SOLUTION CHARTS FOR FINITE STRAIN
above, the discussers can identify several other factors that
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Marco Ferro on 03/16/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
In addition to the problem of adequate education, as stated
CONSOLIDATION OF NORMALLY
CONSOLIDATED CLAYSa
Discussion by
Dobroslav Znidarčić,2 Member, ASCE,
and W. David Carrier III,3 Fellow, ASCE
The author is making an attempt to present solutions of a
nonlinear geotechnical problem in the form of solution charts.
The underlying analyses are sound and all the limitations of
the presented solutions are clearly stated. While the discussers
do not question the validity of the presented charts, we do
have a problem with the motivation for presenting them. The
author states that one of the factors that limited the use of the
finite strain consolidation analysis in routine geotechnical
practice is ‘‘the need for specialty computer programs, as op-
posed to conventional hand calculations.’’ Further, the author
states that the objective of the paper is the presentation of the
graphical solution charts ‘‘from which settlement and excess
pore pressures can be estimated as a function of time using
simple hand calculations.’’
In this day and age (the ‘‘computer age’’), the need for a
specialty computer program cannot be an excuse for not per-
forming a rigorous analysis. Everybody involved in the anal-
yses of consolidation problems has access to adequate com-
putational facilities, a number of numerical models for the
nonlinear finite strain consolidation are available, and some of
them are even being distributed free of charge. Thus, this can-
not be a viable excuse for not using a nonlinear theory to
address inherently nonlinear problems. The discussers do agree
with the author that the need for more information regarding
soil compressibility and hydraulic conductivity constitutive re-
lationships is a major stumbling block, primarily due to the
associated cost.
The discussers would like to offer the lack of adequate ed-
ucation as the leading cause for the limited application of the
nonlinear finite strain consolidation theory. The application of
such a theory requires a much deeper understanding of the
underlying physical principles, as well as some level of ana-
lytical abilities. It is precisely the lack of such an advanced
knowledge that prevents the application of a more rigorous
analysis, even in cases when such an analytical technique ex-
ists. Several factors affect such a state, and the nonlinear finite
strain consolidation theory is a good example for exploring
these factors.
The finite strain consolidation theory has a unique place in
geotechnical engineering, as it is one of a few, if not the only,
examples in which a circle has been closed. Over the last 30-
odd years, the rational theory has been developed and adequate
testing procedures for determining constitutive relationships
implemented. The developed technology has been extensively
verified by laboratory tests, centrifuge modeling, and finally
in field situations. The discussers attribute this success to the
effort of many researchers and to the fortuity of being able to
test the soil samples under the identical stress path to the one
being experienced in situ. Thus, the stress path dependency of
material characteristics, a major stumbling block in any geo-
technical analysis, is a non-issue in this case. Thus, there is
no excuse not to use the finite strain consolidation theory.
a
October 1999, Vol. 125, No. 10, by Patrick J. Fox (Paper 14913).
2
Assoc. Prof. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Colorado, Engrg. Ctr. OT 4-2,
Campus Box 428, Boulder, CO 80309.
3
Argila Enterprises, Inc., Lakeland, FL 33813.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2000 / 1027
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2000, 126(11): 1029-1031
contribute to the reluctance of the profession to implement a
rigorous analysis. It is safe to say that, for quite some time,
there have been suspicions in the profession towards any anal-
ysis that is more complex than the celebrated ‘‘back-of-the-
envelope’’ approach. While this suspicion is often justified,
due to the lack of reliable constitutive models, we must be
willing to recognize the advancement of our knowledge in the
cases where the research has produced tangible results. Today,
when ASCE is inclined to consider the MS degree as the first
professional degree, we should all strive to advance our
knowledge and to apply the created knowledge towards so-
lutions of geotechnical problems. Only then will we improve
our standing in society and be able to request a more equitable
remuneration for our services.
The burden of making this transition rests with both the
academicians and practitioners. The researchers in academia
should strive to prepare their discoveries for practical appli-
cations and shy away from sterile research exercises with no
connection to reality. After all, by definition, engineering re-
search should ultimately lead to the solution of some real prob-
lems. At the same time, the practitioners should also do their
part of the bargain and be willing to invest in their own edu-
cation and keep themselves current with the available tech-
nology. They should not close their eyes as soon as they en-
counter a differential equation.
Unfortunately, the discussers do not believe that this paper
makes a contribution in the right direction. Potentially, it em-
powers insufficiently educated users to perform analyses of
problems that they may not fully understand. In addition, the
paper is clear evidence that the solution of nonlinear problems
cannot and should not be presented in the form of solution
charts. In order to solve a very narrow problem, a single load
increment on a normally consolidated layer, the author needed
to generate 312 solution charts. How often is such a problem
encountered? The discussers are also concerned with a possi-
ble misuse of the solutions. A more frequent problem of soft
soil consolidation is the self-weight consolidation of hydrau-
lically placed fills in mine tailings and dredged material dis-
posal. It is probably just a question of time before an ignorant
user will try using the published charts to tackle such a prob-
lem. It will look very tempting to take the self-weight stress
in the middle of the layer as the applied load. Such a user will
certainly not be aware that the principle of superposition does
not apply to nonlinear problems.
Finally, the discussers agree with the author that the material
characteristics, especially hydraulic conductivity, have to be
carefully chosen. However, in light of that statement, the dis-
cussers consider as a major limitation the selection of Ck to
be equal to one half of the initial average void ratio. If a
computer program were used for the analysis, instead of the
solution charts, many of these limitations would be unneces-
sary. It is also likely that such a program would return an error
message when a user specifies illogical input data. Thus, un-
like the solution charts, the program would provide an addi-
tional level of protection against its misuse.
Closure by Patrick J. Fox,4
Associate Member, ASCE
The discussers express concern that: (1) the solution charts
are applicable to a narrow range of problems; (2) the assump-
4
Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., University of California,
Los Angeles, CA 90095.
 tion of Ck = eo /2 is a major limitation; and (3) the solutions
may be misused. The discussers advocate the direct use of
numerical models to avoid these perceived difficulties.
The charts are applicable for the specific, but important,
problem of consolidation of a normally consolidated clay layer
due to the application of an instantaneous surcharge. By
choosing an equivalent value for Cc, the charts can also be
used to estimate settlement and excess pore pressures for
lightly overconsolidated clays, as illustrated by the Berthier-
ville case study. The charts are thus applicable to soft natural
clay deposits. Published laboratory test results have consis-
tently shown that the Ck = eo /2 assumption is reasonable for
such conditions. The common case of a weathered crust over
a soft clay deposit can be treated using the charts by consid-
ering the crust as a stiff upper drainage layer. Cases for which
the charts are not applicable are those involving medium to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Marco Ferro on 03/16/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
heavily overconsolidated clays. However, large strains and
consequent changes in material properties during consolidation
would probably not be a serious concern in such cases. The
charts are clearly not applicable to problems involving self-
weight consolidation, as stated by the discussers and in the
paper. A numerical model and solution charts for such prob-
lems can be found in Fox (2000).
The solution charts represent a simplified tool for engineer-
ing analysis, and, as such, the potential for misuse always ex-
ists. However, the potential for misuse of an unfamiliar, un-
tested numerical model is equally great. The charts afford a
user the opportunity to check results for several test problems
to verify the accuracy of a finite strain numerical model. The
writer is of the opinion that the engineering profession is best
served when all tools, properly described and documented, are
made available.
Finally, the writer is in agreement with the discussers that
inadequate education has been a primary reason for the limited
application of finite strain consolidation theory. The solution
charts make a contribution in this context, as the trends dis-
played illustrate the effect of initial overburden stress, initial
void ratio, stress increment, and material properties on the con-
solidation response. Perhaps most importantly, the charts in-
dicate under what circumstances a numerical analysis may be
needed and when classical consolidation theory will probably
suffice.
APPENDIX. REFERENCE
Fox, P. J. (2000). ‘‘CS4: a large strain consolidation model for accreting
soil layers.’’ Geotechnics of high water content materials, ASTM STP
1374, T. B. Edil and P. J. Fox, eds., American Society for Testing and
Materials, West Conshohocken, Pa., 29–47.
SRICOS: PREDICTION OF SCOUR RATE
a Perhaps at present, the best approach is to use the ‘‘pinhole
IN COHESIVE SOILS AT BRIDGE PIERS
Discussion by Robert W. Day,7 Fellow, ASCE
The authors have prepared an interesting paper on the scour
of cohesive soils at bridge piers. In their paper, the authors
a
April 1999, Vol. 125, No. 4, by Jean-Louis Briaud, Francis C. K. Ting,
H. C. Chen, Rao Gudavalli, Suresh Perugu, and Gengsheng Wei (Paper
16535).
7
Chief Engr., American Geotech., 5764 Pacific Ctr. Blvd., Ste. 112,
San Diego, CA 92121.
1028 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2000
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2000, 126(11): 1029-1031
state: ‘‘Common sense tells us that clays scour much more
slowly than sand.’’
From the discusser’s experience, clean (uncemented) sand
and nonplastic silt are the most susceptible to erosion, with
clay being the most resistant (Day 1999). But there can be
exceptions, such as dispersive clays, which Perry (1987) de-
fines as follows:
‘‘Dispersive clays are a particular type of soil in which the
clay fraction erodes in the presence of water by a process
of deflocculation. This occurs when the interparticle forces
of repulsion exceed those of attraction so that the clay par-
ticles go into suspension and, if the water is flowing such
as in a crack in an earth embankment, the detached particles
are carried away and piping occurs.’’
According to Sherard (1972), one of the largest known areas
of dispersive clays in the United States is north-central Mis-
sissippi. The cause of failure for several earth dams has been
attributed to the piping of dispersive clays (Sherard et al. 1972;
Bourdeaux and Imaizumi 1977; Stapledon and Casinader
1977).
Besides causing the piping failure of earth dams, dispersive
clays also create unusual erosion features. McElroy (1987) de-
scribes some of the unique erosion features caused by disper-
sive clays. For example, the erosion of fill or cut slopes can
take the form of vertical or near-vertical tunnels called ‘‘jugs.’’
McElory (1987) states that these jugs may develop as a result
of small drying cracks, rodent holes, openings created by de-
caying roots, animal and vehicle tracks, or other small surface
depressions that permit rainfall or surface water to collect. The
jugs frequently consist of a small hole (often less than 25 mm)
on the surface of the cut or fill slope, and this hole can extend
to a depth of 3 m (10 ft) with a bottom diameter of 1 m (3
ft). When these jugs collapse, the slope can erode to form
severe rills and gullies.
The ‘‘pinhole test’’ is a laboratory test that can be used to
classify the clay as being either highly dispersive, moderately
dispersive, slightly dispersive, or nondispersive. The test
method consists of evaluating the erodibility of clay soils by
causing water to flow through a small hole punched through
the specimen (ASTM D 4647-93 1999).
In their analysis, the authors use the ‘‘critical shear stress,’’
which is defined as the shear stress imposed by the flowing
water on the soil when scour is initiated. In their Table 3, the
authors show that there is a wide variation in critical shear
stress for clays, with reported values varying from a high of
100 N/m2 to a low of only 0.02 N/m2. Perhaps this wide var-
iation in critical shear stress for clays is due to the dispersive
nature of the tested clays. Nondispersive clays would tend to
have a high critical shear stress, while highly dispersive clays
would have a very low or zero critical shear stress.
Because dispersive clays can develop such unusual ero-
sional features (such as ‘‘jugs’’), it would seem that the au-
thors’ proposed method cannot be used to evaluate these clays.
test’’ (ASTM D4647-93 1999) to identify highly dispersive
clays and then make sure the bridge footing is founded below
the depth of the highly dispersive clay.
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
ASTM. (1999). ‘‘Standard test method for identification and classification
of dispersive clay soils by the pinhole test.’’ ASTM D 4647-93, West
Conshohocken, Pa.
Bourdeaux, G., and Imaizumi, H. (1977). ‘‘Dispersive clay at Sabradinho
Dam.’’ Dispersive clays, related piping, and erosion in geotechnical
projects, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Consho-
hocken, Pa., 12–24.
Day, R. W. (1999). Geotechnical and foundation engineering: design and
construction, McGraw-Hill, New York.
 McElroy, C. H. (1987). ‘‘The use of chemical additives to control the
erosive behavior of dispersed clays.’’ Engineering aspects of soil ero-
sion, dispersive clays and loess, C. W. Lovell and R. L. Wiltshire, eds.,
ASCE, New York, 1–16.
Perry, E. B. (1987). ‘‘Dispersive clay erosion at Grenada Dam, Missis-
sippi.’’ Engineering aspects of soil erosion, dispersive clays and loess,
C. W. Lovell and R. L. Wiltshire, eds., ASCE, New York, 30–45.
Sherard, J. L. (1972). Study of piping failures and eroding damage from
rain in clay dams in Oklahoma and Mississippi, U.S. Dept. of Agric.,
Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
Sherard, J. L., Decker, R. S., and Ryker, N. L. (1972). ‘‘Piping in Earth
Dams of Dispersive Clay.’’ Proc., Specialty Conf. on Performance of
Earth and Earth-Supported Struct., ASCE, New York, 1, 589–626.
Stapledon, D. H., and Casinader, R. J. (1977). ‘‘Dispersive soils at Su-
garloaf Dam site near Melbourne, Australia.’’ Dispersive clays, related
piping, and erosion in geotechnical projects, ASTM, West Consho-
hocken, Pa., 432–466.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Marco Ferro on 03/16/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ify the state of effective stresses in the soil. This leads to soil
consolidation and the general subsidence of the valley. It is
worth mentioning that gravity and water withdrawal loading
mechanisms yield different preearthquake effective stresses
profiles. Henceforth, the authors’ assumption is unsuitable, be-
cause the dynamic properties depend on both the magnitude
of effective stresses and the path followed by a soil element
to reach a given effective stress state. The author uses a total
stress approach to determine the initial static stresses, with
which it is not possible to estimate correctly the preearthquake
stress and strain states. Furthermore, his interpretation of the
shear strength parameters is also dubious, as these were ob-
tained from unconsolidated undrained tests. The apparent fric-
tion angle quoted there is actually nil for the in situ conditions
under the very plausible assumption that Mexico City clays
are saturated.

Third, there exists an increasing bulk of information (i.e.,

Jaime and Romo 1988; Mendoza et al. 1998) that strongly
suggests that resonant column tests can yield larger shear mod-
ulus values than field geophysical tests. The data in Table 3,
3D ANALYSIS OF S-WAVE for example, were obtained with the P-S logging system (Kit-
zunesaki 1980), in which shear wave velocity values may be
PROPAGATION IN SOFT DEPOSITSa affected by remolding of the clay along the uncased borehole.
Fig. 13 shows a comparison of laboratory-obtained shear mod-
uli, Gol, versus in situ shear-moduli, Gof, estimations. It is ev-
Discussion by M. P. Romo,2 Member, ASCE, ident that a factor that should be considered in this issue is
soil stiffness, which also depends on stress level and stress
and E. Ovando3 path, among other factors. No doubt this deserves further in-
vestigation. Although the author says that this aspect is prob-
The attempt of the author to include gravity effects on the ably negligible, in the discussers’ view, an appropriate defi-
seismic analysis of ground deposits is plausible, and more re- nition of the dynamic stiffness of the soil deposit is of utmost
search should be focused in this direction because of its po- importance if reliable results are to be obtained.
tential influence, particularly when dealing with large struc- On the basis of the above discussion, it is fair to conclude
tures like embankment dams and liquefaction-susceptible that use of gravity-turn-on finite-element analyses to obtain the
tailings dams. In the discussers’ opinion, a broader view of preearthquake effective stresses (static stress state), as pre-
this problem would be to consider in the analytical modeling sented by the author, is inadequate for Mexico City soil de-
the preearthquake stress conditions existing in the soil struc- posits; thus, the initial conditions computed in this fashion
ture. Most existing solutions consider the initial (static) would not resemble the corresponding true field situation. Ac-
stresses by affecting the dynamic properties accordingly. This cordingly, the three-dimensional response analyses of the soil
approximation is generally justified on the grounds of sim- volume of Fig. 7 are questionable and hence the comparisons
plicity and the reasonably good results that have been obtained presented in the paper are debatable.
in a great variety of cases. However, these satisfactory results The dynamic properties of the Mexico City clay do change
should not be an excuse to pursue solutions that represent gradually with time, and the author is right in pointing that
more closely the physics of the problem, as is intended in this out. However, it is very doubtful that the changes in S-wave
paper.
Unfortunately, in this article there are a number of miscon-
ceptions regarding the nature of the general ground subsidence
of the Valley of Mexico and the dynamic behavior of the soft
materials, which render the results presented and conclusions
reached questionable.
The three reasons the author gives to encourage inclusion
of gravity effects in response analyses are conceptually mis-
leading. First, once the soil has sedimented under its own
weight (gravity forces) and other electrochemical actions, it
does not compress further, unless external agents (i.e., addi-
tional loading) become active. Thus, normally and overcon-
solidated soils, as is the case with Mexico City clays, do not
compact under their own weight, as the author suggests.
Second, the general ground subsidence of the Valley of
Mexico is not certainly caused by gravity forces, as contended
by the author. It is a consequence of the water withdrawal from
relatively shallow aquifers. This water extraction induces a
time-dependent decrease in the pore water pressures that mod-
a
September 1999, Vol. 125, No. 9, by Masahiro Iida (Paper 18274).
2
Res. Prof., Instituto de Ingeniera, UNAM, AP 70-472, Coyoacán
04510, Mexico City. E-mail: eos@pumas.iingen.unam.mx
3
Res. Prof., Instituto de Ingeniera, UNAM, AP 70-472, Coyoacán FIG. 13. Soil-Stiffness Influence on Laboratory/Field (Gol /Gof)
04510, Mexico City. E-mail: eos@pumas.iingen.unam.mx Shear Modulus Ratio [Modified from Yasuda et al. (1994)]

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2000 / 1029

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2000, 126(11): 1029-1031


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Marco Ferro on 03/16/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 14. Time Effect on Some Mexico City Clay Character-
istics
propagation times noted in Fig. 11 can be attributed to sub-
sidence. Indeed, over the time period considered in the anal-
ysis (1988–1995) the changes in the properties of the clay
will induce changes in the propagation times of only a few
hundredths of a second, according to previous analyses of
these effects (Ovando and Takahashi 1996). To illustrate this
point, the graphs in Fig. 14 show water content and volumetric
weight profiles obtained from high quality samples retrieved
a few blocks away from the Roma site. Two borings were
performed, one in 1952 and the other in 1986 (distance be-
tween borings = 1.0 m).
It also seems convenient to make the following general
comments. Regarding the 1D analyses to model ground mo-
tions, it should be mentioned that the first discusser carried
out analyses in which the time duration of the accelerograms
recorded at the University City Station was increased by add-
ing random noise. The beating effect observed in some of the
records was fairly reproduced (Romo and Jaime 1986). Thus
it did not come as a surprise when Ordaz et al. (1992) pro-
duced evidence regarding the origin of the long coda present
in some accelerograms. There is no doubt in the discussers’
mind that there must be some three-dimensional effects in the
response of the Valley of Mexico; however, 1D models have
proven to be fit to reproduce the main features of the observed
responses throughout the valley for many seismic events.
With respect to the dynamic behavior of Mexico City clay,
resonant column and triaxial tests showed that the degree of
1030 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2000
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2000, 126(11): 1029-1031
nonlinear behavior, as viewed from normalized shear modulus/
maximum shear modulus attenuation curves, was a function
of several factors, among which the most significant was the
plasticity index (Romo et al. 1988; Romo 1990, 1995). Based
on these results and the observed response at several sites, it
was concluded that nonlinear soil effects developed in many
sites during the September 19, 1985, seismic event. Thus the
loosely-used argument that Mexico City clay behaves as a lin-
early elastic material should be carefully pondered.
Finally, regarding the shear strains depicted in Fig. 12, they
seem too high for the low-intensity excitation used in the anal-
yses. In fact, they are similar, in magnitude but not in distri-
bution, to those we have computed for the September 19,
1985, earthquakes, using true nonlinear 1D analyses.
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Kitzumezaki, C. (1980). ‘‘A new method for shear wave logging.’’ Geo-
physics, 45, 10.
Mendoza, M. J., Gutiérrez, C. A., and Domı́nguez, L. (1997). ‘‘Soil dy-
namic shear modulus evaluation using resonant column tests and P-S
logging system.’’ Proc., 11th Nat. Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Mex-
ican Society for Earthquake Engineering, Veracruz, Mexico, 1, 637–
648 (in Spanish).
Ovando-Shelley, E., and Takahashi, V. (1997). ‘‘Impact of regional sub-
sidence and changing soil properties on the preservation of architec-
tonic monuments in central Mexico City.’’ Proc., Geotech. Engrg. for
the Preservation of Monuments and Historic Sites, C. Viggiani, ed.,
Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 751–757.
Romo, M. P., and Jaime, A. (1986). ‘‘Dynamic characteristics of the Mex-
ico City clay and ground seismic response.’’ Project Rep. 6504, Insti-
tute of Engineering, UNAM, Mexico City (in Spanish).
Romo, M. P., Taboada, V., and Jaime, A. (1988). ‘‘Cyclic behavior of
Mexico City clay.’’ Project Rep. 9501, Institute of Engineering,
UNAM, Mexico City (in Spanish).
Romo, M. P. (1990). ‘‘Seismic behavior of Mexico City clay and its
influence on foundation engineering.’’ Proc., Symp. on Subsoil of the
Valley of Mexico and its Relation to Found. Engrg.: Five Years after
the Earthquake, Mexican Society for Soil Mechanics, Mexico City, 83–
94 (in Spanish).
Romo, M. P. (1995). ‘‘Clay behavior, ground response and soil-structure
interaction studies in Mexico City.’’ Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on Recent
Advances in Geotech. Earthquake Engrg. and Soil Dyna., St. Louis,
Missouri, 2, 1039–1051.
Yasuda, S., Nagase, H., and Oda, S. (1994). ‘‘A study on appropriate
numbers of cyclic shear tests for seismic response analyses.’’ Proc.,
Int. Symp. on Pre-Failure Deformation Characteristics of Geomateri-
als, S. Shibuya, T. Mitachi, and S. Miura, eds., Balkema, Sapporo,
Japan, 1, 197–202.
Closure by Masahiro Iida4
I very much appreciate the valuable comments by the dis-
cusser in terms of soil mechanics. I feel that some comments
addressed in the discussion are adequate, although I do not
agree with other comments. While this paper made a new at-
tempt, there were weak points to be resolved hereafter. Some
of the weak points were described in the original paper. My
opinions regarding the discussers’ comments are as follows.
The discussers state that ‘‘The three reasons the author gives
to encourage inclusion of gravity effects in response analyses
are conceptually misleading.’’ I have a partial objection to this
comment. They stated that ‘‘First, once the soil has sedimented
under its own weight (gravity forces) and other electrochem-
ical actions, it does not compress further, unless external
agents (i.e., additional loading) become active.’’ My under-
standing is different. In the real field, ground subsidence by
gravity takes a very long time and does not reach a final stable
condition. On the other hand, the numerical simulation was
4
Earthquake Res. Inst., Univ. of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0032, Japan.
 continued until it became convergent. Besides, an artificial
horizontal plane for ground subsidence was fixed at a depth
of several tens of meters. Therefore, we should interpret that
soil after the initial static analysis suffers excessive stresses.
Next, the discussers state that ‘‘Second, the general ground
subsidence of the Valley of Mexico is not certainly caused by
the gravity forces, as contended by the author.’’ However, wa-
ter withdrawal does not occur without gravity; in fact, water
withdrawal is originally caused by gravity. The discussers’
comments on water extraction are accurate. As stated in the
original paper: ‘‘The weak point of this model is that the ef-
fects of excess pore pressures in soft, saturated clay cannot be
considered. Such consideration is beyond the scope of this
study, although the effects might be rather significant.’’
Third, the discussers raise a problem concerning soil param-
eters. On this point, I do not have any objection to the com-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Marco Ferro on 03/16/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ments given by the Mexican soil experts. I would just like to
add that the nonlinear soil parameters in Table 3 of the original
paper might have large uncertainty.
The discussers state that ‘‘On the basis of the above dis-
cussion, it is fair to conclude that use of gravity-turn-on finite-
element analyses to obtain the preearthquake effective stresses
(static stress state), as presented by the author, is inadequate
for Mexico City soil deposits; thus, the initial conditions com-
puted in this fashion would not resemble the corresponding
true field situation.’’ Taking into consideration the uncertainty
in many factors, I do not insist that the results are very ac-
curate. I am most curious about dynamic soil analysis, and
better initial conditions should be prepared for the analysis.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2000 / 1031
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2000, 126(11): 1029-1031
Although the present model has some weak points, more re-
search should be performed along this direction.
The discussers say that ‘‘it is very doubtful that the changes
in S-wave propagation times noted in Fig. 11 can be attributed
to subsidence.’’ Certainly, S-wave propagation times are re-
lated to many factors, such as shallow underground profile,
incident angles of S-waves, etc. Also, they are apparently dis-
turbed by inclusion of surface waves. In my paper, I investi-
gated the effects of gravity on ground subsidence. I believe
that S-wave propagation times are changeable, since ground
subsidence of several tens of centimeters per year has been
observed.
I agree that a 1D model is effective in many cases if seismic
waves are S-waves. However, considerable surface waves are
included in seismograms recorded in the lakebed zone.
I am not well versed in the soil nonlinearity of soft clay in
Mexico City; therefore, the discussers’ comments were instruc-
tive to me. However, soil nonlinearity was not very significant
in my paper, because large-amplitude accelerograms were not
treated.
Finally, the discussers state that ‘‘regarding the shear strains
depicted in Fig. 12, they seem too high for the low-intensity
excitation used in the analyses. In fact, they are similar, in
magnitude if not in distribution, to those the discussers have
computed for the September 19, 1985, earthquake, using true
nonlinear 1D analyses.’’ I cannot make any comment on this
point because I do not have any access to their calculations. I
can only say that large strains could be produced at the two
stations used in my paper because they are located on very
soft deposits.