SOME PROBLEMS AND ACHIEVEMENTS OF
MODERN SOIL MECHANICS*
(Shear in Soils)
By D. P. Kryninc, Research Associate in Soil Mechanics, Yale University
1. GENERAL
The scope of Soil Mechanics is rapidly growing, and it is quite im-
possible even to enumerate all its problems in a short report. In the
following pages those points which have been in some way concerned
with the writer's activities during the last year, will be discussed. Special
attention will be given to shear phenomena in soils.
Soil Mechanics may be defined as a science dealing with the behavior
of different soils as connected with engineering structures. It follows
from this definition that soil mechanics is concerned with practically all
kinds of engineering structures since all of them are constructed on the
earth’s surface or close to it. The variety of soil types suggests the idea,
however, that a single general law controlling such a behavior cannot be
formulated once for all the soils. Actually this is the case. Moreover, the
behavior of a soil mass depends on its state at the given moment. In
this connection the moisture content is to be mentioned especially. En-
gineers of all times and of all nationalities have always felt it. A British
technical journal} even formulated this statement in a rather poetical
form by periphrasing a well known nursery rhyme:
“When the clay is good it is very good,
But when it is bad it is horrid.”
This quotation makes a true statement that a soil material may possess
variable properties according to circumstances under which it works. The
natural conclusion to be drawn from the foregoing fact would be the
necessity for a detailed study of the physical properties of soils. This
study, however, has been practically neglected by engineers until Dr.
Terzaghi expressed the idea in question in a very clear scientific form.?
Owing to his work and to that of many more investigators a solid basis
for an engineering soil physics has been laid. Another notable idea of
Dr. Terzaghi’s is concerned with soils under the level of ground water.
He stated that the squeezing of water from the voids of such a soil upon
loading it, obeys certain laws. This squeezing depends both on the value
of the load and the nature of the soil. Thus, a theory of “hydrodynamic
* Presented at 49th Annual Meeting, Hartford, Connecticut, February 22, 1933.
tEngineering, November 7, 1924.
1“Erdbaumechanik”, 1925, and some previous papers.
92ACHIEVEMENTS OF MODERN SOIL MECHANICS 93
stresses” was created which led to many fruitful conclusions dealing with
both the consolidation of natural deposits and the settlement of buildings.
Obviously, soils under ground water have all their voids filled with water.
In this report those soils which have their voids but partially filled with
moisture, are meant.
2. STRESSES IN A Sort Mass; ComprEsSION AND SHEAR. ADJUSTMENT
to THE Loap
Suppose a homogeneous elastic body is loaded and strained. The body
reassumes its initial shape upon the removal of the load provided the
stress caused by that load be under the elastic limit. In order to determine
the pressure intensity S caused by a load P at a certain depth z and at a
certain distance x from the line of action of the load, the Boussinesq
formula? may be used :
3P
So ee eee (1),
2n rag
where Se (2).
For instance, let us determine the pressure intensity caused by a load
P = 200 tons at a depth z = 12’ and x = 9’ away from the line of the
load action. In this case r = W12® + 9 = 15’ and
3x200 128
S= x = 0.22 t/ sq. ft.
2x3,14 155
It should be stated also that the size, the shape, and the rigidity of the
slab through which the load P is acting, have a certain bearing on the
results. It may be seen from the above example that the pressure dis-
tribution does not depend on the material of the loaded elastic body. In
other words, the pressure intensity under a given load and at a given point
is the same, be the elastic body made of steel, iron, or rubber. A question
arises whether or not the Boussinesq formula may be applied to soils.
Some engineers claim that the formula is good for soils; others consider
soil as a semi-elastic body. Some investigators (for instance, Koegler and
Scheidig#) found discrepancies between the theoretical computations and
their own laboratory measurements. The writer’s opinion on the subject
is as follows. A soil mass represents an assemblage of very small bodies
(particles) and each of them undoubtedly obeys the laws of mechanics.
2Boussinesq. Application des potentiels, 1885.
8 In a series of articles published in “Bautechnik”, 1927-1929.94 FORTY-NINTH ANNUAL REPORT
The load acting on a particle should be in equilibrium with the reactions
of the supports (Fig. 1), whatever these supports may be (neighboring
particles; moisture films; air bubbles); otherwise the particle would
move. Let us call such a movement adjustment of the soil to the load.
It is evident that: (a) the adjustment is less considerable in compact
soils and more considerable in the loose ones; (b) the adjustment is not
reversible, i.e. it does not disappear upon the removal of the load; and
(c) only, when the whole mass is adjusted to the load, it may be con-
sidered as acting as a single elastic body, under condition, however, that
the soil mass remains homogeneous. It is easy to demonstrate that the
latter condition is not satisfied. The greater the unit load, the greater
is the amount of adjustment (for the same soil). Therefore, since the
unit compression stress is evidently greater in the sections closer to the
point of action of the concentrated load, the amount of adjustment de-
load
Fic. 1. Soil particle in equilibrium
creases in the direction away from the load. In other words, when a
possibility appears for the soil to start working as a single body, elastic
and homogeneous, it cannot do so because it has already lost its homo-
geneity owing to differential adjustment. Since this is so, the applications
of the Boussinesq formula to soils should be subject to restrictions. By
no means can it be applied: (a) in the cases of possible excessive adjust-
ment, that is in the cases of soils with unstable structure such as loose
sands and similar soils; (b) for those sections of a soil mass where the
lack of homogeneity is excessive, in other words, close to the load. Thus
the Boussinesq formula may furnish more or less satisfactory results only
when applied to sections at a certain distance from the load. This state-
ment may be proved experimentally.
Adjustment may cause soil motion in any direction and may last
longer or shorter time. During the period of adjustment a particle isACHIEVEMENTS OF MODERN SOIL MECHANICS 95
compressed by the variable resultant of the support reactions (partial
elastic action). When the adjustment is over and stresses do not exceed
the elastic limit, the full elastic action takes place. This term is con-
-L__>
Fic. 2. Action of a plastic mass under punch (according to Prandtl and Hencky).
Fic, 3, Slip lines in soil under pressure (silty sand from a
Connecticut River meadow).
ventional since it is not exactly known whether or not, during this period,
all the laws of the elastic theory may be applied to the soil. If they could,
the slip lines in Fig. 3 would intersect at right angles, which, however, is96 FORTY-NINTH ANNUAL REPORT
not the case as it may be seen from the figure. Hence, the doubt as to
the perfect elastic behavior of the soil at any time.
If the load exceeds the elastic limit and approaches the ultimate strength
of the material of the grains, one could expect their destruction. But, as
a rule, before this happens the soil yields along the shearing surfaces and
failure occurs by shear.
The shape of shearing surfaces may be determined either theoretically
or experimentally. Both Dr. Prandtl* and Dr. Hencky® analyzed the phe-
nomenon of pressing a metallic punch into a plastic mass and obtained such
surfaces. (Fig. 2). The writer obtained slip lines along which shear takes
place by pressing a vertical metallic punch, somewhat less than one inch
square, against a horizontal soil layer also about one inch thick, located on
a laboratory table. Fig. 3 shows such slip lines as obtained on a layer of
fine silty sand from a Connecticut River meadow.
The disintegration of the soil mass along the shearing surfaces takes
place if the soil is not plastic. Otherwise plastic flow may happen:
the soil moves as a very dense liquid practically following the direction
of slip lines. Very little is known about the plastic flow of soils under
load; and the study of this phenomenon is one of the vital problems of
Soil Mechanics.
“The questions of stress distribution along a shearing surface and of
the shape of shearing surfaces themselves, need further study, since our
knowledge along the lines cannot yet be considered as definite. Judging
from his laboratory and field observations, the writer believes that the
shearing crack is a progressive failure starting close to the point of appli-
cation of the load. But since this statement has not yet been fully’
proved, a simultaneous action of stresses along the whole shearing surface
is to be assumed.
3. Compressep Zone Unper A STRUCTURE
Using the Boussinesq formula the location of points with equal vertical
pressure intensity may be established. Lines or surfaces joining such
points are called “isobars.” The shape of isobars was also determined
experimentally. In this connection, the experiments of Professor Enger,
of the University of Illinois (1915), of Koegler and Scheidig, of Germany
(1927) and many others should be mentioned. The pressures in such
experiments were usually measured at the bottom of the experimental
box by using either a manometer or a scale. The diagram thus obtained
4 Zeitschrift der angew. Mathematik und Mechanik, Volume 1 (1921), page 15.
5 Loc. cit, volume 3 (1923), page 241; see also page 401.ACHIEVEMENTS OF MODERN SOIL MECHANICS 97
is often called “bulb of pressures.” (Fig. 4). Intersect the bulb of
pressures by a horizontal line and plot the percentages at the points of
intersection against distances from the central line of the load. The
curve thus obtained is similar to the probability curve. It shows the
stress distribution at a given depth, but at variable distances from the
center of the load. Since it is so, the deflection curves (strain lines)
at the same depth should be approximately similar to an inverse proba-
obable
aisturbed zoe
eo»
() SELL section x-x
4 S @rdeprs 4)
Fic. 4. (a) Bulb of pressures (experiments of Prof. Enger).
(b) Stress distribution curve (at the depth d).
(c) Strain lines in East Hartford test.
bility curve. Actually this is the case as is shown by a field loading
test made by the writer last summer in East Hartford.
An area of four square feet (1’ x 4’) was loaded with twelve tons
of pig iron, through a wooden platform. The soil was moist, fine,
silty sand. After three weeks of loading, an excavation was made and
the bent strata were marked with paper slips fixed with pins to the
vertical surface of the soil. The bent strata were found to follow very98 FORTY-NINTH ANNUAL REPORT
closely inverse probability curves. This was the first time that such
results were obtained under field conditions and not in a laboratory.®
The principal value of the experiment does not consist, however, in
the determination of the shape of the strain lines. It was shown that
all the earth pressed out by the loaded platform remained in a semi-
circular zone under the loaded platform, and that the settlement con-
sisted in a progressive pushing of that zone by the loaded platform. The
moisture content of the semi-circular zone was only about a half of
that of the surrounding soil. Thus it became clear that moisture was
being pressed out from beneath the loaded platform, and that the soil
in that section was changing its physical properties during the settlement.
The results of the experiment described above permit us to formulate
the following hypothesis. There is a compressed zone under a building
shaped probably like a bulb of pressures, There is also a heavily stressed
disturbed zone within that bulb (close to the load, Fig. 4) including all
the material displaced by the building during the settlement. This zone
moves with the building constituting something like its satellite, and
finally has to separate from the rest of the soil which separation is nothing
else than a shear phenomenon. This is especially true of loose (very
compressible) soils. If the local soil is not compressible, that disturbed
zone cannot move downward very far and will be squeezed out laterally.
Hence the possibility of the bulging around a building. The squeezing
in question may be vizualized as happening according to Fig. 2 or 3.
In other words the bulging around a building is a phenomenon due to
excessive shear stresses. Thus it is easy to understand why a settlement
in the case of a non-plastic soil accompanied by bulging may be stopped
by loading the bulged area around the building. Obviously, in such a
way the shearing resistance of the soil is increased, and the disintegration
of the earth mass along the shearing surfaces stopped.
4, Surar FamLures
According to the preceding discussion, the soil action under a narrow
building in many cases is as follows: (a) first the soil is compressed
(adjustment and elastic compression); (b) afterward, if the load is.
excessive, the shear stress which acts simultaneously with the steadily
increasing compressive stress, exceeds the shearing resistance of the
® The writer is indebted to the Conn. State Highway Department and to Messrs.
C. Henry Olmsted and George F. Zajicek, Members, Connecticut Society Civil
Engineers, for their kind cooperation in making this test described with more details
in “Eng, News-Record”, December 29, 1932.ACHIEVEMENTS OF MODERN SOIL MECHANICS 99
soil, and the soil mass in question fails by shear. The writer believes
that the same trend is true in the majority of similar cases some of which
are to be discussed below.
Fic. 5. Two steps of action of a pile pulled horizontally:
(1) Initial position of the pile;
(2) Bent pile during the adjustment; O, is the initial center
of rotation;
(3) Final position before shear takes place; O, is the final
center of rotation,
(a) VerticaL Pires Loapep Horizonratty; BuLKHEADS
A vertical pile or a sufficiently long rigid stake driven to a certain
depth into the ground and pulled by a horizontal force first rotates about
a “zero-point” 0; (Fig. 5). This rotation is due to the compression of
the soil before the pile and to its lateral displacement. When the pile100 FORTY-NINTH ANNUAL REPORT
reaches a certain angle, it pushes out an earth cone, provided the acting
force is great enough and the pile itself strong enough not to be broken.
The horizontal pulling force is thus transformed into shearing stresses
along the surface of a cone. The writer took advantage of this property
in proposing a method for determining the shearing resistance of the
highway subgrade.”
The above case is very characteristic of the successive steps of the
soil action previous to failure. A free bulkhead (i.e. one without tie
or after a tie failure) acts in a similar way. The single difference
consists in the absence of the lateral displacement of the soil (except at
the ends of the wall). According to the experiments made by the writer
at Yale University ® the failure of a sandy soil mass in the case of a
Fic. 6. Sketch showing shear action (in sand) of a free sheet piling wall:
(a) and (c) are shear cracks; (b) is a bursting crack. Distances:
(a) (p) = d to 15d; (b) (p) = % of (a) (p).
free wall takes place according to Fig. 6. The superelevation of the
ground on one side of the bulkhead does not influence very much the
location of the cracks. This is due probably to the curved shape of the
shearing surfaces. Observations of an actual failure gave the following
results: full depth of driving, 32’; crack (a) located at 30’ 8”; crack
(b) at 18”3” from the final position of the pile. This should be con-
sidered close enough to the experimental data as shown in Fig. 6.
These results led the writer to the conclusion that in designing bulk-
heads or isolated piles, shearing stresses in the adjacent soil mass should
be taken into consideration which generally speaking is not done in the
7 Report presented to the Annual Meeting of the Highway Research Board, Wash-
ington, D. C., December, 1931.
8In cooperation with Mr. Robert W. Abbett, Department of Civil Engineering.ACHIEVEMENTS OF MODERN SOIL MECHANICS 101
designing practice. The American Wood Preservers’ Association ar-
rived at similar conclusions in regard to wooden poles.®
(b) ANcCHORAGES
Extensive research along these lines was recently made in the laboratory
of Professor Franzius, of Germany.1° It is quite evident that all kinds
of anchorages work owing to the shearing resistance of the soil. Ob-
viously, in the majority of cases the weight of the soil wedge to be moved
in the case of a failure contributes to the increase of the safety factor.
Anchorages are generally provided with tightening devices (turn-
buckles). A good tightening of the anchor tie after its installation
contributes to a quick “adjustment” of the soil. In this case there is
no exterior force such as the considerable force of gravity in the case
of buildings which could provoke the “adjustment.” Hence the neces-
sity of man’s intervention.
(c) EmBaNKMENTS
A fresh fill, even unloaded, settles, and this settlement is to be con-
sidered as an adjustment of the soil mass to its own weight. At the
same time the base of the embankment adjusts itself to the same weight.
When the adjustment is completed, full compressive and shearing stresses
similar to those in an elastic body, should develop both within and
beneath the embankment. Shear failure may happen either by the
sliding of a slope or by the lateral flow of the base. Little is known,
however, about the stress distribution in embankments and their bases.
(d) Lanpstipes
Landslides represent a typical shear failure which generally occurs
in apparently adjusted soils. This should mean that the phenomenon is
to be attributed, not to an increase of stress, but rather to a decrease of
shear resistance (owing to change in moisture content or other local condi-
tion). In this connection, the writer has to repeat his belief that in
many cases the shearing crack should penetrate into the soil mass but
gradually. Thus the actual overcoming of the shear resistance would
not happen on the whole shearing surface at once, but only on a part there-
of. Though the shape of sliding surfaces is assumed to he an arc of circle,
no theoretical proof of this statement exists,
® Article of J. F. Seiler, “Wood Preserving News”, November, 1932.
20 Dr. Wilhelm Buchholz. Erdwiderstand auf Ankerplatten, 1931.102 FORTY-NINTH ANNUAL REPORT
The apparently simple landslide phenomena have not been yet fully
understood and are still under study. A striking example of landslides
caused by shearing stresses acting on a large scale, is the failure which
occurred in the harbor of Gotenburg, Sweden, in 1916"). The soil was
pushed out along a curved surface more than 200 feet from the sunken
concrete structure.
(e) Brince Piers anp Grain ELeyaTors
Practice shows that many narrow, but relatively long structures suffer
from shearing stresses and this often happens in the case of a slight
though eccentrical overloading. Such are, for instance, bridge piers
and bin houses of grain elevators. The failure takes place according to
Fig. 2 and 3, either symmetrically or not. Well known is the case of the
destruction of the Transcona Elevator, Winnipeg, Canada, which hap-
pened in 1913.2 .
(f) Reraininc Watts
A retaining wall is supposed to be under the action of several forces,
including soil pressure. The acting wedge separates from the rest of
the soil mass along a shearing surface which often is. assumed to be a
plane. As a rule, it is not.
5. Sugar Resistance; Fretp Metuops Proposep By THE WRITER
Since many failures take place owing to shearing stresses, a more or
less accurate determination of the shearing resistance of the soil is
absolutely necessary. It is generally assumed that the shearing stress is
resisted by the combined effect of (a) cohesion and (b) internal friction,
acting on the shearing surface. Cohesion depends on the stickiness of
the soil particles, or on their resistance to being pulled apart. This
property of the soil is supposed to be quite, or almost, independent of
the outside pressure acting on the soil. Cohesion reaches its maximum
at a certain moisture content, and diminishes with both thé increase and
decrease thereof. Friction depends on the outside pressure and on the
roughness of the shearing surface as expressed by the coefficient of
friction.
Since the value of the shearing resistance depends not only on the
moisture content, but also on the mutual arrangement of the particles,
11. Fellenius, “Erdstatische Berechnungen”, Berlin, 1927, pg. 38.
12 Described in “Eng. News-Record”, same year; also in Transactions, Am. Soe.
CE.ACHIEVEMENTS OF MODERN SOIL MECHANICS 103,
it is obvious that field measurements thereof should furnish more reliable
data than the laboratory tests in general usage. So far as the writer
knows, there are no field methods for measuring the shearing resistance
except, perhaps, some attempts to rotate discs or similar devices in the
interior of a soil mass, and, except his “‘stake-method” mentioned above.
An additional attempt was made by the writer last summer and is still
under study. It consists in driving a standard wooden pile (for instance,
4” in diameter) to progressively increasing depths (for instance 2’;
2/ 3”; 2’ 6” and so on) and then pulling it horizontally. The pile pushes
out earth cones (Fig. 5), but at a certain penetration it breaks. The
resisting moment of the pile should be known, for which purpose the
standard pile should be tested in a laboratory. From the conditions of
equilibrium, the shearing strength of the soil may be determined.
This method is very useful in the approximate comparison of two
or more soils. Suppose that the standard pile driven to a depth of 3’
into the ground breaks if pulled; in another soil, a similar pile breaks
when driven to 2’ only. Evidently from the standpoint of shear re-
sistance the latter soil is better than the former. Such tests could be
made not only on the surface of the ground, but also in excavations.
6. Some CoNncLusions
Soil Mechanics has made enormous progress during the last years
and has cleared up many questions on the behavior of the soil in and
under engineering structures. There are, however, many branches
practically untouched (for instance, plastic flow; mechanics of embank-
ments and others) or needing further study (for instance, stress dis-
tribution in a loaded soil mass; determination of shearing resistance and
others).
The writer tried to establish some general features of the behavior
of soils with incompletely filled voids. As a rule, a loaded soil mass
first adjusts to the load. Such an adjustment is a simple motion of
isolated particles deprived of some degrees of freedom. During the
period of adjustment, however, an isolated particle is compressed by
the resultant of its support reactions—which force gradually increases.
By the contrast, the pushing force decreases and becomes zero at the
end of the adjustment period. If the stresses at the end of the adjust-
ment exceed the elastic limit and are steadily increasing shearing stresses
may overcome the shearing resistance and the soil mass would fail by
shear.104 FORTY;
SINTH ANNUAL REPORT
Failure of the soil mass by shear inevitably provokes the failure of
the structure constructed thereon. But the failure of the structure may
also happen during the period of adjustment simply owing to its excessive
and non-uniform character. Since this is so, measures should be pro-
posed tending to relieve the consequences of such an adjustment. In
actual practice similar measures are being taken only in the simplest
cases, (for instance, adjustment of anchorage).
Owing to the fact that a good number of failures happen by shear,
the designing engineer should never lose sight of shearing stresses in
the soil. His duty is to locate them and if possible, to estimate them
numerically, in order to be able to avoid possible fatal consequences of
excessive shear in the soil mass close to his structure.