In this closure, the authors summarize their theories about the causes of the differential settlement in the Tower's lean, as well as those of the discussors. They based their hypothesis on a greater compressibility of the Horizon A clays, silts, and sands on the south side than on the north. Cambefort has attributed the leaning to creep of the soil, while Nathan presented a case for a bearing capacity failure in the upper (Horizon A) silty sands and clays on the south side of the Tower. Local shear failure in the clay was suggested by Leonards. On the other hand, if the upper surface of the clay were truly horizontal initially and if the Tower base rotated as a rigid body, then one might expect the clay surface to heave on the north side of the Tower. A general shear failure would lead to such behaviour. It is, of course, uncertain as to whether the Tower base has remained plane.

Media Info

Subject/Index Terms

Filing Info

  • Accession Number: 00308190
  • Record Type: Publication
  • Report/Paper Numbers: ASCE 14934
  • Files: TRIS
  • Created Date: Mar 12 1981 12:00AM