DISCUSSIONS

Janbu, Bjerrum and Kjaernsli's chart reinterpreted: Discussion

J . B. BURLAND
Departme~ltof the Environmet~t,Building Research Estcrblisht~zent,B~rilrlingReseurch Stution, Garston,
Watjiord WD2 7JR, E11glat7d
Received June 1 , 1978
Accepted June 9, 1978
Can. Geotech. J . , 15,619 (1978)
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by YORK UNIV on 11/23/14

Christian and Carrier have carried out a valuable
investigation of the accuracy of some simple
methods of estimating elastic settlement. Studies of
this type are of importance as the engineer can
then assess the likely range of error when using
simple calculations.
The influence of the degree of embedment depth
on settlement is a subject that has received sur-
prisingly little attention since Fox's classic work.
It is gratifying that the authors' note has stimulated
discussion on the subject. It should perhaps be
emphasized that the validity of Fox's analysis is
For personal use only.
writer analysed the case of a uniformly loaded area
at the base of an unlined shaft. However, it was
not made clear in the original publication that the
solutions were for the central settlement of the
loaded area. Comparison of the writer's value of
p, with those of Pells and Turner in their Fig. I ( b )
shows that the two solutions are in fact in reason-
able agreement. The analysis by Pells and Turner
for a rigid footing gives the somewhat surprising
result that the presence of an unlined shaft has
little influence on the settlement. Further studies
would be valuable on the influence of the geometry

not in doubt. The question is whether the results
for a loaded area within an elastic half-space are
always appropriate in practice, e.g., for a founda-
tion at the base of an open excavation.
Pells and Turner question the writer's analysis
of this problem and he is grateful for the oppor-
tunity of commenting on their discussion. The
- -
'Note by Christian, J. T., and Carrier 111, W. D. 1978.
Can. Geotech. J., 15(1), pp. 123-128. Discussion by Pells,
P. J. N., and Turner, R. M. 1978. Can. Geotech. J. 1 5 ( 3 ) ,
pp. 436-437.
and stiffness of the loaded area and of the degree
of restraint on the sides of the excavation. Burland
et al. (1977) have also pointed out the need to
study the influence of these factors on the under-
lying stress distribution for the purpose of esti-
mating the long-term settlement of embedded
foundations.
BURLAND, J. B., BROMS,B., and DE MELLO,V. F. B. 1977.
Behaviour of foundations and structures. State of the Art
Report, Session 11. Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Tokyo, Japan, 2, pp. 493-546.

Janbu, Bjerrum and Kjaernsli's chart reinterpreted: Reply

JOHN T. CHRISTIAN
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, P.O. Box 2325, Boston, MA 02107, U.S.A.
AND
CARRIER
W . DAVID 111
Bechtel, I m . , P.O. BOX2965, Sun Francisco, CA 94119, U.S.A.
Received June 28, 1978
Accepted July 12, 1978
Can. Geotech. J . , 15,619-620 (1978)

It is very difficult to determine why different
finite element calculations give different results
'Discussion by Pells, P. J. N., and Turner, R. M. 1978.
Can. Geotech. J., 15(3), pp. 436-437.
without access to the actual computer programs
and the computer output. We suggest some of the
following as possible explanations. First, Burland
used values of Poisson's ratio of 0.49. P e h and
Turner used values of 0.47. We used an incom-
 620 C A N GEOTECH
pressible formulation for the axially symmetric
cases, so our Poisson's ratio was 0.5. We, too, used
two different finite element meshes to investigate
the effect of changes in element shape. We found
no significant difference between the two sets of
results. It is not clear from the discussion where
the rigid bottom was located in Pells and Turner's
calculations; that is, what value of H/B did they
use? We find from our results that the value of the
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by YORK UNIV on 11/23/14
correction factor back-figured from the results of
finite element calculations depends on H/B. For
small values of both D/B and H/B, the correction
factors are close to Burland's; but for large values
of D/B and H/B, the values are closer to Pells
and Turner's. These results emphasize a point
made by us in the original note: that the procedure
of multiplying the two correction factors, one in-
tended to account for the effects of embedment
and the other for the effects of a finite layer, is not
theoretically accurate and any results obtained
from it must be regarded as approximate.
We do not understand the results reported in
For personal use only.
Fig. 1c of Pells and Turner. It is most surprising
that there should be essentially no influence of the
material directly overlying the rigid plate when it
is embedded in a half-space. This is directly con-
trary to the results for flexible plates and appears,
in general, unreasonable. Scherman ( 1970), as part
of the same discussion in which Burland produced
his results, described the Swedish corrections for
borehole jacking tests. The results showed similar
corrections for rigid plates and plates with evenly
distributed loads. Our intuitive reaction is that
Measuring total volumetric strains during triaxial tests on frozen soils: a new approach:
Discussion
M. B o z o z u ~A N D T . H. W. BAKER
Geotechr~icnlSection, Divi.\ior~of Blriltlir~gRe~errrch,N ( l t i o t ~R~ ~
Received April 4, 1978
Accepted July 19, 1978
Can. Geotech. J . , 15,620-621 (1978)
The device to measure volume change described
by O'Connor and Mitchell is based on two design
features: (a) the Perspex ring incorporated in the
top of the triaxial cell (Fig. 4) keeps the antifreeze
'Paper by O'Connor, M. J., and Mitchell, R. J. 1978.
Can. Geotech. J., 15(1), pp. 47-53.
I. VOL. lj, 1978
something is amiss in Pells and Turner's analyses
for rigid plates. One possibility is that the elements
lying just outside the plate may be subject to very
high shear stresses and strains, which could cause
local inaccuracies in the computed loads carried by
the plate. These edge effects can easily overwhelm
the rest of the calculations, particularly in an
axially symmetric situation. Scherman states that
the size of the clearance between the plate and the
wall of the hole is significant in practice.
Finally, these correction factors are totally in-
dependent of the tensile strength, or any other
nonlinear property, of the material. All of them
are derived from elastic solutions. The present
charts are designed to be used for situations of
importance in undrained (that is, Poisson's ratio
equal to 0.5) soils with a range of geometries in-
dicated by the numbers used in our note. When
different materials are involved, when nonlinearities
are involved, when the Poisson's ratio is not close
to 0.5, or when the geometry is very different, such
simple charts should not be used. All the analytical
results of which we are aware indicate that, for the
problems for which the original charts and these
revised charts were intended, ignoring the effect of
embedment is conservative and introduces errors
that are substantially smaller than the errors that
are already present in the entire process of deter-
mining the magnitude of the loads, the sequence
of loads, the material properties, etc.
SCHERMAN, K . A. 1970. Discussion, Session A. P~xxeedings,
Conference on In Sitrr Investigations in Soils and Rocks.
British Geotechnical Society, London, England, pp. 50-51.
'
/ J P N Corrt~ci/
I ~ I I ~ ~ C O I IO N ~ vO,r t, ~ t .C, O I I O KCI~AIOR6
t t ~~r N
meniscus small and allows the use of a standard
piston and cap; and ( b ) the volumeter consisting
of a sloping glass tube (Fig. 5 ) is considerably
more accurate than reading the change in elevation
of the meniscus with a hand telescope.
The cell used by these authors exhibits a
common but serious problem when triaxial cells