifuge include measure­
ments of pore pressures beneath the base of the
structure. Under cyclic loading, excess pore
pressures are built up beneath the base of the
model, and are largest in the region of the
eventual failure plane. The Authors then
present a simple effective stress analysis and
demonstrate that it may be used to give a con­
servative assessment of the stability of the
structure. The test results described in this
paper give a very clear picture of the mechan­
isms of soil-structure interaction involved in
both static and cyclic loading of a gravity
structure and should provide useful data
against which theoretical analyses may be
compared.
4, CONCLUDING REMARKS
The foregoing review suggests that analytical
techniques have been developed to the point
where the majority of soil-structure inter­
action problem can, in principle, be analyzed.
However, there may still be difficulties in the
practical application of these analyses,
because of their complexity, the uncertainty
regarding the choice of a soil model and the
difficulties of determining the appropriate
soil parameters. The time has perhaps come to
make an assessment of the current state of
knowledge and to determine for various classes
of problems, the following:
(i) the necessary level of sophistication
of analysis, for both preliminary
design purposes and for detailed
design
(ii) the necessary level of sophistication
of the soil model e.g. is it really
necessary to model soil as a nonlinear
work-hardening elasto-plastic material,
or is a simple elastic-plastic model
adequate for the problem considered?
The use of parametric studies, reinforced by
field data, as design aids is becoming more
widely accepted. Such studies, carried out for
simple soil models, serve an extremely useful
purpose, particularly in the preliminary design
stage.
In order to confidently use such parametric
solutions, it is necessary to develop simple
and practical means of assessing the required
soil parameters e.g. either by suitable forms
of in-situ testing or by correlations with
other readily-measurable parameters.
Scope also exists for further application of
soil-structure interaction analyses to such
problems as the interaction between a structure
and soil subjected to movement by external
sources, (e.g. swelling or collapsing soils),
geotechnical processes for soil improvement,
and to energy-related structures and their
foundations (e.g. offshore platforms, mineral
processing plants) which may be subjected to
repeated or cyclic loading.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Author gratefully acknowledges the value of
discussions with the late Professor E. H. Davis,
Professor C. Viggiani, and Dr. M. F. Randolph,
and the comments and advice of Drs. J. R. Booker
and P. T. Brown who reviewed the manuscript.
However, any misunderstandings or mis­
interpretations of the papers reviewed for
this Session are the responsibility of the
Reporter, and to those Authors whose papers
may be mis-represented, apologies are
offered.
REFERENCES
Abel, J. F. and Kay, J. N. (1976). Synthesis
of Finite Element Analysis of Culverts.
Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Num. Methods in
Geomechs, Blacksburg, Vol.2, 873.
Agarwal, A. B., Mufti, A. A. and Jaeger, L.G.
(1980). Band-Schemes vs. Frontal-
Routines in Nonlinear Structural
Analysis. Int. Jnl. Num. Meth. Eng.,
Vol.15, No.4, 753.
Al-Hussaini, M. M. and Johnson, L. D. (1979).
Numerical Analysis of a Reinforced Earth
Wall. Symp. on Earth Reinf., ASCE, 98.
Anand, S. C. (1980). Constitutive Relations
and Solution Schemes in Plastic Analysis.
Jnl. Eng. Mechs. Divn, ASCE, Vol.106,
No.EMI, 21.
Andrawes, K. Z., McGown, A. and Al-Hasani,
M. M. (1978). Alteration of Soil
Behaviour by the Inclusion of Materials
with Different Properties. Ground Eng.,
Vol.11, No.6 , 35.
Ansal, A. M. Bazant, Z. P., and Krizek, R.J.
(1979). Viscoplasticity of Normally
Consolidated Clays. Jnl. Geot. Eng.
Divn, ASCE, Vol.105, NO.GT4, 519.
Baguelin, F., Frank, R. and Said, Y. H.(1977)
Theoretical Study of Lateral Reaction
Mechanism of Piles. Geotechnique,
Vol.27, No.3, 405.
Baguelin, F., Caroyannacou-Trezos, S. and
and Frank, R. (1979). Réaction Latérale
des Pieux: Effets de Forme et Effets
Tridimensionnels. Bull, des L.P.C.,
No.104, 33.
Balaam, N. P. (1978). Load-Settlement
Behaviour of Granular Piles. Ph.D.
Thesis, Univ. of Sydney, Australia.
Balasubramaniam, A. S. and Chaudry, A. R.
(1978). Deformation and Strength
Characteristics of Soft Bangkok Clay.
Jnl. Geot. Eng. Divn, ASCE, Vol.104,
NO.GT9, 115 3.
Banerjee, P. K. (1979). Analysis of
Axially and Laterally Loaded Pile
Groups. Ch.9 in Devels. in Soil Mechs.
-1, Ed. C. R. Scott, App. Sci.,London.
Banerjee, P. K. and Davies, T. G. (1978).
The Behaviour of Axially and Laterally
Loaded Piles Embedded in Nonhomogeneous
Soils, Geot., Vol.28, No.3, 309.
Banerjee, P. K. and Stipho, A. S. (1978).
Associated and Non-Associated Constit­
utive Relations for Undrained Behaviour
of Isotropic Clays. Int. J. Num. Anal.
Meth. Geom., Vol.2, No.l, 35.
Bangratz, J. L. and Mandagaran, B. (1978).
Calcul Élastique des Contraintes et des
Déplacements Crées par un Remblai dans
329
 une Couche d'Épaisseur Limitee. Bull, des
L.P.C., No.95, 13.
Baria, G., Gavera, M., Pierangeli, P.,
Rabagliati, U. and Ramasso,D. (1979). Fin­
ite Element Analysis of Soil-Pipeline
Interaction. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Num.
Meth. Geom., Aachen, Vol.3, 1153.
Bazant, Z. P. and Krizek, R. J. (1976). Endo-
chronic Constitutive Law for Liquefaction
of Sand. Jnl. Eng. Mech. Divn, ASCE,
Vol.102, NO.EM2, 225.
Bell, R. A. and Iwakiri, J. (1980). Settlement
Comparison Used in Tank-Failure Study.
Jnl. Geot. Eng. Divn, ASCE, Vol.106,
NO.GT2, 153.
Bilotta, E. (1978). Sovrappressioni Neutre
Indotte Dalla Infissione di Pali in
Argilla. Riv. Ital. di Geot., Vol.12,
No.4, 196.
Booker, J. R. and Small, J. C. (1979). Finite
Element Analysis of the Consolidation of
Layered Soils. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf.
Finite elem. Methods, Univ. NSW, Australia,
485.
Brown, B. S. and Poulos, H. G. (1978). Finite
Element Analysis of Reinforced Earth
Embankments. Symp. on Soil Reinf. and
Stab. Techniques, NSW I.T., Sydney, 233.
Brown, P. T. (1975). The Significance of
Structure-Foundation Interaction. 2nd
Aust.-N.Z. Conf. Geomechs., Brisbane, 79.
Brown, P. T. (1978). Stiff Rectangular Rafts
Subject to Concentrated Loads. Aust.
Geom. Jnl, V0 I.G8 , 40.
Brown, P. T. and Booker, J. R. (19 79). Numer­
ical Analysis of Rafts on Visco-Elastic
Media Using Eigenvector Expansions. Int.J.
Num. Anal. Meth. Geom., Vol.3, 363.
Brown, P. T. and Gibson, R. E. (1979). Surface
Settlement of a Finite Elastic Layer whose
Modulus Increases Linearly with Depth.
Int.J. Num. Anal. Meth. Geom., Vol.3,
No.1, 6 3.
Burghignoli, A. and Caruana, R. (1979).
Indagine Sperimentale Sugli Effetti dell'
Infissione di Pali in Terreni Coesivi
Teneri. Riv. Ital. di Geot., Vol.13,
No.2, 87.
Burland, J. B. (1977). Field Measurements -
Their Influence on Foundation Design and
Construction. Ground Eng., Vol.10, No.7,
15.
Carter, J. P., Booker, J. R. and Davis, E. H.
(1977a). Finite Deformation of an Elasto-
Plastic Soil. Int.J. Num. Anal. Meth.
Geom., Vol.l, 25.
Carter, J. P., Small, J. C. and Booker, J. R.
(1977b). A Theory of Finite Elastic Con­
solidation. Int.J.Sol. Struct., Vol.13,
467.
Carter, J. P., Booker, J. R. and Small, J. C.
(1979). The Analysis of Finite Elasto-
Plastic Consolidation. Int.J. Num. Anal.
Meth. Geom., Vol.3, 107.
Cavendish, J. C., Gordon, W. J. and Hall, C.A.
(1977). Substructural Macro Elements
Based on Locally Blended Interpolation.
330
Int.J. Num. Meth. Eng., Vol.11, No.9, 1405.
Chang, J. C. and Forsyth, R. A. (1977). Finite
Element Analysis of Reinforced Earth Wall.
Jnl. Geot. Eng. Divn, ASCE, Vol.103, No.
GT7, 711.
Chang, C. S., Espinoza, J. M. and Selig, E. T.
(1980). Computer Analysis of Newtown Creek
Culvert. Jnl. Geot. Eng. Divn, ASCE,
Vol.106, NO.GT5, 531.
Clough, R. W. and Woodward, R. J. (1967) .
Analysis of Embankment Stresses and Deform­
ations. Jnl. S.M.F.D., ASCE, Vol.93,
NO.SM4, 529.
Clough, G. W. and Tsui, Y. (1974). Performance
of Tied-Back Walls in Clay. Jnl. Geot. Eng.
Divn, ASCE, Vol.100, NO.GT12, 1259.
Clough, G. W. and Tsui, Y. (1977). Static
Analysis of Earth Retaining Structures. Ch.
15 of Num. Meths. in Geot. Eng., Ed. C. S.
Desai and J. T. Christian, McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Clough, G. W. and Denby, G. (1977). Stabilizing
Berm Design for Temporary Walls in Clay.
Jnl. Geot. Eng. Divn, ASCE, Vol.103, NO.GT2,
75.
Clough, G. W . , Hansen, L. A. and Mana, A. I.
(1979). Prediction of Supported Excavation
Movements under Marginal Stability Condit­
ions in Clay. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Num.
Meth. Geomechs, Aachen, Vol.4, 1485.
Clough, G. W. and Hansen, L. A. (1980). Effect
of Clay Anisotropy on Braced Wall Behavior.
Paper pres, to Natl. ASCE Mtg, Hollywood,
Fla.
Cooke, C. H. (1978). A Split Band Cholesky
Equation Solving Strategy for Finite Element
Analysis of Transient Field Problems. Int.
Jnl. Num. Meth. Eng., Vol.12, No.4, 703.
Cooke, R. W., Price, G. and Tarr, K. (1980).
Jacked Piles in London Clay: Interaction
and Group Behaviour Under Working Condit­
ions. Geotechnique, Vol.30, No.2, 97.
Corté, J.-F. (1977). La Méthode des Éléments
Finis Appliquée aux Ouvrages en Terre Armée.
Bull, des L.P.C., No.90, 37.
Crofts, J. E., Menzies, B. K. and Tarzi, A. I.
(1977). Lateral Displacement of Shallow
Buried Pipelines due to Adjacent Deep Trench
Excavations. Geotechnique, Vol.27, No.2,
161.
Cundell, P. A. and Strack, O. D. L. (1979). The
Development of Constitutive Laws for Soil
Using the Distinct Element Method. Proc.
3rd Int. Conf. Num. Meth. Geoms, Aachen,
Vol.l, 289.
Davis, R. C. and Mullenger, G. (1978). A Rate-
Type Constitutive Model for Soil with a
Critical State. Int. Jnl. Num. Anal. Meths.
Geom. Vol.2, 255.
Desai, C. S. (1978). Effect of Driving and
Subsequent Consolidation on Behaviour of
Driven Piles. Int. J. Num. Anal. Meth.
Geoms., Vo1.2, No.3, 283.
Desai, C. S. (1979). Some Aspects of Constit­
utive Models for Geologic Media. Proc. 3rd
Int. Conf. Num. Meth. Geoms., Aachen, Vol.l,
299.
Desai, C. S. and Christian, J. T. (1977).
Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engin­
eering, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Duncan, J. M. (1979). Behaviour and Design of
Long-Span Metal Culverts. Jnl. Geot. Eng.
Divn, ASCE, Vol.105, NO.GT3, 39 9.
Dungar, R. and Nuh, S. (1980). Endochronic -
Critical State Models for Sand. Jnl. Eng.
Mech. Divn, ASCE, Vol.106, No.EM, 951.
Focht, J. A., Khan, F. R., Gemeinhardt, J. P.
(1978). Performance of One Shell Plaza
Deep Mat Foundation. Jnl. Geot. Eng.
Divn, ASCE, Vol.104, No.GT5, 593.
Frank, R. and Orsi, J. P. (1979). Étude
Théorique de 1'Essai à la Sonde Frottante.
Bull, des L.P.C., No.103, 95.
Ghaboussi, J. and Momen, H. (1979). Plastic­
ity Model for Cyclic Behaviour of Sands.
Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Num. Meth. Geoms,
Aachen, Vol.l, 42 3.
Gioda, G. and Cividini, A. (1979). A Numerical
Study of Non-Linear Consolidation Prob­
lems Taking into Account Creep Effects.
Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Num. Meth. Geoms,
Aachen, Vol.l, 149.
Gudehus, G. (1977). Finite Elements in
Geomechanics. John Wiley, London.
Gudehus, G. (1979). A Comparison of Some
Constitutive Laws for Soils under Radi­
ally Symmetric Loading and Unloading.
3rd Int. Conf. Num. Meth. Geoms, Aachen,
Vol.4, 1309.
Gupta, A. K. (1978). A Finite Element for
Transition from a Fine to a Coarse Grid.
Int.J. Num. Meth. Eng., Vol.12, 35.
Hain, S. J. and Lee, I. K. (1978). The
Analysis of Flexible Raft-Pile Systems.
Geotechnique, Vol.28, No.l, 65.
Hain, S. J. and Lee, I. K. (1980). Prediction
of Structure-Foundation Interaction Behav­
iour. Proc. 3rd Aust.-N.Z. Conf. Geomechs,
Wellington, Vol.2, 221.
Hardin, B. 0. (1978). The Nature of Stress-
Strain Behaviour for Soils. Earthquake
Eng. and Soil Dyn., Spec. Conf., ASCE,
Vol.l, 3.
Herrmann, L. R. (1978). Finite Element Analy­
sis of Contact Problems. Jnl. Eng. Mechs.
Divn, ASCE, Vol.104, NO.EM5, 1043.
Herrmann, L. R. and Al-Yassin, Z. (1979).
Numerical Analysis of Reinforced Soil
Systems. Symp. on Earth Reinf., ASCE, 428.
Hinton, E. and Owen, D. R. J. (1977). Finite
Element Programming. Academic Press,
London.
Hobbs, R., George, P. J. and Mustoe, G.G.W.
(1978). Some Applications of Numerical
Methods to the Design of Offshore Gravity
Structure Foundations. Ch.14 of Num. Meth.
in Offshore Eng., Ed. O. C. Zienkiewicz et
al, John Wiley.
Hofmeister, L. D. (1978). An Out-of-Core
Equation Solver for Full, Unsymmetric
Matrices. Int.J. Num. Meth. Eng., Vol.12,
721.
Holloway, D. M., Clough, G. W. and Vesic, A.S.
(1978). The Effects of Residual Driving
Stresses on Pile Performance Under Axial
Loads. Proc. 10th OTC Conf., Houston, Paper
OTC 3306, p.2225.
Hooper, J. A. (1978). Foundation Interaction
Analysis. Ch.4 in Devels. in Soil Mechs. -1,
Ed. C. R. Scott, App. Sci. London.
Imafuku, I., Kodera, Y. and Sayawaki, M. (1980).
A Generalized Automatic Mesh Generation
Scheme for Finite Element Method. Int.J. Num.
Meth. Eng., Vol.15, 713.
Ito, T., Matsui, T. and Hong, W. P. (1979).
Design Method for the Stability Analysis of
the Slope with Landing Pier. Soils and
Fndns, Vol.19, No.4, 43.
Kausel, E. and Roesset, J. M. (1977). Semianalyt-
ic Hyperelement for Layered Strata. Jnl. Eng.
Mech. Divn, ASCE, Vol.103, NO.EM4, 569.
Kay, J. N. and Qamar , M. I. (1978). Evaluation of
Tie-Back Anchor Response. Jnl. Geot. Eng.
Divn, ASCE, Vol.104, No.GTl, 77.
Kay, J. N. and Mitchell, P. W. (1980). A Down-
Hole Plate Load Test for In-Situ Properties
of Stiff Clays. Proc. 3rd Aust.-N.Z. Conf.
Geoms, Wellington, Vol.l, 255.
Kim, H. 0. and Kuhlemeyer, R. L. (1977). A Finite
Element Formulation for Creep Analysis. Int.
J. Num. Meth. Eng., Vol.11, No.12, 1865.
Krizek, R. J. and McQuade, P. V. (19 78) . Behaviour
of Buried Concrete Pipe. Jnl. Geot. Eng.
Divn, ASCE, Vol.104, No.GT7, 815.
Kulhawy, F. (1977). Embankments and Excavations.
Ch.16 of Num. Methods in Geot. Eng. Ed. C.S.
Desai and J. T. Christian, McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Kuhlemeyer, R. L. (1979). Static and Dynamic
Laterally Loaded Floating Piles. Jnl. Geot.
Eng. Divn, ASCE, Vol.105, NO.GT2, 289-304.
Lambe, T. W. (1973). Predictions in Soil Engineer­
ing. Geotechnique, Vol.23, No.2, 149.
Luk, V. K. and. Keer, L. M. (1980). Stress
Analysis of a Deep Rigid Axially-Loaded
Cylindrical Anchor in an Elastic Medium.
Int. Jnl. Num. Anal. Meth. Geom, Vol.4, No.3,
215.
Madhav, M. R. and Krishna, K.S.R. (19 77).
Undrained Modulus from Vane Shear Test. Jnl.
Geot. Eng. Divn, ASCE, Vol.103, No.GTll, 1337.
Mana, A. I. and Clough, G. W. (1980). Simplified
Method for Predicting Movements of Braced
Cuts in Clay. Submitted to ASCE Geot. Eng.
Divn Jnl.
Marchetti, S. (1980). In-Situ Tests by Flat
Dilatometer. Jnl. Geot. Eng. Divn, ASCE,
Vol.106, NO.GT3, 2 99.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1979). Soil-Structure Inter­
action and Foundations. S.O.A. Report, 6th
Pan-Am. Conf. SMFE., Lima, Peru.
Morgenstern, N. R. (1975). Stress-Strain Relat­
ions for Soils in Practice. S.O.A. Report,
5th Pan-Am. Conf. SMFE., Buenos Aires, Vol.4,
1.
Mroz, Z., Norris, V. A. and Zienkiewicz, 0. C.
(19 78). An Anisotropic Hardening Model for
Soils and its Application to Cyclic Loading.
Int. J. Num. Anal. Meth. Geom., Vol.2, No.3,
203.
331
Mroz, Z., Norris, V. A. and Zienkiewicz, 0. C.
(1979). Application of Anisotropic Harden­
ing Model in the Analysis of Elasto-Plastic
Deformation of Soils. Geotechnique,
Vol.29, No.1, 1.
Mroz, Z. (1980). On Hypoelasticity and Plastic­
ity Approaches to Constitutive Modelling of
Inelastic Behaviour of Soils. Int.J. Num.
Anal. Meth. Geom, Vol.4, No.l, 45.
Mullan, S. J., Sinclair, G. B. and Brothers,
P.W. (1980). Stresses for an Elastic Half-
Space Uniformly Indented by a Rigid Rect­
angular Footing. Int.J. Num. Anal. Meth.
Geom, Vol.4, No.3, 277.
Nagtegaal, J. C., Parks, D. H. and Price, J. R.
(1974). On Numerically Accurate Finite
Element Solutions in the Fully Plastic
Range. Comp. Meth. in Appl. Mech. Eng.,
Vol.14, 15 3.
Naylor, D. J. and Richards, H. (1978). Slipping
Strip Analysis of Reinforced Earth. Int. J.
Num. Anal. Meth. Geom, Vol.2, No.4, 343.
Naylor, D. J. (1979). A Study of R.E. Walls
Allowing Strip Slip. Symp. on Earth Reinf.
ASCE, 618.
Nelson, I. (1978). Constitutive Models for Use
in Numerical Computations. Plastic and
Long-Term Effects in Soils, ed. G. Gudehus,
Balkema, 45.
Nova, R. (1979). Un Modello Constitutive per
L'Argilla. Riv. Ital. di Geot., Vol.13,
No.l, 37.
Ohta, H., Mochinaga, R. and Kurihara, N.(1980).
Investigation of Soft Foundations with
Surface Reinforcement. Proc. 3rd Aust.-
N.Z. Conf. Geom., Wellington, Vol.l, 1-123.
Osaimi, A. E. and Clough, G. W. (1979). Pore
Pressure Dissipation During Excavation.
Jnl. Geot. Eng. Divn, ASCE, Vol.105, NO.GT4
481.
Ottaviani, M. and Marchetti, S. (1979).
Observed and Predicted Test Pile Behaviour.
Int.J. Num. Anal. Meth. Geom., Vol.3, No.2,
131.
Parkes, E. W. (1956). A Comparison of the
Contact Pressures Beneath a Rough and a
Smooth Raft on an Elastic Medium. Geot.,
Vol.6, 183.
Peck, R. B. (1969a). Deep Excavations and
Tunnelling in Soft Ground. S.O.A. Report,
7th Int. Conf. SMFE., Mexico, 225.
Peck, R. B. (1969b). Advantages and Limit­
ations of the Observational Method in
Applied Soil Mechanics. Geotechnique,
Vol.19, No.2, 171.
Pells, P. J. N. and Turner, R. M. (1979).
Elastic Solutions for the Design and
Analysis of Rock-Socketted Piles. Can.
Geot. Jnl., Vol.16, No.3, 481.
Penman, A. D. M. (1978). Soil-Structure Inter­
action and Deformation Problems with Large
Oil Tanks. Ground Eng., Vol.11, No.2, 22.
Pircher, H. and Beer, G. (1977).- On the Treat­
ment of 'Infinite' Boundaries in the Finite
Element Method. Int.J. Num. Meth. Eng.,
Vol.11, 1194.
332
Poulos, H. G. (19 71). Behaviour of Laterally
Loaded Piles: I - Single Piles. Jnl.
S.M.F.D., ASCE, Vol.97, NO.SM5, 711.
Poulos, H. G. (1979). Settlement of Single
Piles in Non-Homogeneous Soil. Jnl. Geot.
Eng. Divn, ASCE, Vol.105, NO.GT5, 627.
Poulos, H. G. (1980). Comparisons Between
Theoretical and Observed Behaviour of Pile
Foundations. Proc. 3rd Aust.-N.Z. Conf.
Geomechs, Wellington, Vol.l, 95.
Popovic, M. and Sarac, D. (1979). Numerical
Analysis of Soil-Structure Interaction for
a Special Case of Heterogeneity. Proc.
3rd Int. Conf. Num. Meth. Geom., Aachen,
Vol.3, 1017.
Prevost, J. H. (1979). Mathematical Modelling
of Soil Stress-Strain-Strength Behaviour.
Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Num. Meth. Geom.,
Aachen, Vol.l, 34 7.
Randolph, M. F. and Wroth, C. P. (1978). Analy­
sis of Deformation of Vertically Loaded
Piles. Jnl. Geot. Eng. Divn, ASCE, Vol.104,
NO.GT12, 1465.
Randolph, M. F. and Wroth, C. P. (1979). An
Analysis of the Vertical Deformation of Pile
Groups. Geotechnique, Vol.29, No.4, 423.
Randolph, M. F., Carter, J. P. and Wroth, C. P.
(1979). Driven Piles in Clay - the Effects
of Installation and Subsequent Consolidation.
Geot., Vol29, No.4, 361.
Randolph, M. F. (1980). The Response of Flexi­
ble Piles to Lateral Loading. Rept. CUED/D-
Soils TR94, Camb. Univ.
Redman, P. G. (1980). Analysis of Undrained
Creep of Foundations and Embankments on
Clays. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ of Sydney,
Australia.
Richards, B. G. (1973). Model for Slab Found­
ations on Expansive Clays. Proc. 8th Int.
Conf. SMFE., Moscow, Paper 4/31.
Rosenberg, P., St.-Arnaud, G., Journeaux, N. L.
and Vallee, H. (1977). Design, Construct­
ion, and Performance of a Slurry Trench
Wall next to Foundations. Can. Geot. Jnl.,
Vol.14, No.3, 324.
Roth, W. H., Lee, K. L., and Crandall, L. (1979).
Calculated and Measured Earth Pressures on
a Deep Basement Wall. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf.
Num. Meth. Geom., Aachen, Vol.3, 1179.
Rowe, R. K. and Davis, E. H. (1977). Appli­
cation of the Finite Element Method to the
Prediction of Collapse Loads. Civ. Eng.
Res. Rep. R310, University of Sydney.
Rowe, R. K., Booker, J. R. and Balaam, N. P.
(1978). Application of the Initial Stress
Method to Soil-Structure Interaction. Int.
Jnl. Num. Meth. Eng., Vol.12, 873.
Rowe, R. K. (1978). Soil-Structure Interaction
Analysis and its Applications to the Pre­
diction of Anchor Plate Behaviour. Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Sydney.
Rowe, R. K. and Booker, J. R. (1979a). The
Analysis of Inclined Anchor Plates. Proc.
3rd Int. Conf. Num. Meth. Geom., Aachen,
Vol.3, 1227.
Rowe, R. K. and Booker, J. R. (1979b). A
 Method of Analysis for Horizontally Embed­
ded Anchors in an Elastic Medium. Int.J.
Num. Anal. Meth. Geom, Vol.3, No.2, 187.
Rowe, R. K. and Booker, J. R. (1980a,b). The
Behaviour of Footings Resting on a Non-
Homogeneous Soil Mass With a Crust. Part I
- Strip Footings, and Part II - Circular
Footings. Civ. Eng. Res. Repts. R374, R375,
Univ. of Sydney.
Rowe, R. K. and Booker, J. R. (1980c). The
Elastic Response of Multiple Underream
Anchors. Proc. 3rd Aust.-N.Z. Conf. Geom.,
Wellington, Vol.2, 247.
Rowe, R. K. and Poulos, H. G. (1979). A Method
for Predicting the Effect of Piles on Slope
Behaviour. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Num. Meth.
Geom., Aachen, Vol.3, 1073.
Sagaseta, C., Ballester, F. and Sainz, J. A.
(1980). Numerical Model for Undrained and
Consolidation Deformations of Soft Clays.
Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Num. Meth. Geom.,
Aachen, Vol.l, 191.
Schiffmann, R. L. (1968). The Influence of
Adhesion on the Stresses and Displacements
in an Elastic Half-Space. High. Res.
Rec. No.282, 17.
Scott, R. F. and Craig, M. J. K. (1980). Com­
puter Modelling of Clay Structure and
Mechanics. Jnl. Geot. Eng. Divn, ASCE,
Vol.196, No.GTl, 17.
Sekiguchi, H. and Shibata, T. (19 79). Undrained
Behaviour of Soft Clay Under Embankment
Loading. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Num. Meth.
Geom, Vol.2, 717.
Selig, E. T., Lockhart, C. W. and Lautensleger,
R. W. (1979). Measured Performance of
Newton Creek Culvert. Jnl. Geot. Eng. Divn,
ASCE, Vol.105, NO.GT9, 1067.
Selvadurai, A. P. S. (1978). The Response of
Deep Rigid Anchor due to Undrained Elastic
Deformation of the Surrounding Soil Medium.
Int. J. Num. Anal. Meth. Geom, Vol.2, No.2,
189 .
Selvadurai, A. P. S. (1979a). Elastic Analysis
of Soil-Foundation Interaction. Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
Selvadurai, A. P. S. (1979b). An Energy Esti­
mation of the Flexural Behaviour of a
Circular Foundation Embedded in an Isotropic
Elastic Medium. Int.J. Num. Anal. Meth.
Geom., Vol.3, No.3, 285.
Selvadurai, A. P. S. (1979c). The Cable Method
of In-Situ Testing: Influence of the
Anchor Region. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Num.
Meth. Geom., Aachen, Vol.3, 1237.
Selvadurai, A. P. S. (1979d). On the Estimation
of the Deformability Characteristics of an
Isotropic Elastic Soil Medium by Means of a
Vane Test. Int.J. Num. Anal. Meth. Geom.,
Vol.3, No.3, 231.
Selvadurai, A. P. S. (1980). The Eccentric
Loading of a Rigid Circular Foundation
Embedded in an Isotropic Elastic Medium.
Int. Jnl. Num. Anal. Meth. Geom., Vol.4,
No.2, 121.
Selvadurai, A. P. S. and Nicholas, T. J. (1979).
A Theoretical Assessment of the Screw Plate
Test. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Num. Meth.
Geom, Aachen, Vol.3, 1245.
Selvadurai, A. P. S. and Osier, J. C. (1979).
Discussion. Jnl. Geot. Eng. Divn, ASCE,
Vol.104, No.GTll, 1417.
Selvadurai, A. P. S., Bauer, G. E. and Nicholas,
T. J. (1980). Screw Plate Testing of a
Soft Clay. Can. Geot. Jnl, Vol.17, No.4,
465.
Simpson, B., O'Riordan, N. J. and Croft, D. D.
(1979). A Computer Model for the Behaviour
of London Clay. Geotechnique, Vol.29,
No.2, 149.
Small, J. C., Booker, J. R. and Davis, E. H.
(1976). Elasto-Plastic Consolidation of
Soil. Int.J. Sol. Struct., Vol.12, 431.
Small, J. C. and Booker, J. R. (1979). Analy­
sis of the Consolidation of Layered Soils
Using the Method of Lines. Proc. 3rd Int.
Conf. Num. Meth. Geom, Aachen, Vol.l, 201.
Small, J. C., Booker, J. R. and Redman, P. G.
(1980). The Behaviour of Circular Tanks on
Deep Elastic Foundations. Proc. 3rd Aust.-
N.Z. Conf. Geomechs, Wellington, Vol.2, 215.
Suklje, L. (1978). Stresses and Strains in Non-
Linear Viscous Soils. Int.J. Num. Anal.
Meth. Geom, Vol.2, No.2, 129.
Thamm, B. R. (1979). Numerical Analyses of
Embankments over Soft Subsoils. Proc. 3rd
Int. Conf. Num. Meth. Geom, Vol.2, 725.
Toh, C. T. and Sloan, S. W. (1980). Finite
Element Analyses of Isotropic and Aniso­
tropic Cohesive Soils with a View to
Correctly Predicting Impending Collapse.
Int.J. Num. Anal. Meth. Geom., Vol.4, No.l,
1.
Trofimenkov, Y. G., Mariupolskii, L. G.,
Obodovskii, A. A., Matayashevich, I. A. and
Sokolova, V. F. (1977). Actual and Calcul­
ated Loads on Piles and Results of Observing
Settlements of a Large-Panel Building. Soil
Mech. Fndn Eng., Vol.14, No.3, May, 169.
Tsotsas, S. S. and Hatzigogos, T. N. (1979).
Discussion. Jnl. Geot. Eng. Divn., ASCE,
Vol.105, NO.GT8, 991.
Uzan, J., Ishai, I., and Hoffman, M. S. (1980).
Surface Deflexion in a Two-Layer Elastic
Medium Underlain by a Rough Rigid Base.
Geotechnique, Vol.30, No.l, 39.
Vermeer, P. A. (1979). A Modified Initial
Strain Method for Plasticity Problems.
Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Num. Meth. Geom.,
Aachen, Vol.l, 377.
Verruijt, A. (1980). Finite Element Calculat­
ions on a Micro-Computer. Int.J. Nu. Meth.
Eng. Vol.15, No.10, 1570.
Wiesner, T. J. and Brown, P. T. (1980). Labora­
tory Tests on Model Piled Raft Foundations.
Jnl. Geot. Eng. Divn, ASCE, Vol.106, No.6,
GT7, 757.
Williams, D. J. (1979). Discussion. Numerical
Methods in Offshore Piling. I.C.E. London,
200.
Wilson, E. L. (1965). Structural Analysis of
Axi-Symmetric Solids. J.A.I.A.A., 3, 2269.
Winnicki, L. A. and Zienkiewicz, 0. C. (1979).
Plastic (or Visco-Plastic) Behaviour of
333
 Axisymmetric Bodies Subjected to Non-
Symmetric Loading. Int.J. Num. Meth. Eng.,
Vol.14, 1399.
Withiam, J. L. and Kulhawy, F. H. (1979).
Analytical Model for Drilled Shaft Found­
ations. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Num. Meth.
Geom., Aachen, Vol.3, 1115.
Yamada, Y. and Wifi, A. S. (1977) . Large
Strain Analysis of Some Geomechanics
Problems by the Finite Element Method. Int.
J. Num. Anal. Meth. Geom., Vol.l, No.3,299.
Zhukov, N.V., Borshchev, V.V. and Balov, I.L.
(1979). Maximum Permissible Values of Non-
Uniform Settlement of Agricultural Build­
ings. Soil Mech. Fndn. Eng., Vol.16, 5, 243.
334
Zienkiewicz, 0. C., Humpheson, C. and Lewis, R.W.
(1977) A Unified Approach to Soil Mechanics
Problems (Including Plasticity and Visco-
Plasticity) . Ch.4 in Finite Elements in
Geomechanics. Ed. G. Gudehus, Wiley, London.
Zienkiewicz, O.C. andCormeau, I.C. (1974). Visco-
Plasticity-Plasticity and Creep in Elastic
Solids - A Unified Numerical Solution
Approach. Int.J. Num. Meth. Eng., Vol.8, 821.
Zienkiewicz, O.C., Lewis, R.W. and Stagg, K.G.
(1978). Numerical Methods in Offshore
Engineering. John Wiley, Interscience.
Zinov'ev, A. V. (1979). Determination of the
Deformation of a Base of Finite Thickness
Under an Annular Foundation. Soil Mech.
Fndn. Eng., Vol.16, No.3, 152.