de Boer, R., Schiffman, R. L. & Gibson, R. E. (1996). GeÂotechnique 46, No.
2, 175±186
The origins of the theory of consolidation: the Terzaghi±Fillunger
dispute
R. DE BOER, R. L. SCHIFFMAN{ and R. E. GIBSON{
This paper provides an outline of a bitter
dispute between Karl Terzaghi and Paul Fillun-
ger in the early to mid 1930s when both were
professors at the Technische Hochschule in
Vienna. This affair, with its tragic results,
presents a microcosm of the unrest and uphea-
val in middle Europe during this period. For
geotechnical engineering it is a landmark,
because from it came the precise and general
formulation of the theory of consolidation,
which was well ahead of its time.
KEYWORDS: consolidation; historical review.
INTRODUCTION
In October 1929, Karl Terzaghi, having resigned
from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT), sailed for Europe to take up the chair of
Hydraulic Engineering II at the Technische
Hochschule in Vienna. At that time Austria was
entering into the Great Depression and was hard hit.
Friends wrote about long breadlines in the streets
and the terrible poverty and unemployment.
Tension between the socialists, who controlled
the city, and the conservative Catholic Christian
Socials, who ran the country, was threatening to
erupt into civil war. (Shirer, 1984, p. 28).
Even though Terzaghi's academic position and
his heritage kept him above the civil strife of the
streets he was affected by it. In 1932 he wrote a
letter to Lazarus White indicating his interest in
returning to the USA. Two years later he wrote
Conditions in Vienna have gradually become
unbearable and the activities in my laboratory are
practically paralyzed. Therefore I do not think I
shall stay here very much longer than the coming
Manuscript received 15 November 1994; accepted 1
February 1995.
Discussion on this paper closes 2 September 1996; for
further details see p. ii.
 Institut fuÈr Mechanik, UniversitaÈt-GH Essen.
{ University of Colorado.
{ Queen Mary and West®eld College, University of
London.
175
L'article retrace sommairement la dispute aÃpre
qui a eu lieu, entre 1930 et 1937, entre Karl
Terzaghi et Paul Fillunger, alors qu'ils eÂtaient
tous deux professeurs aÁ la Technische
Hochschule de Vienne. Cette affaire et les
conseÂquences tragiques qui en ont reÂsulteÂes
donnet une ideÂe des troubles et bouleversements
ayant eu lieu en Europe centrale pendant cette
peÂriode. Elle correspond eÂgalement aÁ une date
majeure en ingeÂnieÂrie geÂotechnique puisqu'elle
est aÁ l'origine d'une formulation de la theÂorie
de la consolidation, geÂneÂrale, preÂcise et treÁs en
avance sur son temps.
year. In the meantime I shall investigate the
various possibilities of transferring my head-
quarters into more congenial surroundings
(Terzaghi, 1934a).
The civil unrest in Europe in the 1930s clearly
had an in¯uence on the academic community.
Ideas, even of a technical nature, became a
battleground. The spirit of these times is encapsu-
lated by the then common saying `It is honourable
to have many enemies' (Terzaghi, 1991). In the
realm of soil mechanics this atmosphere mani-
fested itself in the vitriolic public arguments
between Terzaghi and Fillunger, who were both
professors at the Technische Hochschule in Vienna.
THE PARTICIPANTS
The Terzaghi±Fillunger affair started as a
disagreement on purely technical grounds. How-
ever, the personalities of Fillunger and Terzaghi
were such that the dispute rapidly became
personal.
Karl Terzaghi
Karl von Terzaghi (1883±1963) was born in
Prague, which was at that time the capital of the
Province of Bohemia of the Dual Monarchy
(Casagrande, 1960). He came from a well-to-do
military family and was brought up in the culture
of minor nobility.
Terzaghi took a ®rst higher degree in 1904 at
the Technische Hochschule in Graz, and received
176 DE BOER, SCHIFFMAN AND GIBSON

his doctorate (Techn) in 1912 for a thesis on the Department of Civil and Sanitary Engineering
reinforced concrete design. From 1904 until 1912 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
he worked on a series of engineering projects, (MIT), having heard of Terzaghi's work from
some of which involved extensive geological Professor P. H. Dike of the University of Vermont,
investigations, mainly in eastern Europe (Terzaghi, invited Terzaghi to spend a year at MIT as a
1956; Casagrande, 1960). During 1912 and 1913 Special Lecturer and Research Associate (Spofford,
he worked in the USA and for part of the time 1925a, 1925b). He remained there until 1929
with the recently founded (1902) United States having achieved the rank of Professor in 1928
Reclamation Service. (Aldrich, 1981).
In 1914 he was called to active service as an The beginning of the era of modern soil
of®cer in the Austrian army and served on the mechanics is dated from Terzaghi's arrival in the
Serbian front until Belgrade was captured. After- USA in the autumn of 1925. It was then that this
wards he was transferred to a research unit in the little known engineering teacher from a small
newly formed air force and served in this unit college in Turkey emerged from obscurity. But in
alongside Paul Fillunger, O. K. FroÈhlich (whom he spite of his professional success and acclaim,
had known since 1910), Theodore von KaÂrmaÂn and Terzaghi was not totally happy at MIT. He believed
Richard von Mises. that he was not provided with adequate resources.
In the autumn of 1916 he was transferred to As a result he left MIT in 1929 and took up a
Constantinople, Turkey, where he lectured on roads position as a Professor of Hydraulics at the
and foundations at the Imperial Institute of Technische Hochschule in Vienna.
Engineering. This transfer from active military Terzaghi's stay in Vienna was a great technical
service was brought about at the request of Philipp success as a result of his collaboration with O. K.
Forchheimer, a former professor at Graz, who was FroÈhlich, the work of his students M. J. Hvorslev
then reorganizing the Institute. It was there that and L. Rendulic, and his recognition as a major
Terzaghi, under the tutelage of Forchheimer, began researcher and consultant. However, it had a dark
his academic studies in what we now call soil side. Terzaghi came from a pre-First World War
mechanics (Terzaghi, 1956). Terzaghi had long military family and was totally apolitical (Terzaghi,
noticed that the practice of foundation and earth- 1965, 1991). However, he could not help but be
work engineering was quite primitive compared
with other branches of engineering. His assignment
in Turkey and subsequent events enabled him to
concentrate on these subjects in the relatively
contemplative atmosphere of an academic insti-
tution.
At the end of the First World War the Imperial
Institute of Engineering was closed and Forch-
heimer left Turkey. However, before doing so, he
arranged for Terzaghi to take up a position at
Robert College in Constantinople, where he
lectured on, among other subjects, thermodynamics
(Scipio, 1955). He remained at Robert College
until 1925 when he moved to the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. There appears to be no
doubt that his association with Forchheimer and
his teaching of heat conduction, together with his
experimental work on soil, positioned Terzaghi to
develop the mathematical theory of consolidation
in the years 1918±23.
The publications of the mathematical theory of
consolidation (Terzaghi, 1923, 1924) provided the
basis for the development of soil mechanics. In
particular, his 1924 paper presented at the Inter-
national Congress for Applied Mechanics brought
the theory of consolidation to the attention of the
international community. Of particular note is his
book Erdbaumechanik (Terzaghi, 1925) which
developed soil mechanics as a sub-discipline of
civil engineering (Fig. 1).
In May 1925 Professor C. M. Spofford, Head of Fig. 1. Title page to Erdbaumechanik
 TERZAGHI±FILLUNGER DISPUTE
affected by the turbulent politics of central Europe
at that time. As early as 1931 he was contemplat-
ing a return to the USA (Terzaghi, 1932, 1934a).
In the summer of 1938 his American wife Ruth
and two year old son left Austria. Terzaghi then
took a leave of absence from the Technische
Hochschule to undertake consulting work in France
and England (where he met A. W. Skempton).
Once safely out of Austria he resigned his post in
Vienna (Terzaghi, 1991). The next year he moved
to the USA and took up a position at Harvard
University (White, 1939). He remained in the USA
for the rest of his life and died in 1963.
Terzaghi's personality was rather typical of a
middle European academic of his age: he was
socially charming, a good conversationalist and
intellectually incisive. In his professional and
academic life he tended to be aloof, imperious
and even arrogant. At Harvard it could be said that
he lectured rather than taught. The students,
although having great respect for his accomplish-
ments, were somewhat afraid of him. In his
professional dealings he dominated the geotechni-
cal engineering profession until his death. Even
today his students and their students place a
Terzaghi stamp on their work.
Terzaghi's method of working was observational
(Peck, 1985). In his development of the theory of
consolidation he ®rst formed a physical view of
the process, and then established the nature of the
phenomenon by experiment. It was only at that
point that he conceived a mathematical model
(Terzaghi, 1956). To Terzaghi, mathematics was a
means to an end, to be used in support of and as a
means of developing the implications of a physical
concept.
Paul Fillunger
Paul Fillunger (1883±1937) received his diploma
in mechanical engineering from the Technische
Hochschule in Vienna at about the same time that
Terzaghi received his diploma in Graz. After a few
years in industry, Fillunger took up a post as a
professor at the Technologische Gewerbemuseum
in ViennaÐa technical school. It was at this time
that Fillunger became interested in the mechanics
of concrete as a porous medium and, speci®cally,
the question of uplift in concrete and masonry
dams. During the First World War (1915±18) he
served in the Austrian Air Force in the same
research and development unit as FroÈhlich and
Terzaghi. There is no reliable information that
Terzaghi and Fillunger knew each other at that
time.
 Karl Terzaghi cast his ®rst vote in a political election
after he became a citizen of the USA (Terzaghi, 1991).
177
In 1923 Fillunger was appointed to the post of
Professor of Technical Mechanics at the Tech-
nische Hochschule in Vienna. It is reasonable to
assume that the ®rst contact between Terzaghi and
Fillunger was in 1929 or 1930, when Terzaghi
moved to Vienna.
Little is known about Fillunger's personality
except what can be deduced with hindsight. From
his writings it is clear that he held rigid,
uncompromising views about his work and found
dif®culty in accepting contrary opinions from his
contemporaries. He was a consummate theorist.
His ®rst step in problem-solving was to develop a
mathematical base for the problem. It was only
after the mathematical model was developed that
he resorted to experimentation, and then only to
validate his mathematical theory.
THE FIRST DISPUTE: UPLIFT IN DAMS
At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the
20th centuries the design of concrete and masonry
dams was based on the principle that the structure
was a monolithic solid and that the normal and
shear stresses could then be determined from the
theory of elasticity (LeÂvy, 1898). The face of the
dam was assumed to be impervious and subjected
to a hydrostatic water-pressure. The uplift forces in
the dam were calculated by the assumption of a
hypothetical crack in the face as shown in Fig. 2(a)
(Leliavsky, 1981). This single-phase model was
challenged by the realization that concrete and
masonry were in fact porous materials. The water
pressure, instead of acting exclusively on the face
of the dam, was transferred to the interior as
sketched in Fig. 2(b).
Fillunger's contribution
Fillunger was prominent among engineers who
subscribed to the porous media concept shown in
Fig. 2(b) (Fillunger, 1913, 1914, 1915). In an
English abstract to another paper he states his
opinion that
→
→
→
→
→
(a) →
(b)
→ →
→
→
→
→
→
→
→
↓

↓

↓

→
→
→ ↓ ↓ ↓
→
→ →
→
→
→ → → →
Fig. 2. Theories of uplift; (a) early theory; (b) modern
theory (Leliavsky, 1981)
178 DE BOER, SCHIFFMAN AND GIBSON
Masonry dams are never quite impermeable. So
water will certainly enter the voids of the
masonry . . . Hence we may say on account of
the ¯ow of water through the masonry the
speci®c weight of the masonry in dams decreases
and in addition there will be a horizontal
component thus reducing the stability of the
dam . . . This method for investigating the
stability of the dams intentionally avoids the
current engineering assumption that ®ssures ®lled
with water may occur in every horizontal section
of the dam. (Fillunger, 1930b).
In two theoretical papers Fillunger (1913, 1914)
analysed the stresses in concrete and masonry
gravity dams. His concept is shown in Fig. 3
where ã is the total dry unit weight of the concrete
and ãa is the effect of the uplift expressed as a
negative unit weight which reduced the total unit
weight (de Boer & Ehlers, 1990a) and is given by
ãa ˆ k(n ÿ na ) (1)
where n is the volume porosity, na is the surface
porosity and k is the gradient of the pore-water
pressure in the dam.
Fillunger (1913) hypothesized that all possible
values of na were 0 < na < 1, where a particular
value depended on the exposure of a representative
elementary area caused by a cut through a
representative elementary volume. If the cut did
not intersect any pores, na was 0. However, if a
grain-to-grain cut (a wavy line) was made, na was
1. Thus `Between both limits, the possible practical
cases are included. Natura non facit saltus'
(Fillunger, 1913) and gravity dams could be
designed for partial uplift. To this end Fillunger
p0 = 0
χ
γa
p = γw z
γ
Fig. 3. Uplift in dams (Fillunger, 1913)
made a calculation in which the sand:cement:water
ratio is 9:3:2. He concluded that ãa = 0.26 ãw . As
a consequence he advocated a design based on
partial uplift which permitted a smaller dam cross-
section and thus enhanced the economy of design.
In a paper published the following year
(Fillunger, 1914), he expressed the opinion that
the pore-water pressure in the dam would not
in¯uence the strength of the concrete. This was
con®rmed by a series of triaxial tension tests on
saturated concrete specimens (Fillunger, 1915)
. . . more de®nite evidence was provided by
Fillunger in 1915 when he published the results
of tension tests on unjacked specimens of
Portland and slag cements carried out under
water in an apparatus in which the water pressure
could be varied. Care was taken to fully saturate
the voids in the cement; . . . Fillunger naturally
concluded that the tensile strength does not vary
with water pressure, at least within the pressure
range and limits of accuracy of his experiments.
This amounts to a corollary of the principle of
effective stress, in the special case under
consideration, yet neither he nor anyone else at
that time realized the signi®cance of these
results. (Skempton, 1960, p. 43).
It appears that the pioneering work of Fillunger
lay dormant until a paper appeared which levelled
criticism against Fillunger's proposal of partial
uplift (Hoffman, 1929). Hoffman strongly advo-
cated the use of a value of na which yielded the
most unfavourable value of ãa , thus increasing the
factor of safety against the instability of the
structure. The response (Fillunger, 1930a, 1930b)
was a polemic and it is clear that Fillunger took
this criticism personally.
Terzaghi's contribution
Quite independently of Fillunger's work,
Terzaghi (1925) addressed the subject of uplift of
dams founded on granular soils in Erdbaumechanik
(pp. 246±247). During the 1920s he was an active
participant in discussions relating to various studies
on uplift (Terzaghi, 1929a, 1929b). In all these
publications he was a staunch advocate of design-
ing for full uplift.
In 1933 Terzaghi took up a study of the
hydrostatic uplift within the pores of cement
mortar and of concrete (Terzaghi, 193?)
 Terzaghi's autobiography Mein Lebensweg und meine
Ziele which is in typescript is dated 1932. However, there
is substantial commentary concerning events which took
place as late as 1938. ThusÐnot believing that Terzaghi
was clairvoyantÐthe document is given an inde®nite date
here.
 TERZAGHI±FILLUNGER DISPUTE
The methods of calculation were ruled by the
notion that the effect of uplift in concrete
depends on the ratio of mortar to aggregate. In
cement mortar this effect would not exist. This
conception was developed ®rst in 1913 by my
colleague Professor Dr. P. Fillunger and was
repeated in a long series of papers. . . . cement
mortar, as well as concrete is a porous material
and differs from concrete only by the smaller size
of its aggregates (Terzaghi, 193?, pp. 52±54).
As a result of his doubts, Terzaghi postulated
that the uplift should be formulated (using
Fillunger's notation and sign convention) as
ãa ˆ k(n ÿ nw ) (2)
where nw was called the effective surface porosity
and was a material property of the dam medium.
In order to determine the value of nw , Terzaghi,
assisted by Rendulic, performed a series of
jacketed and unjacketed triaxial compression tests
on saturated concrete (Terzaghi & Rendulic, 1934).
From the analysis of these test results they
concluded that nw was approximately equal to
unity and thus that dams should be designed for
full uplift
The results of Fillunger's [1915] tension tests also
show, in agreement with mine, that the [hydro-
static pressure in an unjacketed test] has very
little in¯uence on the magnitude of the failure
load. Therefore, the true value nw can only differ
minimally from unity. (Terzaghi, 1934b; de Boer
& Ehlers, 1990a).
The dispute
The chronology of the dispute over the question
of uplift in dams is as follows.
(a) In the autumn of 1932 Terzaghi, having studied
all the pertinent papers, came to the conclusion
that Fillunger's thesis of partial uplift was
¯awed (Terzaghi, 193?).
(b) On 21 November 1932 and 14 December 1932
Terzaghi met with Fillunger to discuss his
concerns. Fillunger rejected the evidence put
forward by Terzaghi.
(c) Terzaghi and Rendulic performed the triaxial
compression tests during 1933. These tests
con®rmed Terzaghi's earlier views.
(d) In September 1933 Terzaghi showed Fillunger
a manuscript of the paper he and Rendulic had
prepared. In order not to provoke a public
dispute between colleagues in the same
 This chronology is based on the testimony given in the
investigation of the dispute concerning the theory of
consolidation discussed later in this paper.
179
institution, Terzaghi proposed that both he
and Fillunger present a lecture where each
would state their views, and then publish a
joint paper in which their differences would be
stated objectively.
(e) On 31 December 1933 Fillunger telephoned
Terzaghi and requested that the manuscript not
be submitted for publication before they could
talk. They met at 10.30 that morning in the
Cafe Kuhnhof. During this meeting Fillunger
brusquely ordered Terzaghi not to submit his
paper: otherwise he threatened to `tear Terza-
ghi apart'.
( f ) In order to avoid the impression of personal
animosity, Terzaghi wrote to Fillunger in
February 1934 with an additional proposal.
Fillunger rejected this overture by telephone.
(g) The paper by Terzaghi & Rendulic (1934) was
published. This was followed by a series of
vitriolic exchanges in print (Fillunger, 1934a,
1934b, 1934c; Terzaghi, 1934b, 1934c).
This exchange clearly laid the groundwork for
the scandal that occurred in 1936 and 1937 in
connection with the publication of Theorie der
Setzung von Tonschichten; eine EinfuÈhrung in die
Analytische Tonmechanik (Terzaghi & FroÈhlich,
1936). With hindsight, one might deduce that
Fillunger was lying in wait for an opportunity to
humiliate Terzaghi.
The aftermath
The aftermath of this dispute is described in an
appendix to Mein Lebensweg und meine Ziele
(Terzaghi, 193?)
Since that incident F. [Fillunger] was engaged in
a thorough investigation of my ®rst work in a
search for `mistakes'. Every new revelation was
announced to ill-disposed fellows behind my
back. Occasionally F. published a new description
of his old theory with side-swipes at me. In 1935,
by reason of my expertise, it became necessary to
change the project for the reconstruction of the
ReichbruÈcke bridge in order to eliminate the
defects of the structure by expensive additional
work. The number of my enemies grew.
(Terzaghi, 193?, appendix, p. 2).
Thus the stage was set for Fillunger's attack on the
theory of consolidation in particular, and of
Terzaghi's character in general.
THE DISPUTE CONCERNING THE THEORY OF
CONSOLIDATION
In 1936 Terzaghi and his long-time colleague
O. K. FroÈhlich published Theorie der Setzung von
Tonschichten: eine EinfuÈhrung in die Analytische
180 DE BOER, SCHIFFMAN AND GIBSON
Fig. 4. Title page to Theory of the settlement of clay
layers: an introduction to the analytical mechanics of
clay
Tonmechanik (Fig. 4). This book was a complete
exposition of the, then prevalent, one-dimensional
theory of consolidation. It could be considered as a
theoretical treatise although it contained a wealth
of practical information.
Not content with backbiting and niggling,
surreptitious comments, Fillunger saw an opportu-
nity to discredit Terzaghi once and for all. He
published privately and distributed widely a
pamphlet (Fig. 5) Erbaumechanik? (Fillunger,
1936), which attacked the theory of consolidation
on theoretical grounds and attacked Terzaghi
personally and professionally. Among other charges
he insinuated that Terzaghi was teaching a false
science in order to enhance his own consulting
practice.
The attack
Fillunger's pamphlet is 47 pages long and on
almost every page is a polemic against the subject
of soil mechanics, the theory of consolidation and
Terzaghi. The selected quotations given here
provide the ¯avour of the attack (Brandl, 1983).
Fig. 5. Title page to Erdbaumechanik?
The pamphlet begins
The old earth pressure theories did not have any
purpose other than predicting the thrust that
would be applied to retaining walls. In contrast to
this modest endeavour the newer research has set
itself a greater goal, that is the settlements that
from experience occur with almost all structures
shall be determined on the basis of observations
of existing structures, laboratory experiments and
calculations so that one could predict settlements
without relying on experience. (Fillunger, 1936,
p. 1).
In discussing laboratory tests, he says
In soil mechanics laboratories not only the tests
mentioned above are made, but others such as
areometer analysis, plastic and liquid limit
determinations for clay soils, and experiments
with saturated sands are performed. To the extent
that these experiments are intended to help in the
scienti®c investigation of the suitability of a soil
for cultivating particular plants, they can well be
 TERZAGHI±FILLUNGER DISPUTE
of de®nite use in conjunction with chemical and
botanical research; only then should they be
carried outÐnot in a soil mechanics laboratory,
but in an agricultural test centre. They have no
signi®cance for foundation engineering. . . . Any
reasonable person will see that, as far as strata
close to the surface are concerned, a good strong
tree root is worth more than the best coef®cient
of shear or friction determined in the laboratory.
(Fillunger, 1936, p. 37±38).
Throughout the pamphlet Fillunger charges
Terzaghi with juggling his mathematics and re-
marks sarcastically
Jugglers must, if they wish to be successful, tire
and distract the attention of their audience. One
Then
such scienti®c juggle is the Happy-Terzaghi
Mathematics. (Fillunger, 1936, p. 34).
He makes petty, political points
Mr. v. Terzaghi is a corresponding member of the
former Imperial Academy of Sciences in Vienna.
Because of the polemic with this writer two years
ago he has not been elected as a full member of
the Academy. (Fillunger, 1936, p. 34).
On the application of soil mechanics to engineering
practice he writes
As to the practical application for civil engi-
neering: there are none. And there will never be
as long as buildings, highways and bridges are
constructed on the stiffer portions of the earth's
crust. Whatever the underlying soil, the greatest
stresses will occur directly beneath the structure.
The changes that will take place at the surface
can be observed, but hardly or never calculated
. . . However, if one consults a specialist in soil
mechanics, one of two things can happen: one
will hear from him either what any mature,
experienced engineer could tell us with far more
authority, orÐsomething misleading and erro-
neous. And how could it be otherwise, when the
theory is nonsense and the requisite laboratory
tests are quite impossible? (Fillunger, 1936,
p. 38±40).
space, we then have
Fillunger's theory
In addition to the attack on Terzaghi's profes-
sional ethics Fillunger attempted to formulate a
correct theory of consolidation based on the notion
previously suggested by Delesse (1848)
The pore-water [body w] ¯ows upwards and the
[solid (body s)] ¯ows downwards with the
 The German word FroÈhlich translates as `happy'.
181
settlement rate. If we, like the other authors,
disregard the effect of self-weight, then, the
external force for each body consists only of the
resistance to this ¯ow put up by the other body,
and the coupling of the two motions is based on
this. It is further recommended that this external
force no longer be related to the mass unit but
rather to the unit volume, and that it be imagined
that the pore-water constantly, but with varying
density ®lls the total space as well as the soil. It
is then as if the ¯ows were to exist in the same
space; two ¯ows which can in¯uence each other
only through resistance, but not according to the
law of volume displacement. (Fillunger, 1936,
p. 9; de Boer & Ehlers, 1990b).
In each cross-section z of the double ¯ow, there
exists a [stress ó] which is distributed on the two
bodies or materials as follows. If n is the pore
space per unit of volume, then it follows from
Delesse's law (where on each cut surface, in a
uniform mixture, the surface ratios of each partial
constituent must be equal to their volume ratios)
that the partial [stress]
u(w) ˆ nó
falls on the pore-water, and the partial [stress]
ó (s) ˆ (1 ÿ n)ó
falls on the solid particles in the clay. In fact
u(w) + ó(s) = ó. If we denote the constant density
of the incompressible pore-water by rw, its
speci®c weight by ãw , as well as the constant
density of the solid particles in the clay, which
are also considered as being incompressible, and
its speci®c weight by rs and ãs respectively, then
(acceleration due to gravity = g)
ãw ãs
rw ˆ and rs ˆ
g g
In the distributed state, related to the total
ãw
r(w) ˆ nrw ˆ n
g
and
ãs
r(s) ˆ (1 ÿ n)rs ˆ (1 ÿ n)
g
If one introduces the partial [stresses] as well as
the densities according to the relations into [the
equations of motion and continuity] taking into
182 DE BOER, SCHIFFMAN AND GIBSON

consideration that both ó and n are functions of t the established technical sciences have avoided
and z, then . . . one obtains . . . becoming entangled in tasks which they know are
useless. (Fillunger, 1936, p. 16).
@íw @íw
‡ íw ˆ
@t @z
 
g @(nó) The investigation
ÿZÿ
nãw @z The pamphlet written by Fillunger was pub-
lished in the early part of December 1936. Almost
@ís @ís immediately Terzaghi wrote to the Rector of the
‡ ís ˆ
@t @z Technische Hochschule requesting an of®cial
  investigation under the statutes of the school
g @(1 ÿ n)ó
Zÿ (3) This December, Professor Fillunger published the
(1 ÿ n)ãs @z
enclosed privately published brochure Erdbau-
@n @(níw ) mechanik? in which he publicly accuses me of
‡ ˆ0 spreading false and scienti®cally unfounded
@t @z theories not only in the implementation of my
@n @(1 ÿ n)ís of®cial duties, but also for the purposes of
ÿ ‡ ˆ 0: enrichment in my work as a consulting engineer.
@t @z
. . . Adding to these outrageous accusations,
(Fillunger, 1936, p. 9±10; de Boer & Ehlers, aggravated by the peculiarity of the text, the
1990b). publication was sent to hundreds of experts and
lay persons at home and abroad and the of®cers
of the school. This action, in my opinion,
Invoking Darcy's law and the relationship for comprises the most severe violation of a
Poiseuille ¯ow in thin tubes, Fillunger arrived at Professor's duties as a college teacher. Further-
íw ÿ ís more, the content and the manner of circulation
Zˆÿ ã (4)
n0 k9 w of the paper endangers the College with regard to
its duties of teaching and research. (Terzaghi,
where k9 is the coef®cient of permeability and n0 is 1936).
the initial porosity.
It is clear with hindsight that this development In response to Terzaghi's letter, a letter dated 12
of what is currently known as the mechanics of December 1936 was sent to the Prorector, Professor
porous media was about 30 years ahead of its Franz List, who was the Chairman of the Dis-
time. Two points are emphasized. First, Fillunger ciplinary Board for Federal Teachers of the
noted that a proper expression of Darcy ¯ow must Technische Hochschule in Vienna
be in terms of the velocity of the pore-water
relative to the velocity of solids. This principle was Together with a letter and enclosure by Professor
®rst developed by Gersevanov (1931), but there is Dr. K. v. Terzaghi, I formally submit a dis-
every reason to believe that Fillunger arrived ciplinary charge against Professor Dr. Paul
independently at this concept. Second, the expres- Fillunger of the Technische Hochschule in Wien
sion for Z given is, in mixture theory, known as on suspicion of an offence against regulations.
the diffusive force (Bowen, 1976) and is basic to This offence against regulations was committed
the interaction between components of a porous by the accusation of a colleague of the deliberate
medium. utilization of incorrect theories for gain and by
However complete Fillunger's development gi- the assertion of a conscious toleration and
ven by equations (3) was, he could not go further promotion of his behaviour on the part of other
than stating some general and speci®c initial and college teachers by reason of the enclosed
boundary conditions. He concluded this develop- publication Erdbaumechanik?. This publication
ment is enclosed with red marks made by Professor Dr.
v. Terzaghi.
. . . it appears to be impossible to determine I remark that I have appended the response of
reasonable values for both n0 and k9 experimen- the attorney of the disciplinary board of federal
tally. Certainly, all those who are brought up in teachers at the Technische Hochschule in Wien to
my letter of December 9, 1936, R.Zl. V-5-1936/
37, a copy of which was sent to you for your
 In this quotation modern, generic notation has been attention. From this response it follows that in
substituted. Superscripts refer to volume-averaged quan- case of a disciplinary charge he desires that `the
tities and subscripts refer to phase-averaged quantities. disciplinary board is to decree disciplinary
 TERZAGHI±FILLUNGER DISPUTE
proceeding against Professor Dr. Paul Fillunger'
and the board to be `convened to a non-public
hearing', for the purpose of bringing this petition
to a conclusion.
`The Rector'
The Disciplinary Board suggested the formation
of a committee of experts charged with the
investigation of the technical aspects of this affair.
This committee, consisting of nine professors, was
formed on 7 January 1937. Subsequently, on 30
January 1937, Fillunger addressed a letter of
apology to the Rector of the Technische
Hochschule
The paper by Dr. FroÈhlich taught me that my
offensive remarks were unfounded. I beg all
people who I have hurt to pardon me.
This letter was never posted. It was found among
Fillunger's papers after his death. In the same
month Terzaghi & FroÈhlich (1937) published a
rebuttal to Fillunger's pamphlet (Fig. 6).
It was Fillunger's habit to work in his of®ce on
Saturday mornings. On 6 March 1937 a rumour
Fig. 6. Title page of Terzaghi and FroÈhlich's reply to
Erdbaumechanik?
183
reached him that the committee of experts had
come to a decision to fully support the theory
published in Theorie der Setzung von Tonschichten
(Terzaghi & FroÈhlich, 1936). That afternoon
Fillunger and his wife left their apartment in a
disturbed and emotional state. They returned late
in the afternoon.
On Monday 8 March 1937 a carrier called to
deliver some pictures. Nobody appeared to be
home and the caretaker let the carrier into the
apartment. They found Fillunger and his wife dead.
They had committed suicide by opening the gas
jets in the bathroom. An account of the event was
published in the Neue Freie Presse (Fig. 7).
The aftermath
The disciplinary committee report was issued on
9 April 1937. Although the brief of the committee
limited them to the technical aspects of the dispute
they wrote in their report
In his pamphlet Mr. Fillunger calls the theory of
Mr. Terzaghi and Mr. FroÈhlich nonsense and he
states that the laboratory tests which are
necessary are impractical. He provides his own
theoretical formulation which he notes is
impossible to solve. The statement by the
committee of experts would be incomplete if
we did not note the manner of criticism used by
Mr. Fillunger, which lacks objectivity and con-
tains personal attacks. Nevertheless, the disci-
plinary board was formed to investigate
speci®cally the scienti®c aspects of the case. A
judgement concerning the personal attack by Mr.
Fillunger against Mr. Terzaghi, his collaborators
and sponsors was outside the charge of this
committee. (Wolf, Aigner, Flamm, Jung, Kozeny,
Lechner, Saliger, Schaffernak & Schrutka-
Rechtenstamm, 1937).{
The technical evaluation of the theory of
consolidation (Terzaghi & FroÈhlich, 1936) by the
committee of experts completely vindicated the
authors of the theory (Rektor der Technischen
Hochschule, 1937). A year after the report was
issued Dr Gerhard Heinrich (an assistant to
Professor Alfred Lechner) and Professor Ludwig
Flamm (Lechner and Flamm were members of the
committee), published papers which examined
Fillunger's (1936) development of a dynamic
theory of consolidation. They showed that the
inertial terms of the governing equation had little
practical impact on the process. It was further
shown that, in the quasi-static case, the theories
 Equations (3).
{ Professor Wolf was the chairman of the disciplinary
committee.
184 DE BOER, SCHIFFMAN AND GIBSON

Fig. 7. Newspaper story concerning Fillunger's suicide

 TERZAGHI±FILLUNGER DISPUTE
published by Terzaghi and FroÈhlich and Fillunger
were essentially identical (Flamm, 1938; Heinrich,
1938).
One of Fillunger's criticisms of the theory was
that it did not take into account the inertia of the
system. Some years later Terzaghi wrote
Every process of consolidation involves the
transition of the excess water from a state of
rest into a state of movement. In the derivation
[of the theory] the energy required to overcome
the inertia of the water was neglected. One
investigator objected to this omission and
claimed that it invalidates the results, whereupon
a rigorous solution was found which takes the
forces of acceleration into account (Heinrich,
1938). This solution demonstrated that the error
involved in the original solution does not exceed
a few tenths of one percent. (Terzaghi, 1943,
p. 272).
Thus the Terzaghi±Fillunger affair ended with
Terzaghi's reputation intact, and with Fillunger
discredited and tragically dead.
EPILOGUE
Since the end of the dispute between Terzaghi
and Fillunger gossip and innuendo have followed.
Terzaghi's more partisan friends and supporters
have worked to banish Fillunger's name from
history. Terzaghi's detractors have implied that he
drove Fillunger to suicide. It is clear from the
historical documents that Terzaghi acted honour-
ably and was subject to unreasonable attacks by
Fillunger. It is also clear the Fillunger was a
pioneer in the study of porous media mechanics.
One can only speculate on the progress that could
have been made if Terzaghi and Fillunger
had collaborated amicably: certainly the science
of soil mechanics would have advanced more
swiftly.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are indebted to Dr A. Lechner, the
archivist of the Technische Hochschule in Vienna,
for providing the documents relating to the
affair discussed in this paper. They are also
indebted to the late Mrs Ruth Terzaghi for
providing the background on life in Vienna in
the 1930s. In addition the co-operation of the
personnel of the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute
who assisted in making available the material in
the Terzaghi Library is gratefully acknowledged.
The ®rst named author gratefully acknowledges
®nancial support provided by Stiftung Volkswagen-
werk.
185
REFERENCES
Aldrich, H. P. (1981). The new technology. In Past,
present and future of geotechnical engineering, pp. 2±
47. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Bowen, R. M. (1976). Theory of mixtures. In Continuum
physics (ed. by A. C. Eringen), vol. 3, pp. 1±127.
New York: Academic.
Brandl, H. (1983). History of the Institute for Foundation
Engineering and Soil Mechanics at the Vienna
Technical University. Mitteilungen fuÈr Grundbau,
Bodenmechanik und Felsbau (eds H. Brandl et al.),
pp. 43±70.
Casagrande, A. (1960). Karl TerzaghiÐhis life and
achievements. In From theory to practice in soil
mechanics, pp. 3±21. New York: Wiley.
de Boer, R. & Ehlers, W. (1990a). Uplift, friction and
capillarity: three fundamental effects for liquid-
saturated porous solids. Int. J. Solids Structs 26,
43±57.
de Boer, R. & Ehlers, W. (1990b). The development of
the concept of effective stresses. Acta Mech. 83, pp.
77±92.
Delesse, M. (1848). Pour determiner la composition des
roches. Annls Mines 4, 379±388.
Fillunger, P. (1913). Der Auftrieb in Talsperren. O È stchs
Wschr. O È ff. Baudienst 19, 532±556, 567±570.
Fillunger, P. (1914). Neuere Grundlagen fuÈr die statische
Berechnung von Talsperren. Z. O È st. Ing.-u. ArchitVer.
23, 441±447.
Fillunger, P. (1915). Versuche uÈber die Zugfestigkeit bei
allseitigem Wasserdruck. O È stchs Wschr. O È ff. Baudienst
29, 443±448.
Fillunger, P. (1930a). Zur Frage des Auftriebes in
Talsperren. Wasserwirtschaft, Wien 23, 63±66.
Fillunger, P. (1930b). Auftrieb und Unterdruck in
Staumauern. Trans. 2nd Wld Pwr Conf. 9, 323±329.
Fillunger, P. (1934a). Nochmals der Auftrieb in Talsper-
È st. Ing.-u. ArchitVer. 5/6.
ren. Z. O
Fillunger, P. (1934b). Die wirksame FlaÈchenporositaÈt Prof.
Terzaghis. Z. O È st. Ing.-u. Archit Ver. 7/8, 44±45.
Fillunger, P. (1934c). Zur Bestimmung der maximalen
FlaÈchenporositaÈt des Betons. Bauingenieur 15, 301±
303.
Fillunger, P. (1936). Erdbaumechanik? Vienna: Selbst-
verlag des Verfassers.
Flamm, L. (1938). Beitrag zur Theorie der Setzung von
Tonschichten. WassKraft WassWirt. 9/10, 97±98.
Gersevanov, N. M. (1931). Kinamika Mechanik Gruntov.
Moscow: Gosstroiisdat.
Heinrich, G. (1938). Wissenschaftliche Grundlagen der
Theorie der Setzung von Tonschichten. WassKraft
WassWirt. 1/2, 5±10.
Hoffman, O. (1929). Zur Frage des Auftriebes in
Talsperren. Wasserwirtschaft, Stuttg. 22, 562±566.
Leliavsky, S. (1981). Dams. Design textbooks in civil
engineering, volume 6. New York: Chapman and Hall.
LeÂvy, M. (1898). Sur la leÂgitimite de la reÁgle dite du
trapeÁze dans l'eÂtude de la reÂsistance des barrages en
macËonnerie. C. R. Hebd. SeÂanc. Acad. Sci., Paris 126,
1235±1240.
Peck, R. B. (1985). The last 60 years. Proc. 11th Int.
Conf. Soil Mech., Golden Jubilee volume, pp. 123±
133. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Rektor der Technischen Hochschule (1937). Stellung-
nahme der Technischen Hochschule in Wien in der
186 DE BOER, SCHIFFMAN AND GIBSON
Angelegenheit Prof. Dr Paul Fillunger ± Prof. Dr.
Karl von Terzaghi. Z. O È st. Ing.-u. ArchitVer. 21, No.
2, 148.
Scipio, L. A. (1955). My thirty years in Turkey. Rindge,
New Hampshire: Richard Smith.
Shirer, W. L. (1984). 20th century journey, vol. 2: The
nightmare years. Boston: Little, Brown.
Skempton, A. W. (1960). Signi®cance of Terzaghi's
concept of effective stress. In From theory to practice
in soil mechanics, pp. 42±53. New York: Wiley.
Spofford, C. M. (1925a). Letter to Karl Terzaghi.
Oslo: Terzaghi Library, Norwegian Geotechnical
Institute.
Spofford, C. M. (1925b). Letter to Karl Terzaghi. Oslo:
Terzaghi Library, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute.
Terzaghi, K. v. (1923). Die Berechnung der Durch-
laÈssigkeitsziffer des Tones aus dem Verlauf der
hydrodynamischen Spannungserscheinungen. Akad.
Wiss. Wien. Math-naturw. Klasse 132, No. 3/4, 125±
128.
Terzaghi, K. (1924). Die Theorie der hydrodynamischen
Spannungserscheinungen und ihr erdbautechnisches
Anwendungsgebiet. Proceedings of the international
congress for applied mechanics, 288±294. Delft.
Terzaghi, K. (1925). Erdbaumechanik auf bodenphysika-
lischer Grundlage. Leipzig and Vienna: Deuticke.
Terzaghi, C. (1929a). Discussion on Upward pressure
under dams; experiments by the United States Bureau
of Reclamation, by J. Hinds Trans. Am. Soc. Civ.
Engrs 93, 1559±1563.
Terzaghi, C. (1929b). Discussion on Hydrostatic uplift in
pervious soils (by H. de B. Parsons). Trans. Am. Soc.
Civ. Engrs 93, 1346±1353.
Terzaghi, K. (1932). Letter to Lazarus White. Oslo:
Terzaghi Library, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute.
Terzaghi, K. (1934a). Letter to Lazarus White. Oslo:
Terzaghi Library, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute.
Terzaghi, K. v. (1934b). Zuschrift zum Aufsatz von P.
Fillunger. Bauingenieur 15, 413.
Terzaghi, K. v. (1934c). Zuschrift zum Aufsatz von P.
Fillunger. Z. OÈ st. Ing.-u. ArchitVer. 5/6, 30±32.
Terzaghi, K. (1936). Letter to the Rector, Technische
Hochschule in Vienna.
Terzaghi, K. (193?). Mein Lebensweg und meine Ziele.
Oslo: Terzaghi Library, Norwegian Geotechnical
Institute.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics. New
York: Wiley.
Terzaghi, K. (1956). Letter to Skipper. Oslo: Terzaghi
Library, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute.
Terzaghi, K. v. & FroÈhlich, O. K. (1936). Theorie der
Setzung von Tonschichten; eine EinfuÈhrung in die
Analytische Tonmechanik, Leipzig: Deuticke.
Terzaghi, K. v. & FroÈhlich, O. K. (1937). Erdbau-
mechanik und Baupraxis. Leipzig and Vienna: Deu-
ticke.
Terzaghi, K. v. & Rendulic, L. (1934). Die wirksame
FlaÈchenporositaÈt des Betons. Z. O È st. Ing.-u. ArchitVer.
86, 1/2, 1±9.
Terzaghi, R. D. (1965). Remarks, Opening Session in
Honour of Karl Terzaghi. Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Soil
Mech. 3, 81±83.
Terzaghi, R. D. (1991). Private communication.
White, L. (1939). Letter to Karl Terzaghi, Oslo: Terzaghi
Library, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute.
Wolf, K., Aigner, F., Flamm, L., Jung, F., Kozeny, J.,
Lechner, A., Saliger, R., Schaffernak, F. & Schrutka-
Rechtenstamm, L. (1937). Gutachten uÈber die Schrift
`Erdbaumechanik?', Report on Erdbaumechanik? to
Rector, Technischen Hochschule in Vienna.