Professional Documents
Culture Documents
7 - D.W. Taylor and The Foundations of Modern Soil Mechanics - Baecher & Christian PDF
7 - D.W. Taylor and The Foundations of Modern Soil Mechanics - Baecher & Christian PDF
Taylor
ABSTRACT:
Donald
Wood
Taylor
was
an
early
contributor
to
the
emerging
field
of
soil
mechanics.
From
the
mid-‐1920’s
until
the
end
of
his
life
in
1955,
he
worked
at
the
Department
of
Civil
and
Sanitary
Engineering
at
MIT.
Tay-‐
lor’s
work
anticipated
many
later
developments
in
soil
mechanics
for
which
his
insights
have
been
largely
forgotten.
These
include
load
and
resistance
fac-‐
tor
design,
critical
state
soil
mechanics,
consolidation
incorporating
viscous
soil
behavior,
and
Newmark’s
sliding
block
method.
To
some
extent,
even
Tay-‐
lor
himself
has
been
forgotten.
Taylor
was
a
mentor
to
T.W.Lambe,
H.P.Aldrich,
R.V.Whitman,
R.
F.
Scott,
J.
K.
Mitchell,
and
many
other
MIT
stu-‐
dents.
His
textbook
Fundamentals
of
Soil
Mechanics
(Wiley
1948)
influenced
a
generation
of
soil
engineers.
This
paper
highlights
some
of
Taylor’s
accom-‐
plishments
and
tries
to
illuminate
his
era
in
the
early
development
of
soil
me-‐
chanics
in
America.
Aldrich
and
Seeler
(1981)
observe
that
it
is
unclear
whether
Terzaghi’s
invitation
to
join
the
faculty
was
driven
by
his
importance
as
an
expert
on
the
settlement
problems
the
New
Technology
was
experiencing
or
simply
because
he
was
an
expert
in
the
emerging
technol-‐
ogy
of
soil
mechanics.
Terzaghi
is
first
listed
in
the
MIT
Bulletin
of
1926-‐1927
as
having
the
academic
appointment
of
Lecturer
and
Research
Associate.
He
is
not
mentioned
in
the
pri-‐
or
year’s
Bulletin.
Having
established
the
program
in
soil
mechanics,
Terzaghi
was
promot-‐
ed
to
Full
Professor
in
1928
but
left
MIT
in
1929
for
the
Technical
University
of
Vienna.
During
his
time
at
MIT,
he
had
several
conflicts
with
the
Institute’s
administration,
which
were
often
mediated
by
the
peace-‐keeping
efforts
of
John
R.
Freeman
(Aldrich
and
Seeler
1981,
Goodman
1999).
Terzaghi’s
work
on
the
settlement
problems
at
The
New
Technolo-‐
gy
was
assisted
by
Glennon
Gilboy,
Arthur
and
Leo
Casagrande,
and
Leo
Jürgenson.
1
John
T.
Christian,
Consulting
Engineer,
Burlington
MA,
USA
2
Gregory
B.
Baecher,
Glenn
L.
Martin
Institute
Professor
of
Engineering,
University
of
Mar-‐
Page 1 of 22
The Radicalism of Donald W. Taylor
During
the
early
1930’s
the
staff
at
MIT
included
the
overlapping
service
of
Glennon
Gilboy
(Figure
1),
Arthur
and
Leo
Casagrande,
Leo
Jürgenson,
and
Spencer
Buchanan,
all
im-‐
portant
early
figures
in
the
history
of
soil
mechanics.
After
Terzaghi’s
leaving,
Gilboy
be-‐
came
Assistant
then
Associate
Professor
of
soil
mechanics
and
Director
of
the
soil
mechan-‐
ics
program.
Taylor
would
become
Assistant
Professor
with
Gilboy’s
resignation.
His
time
at
MIT
would
ultimately
overlap
with
the
arrivals
of
Lambe,
Aldrich,
and
Whitman.
From
the
late
1930’s
to
1945
he
was
the
sole
professor
of
soil
mechanics
at
MIT.
Glennon
Gilboy
(1902-‐1958)
graduated
from
MIT
and
became
a
graduate
student
under
Terzaghi’s
direction
in
1926,
the
year
Terzaghi
came
to
the
MIT
faculty.
He
was
Terzaghi‘s
first
doctoral
student
in
the
US
and
served
as
Terzaghi’s
assistant
through
1929.
In
a
letter
dated
14
July
1927
to
the
Miami
Conservancy
District
of
Ohio,
a
client,
Terzaghi
described
Gilboy
as
an
“exceptionally
brilliant
student”
(Peck
1993).
The
Germantown
Dam,
owned
and
operated
by
the
District
was
a
hydraulic
fill
dam,
and
Gilboy
would
write
his
1929
ScD
dissertation
on
hydraulic
fill
dams
using
Germantown
as
a
case
study.
He
later
summa-‐
rized
the
results
in
an
influential
paper
published
by
the
Boston
Society
of
Civil
Engineers
(GIlboy
1934),
and
became
known
as
an
expert
on
hydraulic
fills.
Figure
1.
Prof.
Glennon
Gilboy
(1902-‐1958),
De-‐ Figure
2.
Assoc.
Prof.
Donald
W.
Taylor
(1900-‐
partment
of
Civil
and
Sanitary
Engineering,
MIT
1955),
Department
of
Civil
and
Sanitary
Engineer-‐
(courtesy
of
the
MIT
Museum).
ing,
MIT
(courtesy
of
the
MIT
Museum)
Whitman,
in
an
oral
history
recorded
in
2009
by
EERI,
recalls
that
Terzaghi’s
departure
from
MIT
came
as
a
result
of
a
disagreement
with
the
Institute’s
President
over
the
state
of
the
laboratory
facilities
and
interference
by
the
Administration.
De
Boer’s
(2005,
p.143)
Page 2 of 22
The Radicalism of Donald W. Taylor
explanation
is
somewhat
different:
“Some
days
later,
Karl
von
Terzaghi
had
a
one-‐hour
conversation
with
Mr.
[Dr.]
Spofford
[head
of
the
Department
of
Civil
and
Sanitary
Engi-‐
neering]
who
told
him
that
President
Stratton
wanted
him
to
drop
consulting
work.
Also
J.R.
Freeman
complained
that
Terzaghi
was
‘too
much
leaning
towards
[the]
commercial
side’.”
The
old
controversy
over
the
extent
of
outside
consulting
practice
by
faculty
was
just
as
operative
in
1928
as
it
is
today.
Terzaghi
did
not
return
to
the
United
States
until
1938.
Gilboy
oversaw
the
soil
mechanics
program
and
the
laboratory,
and
was
promoted
to
Asso-‐
ciate
Professor
in
1932.
He
held
that
post
until
1937,
when
he
resigned
to
enter
private
practice
full
time.
By
this
time,
Gilboy
was
a
busy
consultant,
serving
as
advisor
to
USACE
on
the
Muskingum
Project
in
Ohio
from
1934-‐39,
and
on
the
board
of
consultants
for
Ft.
Peck
Dam
after
the
construction
phase
slide
of
1938.
Lambe,
in
his
reflections
on
the
history
of
soil
mechanics
at
MIT,
cites
the
interactions
of
education,
research,
and
practice
as
instrumental
to
the
contributions
made
by
the
MIT
program
in
its
first
half-‐century
(Lambe
1981).
He
began
graduate
study
at
the
Massachusetts
Institute
of
Technology
(MIT)
in
1931,
be-‐
coming
a
research
assistant
in
1932,
and
Director
of
the
soil
mechanics
laboratory
in
1932
(Figure
3).
By
this
time,
he
had
married
Beulah
Nyman
of
Marlboro
in
1928
and
moved
to
Arlington.
In
1934
he
had
earned
an
MSc
in
soil
mechanics
under
the
direction
of
Gilboy.
In
1938,
he
became
Assistant
Professor,
and
in
1944
Associate
Professor.
He
died
at
age
56
in
1955.
At
the
time
of
his
death,
Geotéchnique
called
him,
“one
of
the
leading
figures
in
soil
mechanics.”
Taylor
never
did
earn
an
ScD
(MIT’s
doctoral
degree
designation
in
engineering)
or
PhD,
and
never
was
promoted
to
Full
Professor.
Among
his
papers,
now
archived
at
WPI,
there
is
a
biographical
note
stating
that
Taylor
had
made
plans
to
complete
a
PhD
England
in
the
1950’s,
but
his
last
illness
intervened.
Amongst
his
many
contributions
to
Soil
Mechanics,
the
most
noteworthy
were
those
on
the
shearing
strength
of
cohesive
soils,
slope
stability,
and
consolidation;
whilst
Page 3 of 22
The Radicalism of Donald W. Taylor
his
pioneer
work
(1944)
on
the
measurement
of
pore
pressures
in
clay
during
shear
was
of
outstanding
importance.
For
his
Paper
on
“
The
Stability
of
Earth
Slopes,”
the
Boston
Society
of
Civil
Engineers
awarded
him
in
1938
their
highest
honor—the
Desmond
Fitzgerald
Medal.
In
1948
Professor
Taylor’s
book,
Fundamentals
of
Soil
Mechanics,
was
published
and
rapidly
became
one
of
the
best-‐known
and
most
widely
used
textbooks
on
Soil
Mechanics
in
the
world.
—
(Geotéchnique
1956)
Karl Terzaghi Karl Terzaghi
1926-1928 1958-1961
Glennon Gilboy (KT)
1926-1938
Arthur Casagrande
1929 -1933
Leo Jürgenson
1930-1934
Leo Casagrande
1931 -1933
Spencer W. Buchanan (GG)
1931-1933
Donald W. Taylor
1932-1955
T. William Lambe (DWT)
1945-1981
H.P. Aldrich (DWT)
1949-1957
Robert V. Whitman (Robert Hansen)
1953-1993
Robert T. Martin
1957-1984/5?
Charles C. Ladd (TWL)
1957-2001
U.Lüscher (RVW)
1962-1967
Anwar E.Z. Wissa
1962-1975
Tony Wolfskill
1964-1971
R.C. Hirshfeld
1965-1972
L. Bromwell (TWL)
1966-1971
1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s
C.M.Spofford C.Breed J.B.Wilber * C.M.Miller P.Eagleson F.Perkins J.Sussman D.Marks R.Bras * P.Jaillet A.Whittle
Camp Technology
1912-1953
Figure
3.
Chronology
of
faculty
and
staff
appointments
within
the
soil
mechanics
(later
geotechnical
engineering)
program
at
MIT,
appointment
dates
as
published
in
the
annual
MIT
Bulletin
(MIT
Historical
Collections,
yearly).
The
orbituary
lists
one
book
and
15
archival
papers
published
by
Taylor
during
his
career
(Appendix
A).
By
modern
academic
standards
this
is
a
small
number.
However,
as
Lambe
laments
in
his
history
of
geotechnical
engineering
at
MIT,
“One
outstanding
paper
can
con-‐
Page 4 of 22
The Radicalism of Donald W. Taylor
tribute
far
more
than
five
mediocre
papers;
unfortunately
five
mediocre
papers
can
carry
more
weight
in
the
[university]
promotion
process
than
one
outstanding
paper.”
(Lambe
1981)
Taylor
died
young.
Had
he
continued
publishing
into
his
70’s
as
is
now
common,
his
publication
numbers
would
perhaps
have
been
twice
as
many,
but
still
very
few
by
modern
paper
counts.
The
obituary
cites
Taylor’s
contributions
to
shear
strength,
slope
stability,
and
consolida-‐
tion;
but
at
the
time
(1956)
one
could
hardly
forecast
the
way
in
which
many
of
those
con-‐
tributions
foreshadowed
and
informed
later
developments.
In
the
following
sections,
these
are
treated
one
at
a
time,
and
the
fourth
area
of
soil
dynamics
is
added
to
Geotéchnique’s
list.
In
a
1988
presentation
before
the
Association
of
Soils
and
Foundation
Engineers
(ASFE)
in
Boston,
Peck
cited
Terzaghi’s
contributions
to
the
development
of
modern
soil
mechanics
in
the
US
to
include:
the
mathematical
theory
of
consolidation,
the
recognition
of
the
prin-‐
ciple
of
effective
stress,
elaborating
the
interrelationship
between
lateral
earth
pressure
and
deformations,
and
determining
the
values
of
pertinent
properties
of
earth
materials
(de
Boer
2005).
Taylor
had
contributed
significantly
to
at
least
three
of
these
topics.
Scofield
has
noted
that
Taylor
proposed
that
two
factors
contributed
to
the
strength
of
soil:
A
frictional
resistance
between
particles
as
they
slipped
during
shear
distortion,
and
a
fac-‐
tor
he
called
interlocking
(Schofield
1999).
The
latter
required
work
to
be
done
to
cause
volume
increase
during
shear.
The
rate
at
which
work
is
done
at
peak
strength
is
then,
in
which
𝜏
=
shear
strength,
𝜇
=
friction
coefficient,
𝜎
=
normal
stress,
and
x
and
y
are
the
horizontal
and
vertical
directions,
respectively;
that
is,
work
equals
friction
plus
dilation.
Dividing
through
by
σdx,
Page 5 of 22
The Radicalism of Donald W. Taylor
Figure
4.
Plots
of
typical
direct
shear
tests
on
Ottawa
sand
(Taylor
1948:
Figure
14-‐2).
The
interlocking
component
of
strength
is
notable
in
dense
sands
(Figure
4Error!
Refer-‐
ence
source
not
found.).
The
loss
of
strength
post
peak
is
attributed
to
a
gradual
decrease
in
interlocking
as
the
sample
decreases
in
density.
As
Taylor
(1948,
p.
346)
notes,
the
“an-‐
gle
of
internal
friction,
in
spite
of
its
name,
does
not
depend
solely
on
internal
friction
since
a
portion
of
the
shearing
stress
on
the
plane
of
failure
is
utilized
in
overcoming
interlock-‐
ing.”
In
the
example
of
Figure
4
the
shearing
strength
at
peak
is
1.94
TSF.
At
this
point
the
rate
of
vertical
dilation
is
maximized.
The
proportion
of
strength
being
contributed
by
friction
is
0.475
and
that
by
interlocking
is
0.17,
corresponding
to
strengths
of
1.43
TSF
and
0.51
TSF,
respectively.
Thus,
1.94
TSF
is
required
to
bring
the
sample
to
incipient
failure,
but
thereaf-‐
ter
only
1.43
TSF
is
required
to
hold
it.
Roscoe
had
much
respect
for
Taylor
and
passed
this
onto
his
students.
“The
𝜏𝛿𝒙 − 𝜎𝛿𝒚 =
𝜇𝜎𝒙
in
‘Fundamentals
of
soil
mechanics’
led
us
to
an
understanding
of
the
mechanics
of
soil
as
an
elastıc-‐plastic
continuum.”
In
the
preface
to
their
book,
Scofield
and
Wroth
(1968)
wrote,
Granta-‐gravel
is
an
ideal
rigid/plastic
material
leading
directly
to
Cam-‐clay,
which
is
an
ideal
elastic/plastic
material.
It
was
not
intended
that
Granta-‐gravel
should
be
a
model
for
the
yielding
of
dense
sand
at
some
early
stage
of
stressing
before
failure:
at
that
stage,
where
Rowe’s
concept
of
stress
dilatancy
offers
a
better
interpretation
of
actual
test
data,
the
simple
Granta-‐gravel
model
remains
quite
rigid.
However,
at
Page 6 of 22
The Radicalism of Donald W. Taylor
peak
stress,
when
Granta-‐gravel
does
yield,
the
model
fits
our
purpose
and
it
serves
to
introduce
Taylor’s
dilatancy
calculation
towards
the
end
of
chapter
5.
Figure
5.
Plots
of
void
ratios
versus
pressures
and
strengths
(Taylor
1948:
Figure
15-‐4).
Figure
5
(Figure
1.4
in
Taylor’s
book)
demonstrates
the
influence
of
Taylor’s
understanding
of
soil
mechanics
on
the
subsequent
development
of
critical
state
soil
mechanics.
It
is
a
conceptual
plot
for
a
typical
clay,
on
the
same
set
of
axes
of
logarithms
of
stresses
and
void
ratios,
of
the
normal
consolidation
and
rebound
curves
and
the
various
effective
stresses
at
failure.
It,
and
the
accompanying
text,
would
not
be
out
of
place
in
Chapter
6
of
Scofield
and
Wroth
(1968).
Prof.
J.
K.
Mitchell
told
one
of
us
(JTC)
that,
when
Prof.
Roscoe
was
setting
out
to
investigate
soil
behavior
from
a
rational,
mechanistic
point
of
view,
incorporating
the
plasticity
ideas
of
Drucker
and
Prager,
he
recognized
that
he
and
Taylor
were
on
the
same
page.
According
to
Mitchell,
Roscoe
and
Taylor
had
a
pretty
full
correspondence,
in-‐
cluding
ideas
for
cooperative
research.
Unfortunately
Taylor
died
of
cancer
in
1955,
so
nothing
came
of
it.
Roscoe
had
been
a
prisoner
of
war
of
the
Germans
from
1940
through
1945
when
in
April,
according
to
the
Oxford
Dictionary
of
National
Biography,
he escaped while being marched
east before the advancing Americans (Goldman 2009).
The
ODNB
says
that
he “spent a
large part of his captivity studying. At first without books, he wrote notes from memory
Page 7 of 22
The Radicalism of Donald W. Taylor
and reconstructed what he could from first principles. Through the Red Cross he passed
the London intermediate examination in French and German.” One speculates his experi-
ence of self-education during those five years had much to do with his independent take
on soil behavior and his willingness to look at work done by people like Taylor, who
were regarded as outside the establishment.
Taylor
used
the
friction
circle
method
to
develop
dimensionless
charts
of
stability
number
𝑁 = 𝑐𝐹𝛾𝐻
as
a
function
of
internal
friction
angle
and
slope
angle
for
slopes
in
homogene-‐
ous
soil,
in
which
c
=
soil
cohesion,
F
=
factor
of
safety,
𝛾
=
unit
weight,
i
=
face
slope,
and
H=
slope
height.
Figure
6
is
the
principal
chart.
For
F
=
1,
the
stability
number
represents
the
combination
of
parameters
that
places
the
slope
at
limit
equilibrium.
This
work,
and
much
more
on
slope
stability,
was
presented
at
the
Boston
Society
of
Civil
Engineers
(BSCE)
in
1937,
for
which
Taylor
was
awarded
the
Desmond
Fitzgerald
Medal.
Taylor’s
stability
charts,
or
charts
closely
based
on
them,
are
still
used
in
engineering
practice.
It
thus
appears
that
there
is
no
such
thing
as
the
factor
of
safety
and
that
when
a
fac-‐
tor
of
safety
is
used
its
meaning
should
clearly
defined.
[...]
In
order
to
present
as
general
a
case
as
possible
it
will
first
be
assumed
that
different
margins
of
safety
are
desired
for
the
two
components
of
shearing
strength,
[...].
[Emphasis
in
the
original].
Taylor
goes
on
to
note
that
the
factor
of
safety
may
be
defined
with
respect
to
soil
proper-‐
ties
or
with
respect
to
other
factors
such
as
the
height
of
the
embankment,
and
that
they
are
not
necessarily
the
same
for
a
given
slope.
He
gives
a
simple
example,
in
which
differ-‐
ent
factors
of
safety
apply
to
cohesion
and
friction.
Table
1
is
his
summary
of
the
results.
Page 8 of 22
The Radicalism of Donald W. Taylor
Table
1.
Possible
Combinations
of
Partial
Factors
of
Safety
(Taylor
1948,
p.
416)
Factor Values
Fc 1.00 1.26 1.37 1.50 2.20
Fφ 2.13 1.50 1.37 1.26 1.00
Partial
safety
factors
were
subsequently
expanded
upon
by
Hansen
who
spoke
of
this
con-‐
cept
with
respect
to
both
load
and
resistance
factors
in
the
context
of
the
limiting
design
of
foundations
(Hansen
1956,
385).
Hansen
also
distinguished
between
ultimate
states
and
service
states.
In
modern
practice,
load
and
resistance
factor
design
(LRFD)
has
made
a
re-‐
appearance,
especially
for
the
design
of
foundations
for
highway
structures
(Paikowsky
2004;
Paikowsky
2010),
and
has
begun
to
enter
codes,
such
as
Eurocode
7
(Frank
2007).
Figure
6.
Stability
number
for
slopes
in
homogeneous
soil
with
F=1
(Taylor
1948;
Figure
16-‐26).
Page 9 of 22
The Radicalism of Donald W. Taylor
6. CONSOLIDATION
THEORY
Modern
soil
mechanics
is
widely
considered
to
start
with
Terzaghi’s
(1923,
1925)
pub-‐
lished
solution
to
the
one-‐dimensional
consolidation
problem.
The
final
form
of
the
solu-‐
tion
was
for
the
case
limited
to
small
vertical
displacements
and
strains,
loading,
and
fluid
flow,
on
a
linearly
elastic
soil,
saturated
with
incompressible
pore
fluid,
with
no
accretion
of
material,
and
with
the
assumptions
that
Darcy’s
law
of
fluid
flow
applies
and
that
all
physical
parameters
are
constant
over
time.
While
this
seems
like
a
daunting
list,
even
this
limited
solution
to
be
extremely
useful
in
practice,
and
both
Terzaghi
and
A.
Casagrande
made
extensive
use
of
it.
In
the
eight
decades
since
the
publication
of
the
original
theory,
a
steady
stream
of
researchers
have
investigated
the
consequences
of
relaxing
one
or
more
of
the
restrictive
assumptions,
so
that
there
are
now
theories
addressing
multidimensional
deformations
and
flow,
large
strains
and
large
deformations,
accreting
material,
non-‐linear
constitutive
behavior,
and
so
forth.
Taylor
was
one
of
the
first
to
extend
and
elaborate
on
consolidation
theory.
His
work
was
published
in
a
report
(Taylor
1942),
a
paper
in
a
mathematics
journal
with
W.
Merchant
(Taylor
and
Merchant
1940),
and
Chapter
10
of
his
book
(Taylor
1948).
It
did
not
appear
in
the
usual
civil
engineering
journals,
such
as
those
of
the
ASCE.
His
first
significant
contribu-‐
tion
was
the
square
root
of
time
method
for
estimating
the
primary
consolidation
in
an
oe-‐
dometer
test.
The
technique
is
now
described
in
most
soil
mechanics
textbooks
and
is
part
of
common
laboratory
procedure.
His
investigations
into
secondary
compression
were
more
significant
and
raised
issues
that
are
still
debated
today.
The
1942
report
described
two
models,
which
Taylor
named
Theo-‐
ry
A
and
Theory
B.
Theory
A
treated
secondary
compression
as
a
phenomenon
that
oc-‐
curred
after
primary
consolidation.
Theory
B
considered
the
viscous
and
plastic
behavior
of
clays
as
continuous
phenomena
that
occur
simultaneously
with
the
dissipation
of
excess
pore
pressure
that
is
known
as
primary
consolidation
and
then
continue
after
most
of
the
excess
pore
pressure
has
dissipated.
Dispute
continues
to
this
day
over
whether
there
is
a
unique
“end-‐of-‐primary”
state,
after
which
secondary
compression
takes
over,
(Theory
A)
or
the
viscous
component
of
soil
behavior
is
always
present
in
the
rheological
model
but
is
largely
masked
by
the
large
deformations
during
primary
dissipation
of
excess
pore
pres-‐
sure
(Theory
B).
The
authors
believe
that
Theory
B,
or
an
extended,
non-‐linear
version
of
it,
is
the
model
that
makes
mechanical
sense,
but
other
well-‐respected
researchers
disagree.
The
issue
is
not
settled,
yet
the
terms
of
the
debate
were
established
by
Taylor
Page 10 of 22
The Radicalism of Donald W. Taylor
canal
across
Central
America.
Whitman’s
work
was
to
develop
laboratory
methods
for
dy-‐
namic
triaxial
testing
to
simulate
blast
affects.
A
big
part
of
this
work
with
Taylor
was
on
slope
stability
under
dynamic
loadings.
On
the
basis
of
their
joint
work,
Whitman
(1957)
reported
at
the
Fourth
International
Conference
on
Soil
Mechanics
and
Foundation
Engi-‐
neering
in
London
in
1957
that
the
strength
of
soils
could
be
two
or
three
times
greater
under
dynamic
loading
for
blast
as
compared
to
a
static
test.
In
the
Preface
to
the
EERI
oral
history
(Reitherman
2009),
J.
K.
Mitchell
writes,
“The
record
shows
that
some
of
[Whitman’s]
earliest
work
with
Don
Taylor
on
slope
stability
under
dy-‐
namic
loading
established
the
basis
for
the
well-‐known
and
widely
used
‘Newmark
sliding
block
method’
for
estimating
earthquake-‐induced
ground
displacements.”
In
the
text
itself,
Whitman
is
quoted
saying,
It
was
1953.
Don
Taylor
was
on
a
consulting
project
with
Nathan
Newmark,
Arthur
Casagrande,
and
likely
some
others,
having
to
do
with
what
would
happen
to
the
soils
along
the
Panama
Canal
if
it
were
subject
to
nuclear
attack.
Taylor
asked
me
about
it,
and
I
responded
with
an
analytical
scheme
to
evaluate
how
far
a
rigid
block
of
soil
would
slide
down
a
slope
if
it
were
subjected
to
transient
ground
motions
large
enough
to
cause
shear
stresses
that
momentarily
exceeded
the
strength
of
the
soil.
Employing
numerical
integration
performed
by
hand
calculations;
I
evaluated
the
net
relative
displacement
resulting
from
six
cycles
of
applied
ground
motion.
I
wrote
Taylor
a
memo
that
he
took
to
the
meeting,
which
he
later
incorporated
into
a
report,
attributing
the
approach
to
me.
I
was
busy
with
other
things.
Newmark
did
go
ahead
and
develop
that
meth-‐
od
and
apply
it
to
earthquake
problems
a
decade
later.
He
worked
out
the
significant
combinations
of
parameters,
computed
results
using
a
number
of
different
earth-‐
quake
ground
motions,
and
assembled
the
results
in
a
convenient
chart.
Newmark
did
ultimately
publish
the
approach
in
his
Rankine
lecture
(Newmark
1965).
Marcuson
includes
several
figures
and
quotations
from
Taylor’s
memo
in
his
presentation
at
the
retirement
conference
for
Prof.
Whitman
in
1994
(Marcuson
1994).
He
quotes
a
sen-‐
tence
written
in
1953
that
he
and
Whitman
attribute
to
Taylor:
The
procedure,
therefore,
cannot
be
expected
to
have
much
validity
if,
as
in
the
writer’s
opinion,
the
threat
of
damage
from
earthquake
action
lies
not
in
the
in-‐
crease
of
activated
force
but
in
the
progressive
decrease
in
shearing
resistance
as
a
result
of
the
many
cycles
of
application
of
the
activating
force.
Page 11 of 22
The Radicalism of Donald W. Taylor
hensive
textbook,
Fundamentals
of
Soil
Mechanics,
published
by
John
Wiley
&
Sons,
NY.
In
its
obituary
of
Taylor,
Geotéchnique
said,
“In
1948
Professor
Taylor’s
book,
Fundamentals
of
Soil
Mechanics,
was
published
and
rapidly
became
one
of
the
best-‐known
and
most
widely
used
textbooks
on
Soil
Mechanics
in
the
world.”
In
fact,
there
had
been
few
texts
on
soil
mechanics
up
to
that
date
(Table
2).
In
later
years
it
was
proposed
by
Wiley
that
a
second
edition
be
prepared,
and
G.G.
Meyerhoff,
the
promi-‐
nent
Canadian
engineer,
son
of
the
Nobel
laureate
in
physiology
Otto
Meyerhof
and
recipi-‐
ent
of
innumerable
professional
awards
and
honorary
doctorates,
was
approached
to
pre-‐
pare
a
revision.
This
never
came
to
be.
Some
years
later,
T.
W.
Lambe
and
R.
V.
Whitman
entertained
a
second
edition,
but
ultimately
produced
their
own
original
and
seminal
book
in
its
notable
folio
format,
Soil
Mechanics
(Lambe
and
Whitman1969).
Terzaghi
and
Peck’s
Soil
Mechanics
in
Engineering
Practice
was
updated
in
a
third
edition
by
Mesri
in
1996;
Ter-‐
zaghi’s
Theoretical
Soil
Mechanics
has
not
been
updated.
Table
2.
Notable
textbooks
on
soil
mechanics
prior
to
1950.
AUTHOR
DATE
TITLE
PUBLISHER
CITATION
Terzaghi
1925
Erdbaumechanik
F.
Deuticke,
Wien
(Terzaghi
1925)
Notes
on
Soil
Mechanics.
Prepared
for
Use
by
Students
of
the
Massachusetts
Department
of
Civil
Gilboy
1930
Institute
of
Technology,
enlarged
and
and
Sanitary
Engineer-‐ (GIlboy
1930)
revised
by
Donald
W.
Taylor,
1938
and
ing,
MIT
1939.
Taylor
1948
Fundamentals
of
Soil
Mechanics
John
Wiley
&
Sons,
NY
(Taylor
1948)
Terzaghi
1943
Theoretical
Soil
Mechanics
John
Wiley
&
Sons,
NY
(Terzaghi
1943)
Terzaghi
Soil
Mechanics
and
Engineering
Prac-‐ (Terzaghi
and
and
Peck
1948
John
Wiley
&
Sons,
NY
tice
Peck
1948)
The
importance
of
FUNDAMENTALS
OF
SOIL
MECHANICS
to
the
emerging
field
of
soil
me-‐
chanics
and
foundation
engineering
is
undeniable.
Terzaghi’s
Erdbaumechanik
had
been
published
in
Vienna
in
1925.
After
his
return
to
the
States
in
1938
he
began
work
on
an
expanded
and
updated
book
which
appeared
in
English
as
Theoretical
Soil
Mechanics,
also
published
by
John
Wiley
&
Sons
in
1943.
This
was
a
theoretical
book
with
little
practical
advice
for
the
engineer
in
the
field;
while
it
remains
relevant
and
in
print
80
years
later,
its
reception
at
the
time
was
mixed.
Peck
has
suggested
that
the
practical
side
of
the
soil
engi-‐
neering
profession
was
skeptical
of
the
book
for
its
reliance
on
engineering
mechanics,
hy-‐
draulics,
and
mathematics.
By
the
middle
1940’s,
Terzaghi
and
Peck
were
hard
at
work
on
what
would
become
Soil
Mechanics
in
Engineering
Practice,
to
be
published
by
Wiley
in
1948.
This
book,
as
the
name
suggests,
was
intended
for
practice
and
was
taking
much
longer
coming
to
fruition
than
had
been
planned
(Goodman
1999).
The
book
took
six
years
to
write,
from
1942
until
Page 12 of 22
The Radicalism of Donald W. Taylor
1948.
The
frustration
of
completing
this
practical
book,
according
to
Goodman,
was
balanc-‐
ing
theory
with
practice.
In
contrast
to
the
Terzaghi
and
Peck’s
practical
book,
Fundamentals
of
Soil
Mechanics
was
about
fundamentals,
as
the
name
suggests.
It
was
intended
as
a
text
for
university-‐level
in-‐
struction,
not
as
a
practical
guide
to
the
engineer
in
the
field;
it
had
grown
out
of
the
teach-‐
ing
notes
that
had
been
in
use
at
MIT
for
almost
two
decades
and
which
had
been
started
by
Terzaghi.
It
was
all
about
engineering
mechanics,
hydraulics,
and
mathematical
models,
exactly
those
things
that
Peck
thought
had
blunted
the
reception
of
Terzaghi’s
Theoretical
Soil
Mechanics.
Terzaghi
and
Peck,
apparently,
were
not
amused.
In
later
years,
Taylor’s
fundamental
and
theoretical
text
was
to
be
joined
by
Ronald
Scott’s
Principles
of
Soil
Me-‐
chanics
(1963)—who
was
also
an
ScD
(1955)
from
MIT
and
by
then
a
professor
at
Cal
Tech—and
the
text
of
Lambe
and
Whitman
(1969).
Taylor’s
Fundamentals
of
Soil
Mechanics
became
one
of
the
most
influential
early
texts
in
soil
mechanics,
and
it
remains
so
today.
It
remains
in
print.
It
was
adopted
as
a
textbook
for
introductory
soil
mechanics
at
the
graduate
level
at
universities
across
North
America
and
Europe.
While
Terzaghi
and
Peck’s
book
provided
practical
guidance,
Taylor’s
book
provid-‐
ed
fundamentals.
Both
were
needed
in
the
rapidly
expanding
soil
mechanics
graduate
pro-‐
grams
of
the
post
war
period.
8.2. Controversy
with
Terzaghi
and
Peck
After
World
War
II,
Terzaghi
dominated
the
new
field
of
soil
mechanics.
From
his
post
at
Harvard,
Terzaghi
influenced
ASCE
publications,
his
voice
was
strong
in
the
quadrennial
in-‐
ternational
conferences
on
soil
mechanics
and
foundation
engineering,
and
he
was
the
ma-‐
jor
consulting
figure
of
the
time,
providing
his
opinion
to
a
majority
of
the
major
earth-‐
works
project
of
the
day.
Not
everyone
was
happy
with
this.
In
the
late
1940’s
and
early
1950s,
it
was
recognized
by
several
scientists
that
the
Harvard-‐school
was
dominating
soil
mechanics
and
that
the
views
of
other
re-‐
searchers
were
put
down
by
von
Terzaghi
and
his
disciples,
above
all
by
A.
Casa-‐
grande.
These
scientists
were
concerted
that
the
Harvard-‐school
was
dominating
the
soil
mechanics
profession,
especially
ASCE,
and
controlling
the
publication
of
papers.
Moreover,
it
was
rumored
that
Professor
Taylor
of
MIT
was
never
promoted
to
full
professor
allegedly
because
of
von
Terzaghi’s
intervention.
It
was
also
ru-‐
mored
that
von
Terzaghi
tried
to
have
Professor
Tschebotarioff
fired
from
Prince-‐
ton.
It
was
always
the
same
story.
To
be
successful,
one
had
to
have
attended
Har-‐
vard
and
had
to
be
obedient
to
von
Terzaghi’s
views.
It
was
then
believed
that
every
paper
in
soil
mechanics
submitted
to
the
ASCE
had
to
have
von
Terzaghi’s
approval
to
be
published.
However,
one
must
state
that
there
is
no
evidence
that
von
Terzaghi
personally
prevented
publication.
On
the
other
hand,
the
late
Professor
A.
Casa-‐
grande
was
instigating
the
censorship
in
von
Terzaghi’s
name.
He
suppressed
sever-‐
al
outstanding
pieces
of
work.
Page 13 of 22
The Radicalism of Donald W. Taylor
One
might
speculate
that
two
military
officers
from
the
lower
orders
of
the
pre-‐World
War
I
nobility,
one
from
the
imperial
Russian
cavalry
and
the
other
from
the
Austro-‐Hungarian
artillery,
might
not
see
eye
to
eye.
This
seemed
to
be
the
case
for
Tschebotarioff
and
Ter-‐
zaghi.
However,
some
of
the
feuds
and
quarrels
that
developed
in
the
early
days
of
soil
me-‐
chanics
do
seem
to
transcend
ancient
European
animosities.
A
section
in
the
new
biography
of
Terzaghi
(Goodman
1999
page
212)
explains
that,
directly
after
publication
of
Terzaghi’s
"Theoretical
Soil
Mechanics"
(1943),
Ter-‐
zaghi
and
Peck
began
to
write
a
new
book
as
an
"Introduction"
to
it.
On
page
213
Goodman
reports
that
the
writers
were
frustrated
by
the
"unfinished
state
of
soil
mechanics"
and
that
progress
with
this
book
was
delayed.
The
process
of
rewrite,
review,
and
alteration
dragged
on
year
after
year
until
1946,
when
a
very
different
book,
Terzaghi
and
Peck
(1948),
neared
completion.
At
that
stage
‘The
authors,
now
mutually
trusting
and
united,
ganged
up
on
what
they
perceived
as
an
increasingly
theoretical
and
esoteric
portrayal
of
soils
in
university
education,
as
depicted
in
Ralph
Peck’s
review
of
the
book
manuscript
from
Professor
Donald
Taylor
of
MIT
"Blind
application
of
theory
can
directly
lead
to
disaster"
he
wrote:
"this
is
the
idea
which
nearly
ruined
soil
mechanics
and
against
which
the
best
efforts
of
Terzaghi
and
a
few
others
have
only
recently
been
able
to
make
headway."’
In the Preface to Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, Terzaghi and Peck (1948) write,
Unfortunately,
the
research
activities
in
soil
mechanics
had
one
undesirable
psycho-‐
logical
effect.
They
diverted
the
attention
of
many
investigators
and
teachers
from
the
manifold
limitation
imposed
by
nature
on
the
application
of
mathematical
to
problems
in
earthwork
engineering.
The letter from John Wiley & Sons, replying to Peck’s negative review, reads in part,
[...]
(Taylor’s
book)
will
be
published
by
one
of
our
competitors
if
we
do
not
take
it.
Under
the
circumstances,
we
see
nothing
to
do
but
publish
it.
[…]
However,
as
I
said
in
the
first
paragraph
of
this
letter,
we
believe
that
each
book
will
be
judged
on
its
own
merits,
and
certainly
we
have
no
fears
for
the
success
of
(Terzaghi
&
Peck).
[/s/]
E.P.
Hamilton
(President),
December
17,
1946
Peck
(1993)
presented
the
first
Buchannan
Lecture
at
Texas
A&M,
“The
coming
of
age
of
soil
mechanics
1920-‐1970.”
In
it
he
mentions
Buchannan,
Gilboy,
Arthur
and
Leo
Casa-‐
grande,
and
Jürgenson,
but
not
Taylor.
It
is
not
clear
at
this
date
why
these
quarrels
arose.
The
participants
have
died,
some
leav-‐
ing
little
documentation
of
their
careers,
so
it
is
not
possible
to
uncover
the
causes
and
mo-‐
tivations
from
the
usual
sources
of
interviews,
oral
histories,
and
memoirs.
One
gets
the
impression
that
one
factor
was
the
desire
on
the
part
of
Terzaghi,
and
his
colleagues,
to
dominate
and
to
protect
the
integrity
of
the
discipline
they
had
founded.
However,
it
is
hard
to
understand
why
Taylor
fell
afoul
of
them,
in
particular
why
he
was
regarded
as
a
Page 14 of 22
The Radicalism of Donald W. Taylor
theoretician
who
would
bring
unwonted
mathematics
to
soil
mechanics.
Taylor’s
great
strength
was
his
careful,
thorough
laboratory
work,
from
which
he
derived
insightful
ob-‐
servations.
Despite
frequent
criticism
that
his
publications
were
too
theoretical
or
mathe-‐
matical,
Taylor
was
not
a
mathematician;
in
the
1942
report
thanks
Prof.
Eric
Reissner
for
performing
the
mathematical
solutions.
9. LATER
LIFE
MIT
and
its
Department
of
Civil
and
Sanitary
Engineering
did
not
treat
Taylor
well.
He
was
paid
poorly,
if
at
all,
during
the
depression
of
the
1930s
and
was
never
promoted
beyond
Associate
Professor.
Part
of
the
reason
was
that
he
did
not
have
a
doctorate.
Nevertheless,
he
seems
to
have
had
close
friends
among
the
MIT
faculty
across
departmental
boundaries.
Eric
Reissner’s
contributions
to
his
consolidation
work
have
already
been
mentioned.
R.
V.
Whitman
told
one
of
us
(JTC)
that
Norbert
Wiener,
the
famous
mathematician
and
inventor
of
the
word
“cybernetics,”
was
a
frequent
friendly
opponent
at
chess.
Taylor
usually
won
because,
though
Wiener
was
brilliant
and
imaginative,
he
was
also
careless,
while
Taylor
was
conservative
and
careful.
Taylor
planned
to
take
leave
in
the
early
1950s
to
study
for
a
doctorate
in
England.
In
the
summer
of
1953,
Taylor
passed
through
Cambridge,
England,
on
his
way
to
the
Third
In-‐
ternational
Conference
on
Soil
Mechanics
and
Foundation
Engineering,
which
was
being
held
in
Zurich
in
August.
In
Cambridge
he
visited
with
Professor
Kenneth
Roscoe
and
his
wife,
Janet.
Dr.
Janet
Roscoe
was
a
pediatrician
at
Addenbrooke's
Hospital,
a
teaching
hos-‐
pital
affiliated
with
Cambridge
University.
She
noticed
an
abnormality
in
one
of
Taylor’s
eyes—perhaps
an
asymmetrically
dilated
pupil—and
suggested
that
he
seek
a
medical
di-‐
agnosis
as
soon
as
he
returned
to
the
States
in
the
autumn.
The
subsequent
diagnosis
was
a
brain
tumor,
which
had
pinched
the
optic
nerve.
Taylor’s
obituary,
in
the
papers
collections
of
the
Worchester
Polytechnic
Institute
Library,
to
which
his
widow
Beulah
Nyman
Taylor
left
his
professional
papers
rather
than
to
the
MIT
Libraries,
describes
his
death
as
“[Taylor]
died
after
a
brief
illness
on
December
24,
1955
at
age
55.”
Taylor
had
died
of
a
brain
tumor
on
Christmas
Eve.
The
illness
was
“brief”
only
because
undiagnosed
until
too
late.
Shortly
after
Taylor’s
death
the
climate
in
the
United
States
for
funding
research
changed
dramatically.
First,
the
Interstate
Highway
Program
was
authorized
in
1956,
dispensing
huge
quantities
of
money
for
design
and
construction
of
highways
as
well
as
for
research
on
related
subjects.
Second,
in
the
aftermath
of
the
launching
of
the
Sputnik
satellite
by
the
USSR
in
1957
the
United
States
funded
large
programs
in
science
and
engineering.
Funding
and
promotions
abounded.
One
can
only
speculate
about
what
would
have
been
accom-‐
plished
if
Taylor
had
lived
to
enjoy
the
environment
of
the
early
1960s.
10. CONCLUSIOS
Taylor
is
an
underappreciated
figure
in
the
history
of
geotechnical
engineering.
He
made
early
and
fundamental
contributions
to
many
subjects
and
anticipated
several
later
devel-‐
Page 15 of 22
The Radicalism of Donald W. Taylor
opments,
including
LFRD,
critical
state
soil
mechanics,
and
the
sliding
block
method.
The
group
that
developed
Critical
State
Soil
Mechanics
at
Cambridge
University
explicitly
acknowledged
their
debt
to
Taylor.
Though
he
himself
did
not
work
with
probabilistic
methods,
his
observations
on
the
meaning
of
partial
factors
of
safety
are
remarkably
con-‐
sistent
with
the
contemporary
views
that
underlie
Load
and
Resistance
Factor
Design
(LRFD).
He
and
his
assistant
Robert
Whitman
not
only
proposed
the
sliding
block
analysis,
they
predicted
that
the
technique
would
be
suitable
for
the
electronic
computers
then
be-‐
coming
available,
and
they
described
the
limitations
inherent
in
it.
Fundamentals
of
Soil
Mechanics
remains
today
a
seminal
text
on
soil
mechanics
and
influ-‐
enced
generations
of
geotechnical
engineers.
In
many
ways
it
is
as
contemporary
as
texts
written
fifty
years
later,
and
it
may
be
as
influential
to
the
modern
field
of
soil
mechanics
as
the
books
of
Terzaghi.
The
presentation
is
clear
and
reflects
careful
thought
about
the
be-‐
havior
of
soil.
The
book
is
full
of
insights,
many
of
them
in
end-‐of-‐chapter
summaries
and
problems.
For
example,
one
of
the
examples
at
the
end
of
Chapter
12
reads,
in
part,
“.
.
.
two
strata
of
different
thicknesses,
but
with
all
other
conditions
alike,
will
show
the
same
time-‐
settlement
curve
as
long
as
both
are
less
than
60%
consolidated.”
One
wishes
that
those
developing
techniques
for
predicting
the
amount
and
rate
of
settlement
from
displace-‐
ments
measured
early
in
the
consolidation
process
had
read
that
sentence.
Neither
MIT
nor
his
professional
colleagues
treated
Taylor
well.
The
reasons
are
hard
to
grasp
at
this
remove,
but
part
of
the
problem
seems
to
be
that
he
often
worked
on
prob-‐
lems
that
were
supposed
to
have
already
been
solved
and
he
discovered
previously
unap-‐
preciated
complexities.
He
was
a
careful
and
thorough
experimentalist,
a
strength
that
lay
behind
many
of
his
successes.
He
had
actually
looked
at
the
data
and
understood
mechan-‐
ics.
He
was
the
first
to
acknowledge
that
he
was
not
a
mathematician
but
relied
on
his
emi-‐
nent
mathematical
colleagues.
The
portions
of
his
book
that
deal
with
laboratory
equipment
and
deep
foundations
are
the
most
dated.
Developments
in
equipment,
instrumentation,
and
pile
driving
have
made
the-‐
se
chapters
obsolete.
The
sections
dealing
with
the
actual
fundamentals
of
soil
mechanics
remain
remarkably
relevant;
in
some
cases
they
are
superior
to
the
material
in
many
con-‐
temporary
textbooks.
In
summary,
Donald
W.
Taylor,
a
modest,
meticulous
man,
developed
deep,
often
radical
insights
into
geotechnical
engineering
by
close
observation
and
careful
speculation.
He
de-‐
serves
to
be
better
known
and
his
book
more
widely
read.
Page 16 of 22
The Radicalism of Donald W. Taylor
REFERENCES
Aldrich,
H.E.,
and
K.A.
Seeler.
1981.
“The
‘New
Technology.’”
In
Past,
Present,
and
Future
of
Geotech-‐
nical
Engineering.
MIT,
Cambridge:
Massachusetts
Institute
of
Technology.
de
Boer,
Reint,
2005.
The
Engineer
and
the
Scandal:
A
Piece
of
Science
History.
Berlin:
Springer.
de
Boer,
Reint,
Robert
L.
Schiffmaqn,
and
Robert
E.
Gibson
(1996)
"Origins
of
the
theory
of
consoli-‐
dation:
the
Terzaghi-‐Fillunger
controversy,"
Geotechnique,
46(2):
175-‐186.
Dimand,
Robert
W.,
Mary
Ann
Dimand,
and
Evelyn
L.
Forget,
eds.
2000.
A
Biographical
Dictionary
of
Women
Economists.
Cheltenham,
UK ;
Northampton,
Mass:
Edward
Elgar.
Fatherree,
Ben
H.
2006.
“The
History
of
Geotechnical
Engineering
at
the
Waterways
Experiment
Station
1932-‐2000”.
Vicksberg:
U.S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers,
Waterways
Experiment
Station.
Fellenius,
Wolmar.
1936.
“Calculation
of
the
Stability
of
Earth
Dams.”
Second
Congress
on
Large
Dams,
445–62.
Washington
DC.
Fetherree,
B.H.
2006.
“The
History
of
Geotechnical
Engineering
at
the
Waterways
Experiment
Sta-‐
tion
1932-‐2000
U.S.
Army
Engineer
Research
and
Development
Center
Vicksburg,
Mississippi.”
The
History
of
Geotechnical
Engineering
at
the
Waterways
Experiment
Station
1932-‐2000.
http://gsl.erdc.usace.army.mil/gl-‐history/.
Frank,
R.
2007.
“Basic
Principles
of
Eurocode
7
on
‘Geotechnical
Design.’”
In
COBRAMSEG.
Curitiba,
Brazil.
Geotéchnique.
1956.
“Taylor
Donald
Wood
(Obituary).”
Géotechnique
6
(1):
56–57.
doi:10.1680/geot.1956.6.1.56.
GIlboy,
Glennon.
1930.
“Notes
on
Soil
Mechanics.
Prepared
for
Use
by
Students
of
the
Massachusetts
Institute
of
Technology,
Enlarged
and
Revised
by
Donald
W.
Taylor,
1938
and
1939.”
Cam-‐
bridge:
Massachusetts
Institute
of
Technology.
———.
1934.
“Mechanics
of
Hydraulicly
Filled
Dams.”
Journal
of
the
Boston
Society
of
Civil
Engineers
20
(July).
Goldman,
Lawrence,
ed.
2009.
Oxford
Dictionary
of
National
Biography,
2001-‐2004.
Oxford ;
New
York:
Oxford
University
Press.
Goodman,
Richard
E.
1999.
Karl
Terzaghi :
The
Engineer
as
Artist.
Reston,
Va.:
American
Society
of
Civil
Engineers.
Hansen,
J.
Brinch.
1956.
“Limit
Designand
Safety
Factors
in
Soil
Mechanics”.
Bulletin
No.
1.
Copen-‐
hagen:
Danish
Geotechnical
Institute.
Lambe,
T.
William.
1981.
“Geotechnical
Engineering
at
the
Massachusetts
Institute
of
Technology,
1925-‐1981.”
In
Past,
Present,
and
Future
of
Geotechnical
Engineering.
MIT,
Cambridge:
Massa-‐
chusetts
Institute
of
Technology.
———.
and
R.
V.
Whitman.
1969.
Soil
Mechanics.
New
York:
John
Wiley
&
Sons.
Lumb,
P.
1966.
“The
Variability
of
Natural
Soils.”
Canadian
Geotechnical
Journal
3:
74–97.
doi:*
Book
Section.
Majumdar,
Dalim
Kumar.
1964.
“Simplified
Approach
to
the
Problem
of
Stability
of
Soil
Slopes
un-‐
der
Horizontal
Earthquake
and
Pore
Pressure”.
Doctoral,
Utah
State
University,
Logan,
UT,
Unit-‐
ed
States
(USA).
http://search.proquest.com.proxy-‐
um.researchport.umd.edu/docview/52957951?accountid=14696.
Marcuson,
W.
1994.
“An
Example
of
Professional
Modesty.”
The
Earth,
Engineers,
and
Education:
A
Symposium
in
Honor
of
Robert
V.
Whitman,
Cambridge:
MIT,
Department
of
Civil
Engineering:
200-‐202.
MIT
Historical
Collections.
,
yearly.
“MIT
Bulletin
(yearly).”
Historical
Collections
of
the
Massachu-‐
setts
Institute
of
Technology.
http://dome.mit.edu/handle/1721.3/81660.
Page 17 of 22
The Radicalism of Donald W. Taylor
Taylor,
Donald
W.
1942.
"Research
on
Consolidation
of
Clays."
Department
of
Civil
and
Sanitary
En-‐
gineering,
Massachusetts
Institute
of
Technology,
Serial
82.
———.
1948.
Fundamentals
of
Soil
Mechanics.
New
York:
John
Wiley
&
Sons.
———
and
W.
Merchant
1940.
“A
theory
of
clay
consolidation
accounting
for
secondary
compres-‐
sions.”
Journal
of
Mathematical
Physics,
I:
167.
Terzaghi,
Karl.
1923.
"Die
Berechnung
der
Durchlässigkeitsziffer
der
Tone
aus
dem
Verlauf
der
hy-‐
drodynamischen
Spannungserscheinungen.
Sitzungsberichte
der
Wiener
Akademie
der
Wissen-‐
schaften,
Math.-‐naturw.
Klasse.
pt.
IIa,
132:125-‐138.
———.
1925.
Erdbaumechanik
auf
bodenphysikalischer
grundlage.
Leipzig
u.
Wien:
F.
Deuticke.
———.
1943.
Theoretical
Soil
Mechanics.
New
York:
J.
Wiley
and
Sons.
Terzaghi,
Karl,
and
Ralph
B.
Peck.
1948.
Soil
Mechanics
in
Engineering
Practice.
New
York,:
John
Wiley
&
Sons.
Whitman,
R.
V.
1948.
"The
Behaviour
of
Soils
under
Transient
Loadings."
Fourth
International
Con-‐
ference
on
Soil
Mechanic
and
Foundation
Engineering.
London.
(1):167.
WPI
Library.
2014.
“Donald
W.
Taylor
Collection
MS42.”
Library
of
the
Worcester
Polytechnic
Insti-‐
tute.
Accessed
April
5.
http://www.wpi.edu/Images/CMS/Library/MS42_Donald_W_Taylor_Collection.pdf.
Page 18 of 22
The Radicalism of Donald W. Taylor
Donald
Wood
Taylor
was
born
December
2,
1900
in
Worcester.
He
graduated
from
North
High
School
in
Worcester
in
1918,
and
from
WPI
in
1922
with
a
Bachelor
of
Science
Degree
in
Civil
Engineering.
He
then
worked
for
the
U.
S.
Coast
and
Geodetic
Survey,
the
Los
Ange-‐
les
Bureau
of
Power
and
Light,
Edward
F.
Miner
Building
Co.
in
Worcester,
and
New
Eng-‐
land
Power
Co.
In
1931,
he
began
graduate
study
at
Massachusetts
Institute
of
Technology,
and
became
a
research
assistant
in
the
Civil
and
Sanitary
Engineering
Department
in
1932.
He
began
con-‐
sulting
work
while
working
at
MIT
in
1934.
He
was
in
charge
of
the
Soil
Engineering
Divi-‐
sion
beginning
about
1936.
In
1938
he
became
Assistant
Professor
of
Soil
Mechanics.
He
received
his
Master's
Degree
from
MIT
in
1942,
and
was
appointed
Associate
Professor
of
Soil
Mechanics
in
1944.
In
a
typewritten
compilation
of
his
education
and
experience
written
in
September
1954,
Professor
Taylor
summarized
his
major
work
as
a
consultant,
citing
specifically
many
pro-‐
jects
for
Fay,
Spofford
&
Thorndike,
Engineers;
Corps
of
Engineers,
U.
S.
Army;
Nepsco
Ser-‐
vices,
Augusta,
Maine
for
work
on
the
Union
Falls
Dam;
Southern
California
Edison
Compa-‐
ny
for
work
on
their
Vermillion
Project;
and
New
England
Electric
System
for
work
on
their
Littleton
Dam.
Professor
Taylor
was
active
in
several
professional
societies.
He
was
a
member
of
the
Bos-‐
ton
Society
of
Civil
Engineers.
He
chaired
the
Committee
on
Subsoils
of
Boston
from
1943
to
1955.
He
was
an
associate
member
of
the
American
Society
of
Civil
Engineers,
and
chaired
their
Sub-‐Committee
on
Design
of
Earth
Dams
and
their
Foundations
from
1947
to
1951,
and
served
as
a
member
of
the
Administrative
Committee
on
Earth
Dams
from
1951-‐1955.
He
was
also
a
member
of
the
International
Society
of
Soil
Mechanics
and
Foundation
Engineering,
serving
as
International
Secretary
from
1948
to
1953.
He
partici-‐
pated
in
three
international
conferences.
Professor
Taylor
published
many
articles
and
research
reports,
and
the
textbook
Funda-‐
mentals
of
Soil
Mechanics.
He
received
the
Desmond
Fitzgerald
Award
for
his
paper
"Stabil-‐
ity
of
Earth
Slopes,"
published
in
1937.
In
1928,
Taylor
married
Beulah
Nyman
of
Marlboro.
They
lived
in
Arlington.
He
died
after
a
brief
illness
on
Christmas
Eve,
December
24,
1955.
Page 19 of 22
The Radicalism of Donald W. Taylor
1. Taylor,
D.W.
1936.
“Lateral
pressures
of
cohesionless
soils
in
retaining
wall
design,”
En-‐
gineering
News-‐Record,
117:
76.
1. Taylor,
D.W.
1937.
“Stability
of
earth
slopes,”
Journal
of
the
Boston
Society
of
Civil
Engi-‐
neers,
24:
197-‐246.
2. Taylor,
D.W.
1938.
“The
stability
analysis
of
a
foundation
failure,”
1938.
Proceedings
Highway
Research
Board,
18
(2):
93.
3. Taylor,
D.W.
and
Leps,
T.M.
1939.
“A
comparison
of
results
of
direct
shear
and
cylindri-‐
cal
compression
tests,”
Proceedings
ASTM,
39:
1058.
4. Taylor,
D.W.
1939.
“Limit
design
of
foundations
and
embankments,”
Proceedings
High-‐
way
Research
Board,
19:
454.
5. Taylor,
D.W.
and
W.
Merchant
1940.
“A
theory
of
clay
consolidation
accounting
for
sec-‐
ondary
compressions,”
Journal
of
Mathematical
Physics,
I:
167.
6. Taylor,
D.W.
1941.
“Abstracts
of
selected
theses
in
soil
mechanics,”
Publication
of
the
Massachusetts
Institute
of
Technology,
Department
of
Civil
and
Sanitary
Engineering,
Serial
No.
79,
41
pp.
7. Taylor,
D.W.
1942.
“Research
on
consolidation
of
clays.”
Publication
of
the
Massachu-‐
setts
Institute
of
Technology,
Department
of
Civil
and
Sanitary
Engineering,
Serial
No.
82,
147
pp.
8. Taylor,
D.W.
1943
and
1944.
“Cylindrical
Compression
Research
Program
on
Stress-‐
Deformation
and
Strength
Characteristics
of
Soil.”
9th
and
10th
Progress
Reports
to
the
Waterways
Experiment
Station,
US
Army
Corps
of
Engineers,
Vicksburg.
9. Taylor,
D.W.
1944.
“An
unusual
foundation
problem:
the
Alumni
Pool
Building,”
Journal
of
the
Boston
Society
of
Civil
Engineers,
31:
232.
10. Taylor,
D.W.
1944.
“Pressure
distribution
theories,
earth
pressure
cell
investigations
and
pressure
distribution
data,”
included
as
second
half
of,
“Soil
Mechanics
Fact
Finding
Survey:
Progress
Report.”
Waterways
Experiment
Station,
Vicksburg,
1947.
11. Taylor,
D.W.
1948.
“Shearing
strength
determinations
by
undrained
cylindrical
com-‐
pression
tests
with
pore
pressure
measurements,”
Proceedings,
Second
International
Conference
on
Soil
Mechanics,
5:45.
12. Taylor,
D.W.
1948.
“Field
measurements
of
soil
‘pressures
in
foundations,
‘in
pavements
and
on
walls
and
conduits
including
a
review
of
work
of
the
fact
finding
survey
and
oth-‐
er
field
investigations
of
the
Corps
of
Engineers
of
the
U.S.
Army,”
1948.
Proceedings,
Se-‐
cond
International
Conference
on
Soil
Mechanics,
7:
84.
13. Taylor,
D.W.
1948.
Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics. 1948. John Wiley, New York.
14. Taylor,
D.W.
1951.
“A
triaxial
shear
investigation
on
a
partially
saturated
soil,”
ASTM
Special
Technical
Publication,
106:
180.
15. Taylor,
D.W.
1953.
“A
direct
shear
test
with
drainage
control,”
ASTM
Special
Technical
Publication,
131:
63.
Page 20 of 22
The Radicalism of Donald W. Taylor
Although
Terzaghi
did
not
return
to
the
United
States
until
1936,
former
students
maintained
his
tradition
at
MIT.
Gilboy,
Terzaghi's
first
research
assistant
in
1925
and
1926,
assumed
primary
responsibility
for
continuing
laboratory
and
classroom
work
in
Terzaghi's
absence,
first
as
an
assistant
professor
from
1929
to
1932,
then
as
an
associate
professor
from
1932
to
1937.
He
then
went
into
private
practice.
In
1930
Gilboy
typed
his
instructional
notes,
derived
primarily
from
Terzaghi's
lec-‐
tures,
and
reproduced
them
with
data
and
illustrations
for
use
by
MIT
students.
This
represented
the
first
crude
text
for
soil
mechanics
instruction
in
the
United
States.
In
1930
Gilboy
typed
his
instructional
notes,
derived
primarily
from
Terzaghi's
lec-‐
tures,
and
reproduced
them
with
data
and
illustrations
for
use
by
MIT
students.
This
represented
the
first
crude
text
for
soil
mechanics
instruction
in
the
United
States.
Donald
W.
Taylor,
who
had
joined
the
MIT
faculty
in
1932,
expanded
and
revised
Gilboy's
notes
in
1938
and
again
in
1939
(Taylor
remained
at
MIT
until
his
death
in
1955.39).
Buchanan,
a
Texas
A&M
graduate,
was
another
prominent
Terzaghi
ap-‐
prentice
who
remained
in
Cambridge
until
1933.
Of
greatest
long-‐term
influence,
however,
was
Casagrande's
arrival
in
1926.
attending
Boston
Girls’
Latin
School,
she
took
her
AB
from
Barnard
College
in
1924
with
honors
in
economics
and
sociology.
After
obtaining
an
AM
from
Radcliffe
College
in
1925,
she
began
work
on
her
Ph.D.
thesis
at
Radcliffe
College,
researching
wages
in
eighteenth-‐
century
England
under
the
supervision
of
Edwin
F.
Gay.
She
was
awarded
a
Whitney
Trav-‐
elling
Fellowship
in
1926–28
to
visit
England
and
collect
data
and
was
registered
as
a
graduate
student
at
the
London
School
of
Economics
and
Political
Science.
She
obtained
her
Ph.D.
in
1929,
having
been
an
instructor
in
economics
at
Wellesley
College
during
1928–29.
She
married
Glennon
Gilboy
on
19
April
1930;
they
divorced
in
November
1953.
There
were
no
children.
She
was
Secretary
of
the
Committee
on
Research
in
the
Social
Sciences
at
Harvard
University
during
1929–30
and
Executive
Secretary
from
1930
to
1941.
She
was
also
Graduate
Adviser
at
Radcliffe
College
from
1930
to
1941.
(Dimand,
Dimand,
and
Forget
2000)
Page 21 of 22
The Radicalism of Donald W. Taylor
Page 22 of 22