In reply to the comment of Meyerhof and Justo that the variational solution considerably over estimates the coefficient N sub gamma, the authors note that, while this may be the case for the different theories proposed for the determination of this bearing capacity factor, it is not so for actual measured values; and they cite experimental results in the literature to support their contention. They do agree that the difference between the variational solution and solutions based on the method of characteristics is probably due to the assumption of smooth failure surface used in the variational analysis, while the characteristics solutions are allowed to possess a discontinuity in the second derivative of the slip line function u (x). However, physical reality seems to be more in keeping with the smoothness assumption. This is seen not only from the comparison of N sub gamma values discussed before, but from direct observations of slip surfaces in model tests. The authors conclude by nothing that some of the objections to the paper may stem from differing definitions of "limit equilbiruim solutions". The authors' definition has its motivation in slope stability computations, whereas some discussers were refering to solutions by the method of characteristics.

  • Availability:
  • Supplemental Notes:
    • Closure of discussion of ASCE Paper 13330 (November 1977).
  • Corporate Authors:

    American Society of Civil Engineers

    345 East 47th Street
    New York, NY  United States  10017-2398
  • Authors:
    • Garber, M
    • Baker, R
  • Publication Date: 1979-5

Media Info

Subject/Index Terms

Filing Info

  • Accession Number: 00196142
  • Record Type: Publication
  • Report/Paper Numbers: ASCE 14549 Proceeding
  • Files: TRIS
  • Created Date: Oct 17 1979 12:00AM