In this closure to the discussion of the paper, the authors comment on the question of the relative magnitudes of side and cone resistance and state that their intention was to examine analytically the implications of some simple assumed penetration mechanisms. For each of these modes the total depth of penetration was determined as a function projectile mass, diameter, and impact velocity. The manner in which these variables entered the depth prediction function was then compared with the experimental. Although the correlation is not perfect, this comparison suggests that side resistance is the controlling mechanism. It is not suggested that the nose resistance remains constant. Rather it is considered that for the cases discussed, the nose resistance was of secondary importance. For example, assuming a nose resistance of nine times the soil cohesion (for the case illustrated), the nose resistance is less than 25 percent of total resistance at full penetration. The interpretation of the results is that the increased resistance with depth is primarily due to side resistance and that this resistance can be approximated by a linear function.

Media Info

Subject/Index Terms

Filing Info

  • Accession Number: 00261630
  • Record Type: Publication
  • Report/Paper Numbers: Proc Paper 10695
  • Files: TRIS
  • Created Date: Nov 6 1974 12:00AM