Discussers of this paper comment on the use of the stress variables q, p and - sub p and emphasize that the choice of these variables which do not account for sigma sub 2, is made in the interests of simplicity. Situations in which the influence of sigma sub 2 is small are discussed. It is noted that it is possible to extend stress paths to a soil element in the ground but there is no need to retain notations of the triaxial test. It is also observed that stress paths cannot be considered without strain paths, and that the history of soil elements and the reconstitution of samples are not sufficiently clarified in the stress path method. The authors, in their closure to the discussion, make general comments and then respond to the objections. The authors list reasons why focusing on stress path (and determining the strains associated with stress path) constitutes a better approach than attempting to focus on strain paths. Among the objections discussed are the following: "generalizations that do not apply for a variety of tests"; "stress path is of no importance in fluid flow problems"; "approximations in the stress path method do not satisfy compatibility or a stress-strain relation"; "finding stresses is difficult"; "representative undisturbed samples cannot be obtained"; "an average element cannot be accurately located"; "Stress Path Method ignores the effects of sigma sub 2, rotation of principle stresses, and time as it influences structure"; and "other stress coordinate planes are more useful".

Media Info

Subject/Index Terms

Filing Info

  • Accession Number: 00322661
  • Record Type: Publication
  • Report/Paper Numbers: ASCE 14655
  • Files: TRIS
  • Created Date: Mar 12 1981 12:00AM