By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Pressure, Resistance, and Stability of Earth - American Society of Civil Engineers: Transactions, Paper No. 1174, - Volume LXX, December 1910
Author: Meem, J. C.
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Pressure, Resistance, and Stability of Earth - American Society of Civil Engineers: Transactions, Paper No. 1174, - Volume LXX, December 1910" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.



Paper No. 1174




In the final discussion of the writer's paper, "The Bracing of Trenches
and Tunnels, With Practical Formulas for Earth Pressures,"[B] certain
minor experiments were noted in connection with the arching properties
of sand. In the present paper it is proposed to take up again the
question of earth pressures, but in more detail, and to note some
further experiments and deductions therefrom, and also to consider the
resistance and stability of earth as applied to piling and foundations,
and the pressure on and buoyancy of subaqueous structures in soft

In order to make this paper complete in itself, it will be necessary, in
some instances, to include in substance some of the matter of the former
paper, and indulgence is asked from those readers who may note this


_Experiment No. 1._--As the sand-box experiments described in the former
paper were on a small scale, exception might be taken to them, and
therefore the writer has made this experiment on a scale sufficiently
large to be much more conclusive. As shown in Fig. 1, wooden abutments,
3 ft. wide, 3 ft. apart, and about 1 ft. high, were built and filled
solidly with sand. Wooden walls, 3 ft. apart and 4 ft. high, were then
built crossing the abutments, and solidly cleated and braced frames were
placed across their ends about 2 ft. back of each abutment. A false
bottom, made to slide freely up and down between the abutments, and
projecting slightly beyond the walls on each side, was then blocked up
snugly to the bottom edges of the sides, thus obtaining a box 3 by 4 by
7 ft., the last dimension not being important. Bolts, 44 in. long, with
long threads, were run up through the false bottom and through 6 by 15
by 2-in. pine washers to nuts on the top. The box was filled with
ordinary coarse sand from the trench, the sand being compacted as
thoroughly as possible. The ends were tightened down on the washers,
which in turn bore on the compacted sand. The blocking was then knocked
out from under the false bottom, and the following was noted:

As soon as the blocking was removed the bottom settled nearly 2 in., as
noted in Fig. 1, Plate XXIV, due to the initial compacting of the sand
under the arching stresses. A measurement was taken from the bottom of
the washers to the top of the false bottom, and it was noted as 41 in.
(Fig. 1). After some three or four hours, as the arch had not been
broken, it was decided to test it under greater loading, and four men
were placed on it, four others standing on the haunches, as shown in
Fig. 2, Plate XXIV. Under this additional loading of about 600 lb. the
bottom settled 2 in. more, or nearly 4 in. in all, due to the further
compression of the sand arch. About an hour after the superimposed load
had been removed, the writer jostled the box with his foot sufficiently
to dislodge some of the exposed sand, when the arch at once collapsed
and the bottom fell to the ground.

Referring to Fig. 2, if, instead of being ordinary sand, the block
comprised within the area, _A U J V X_, had been frozen sand, there can
be no reason to suppose that it would not have sustained itself, forming
a perfect arch, with all material removed below the line, _V E J_, in
fact, the freezing process of tunneling in soft ground is based on this
well-known principle.

[Illustration: FIG. 2.]

[Illustration: FIG. 3.]

If, then, instead of removing the mass, _J E V_, it is allowed to remain
and is supported from the mass above, one must concede to this mass in
its normal state the same arching properties it would have had if
frozen, excepting, of course, that a greater thickness of key should be
allowed, to offset a greater tendency to compression in moist and dry as
against frozen sand, where both are measured in a confined area.

If, in Fig. 2, _E V J_ = [phi] = the angle of repose, and it be assumed
that _A J_, the line bisecting the angle between that of repose and the
perpendicular, measures at its intersection with the middle vertical
(_A_, Fig. 2) the height which is necessary to give a sufficient
thickness of key, it may be concluded that this sand arch will be
self-sustaining. That is, it is assumed that the arching effect is taken
up virtually within the limits of the area, _A N_{1} V E J N A_, thus
relieving the structure below of the stresses due to the weight or
thrust of any of the material above; and that the portion of the
material below _V E J_ is probably dead weight on any structure
underneath, and when sustained from below forms a natural "centering"
for the natural arch above. It is also probably true that the material
in the areas, _X N_{1} A_ and _A N U_, does not add to the arching
strength, more especially in those materials where cohesion may not be
counted on as a factor. This is borne out by the fact that, in the
experiment noted, a well-defined crack developed on the surface of the
sand at about the point _U_{1}_, and extended apparently a considerable
depth, assumed to be at _N_, where the haunch line is intersected by the
slope line from _A_.



In this experiment the sand was good and sharp, containing some gravel,
and was taken directly from the adjoining excavation. When thrown
loosely in a heap, it assumed an angle of repose of about 45 degrees. It
should be noted that this material when tested was not compacted as
much, nor did it possess the same cohesion, as sand in its normal
undisturbed condition in a bank, and for this reason it is believed that
the depth of key given here is absolutely safe for all except
extraordinary conditions, such as non-homogeneous material and others
which may require special consideration.

Referring again to the area, _A N_{1} V J N A_, Fig. 2, it is probable
that, while self-sustaining, some at least of the lower portion must
derive its initial support from the "centering" below, and the writer
has made the arbitrary assumption that the lower half of it is carried
by the structure while the upper half is entirely independent of it,
and, in making this assumption, he believes he is adding a factor of
safety thereto. The area, then, which is assumed to be carried by an
underground structure the depth of which is sufficient to allow the
lines, _V A_ and _J A_, to intersect below the surface, is the lower
half of _A N_{1} V E J N A_, or its equivalent, _A V E J A_, plus the
area, _V E J_, or _A V J A_, the angle, _A V J_, being

           1                                   [phi]
[alpha] = --- ( 90° - [phi] ) + [phi] = 45° + -------.
           2                                     2

It is not probable that these lines of thrust or pressure transmission,
_A N_, _D K_, etc., will be straight, but, for purposes of calculation,
they will be assumed to be so; also, that they will act along and
parallel to the lines of repose of their natural slope, and that the
thrust of the earth will therefore be measured by the relation between
the radius and the tangent of this angle multiplied by the weight of
material affected. The dead weight on a plane, _V J_, due to the
material above, is, therefore, where

    _l_ = span or extreme width of opening = _V J_,
    _W_ = weight per cubic foot of material, and
    _W_{1}_ = weight per linear foot.

           2 × (_l_ / 2) tan. [alpha] × _W_
_W_{1}_ = ---------------------------------- =
     1            / 1                       \
    --- _l_ tan. { --- (90° - [phi]) + [phi] } _W_ =
     2            \ 2                       /

     _l_                [phi]
    ----- tan. ( 45° + ------- ) _W_.
      2                   2

The application of the above to flat-arched or circular tunnels is very
simple, except that the question of side thrust should be considered
also as a factor. The thrust against the side of a tunnel in dry sand
having a flat angle of repose will necessarily be greater than in very
moist sand or clay, which stands at a much steeper angle, and, for the
same reason, the arch thrust is greater in dryer sand and therefore the
load on a tunnel structure should not be as great, the material being
compact and excluding cohesion as a factor. This can be illustrated by
referring to Fig. 3 in which it is seen that the flatter the position of
the "rakers" keying at _W_{1}_, _W_{2}_, and _W_, the greater will be
the side thrust at _A_, _C_, and _F_. It can also be illustrated by
assuming that the arching material is composed of cubes of polished
marble set one vertically above the other in close columns. There would
then be absolutely no side thrust, but, likewise, no arching properties
would be developed, and an indefinite height would probably be reached
above the tunnel roof before friction enough would be developed to cause
it to relieve the structure of any part of its load. Conversely, if it
be assumed that the superadjacent material is composed of large bowling
balls, interlocking with some degree of regularity, it can be seen that
those above will form themselves into an arch over the "centering" made
up of those supported directly by the roof of the structure, thus
relieving the structure of any load except that due to this "centering."

If, now, the line, _A B_, in Fig. 4, be drawn so as to form with _A C_
the angle, [beta], to be noted later, and it be assumed that it measures
the area of pressure against _A C_, and if the line, _C F_, be drawn,
forming with _C G_, the angle, [alpha], noted above, then _G F_ can be
reduced in some measure by reason of the increase of _G C_ to _C B_,
because the side thrust above the line, _B C_, has slightly diminished
the loading above. The writer makes the arbitrary assumption that this
decrease in _G F_ should equal 20% of _B C_ = _F D_{1}_. If, then, the
line, _B D_{1}_ be drawn, it is conceded that all the material within
the area, _A B D_{1} G C A_, causes direct pressure against or upon the
structure, _G C A_, the vertical lines being the ordinates of pressure
due to weight, and the horizontal lines (qualified by certain ratios)
being the abscissas of pressure due to thrust. An extreme measurement of
this area of pressure is doubtless approximately more nearly a curve
than the straight lines given, and the curve, _A R T I D_{II}_, is
therefore drawn in to give graphically and approximately the safe area
of which any vertical ordinate, multiplied by the weight, gives the
pressure on the roof at that point, and any horizontal line, or
abscissa, divided by the tangent of the angle of repose and multiplied
by the weight per foot, gives the pressure on the side at that point.

[Illustration: FIG. 4.]

The practical conclusion of this whole assumption is that the material
in the area, _F E C B B_{1}_, forms with the equivalent opposite area an
arch reacting against the face, _C B B_{1}_ and that, as heretofore
noted, the lower half (or its equivalent, _B D_{1} G B_) of the weight
of this is assumed to be carried by the structure, the upper half being
self-sustaining, as shown by the line, _B_{III} D_{IV}_ (or, for
absolute safety, the curved line), and therefore, if rods could be run
from sheeting inside the tunnel area to a point outside the line, _F
B_{1}_, as indicated by the lines, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, etc., that
the internal bracing of this tunnel could be omitted, or that the tunnel
itself would be relieved of all loading, whereas these rods would be
carrying some large portion at least of the weight within the area
circumscribed by the curve, _D_{II} I T G_, and further, that a tunnel
structure of the approximate dimensions shown would carry its maximum
load with the surface of the ground between _D_{IV}_ and _F_, beyond
which point the pressure would remain the same for all depths.

In calculating pressures on circular arches, the arched area should
first be graphically resolved into a rectangular equivalent, as in the
right half of Fig. 4, proceeding subsequently as noted.

The following instances are given as partial evidence that in ordinary
ground, not submerged, the pressures do not exceed in any instance those
found by the above methods, and it is very probable that similar
instances or experiences have been met by every engineer engaged in
soft-ground tunneling:

In building the Bay Ridge tunnel sewer, in 62d and 64th Streets,
Brooklyn, the arch timber bracing shown in Fig. 1, Plate XXVI, was used
for more than 4,000 ft., or for two-thirds of the whole 5,800 ft. called
for in the contract. The external width of opening, measured at the
wall-plate, averaged about 19 ft. for the 14½-ft. circular sewer and 19½
ft. for the 15-ft. sewer. The arch timber segments in the cross-section
were 10 by 12-in. North Carolina pine of good grade, with 2 in. off the
butt for a bearing to take up the thrust. They were set 5 ft. apart on
centers, and rested on 6 by 12-in. wall-plates of the same material as
noted above. The ultimate strength of this material, across the grain,
when dry and in good condition, as given by the United States Forestry
Department tests is about 1,000 lb. in compression. Some tests[C] made
in 1907 by Mr. E.F. Sherman for the Charles River Dam in Boston, Mass.,
show that in yellow pine, which had been water-soaked for two years,
checks began to open at from 388 to 581 lb. per sq. in., and that yields
of ¼ in. were noted at from 600 to 1,000 lb. As the tunnel wall-plates
described in this paper were subject to occasional saturation, and
always to a moist atmosphere, they could never have been considered as
equal to dry material. Had the full loading shown by the foregoing
come on these wall-plates, they would have been subjected to a stress of
about 25 tons each, or nearly one-half of their ultimate strength. In
only one or two instances, covering stretches of 100 ft. in one case and
200 ft. in another, where there were large areas of quicksand sufficient
to cause semi-aqueous pressure, or pockets of the same material causing
eccentric loading, did these wall-plates show any signs of heavy
pressure, and in many instances they were in such good condition that
they could be taken out and used a second and a third time. Two
especially interesting instances came under the writer's observation: In
one case, due to a collapse of the internal bracing, the load of an
entire section, 25 ft. long and 19 ft. wide, was carried for several
hours on ribs spaced 5 ft. apart. The minimum cross-section of these
ribs was 73 sq. in., and they were under a stress, as noted above, of
50,000 lb., or nearly up to the actual limit of strength of the
wall-plate where the rib bore on it. When these wall-plates were
examined, after replacing the internal bracing, they did not appear to
have been under any unusual stress.



In another instance, for a distance of more than 700 ft., the sub-grade
of the sewer was 4 ft. below the level of the water in sharp sand. In
excavating for "bottoms" the water had to be pumped at the rate of more
than 300 gal. per min., and it was necessary to close-sheet a trench
between the wall-plates in which to place a section of "bottom." In
spite of the utmost care, some ground was necessarily lost, and this was
shown by the slight subsidence of the wall-plates and a loosening up of
the wedges in the supports bearing on the arch timbers. During this
operation of "bottoming," two men on each side were constantly employed
in tightening up wedges and shims above the arch timbers. It is
impossible to explain the fact that these timbers slackened (without
proportionate roof settlement) by any other theory than that the arching
was so nearly perfect that it relieved the bracing of a large part of
the load, the ordinary loose material being held in place by the arching
or wedging together of the 2-in. by 3-ft. sheeting boards in the roof,
arranged in the form of a segmental arch. The material above this roof
was coarse, sharp sand, through which it had been difficult to tunnel
without losing ground, and it had admitted water freely after each rain
until the drainage of a neighboring pond had been completed, the men
never being willing to resume work until the influx of water had

The foregoing applies only to material ordinarily found under ground not
subaqueous, or which cannot be classed as aqueous or semi-aqueous
material. These conditions will be noted later.

[Illustration: FIG. 5.]

[Illustration: FIG. 6.]

The writer will take up next the question of pressures against the faces
of sheeted trenches or retaining walls, in material of the same
character as noted above. Referring to Fig. 2, it is not reasonable to
suppose that having passed the line, _R F J_, the character of the
stresses due to the thrust of the material will change, if bracing
should be substituted for the material in the area, _W V J R_, or if, as
in Fig. 3, canvas is rolled down along the lines, _E G_ and _A O_, and
if, as this section is excavated between the canvas faces, temporary
struts are erected, there is no reason to believe that with properly
adjusted weights at _W_ or _W_{2}_, an exact equilibrium of forces and
conditions cannot be obtained. Or, again, if, as in Fig. 5, the face,
_P Q_, is sheeted and rodded back to the surface, keying the rods taut,
there is undoubtedly a stable condition and one which could not fail in
theory or practice, nor can anyone, looking at Fig. 5, doubt that the
top timbers are stressed more heavily than those at the bottom. The
assumption is that the tendency of the material to slide toward the toe
causes it to wedge itself between the face of the sheeting on the one
hand and some plane between the sheeting and the plane of repose on the
other, and that the resistance to this tendency will cause an arching
thrust to be developed along or parallel to the lines, _A N_, _B M_,
etc., Fig. 2, which are assumed to be the lines of repose, or curves
approximating thereto. As the thrust is greatest in that material
directly at the face, _A O_, Fig. 6, and is nothing at the plane of
repose, _C O_, it may be assumed arbitrarily that the line, _B O_,
bisecting this angle divides this area into two, in one of which the
weight resolves itself wholly into thrust, the other being an area of no
thrust, or wholly of weight bearing on the plane of repose. Calling this
line, _B O_, the haunch line, the thrust in the area, _A O B_, is
measured by its weight divided by the tangent of the angle,
_P Q R_ = [phi], which is the angle of repose; that is, the thrust at
any given point, _R_ = _R Q_ ÷ tan. [phi].

The writer suggests that, in those materials which have steeper angles
of repose than 45°, the area of pressure may be calculated as above, the
thrust being computed, however, as for an angle of 45 degrees.

In calculating the bending moment against a wall or bracing, there is
the weight of the mass multiplied by the distance of its center of
gravity vertically above the toe, or, approximately:

Area, _A O B_ × weight per unit × --- height,

where _h_ = height,

_W_ = weight per cubic foot of material = 90 lb.,

              90° - [phi]
and [beta] = -------------

_P_ = pressure per linear foot (vertically),

                  _h_                         2
then _P_ = _h_ × ----- (tan. [beta]) × _W_ × --- _h_ =
                   2                          3
    --- _h^{3}_ _W_ tan. [beta].

When the angle of repose, [phi], is less than 45°, this result must be
reduced by dividing by tan. [phi]; that is,

_h_ = --- _h^{3}_ tan. [beta] ÷ tan. [phi].

Figs. 1 and 2, Plate XXV, show recently excavated banks of gravel and
sand, which, standing at a general angle of 45°, were in process of
"working," that is, there was continual slipping down of particles of
the sand, and it may be well to note that in time, under exposure to
weather conditions, these banks would finally assume a slope of about 33
degrees. They are typical, however, as showing the normal slope of
freshly excavated sandy material, and a slope which may be used in
ordinary calculations. The steps seen in Plate XXV show the different
characteristics of ground in close proximity. In Fig. 2, Plate XXVI,[D]
may be seen a typical bank of gravel and sand; it shows the well-defined
slope of sand adjacent to and in connection with the cohesive properties
of gravel.

The next points to be considered are the more difficult problems
concerning subaqueous or saturated earths. The writer has made some
experiments which appear to be conclusive, showing that, except in pure
quicksand or wholly aqueous material, as described later, the earth and
water pressures act independently of each other.

For a better understanding of the scope and purpose of this paper, the
writer divides supersaturated or subaqueous materials into three

_Class A._--Firm materials, such as coarse and fine gravels, gravel and
sands mixed, coarse sands, and fine sands in which there is not a large
proportion of fine material, such as loam, clay, or pure quicksand.

_Class B._--Semi-aqueous materials, such as fine sands in which there is
a large proportion of clay, etc., pure clays, silts, peats, etc.

_Class C._--Aqueous materials, such as pure quicksands, in which the
solid matter is so finely divided that it is amorphous and virtually
held in suspension, oils, quicksilver, etc.

Here it may be stated that the term, "quicksand," is so illusive that a
true definition of it is badly needed. Many engineers call quicksand any
sand which flows under the influence of water in motion. The writer
believes the term should be applied only to material so "soupy" that its
properties are practically the same as water under static conditions, it
being understood that any material may be unstable under the influence
of water at sufficiently high velocities, and that it is with a static
condition, or one approximately so, that this paper deals.

A clear understanding of the firm materials noted in Class A will lead
to a better solution of problems dealing with those under Class B, as it
is to this Class A that the experiments largely relate.

The experiments noted below were made with varying material, though the
principal type used was a fine sand, under the conditions in which it is
ordinarily found in excavations, with less than 40% voids and less than
10% of very fine material.

[Illustration: FIG. 7.]

_Experiment No. 2._--The first of these experiments, which in this
series will be called No. 2, was simple, and was made in order to show
that this material does not flow readily under ordinary conditions, when
not coupled with the discharge of water under high velocity. A bucket 12
in. in diameter, containing another bucket 9 in. in diameter, was used.
A 6 by 6-in. hole was cut in the bottom of the inner bucket. About 3 in.
of sand was first placed in the bottom of the larger bucket and it was
partly filled with water. The inside bucket was then given a false
bottom and partly filled with wet sand, resting on the sand in the
larger bucket. Both were filled with water, and the weight, _W_, Fig. 7,
on the arm was shifted until it balanced the weight of the inside bucket
in the water, the distance of the weight, _W_, from the pivot being
noted. The false bottom was then removed and the inside bucket, resting
on the sand in the larger one, was partly filled with sand and both were
filled with water, the conditions at the point of weighing being exactly
the same, except that the false bottom was removed, leaving the sand in
contact through the 6 by 6-in. opening. It is readily seen that, if the
sand had possessed the aqueous properties sometimes attributed to sand
under water, that in the inside bucket would have flowed out through the
square hole in the bottom, allowing it to be lifted by any weight in
excess of the actual weight of the bucket, less its buoyancy, as would
be the case if it contained only water instead of sand and water. It was
found, however, that the weight, resting at a distance of more than
nine-tenths of the original distance from the pivot, would not raise the
inside bucket. On lifting this inside bucket bodily, however, the water
at once forced the sand out through the bottom, leaving a hole almost
exactly the shape and size of the bottom orifice, as shown in Fig. 1,
Plate XXVII. It should be stated that, in each case, the sand was put in
in small handfuls and thoroughly mixed with water, but not packed, and
allowed to stand for some time before the experiments were tried, to
insure the compactness of ordinary conditions. It is seen from Fig. 1,
Plate XXVII, that the sand was stable enough to allow the bucket to be
put on its side for the moment of being photographed, although it had
been pulled out of the water a little less than 3 min.



_Experiment No. 3._--In order to show that the arching properties of
sand are not destroyed under subaqueous conditions, a small sand-box,
having a capacity of about 1 cu. ft., and similar to that described in
Experiment No. 1, was made. The bottom was cut out, with the exception
of a ¾-in. projection on two sides, and a false bottom was placed below
and outside of the original bottom, with bolts running through it,
keying to washers on top of the sand, with which the box was partly
filled. One side of the box contained a glass front, in order that
conditions of saturation could be observed. The box of sand was then
filled with water and, after saturation had been completed and the nuts
and washers had been tightened down, the box was lifted off the floor.
There was found to be no tendency whatever for the bottom to fall away,
showing conclusively that the arching properties had not been destroyed
by the saturation of the sand.

The next three experiments were intended to show the relative pressure
over any given area in contact with the water in the one case or sand
and water in the other.

[Illustration: FIG. 8.]

_Experiment No. 4._--The apparatus for this experiment consisted of a
3-in. pipe about 4-in. long and connected with a ¾-in. goose-neck pipe
17 in. high above the top of the bowl shown in Fig. 8 and in Fig. 2,
Plate XXVII. A loose rubber valve was intended to be seated on the upper
face of the machined edge of the bowl and weighted down sufficiently to
balance it against a head of water corresponding to the 17-in. head in
the goose-neck. The bowl was then to be filled with sand and the
difference, if any, noted between the weight required to hold the
flap-valve down under the same head of water flowing through the sand.
The results of this experiment were not conclusive, owing to the
difficulty of making contact over the whole area of the sand and the rim
of the bowl at the same time. At times, for instance, less than 1 lb.
would hold back the water indefinitely, while, again, 2 or 3 lb. would
be required as opposed to the 4½ lb. approximate pressure required to
hold down the clear water. Again, at times the water would not flow
through the neck at all, even after several hours, and after increasing
the head by attaching a longer rubber tube thereto. In view of these
conditions, this experiment would not be noted here, except that it
unexpectedly developed one interesting fact. In order to insure against
a stoppage of water, as above referred to, gravel was first put into the
bottom of the bowl and the flap-valve was then rubbed down and held
tightly while the pipe was filled. On being released, the pressure of
water invariably forced out the whole body of sand, as shown in Fig. 2,
Plate XXVII. Care was taken to see that the sand was saturated in each
case, and the experiment was repeated numberless times, and invariably
with the same result. The sand contained about 40% of voids. The
deduction from this experiment is that the pressure of water is against
rather than through sand and that any excess of voids occurring adjacent
to a face against which there is pressure of water will be filled with
sand, excepting in so far, of course, as the normal existing voids allow
the pressure of the water to be transmitted through them.



If, then, the covering of sand over a structure is sufficiently heavy to
allow arching action to be set up, the structure against which the
pressure is applied must be relieved of much of the pressure of water
against the area of sand not constituted as voids acting outside of the
arching area. This is confirmed by the two following experiments:

_Experiment No. 5._--The same apparatus was used here as in Experiment
No. 2, Fig. 7, except that the inside bucket had a solid bottom. The
inside and outside buckets were filled with water and the point was
noted at which the weight would balance the inside bucket at a point
some 3 in. off the bottom of the outside bucket. This point was
measured, and the bottom of the larger bucket was covered over with sand
so that in setting solidly in the sand the inside bucket would occupy
the same relative position as it did in the water. The same weight was
then applied and would not begin to lift the inner bucket. For instance,
in the first part of the experiment the weight stood at 12 in. from the
pivot, while in the next step the weight, standing at the end of the
bar, had no effect, and considerable external pressure had to be exerted
before the bucket could be lifted. Immediately after it was relieved,
however, the weight at 12 in. would hold it clear of the sand. No
attempt was made to work the bucket into the sand; the sand was leveled
up and the bucket was seated on it, turned once or twice to insure
contact, and then allowed to stand for some time before making the
experiment. No attempt was made to establish the relationship between
sands of varying voids, the general fact only being established, by a
sufficient number of experiments, that the weight required to lift the
bucket was more than double in sand having 40% of voids than that
required to lift the bucket in water only.

[Illustration: FIG. 9.]

_Experiment No. 6._--The apparatus for this experiment consisted
essentially of a hydraulic chamber about 8 in. in diameter and 1 ft.
high, the top being removable and containing a collar with suitable
packing, through which a 2½-in. piston moved freely up and down, the
whole being similar to the cylinder and piston of a large hydraulic
jack, as shown in Fig. 1, Plate XXVIII. Just below the collar and above
the chamber there was a ½-in. inlet leading to a copper pipe and thence
to a high-pressure pump. Attached to this there was a gauge to show the
pressure obtained in the chamber, all as shown in Fig. 9. The purpose of
the apparatus was to test the difference in pressure on any object
submerged in clear water and on the same object buried in the sand under
water. It is readily seen that, if pressure be applied to the water in
this chamber, the amount of pressure (as measured by the gauge)
necessary to lift the piston will be that due to the weight of the
piston, less its displacement, plus the friction of the piston in the



Now, if for any reason the bottom area of the piston against which the
water pressure acts be reduced, it will necessarily require a
proportionate amount of increase in the pressure to lift this piston.
If, therefore, it is found that 10 lb., for illustration, be required to
lift the piston when plunged in clear water, and 20 lb. be required to
lift it when buried in sand, it can be assumed at once that the area of
the piston has been reduced 50% by being buried in the sand, eliminating
the question of the friction of the sand itself around the piston. In
order to determine what this friction might be, the writer arranged a
table standing on legs above the bottom of the chamber, allowing the
piston to move freely through a hole in its center. Through this table
pipes were entered (as shown in part of Fig. 9). The whole was then
placed in the chamber with the piston in place, and the area above was
filled with sand and water. It is thus seen that, the end of the piston
being free and in clear water, the difference, if any, between the
pressure required to lift the piston when in clear water alone and in
the case thus noted, where it was surrounded by sand, would measure the
friction of the sand on the piston. After several trials of this,
however, it was clearly seen that the friction was too slight to be
noted accurately by a gauge registering single pounds, that is, with a
piston in contact with 6 in. of sand vertically, a friction of 25 lb.
per sq. ft. would only require an increase of 1.8 lb. on the gauge. It
is therefore assumed that the friction on so small a piston in sand need
not be considered as a material factor in the experiments made.

The piston was plunged into clear water, and it was found that the
pressure required to lift it was about 4 lb. The cap was then taken off,
a depth of about 2 in. of sand was placed in the bottom of the chamber,
and then the piston was set in place and surrounded by sand to a depth
of some 6 in., water being added so that the sand was completely
saturated. This was allowed to stand until it had regained the stability
of ordinary sand in place, whereupon the cap with the collar bearing was
set in place over the piston, the machine was coupled up, and the pump
was started. A series of four experiments, extending over a period of
two or three days, gave the following results:

_Test 1._--The piston began to move at a pressure of 25 lb. The pressure
gradually dropped to 7½ lb., at which point, apparently, it came out of
the sand, and continued at 7½ lb. during the remainder of the test.

_Test 2._--The piston was plunged back into the sand, without removing
the cap, and allowed to stand for about 2 hours. No attempt was made to
pack the sand or to see its condition around the piston, it being
presumed, however, that it had reasonable time to get a fair amount of
set. At slightly above 20 lb. the piston began to move, and as soon as a
pocket of water accumulated behind the piston the pressure immediately
dropped to 9 lb. and continued at this point until it came out of the

_Test 3._--The piston was plunged into the sand and hammered down
without waiting for the sand to come to a definite set. In this case the
initial pressure shown by the gauge was 17½ lb., which immediately
dropped to 8 lb. as soon as the piston had moved sufficiently far to
allow water to accumulate below it.

_Test 4._--The cap was again removed, the piston set up in place, the
sand compacted around it in approximately the same condition it would
have had if the sand had been in place underground; the cap was then set
in place and, after an hour, the pump was started. The pressure
registered was 25 lb. and extended over a period of several seconds
before there was any movement in the piston. The piston responded
finally without any increase of pressure, and, after lifting an inch or
two, the pressure gradually dropped to 10 lb., where it remained until
the piston came out of the sand.

The sum and average of these tests shows a relation of 22 lb. for the
piston in sand to about 8½ lb. as soon as the volume of water had
accumulated below it, which would correspond very closely to a sand
containing 40% of voids, which was the characteristic of the sand used
in this experiment.

The conclusions from this experiment appear to be absolutely final in
illustrating the pressure due to water on a tunnel buried in sand,
either on the arch above or on the sides or bottom, as well as the
buoyant effect upon the tunnel bottom under the same conditions.

While the apparatus would have to be designed and built on a much larger
scale in order to measure accurately the pressures due to sands and
earths of varying characteristics, it appears to be conclusive in
showing the principle, and near enough to the theoretical value to be
taken for practical purposes in designing structures against water
pressures when buried in sand or earth.

It should be carefully noted that the friction of the water through
sand, which is always a large factor in subaqueous construction, is
virtually eliminated here, as the water pressure has to be transmitted
only some 6 or 8 in. to actuate the base of the piston, whereas in a
tunnel only half submerged this distance might be as many feet, and
would be a considerable factor.

It should be noted also that although the area subject to pressure is
diminished, the pressure on the area remaining corresponds to the full
hydrostatic head, as would be shown by the pressure on an air gauge
required to hold back the water, except, of course, as it may be
diminished more or less by friction.

The writer understands that experiments of a similar nature and with
similar apparatus have been tried on clays and peats with results
considerably higher; that is, in one case, there was a pressure of 40
lb. before the piston started to move.

The following is given, in part, as an analysis and explanation of the
above experiments and notes:

It is well known that if lead be placed in a hydraulic press and
subjected to a sufficient pressure it will exhibit properties somewhat
similar to soft clay or quicksand under pressure. It will flow out of an
orifice or more than one orifice at the same pressure. This is due to
the fact that practically voids do not exist and that the pressure is so
great, compared with the molecular cohesion, that the latter is
virtually nullified. It is also theoretically true that solid stone
under infinitely high pressure may be liquefied. If in the cylinder of a
hydraulic press there be put a certain quantity of cobblestones, leaving
a clearance between the top of the stone and the piston, and if this
space, together with the voids, be filled with water and subjected to a
great pressure, the sides or the walls of the cylinder are acted on by
two pressures, one almost negligible, where they are in contact with the
stone, restraining the tendency of the stone to roll or slide outward,
and the other due to the pressure of the water over the area against
which there is no contact of stone. That this area of contact should be
deducted from the pressure area can be clearly shown by assuming another
cylinder with cross-sticks jammed into it, as shown in Fig. 10. A glance
at this figure will show that there is no aqueous pressure on the walls
of the cylinder with which the ends of the sticks come in contact and
the loss of the pressure against the walls due to this is equal to the
least sectional area of the stick or tube either at the point of contact
or intermediate thereto.

Following this reasoning, in Fig. 11 it is found that an equivalent area
may be deducted covering the least area of continuous contact of the
cobblestones, as shown along the dotted lines in the right half of the
figure. Returning, if, when the pressure is applied, an orifice be made
in the cylinder, the water will at once flow out under pressure,
allowing the piston to come in contact with the cobblestones. If the
flow of the water were controlled, so as to stop it at the point where
the stone and water are both under direct pressure, it would be found
that the pressures were totally independent of each other. The aqueous
pressure, for instance, would be equal at every point, while the
pressure on the stone would be through and along the lines of contact.
If this contact was reasonably well made and covered 40% of the area,
one would expect the stone, independently of the water, to stand 40% of
the pressure which a full area of solid stone would stand. If this
pressure should be enormously increased after excluding the water, it
would finally result in crushing the stone into a solid mass; and if the
pressure should be increased indefinitely, some theoretical point would
be reached, as above noted, where the stone would eventually be
liquefied and would assume liquid properties.

[Illustration: FIG. 10.]

[Illustration: FIG. 11.]

The same general reasoning applies to pure sand, sand being in effect
cobblestones in miniature. In pressing the piston down on dry sand it
will be displaced into every existing abnormal void, but will be
displaced into these voids rather than pressed into them, in the true
definition of the word, and while it would flow out of an orifice in the
sides or bottom, allowing the piston to be forced down as in a
sand-jack, it would not flow out of an orifice in the top of the piston,
except under pressures so abnormally high as to make the mass
theoretically aqueous. If the positions of cylinder and piston be
reversed, the piston pointing vertically upward and the sand "bled" into
an orifice in or through it, the void caused by the outflow of this sand
would be filled by sand displaced by the piston pressing upward rather
than by sand from above.

It was the knowledge of this principle which enabled the contractors to
jack up successfully the roof of a long section of the cast-iron lined
tubes under Joralemon Street in Brooklyn, in connection with the
reconstruction of the Battery tubes at that point, the method of
operation, as partly shown in Fig. 2, Plate XXVIII, being to cut through
a section of the roof, 4 by 10 ft. in area, through which holes were
drilled and through which again the sand was "bled," heavy pressure
being applied from below through the medium of hydraulic jacks. By a
careful manipulation of both these operations, sections of the roof of
the above dimensions were eventually raised the required height of 30
in. and permanently braced there in a single shift.

If water in excess be put into a cylinder containing sand, and pressure
be applied thereto, the water, if allowed to flow out of an orifice,
will carry with it a certain quantity of sand, according to the
velocity, and the observation of this might easily give rise to the
erroneous impression that the sand, as well as the water, was flowing
out under pressure, and, as heretofore stated, has caused many engineers
and contractors to apply the term "quicksand" to any sand flowing
through an orifice with water.

Sand in its natural bed always contains some fine material, and where
this is largely less than the percentage of voids, it has no material
effect on the pressure exerted by the sand with or without water, as
above noted. If, however, this fine material be largely in excess of the
voids, it allows greater initial compression to take place when dry, and
allows to be set up a certain amount of hydraulic action when saturated.
If the base of the material be sand and the fill be so-called quicksand
in excess of the voids, pressure will cause the quicksand to set up
hydraulic action, and the action of the piston will appear to be similar
to that of a piston acting on purely aqueous material.

Just here the writer desires to protest against considering semi-aqueous
masses, such as soupy sands, soft concrete, etc., as exerting
hydrostatic pressure due to their weight in bulk, instead of to the
specific gravity of the basic liquid. For instance, resorting again to
the illustration of cubes and spheres, it may be assumed that a cubical
receptacle has been partly filled with small cubes of polished marble,
piled vertically in columns. When this receptacle is filled with liquid
around the piles of cubes there will be no pressure on the sides except
that due to the hydrostatic pressure of the water at 62½ lb. The bottom,
however, will resist a combined pressure due to the water and the weight
of the cubes. Again, assume that the receptacle is filled with small
spheres, such as marbles, and that water is then poured in. The pressure
due to the weight of the solids on the bottom is relieved by the loss in
weight of the marbles due to the water, and also to the tendency of the
marbles to arch over the bottom, and while the pressure on the sides is
increased by this amount of thrust, the aqueous pressure is still that
of a liquid at 62½ lb., and it is inconceivable that some engineers, in
calculating the thrust of aqueous masses, speak of it as a liquid
weighing, say, 120 or 150 lb. per cu. ft.; as well might they expect to
anchor spherical copper floats in front of a bulkhead and expect the
hydrostatic pressure against this bulkhead to be diminished because the
actual volume and weight of the water directly in front of the bulkhead
has been diminished. Those who have had experience in tying narrow deep
forms for concrete with small wires or bolts and quickly filling them
with liquid concrete, must realize that no such pressures are ever
developed as would correspond to liquids of 150 lb. per cu. ft. If the
solid material in any liquid is agitated, so that it is virtually in
suspension, it cannot add to the pressure, and if allowed to subside it
acts as a solid, independently of the water contained with it, although
the water may change somewhat the properties of the material, by
increasing or changing its cohesion, angle of repose, etc. That is, in
substance, those particles which rest solidly on the bottom and are in
contact to the top of the solid material, do not derive any buoyancy
from the water, while those particles not in contact with the bottom
directly or through other particles, lose just so much weight through
buoyancy. If, then, the vertical depth of the earthy particles or sand
above the bottom is so small that the arching effect against the sides
is negligible, the full weight of the particles in contact, directly or
vicariously, with the bottom acts as pressure on the bottom, while the
full pressure of the water acts through the voids or on them, or is
transmitted through material in contact with the bottom.

Referring now to materials such as clays, peats, and other soft or
plastic materials, it is idle to assume that these do not possess
pressure-resisting and arching properties. For instance, a soft clay
arch of larger dimensions, under the condition described early in this
paper, would undoubtedly stand if the rods supporting the intrados of
the arch were keyed back to washers covering a sufficiently large area.

The fact that compressed air can be used at all in tunnel work is
evidence that semi-aqueous materials have arching properties, and the
fact that "blows" usually occur in light cover is further evidence of

When air pressure is used to hold back the water in faces of large area,
bracing has to be resorted to. This again shows that while full
hydrostatic pressure is required to hold back the water, the pressure of
the earth is in a measure independent of it.

In a peaty or boggy material there is a condition somewhat different,
but sufficiently allied to the soft clayey or soupy sands to place it
under the same head in ordinary practice. It is undoubtedly true that
piles can be driven to an indefinite depth in this material, and it is
also true that the action of the pile is to displace rather than
compress, as shown by the fact of driving portions of the tunnels under
the North River for long distances without opening the doors of the
shield or removing any of the material. The case of filling in bogs or
marshes, causing them to sink at the point of filling and rise
elsewhere, is readily explained by the fact that the water is confined
in the interstices of the material, admitting of displacement but no

The application of the above to pressures over tunnels in materials of
Class A is that the sand or solid matter is virtually assumed to be a
series of columns with their bases in such intimate contact with the
tunnel roof that water cannot exert pressure on the tunnel or buoyancy
on the sand at the point of contact, and that if these columns are
sufficiently deep to have their upper portions wholly or partly carried
by the arching or wedging action, the pressure of any water on their
surfaces is not transferred to the tunnel, and the only aqueous pressure
is that which acts on the tunnel between the assumed columns or through
the voids.

Let _l_ = exterior width of tunnel,
    _d_ = depth of cover, as:

      _D_{W}_ = depth, water to roof,
      _D_{E}_ =   "    earth to roof,
      _D_{X}_ =   "    of cover of earth necessary to arching stability,

that is:

           _l_          / 90° - [phi] \
_D_{X}_ = ----- ( tan. { ------------- } + [phi] ) =
            2           \     2       /

     _l_                [phi]
    ----- tan.  (45° + ------- ),
      2                   2

   where [phi] = angle of repose,
   and _D_{W}_ > _D_{E}_ > _D_{X}_.

Then the pressure on any square foot of roof, as _V_{P}_ as at the base of
any vertical ordinate, as 9 in Fig. 2, = _V_{O}_,

   _W_{E}_ = weight per cubic foot of earth (90 lb.),
   _W_{W}_ =   "     "    "     "   " water (62½ lb.), we have

_V_{P}_ = _V_{O}_ × _W_{E}_ + _D_{W}_ × _W_{W}_ × 0.40 =

    _V_{O}_ × 90 + _D_{W}_ × 62--- × 0.4 = _V_{O}_ 90 + _D_{W}_ × 25.

And for horizontal pressure:

_P_{h}_ = the horizontal pressure at any abscissa (10), Fig. 2, = _A_{10}_
at depth of water _D_{W1}_ is

             _A_{10}_ × 90                  1
  _P_{h}_ = --------------- + _D_{W1}_ × 62--- × 0.4 =
               tan. [phi]                   2

     _A_{10}_ × 90
    --------------- + _D_{W1}_ × 25.
       tan. [phi]

The only question of serious doubt is at just what depth the sand is
incapable of arching itself, but, for purposes of safety, the writer has
put this at the point, _F_, as noted above, = _D_{X}_, although he
believes that experiments on a large scale would show it to be nearer
0.67·_D_{X}_, above which the placing of additional back-fill will
lighten the load on the structure.

We have, then, for _D_{E}_ < _D_{X}_, the weight of the total prism of
the earth plus the water in the voids, plus the added pressure of the
water above the earth prism, that is:

The pressure per square foot at the base of any vertical ordinate =

_V_{P}_ = _D_{E}_ × 90 + _D_{E}_ × 62--- × 0.40 +

    ( _D_{W}_ - _D_{E}_ ) × 62---.

To those who may contend that water acting through so shallow a prism of
earth would exert full pressure over the full area of the tunnel, it may
be stated that the water cannot maintain pressure over the whole area
without likewise giving buoyancy to the sand previously assumed to be in
columns, in which case there is the total weight of the water plus the
weight of the prism of earth, less its buoyancy in water, that is

                       1                        1
_V_{P}_ = _D_{W}_ × 62--- + _D_{E}_ × ( 90 - 62--- ),
                       2                        2

which, by comparison with the former method, would appear to be less
safe in its reasoning.


Next is the question of pressure against a wall or braced trench for
materials under Class A. The pressure of sand is first calculated
independently, as shown in Fig. 6. Reducing this to a basis of 100 lb.
for each division of the scale measured horizontally, as shown, gives
the line, _B O_, Fig. 12, measuring the outside limit of pressure due to
the earth, the horizontal distance at any point between this line and
the vertical face equalling the pressure against that face divided by
the tangent of the angle of repose, which in this case is assumed to be
45°, equalling unity. If the water pressure line, _C F_, is drawn, it
shows the relative pressure of the water. In order to reduce this to the
scale of 100 lb. horizontal measurement, the line, _C E_, is drawn,
representing the water pressure to scale, that is, so that each
horizontal measurement of the scale gives the pressure on the face at
that point; and, allowing 50% for voids, halving this area gives the
line, _C D_, between which and the vertical face any horizontal line
measures the water pressure. Extending these pressure areas where they
overlap gives the line, _B D_, which represents the total pressure
against the face, measured horizontally.

Next, as to the question of buoyancy in Class A materials. If a
submerged structure rests firmly on a bottom of more or less firm sand,
its buoyancy, as indicated by the experiments, will only be a percentage
of its buoyancy in pure water, corresponding to the voids in the sand.
In practice, however, an attempt to show this condition will fail, owing
to the fact that in such a structure the water will almost immediately
work under the edge and bottom, and cause the structure to rise, and the
test can only be made by measuring the difference in uplift in a
heavier-than-water structure, as shown in Experiment No. 5. For, if a
structure lighter than the displaced water be buried in sand
sufficiently deep to insure it against the influx of large volumes of
water below, it will not rise. That this is not due entirely to the
friction of the solid material on the sides has been demonstrated by the
observation of subaqueous structures, which always tend to subside
rather than to lift during or following disturbance of the surrounding

The following is quoted from the paper by Charles M. Jacobs, M. Am. Soc.
C. E., on the North River Division of the Pennsylvania Railroad

     "There was considerable subsidence in the tunnels during
     construction and lining, amounting to an average of 0.34 ft.
     between the bulkhead lines. This settlement has been constantly
     decreasing since construction, and appears to have been due almost
     entirely to the disturbances of the surrounding materials during
     construction. The silt weighs about 100 lb. per cu. ft. * * * and
     contains about 38% of water. It was found that whenever this
     material was disturbed outside the tunnels a displacement of the
     tunnels followed."

This in substance confirms observations made in the Battery tubes that
subsidence of the structure followed disturbance of the outside
material, although theoretically the tubes were buoyant in the aqueous

The writer would urge, however, that, in all cases of submerged
structures only partially buried in solid material, excess weighting be
used to cover the contingencies of vibration, oscillation, etc., to
which such structures may be subjected and which may ultimately allow
leads of water to work their way underneath.

On the other hand, he urges that, in cases of floor areas of deeply
submerged structures, such as tunnels or cellars, the pressure to be
resisted should be assumed to be only slightly in excess of that
corresponding to the pressure due to the water through the voids.

The question of pressure, etc., in Class B, or semi-aqueous materials
will be considered next. Of these materials, as already shown, there are
two types: (_a_) sand in which the so-called quicksand is largely in
excess of any normal voids, and (_b_) plastic and viscous materials. The
writer believes that these materials should be treated as mixtures of
solid and watery particles, in the first of which the quicksand, or
aqueous portion, being virtually in suspension, may be treated as water,
and it must be concluded that the action here will be similar to that of
sand and pure water, giving a larger value to the properties of water
than actually exists. If, for instance, it should be found that such a
mixture contained 40% of pure water, the writer would estimate its
pressure on or against a structure as (_a_) that of a moist sand
standing at a steep angle of repose, and (_b_) that of clear water, an
allowance of 60% of the total volume being assumed, and the sum of these
two results giving the total pressure. Until more definite data can be
obtained by experiments on a larger scale, this assumed value of 60% of
the total volume for the aqueous portion may be taken for all conditions
of semi-aqueous materials, except, of course, where the solid and
aqueous particles may be clearly defined, the pressures being computed
as described in the preceding pages.

As to the question of pure quicksand (if such there be) and other
aqueous materials of Class C, such as water, oil, mercury, etc., it has
already been shown that they are to be considered as liquids of their
normal specific gravity; that is, in calculating the air pressure
necessary to displace them, one should consider their specific gravity
only, as a factor, and not the total weight per volume including any
impurities which they might contain undissolved.

In order to have a clearer conception of aqueous and semi-aqueous
materials and their action, they must be viewed under conditions not
ordinarily apparent. For instance, ideas of so-called quicksand are
largely drawn from seeing structures sinking into it, or from observing
it flowing through voids in the sheeting or casing. The action of sand
and water under pressure is viewed during or after a slump, when the
damage is being done, or has been done, whereas the correct view-point
is under static conditions, before the slump takes place.

The following is quoted from the report of Mr. C.M. Jacobs, Chief
Engineer of the East River Gas Tunnel, built in 1892-93:

     "We found that the material which had heretofore been firm or stiff
     had, under erosion, obtained a soup-like consistency, and that a
     huge cavity some 3 ft. wide and 26 ft. deep had been washed up
     toward the river bed."

This would probably be a fair description of much of the material of
this class met with in such work, if compressed air had not been used.
The writer believes that in soft material surrounding submerged
structures the water actually contained in the voids is not
infrequently, after a prolonged period of rest, cut off absolutely from
its sources of pressure and that contact with these sources of pressure
will not again be resumed until a leak takes place through the
structure; and, even when there is a small flow or trickling of water
through such material, it confines itself to certain paths or channels,
and is largely excluded from the general mass.

The broad principle of the bearing power of soil has been made the
subject of too many experiments and too much controversy to be
considered in a paper which is intended to be a description of
experiments and observed data and notes therefrom. The writer is of the
opinion, however, that entirely too little attention has been given to
this bearing power of the soil; that while progress has been made in our
knowledge of all classes of materials for structures, very little has
been done which leads to any real knowledge of the material on which the
foundation rests. For instance, it is inconceivable that 1 or 2 tons may
sometimes be allowed on a square foot of soft clay, while the load on
firm gravel is limited to from 4 to 6 tons. The writer's practical
observations have convinced him that it is frequently much safer to put
four times 6 tons on a square foot of gravel than it is to put
one-fourth of 2 tons on a square foot of soft clay.

In connection with the bearing power of soil, the writer also believes
that too little study has been given to the questions of the lateral
pressure of earth, and he desires to quote here from some experiments
described in a book[F] published in England in 1876, to which his
attention has recently been called. This book appears to have been
intended for young people, but it is of interest to note the following
quotations from a chapter entitled "Sand." This chapter begins by
stating that:

     "During the course of a lecture on the Suez Canal by Mr. John H.
     Pepper, which was delivered nightly by him at the Polytechnic
     Institute in London, he illustrated his lecture by some experiments
     designed to exhibit certain properties of sand, which had reference
     to the construction of the Suez Canal, and it is stated that though
     the properties in question were by no means to be classed among
     recent discoveries, the experiments were novel in form and served
     to interest the public audience."

Further quotation follows:

     "When the Suez Canal was projected, many prophesied evil to the
     undertaking, from the sand in the desert being drifted by the wind
     into the canal, and others were apprehensive that where the canal
     was cut through the sand the bottom would be pushed up by the
     pressure on the banks * * *.

     "The principle of lateral pressure may now be strikingly
     illustrated by taking an American wooden pail and, having
     previously cut a large circular hole in the bottom, this is now
     covered with fine tissue paper, which should be carefully pasted on
     to prevent the particles of sand from flowing through the small
     openings between the paper and the wood * * * and being placed
     upright and rapidly filled with sand, it may be carried about by
     the handle without the slightest fear of the weight of the sand
     breaking through the thin medium. * * *

     "Probably one of the most convincing experiments is that which may
     be performed with a cylindrical tube 18 in. long and 2 in. in
     diameter, open at both ends. A piece of tissue paper is carefully
     pasted on one end, so that when dry no cracks or interstices are
     left. The tube is filled with dry sand to a height of say 12 in. In
     the upper part is inserted a solid plug of wood 12 in. long and of
     the same or very nearly the same diameter as the inside of the
     tube, so that it will move freely up and down like the piston of an
     air pump. The tube, sand, and piston being arranged as described,
     may now be held by an assistant and the demonstrator, taking a
     sledge hammer, may proceed to strike steadily on the end of the
     piston and, although the paper will bulge out a little, the force
     of the blow will not break it.

     "If the assistant holding the tube allows it to jerk or rebound
     after each blow of the hammer, the paper may break, because air and
     sand are driven down by the succeeding blow, and therefore it must
     be held steadily so that the piston bears fairly on the sand each

     "A still more conclusive and striking experiment may be shown with
     a framework of metal constructed to represent a pail, the sides of
     which are closed up by pasting sheets of tissue paper inside and
     over the lower part. As before demonstrated, when a quantity of
     sand is poured into the pail the tissue paper casing at the bottom
     does not break, but if a sufficient quantity is used the sides
     formed of tissue paper bulge out and usually give way in
     consequence of the lateral pressure exerted by the particles of

The writer has made the second experiment noted, with special apparatus,
and finds that with tissue paper over the bottom of a 2-in. pipe, 15 in.
long, about 12 in. of sand will stand the blow of a heavy sledge hammer,
transmitted through a wooden piston, at least once and sometimes two or
three times, while heavy blows given with a lighter hammer have no
effect at all. That this is not due in any large measure to inertia can
be shown by the fact that more than 200 lb. can safely be put on top of
the wooden piston. It cannot be accounted for entirely by the friction,
as the removal of the paper allows the sand to drop in a mass. The
explanation is that the pressure is transmitted laterally to the sides,
and as the friction is directly proportional to the pressure, the load
or effect of the blow is carried by the proportional increase in the
friction, and any diaphragm which will carry the direct bottom load will
not have its stresses largely increased by any greater loading on top.

The writer believes that experiments will show that in a sand-jack the
tendency will be for the sides to burst rather than the bottom, and that
the outflow from an orifice at or near the bottom is not either greatly
retarded or accelerated by ordinary pressure on top. The occurrence of
abnormal voids, however, causes the sand to be displaced into them.

The important consideration of this paper is that all the experiments
and observations noted point conclusively to the fact that pressure is
transmitted laterally through ground, most probably along or nearly
parallel to the angles of repose, or in cases of rock or stiff material,
along a line which, until more conclusive experiments are made, may be
taken as a mean between the horizontal and vertical, or approximately 45
degrees. There is no reason to believe that this is not the case
throughout the entire mass of the earth, that each cubic foot, or yard,
or mile is supported or in turn supports its neighboring equivalent
along such lines. The theory is not a new one, and its field is too
large to encompass within the limits of a single paper, but, for
practical purposes, and within the limited areas to which we must
necessarily be confined, the writer believes it can be established
beyond controversy as true. Certain it is that no one has yet found, in
ground free from water pressure or abnormal conditions, any evidence of
greater pressure at the bottom of a deep shaft or tunnel than that near
the surface. Pressures due to the widening of mines beyond the limits of
safety must not be taken as a controversion of this statement, as all
arches have limits of safety, more especially if the useless material
below the theoretical intrados is only partly supported, or is allowed
to be suspended from the natural arch.

The writer believes, also, that the question of confined foundations, in
contradistinction to that of the spreading of foundations, may be worthy
of full discussion, as it applies to safe and economical construction,
and he offers, without special comment, the following observations:

He has found that, in soft ground, results are often obtained with small
open caissons sunk to a depth of a few feet and cleaned out and filled
with concrete, which offer much better resistance than spreading the
foundation over four or five times the equivalent area.

He has found that small steel piles and coffer-dams, from 1-ft.
cylinders to coffer-dams 4 or 5 ft. square, sunk to a depth of only 1 or
2 ft. below adjacent excavations in ordinary sand, have safely resisted
loads four or five times as great as those usually allowed.

He believes that short cylinders, cleaned out and filled with concrete,
or coffer-dams of short steel piling with the surface cleaned out to a
reasonable depth and filled with concrete horizontally reinforced, will,
in many instances, give as good results as, and, in most cases, very
much better than, placing the foundation on an equivalent number of
small long piles or a proportionately greater spread of foundation area,
the idea being that the transmission of pressure to the sides of the
coffer-dam will not only confine the side thrust, but will also transfer
the loading in mass to a greater depth where the resistance to lateral
pressure in the ground will be more stable; that is, the greater depth
of foundation is gained without the increased excessive loading, or
necessity for deep excavation.

As to the question of the bearing value and friction on piles, the
writer believes that while the literature on engineering is full of
experimental data relating to friction on caissons, there is little to
show the real value of friction on piles. The assumption generally made
of an assumed bearing value, and the deduction therefrom of a value for
the skin friction is fallacious. Distinction, also, is not made, but
should be clearly drawn between skin friction, pure and simple, on
smooth surfaces, and the friction due to pressure. Too often the bearing
value on irregular surfaces as well as the bearing due to taper in
piles, and lastly the resistance offered by binding, enter into the
determination of so-called skin friction formulas. The essential
condition of sinking a caisson is keeping it plumb; and binding, which
is another way of writing increased bearing value, will oftentimes be
fatal to success.

The writer believes that a series of observations on caissons sunk plumb
under homogeneous conditions of ground and superficial smoothness will
show a proportional increase of skin friction per square foot average
for each increase in the size of caissons, as well as for increase of
depth in the sinking up to certain points, where it may finally become
constant, as will be shown later. The determination of the actual
friction or coefficient of friction between the surfaces of the pile and
the material it encounters, is not difficult to determine. In sand it is
approximately 40% of the pressure for reasonably smooth iron or steel,
and 45% of the pressure for ordinary wood surfaces. If, for instance, a
long shaft be withdrawn vertically from moulding sand, the hole may
remain indefinitely as long as water does not get into it or it does not
dry out. This is due to the tendency of the sand to arch itself
horizontally over small areas. The same operation cannot be performed on
dry sand, as the arching properties, while protecting the pile from
excessive pressure due to excessive length, will not prevent the loose
sand immediately surrounding the pile from exerting a constant pressure
against the pile, and it is of this pressure that 45% may be taken as
the real value of skin friction on piles in dry sand.

In soft clays or peats which are displaced by driving, the tendency of
this material to flow back into the original space causes pressure, of
which the friction will be a measured percentage. In this case, however,
the friction itself between the material and the clays or peat is
usually very much less than 40%, and it is for this reason that piles of
almost indefinite length may be driven in materials of this character
without offering sufficient resistance to be depended on, as long as no
good bearing ground is found at the point.

If this material is under water, and is so soft as to be considered
semi-aqueous, the pressure per square foot will increase in diminishing
proportion to the depth, and the pressure per area will soon approach
and become a constant, due to the resistance offered by the lateral
arching of the solid material; whereas, in large circular caissons, or
caisson shafts, where the horizontal arching effect is virtually
destroyed, or at least rendered non-effective until a great depth is
reached, the pressure must necessarily vary under these conditions
proportionately to the depth and size of the caisson in semi-aqueous
material. On the other hand, in large caisson shafts, especially those
which are square, the pressure at the top due to the solid material will
also increase proportionately to the depth, as already explained in
connection with the pressures of earth against sheeting and retaining

The writer believes that the pressure on these surfaces may be
determined with reasonable accuracy by the formulas already given in
this paper, and with these pressures, multiplied by the coefficient of
friction determined by the simplest experiment on the ground, results
may be obtained which will closely approximate the actual friction on
caissons at given depths. The friction on caissons, which is usually
given at from 200 to 600 lb. per sq. ft., is frequently assumed to be
the same on piles 12 in. or less in diameter, whereas the pressures on
these surfaces, as shown, are in no way comparable.

The following notes and observations are given in connection with the
skin friction and the bearing value of piles:

The writer has in his possession a copy of an official print which was
recently furnished to bidders in connection with the foundation for a
large public building in New York City. The experiments were made on
good sand at a depth of approximately 43 ft. below water and 47 ft.
below an adjacent excavation. In this instance a 16-in. pipe was sunk to
the depth stated, cleaned out, and a 14-in. piston connected to a 10-in.
pipe was inserted and the ground at the bottom of the 16-in. pipe
subjected to a loading approximating 28 tons per sq. ft. After an
initial settlement of nearly 3 in., there was no further settlement over
an extended period, although the load of 28 tons per sq. ft. was

In connection with some recent underpinning work, 14-in. hollow
cylindrical piles 6 ft. long were sunk to a depth of 6 ft. with an
ordinary hand-hammer, being excavated as driven. These piles were then
filled with concrete and subjected to a loading in some cases
approximating 60 tons. After a settlement ranging from 9 to 13 in., no
further settlement took place, although the loading was maintained for a
considerable period.

In connection with some other pile work, the writer has seen a 10-in.
pipe, 3/8 in. thick, 4 ft. below the bottom of an open cylinder, at a
depth of about 20 ft., sustain in gravel and sand a load approximating
50 tons when cleaned out to within 2 ft. of the bottom.

He has seen other cylindrical piles with a bearing ring of not more than
¾ in. resting on gravel at a depth of from 20 to 30 ft., cleaned out
practically to the bottom, sustain a measured load of 60 tons without

As to skin friction in sand, a case came under his observation wherein a
14-in. hollow cylindrical pile which had stood for 28 days at a depth of
about 30 ft. in the sand, was cleaned out to its bottom and subjected to
hydraulic pressure, measured by a gauge, and sunk 2 ft. into the sand
without any pressure being registered on the gauge. It should be
explained, however, that the gauge could be subjected to a pressure of
250 lb., equal to a total pressure of 7,000 lb. on the piston of the
jack without registering, which corresponded, assuming it all as skin
friction, to a maximum of not more than 78 lb. per sq. ft., but it
should be noted that this included bearing value as well, and that the
pressure was very far from 7,000 lb., in all probability, at the
beginning of the test.

In the case of the California stove-pipe wells driven by the Board of
Water Supply on Long Island, the writer is informed that one of these
tubes, 12 in. in diameter, was sunk to a depth of 850 ft. In doing this
work the pile was excavated below the footing with a sand pump and was
then sunk by hydraulic pressure. Assuming the maximum capacity of the
jacks at 100 tons, which is not probable, the skin friction could not
have amounted to more than 75 lb. per sq. ft. It cannot be assumed in
this case that the excavation of the material below the pile relieved
the skin itself of some of its friction, as the operation consumed more
than 6 weeks, and, even if excess material was removed, it is certain
that a large percentage of it would have had time to adjust itself
before the operation was completed.

[Illustration: PLATE XXIX, FIG. 1.--A 14-GAUGE, 14-IN., HOLLOW


In connection with this, the writer may call attention to the fact that
piles driven in silt along the North River, and in soft material at
other places, are sometimes 90 ft. in length, and even then do not offer
sufficient resistance to be depended on for loading. This is due to the
fact that the end of the pile does not bear in good material.

The relation between bearing value and skin friction on a pile, where
the end bearing is in good material, is well shown by a case where a
wooden pile[G] struck solid material, was distorted under the continual
blows of the hammer, and was afterward exposed. It is also shown in the
case of a 14-in. California stove-pipe pile, No. 14 gauge, the point of
which met firm material. The result, as shown by Fig. 1, Plate XXIX,
speaks for itself. Fig. 2, Plate XXIX, shows a Chenoweth pile which was
an experimental one driven by its designer. This pile, after getting
into hard material, was subjected to the blow of a 4,000-lb. hammer
falling the full length of the pile-driver, and the only result was to
shatter the head of the pile, and not cause further penetration. Mr.
Chenoweth has stated to the writer that he has found material so compact
that it could not be penetrated with a solid pile--either with or
without jetting--which is in line with the writer's experience.

The writer believes that the foregoing notes will show conclusively that
the factor to be sought in pile work is bearing value rather than depth
or skin friction, and, however valuable skin friction may be in the
larger caissons, it cannot be depended on in the case of small piles,
except in values ranging from 25 to 100 lb. per sq. ft.

In conclusion, he desires to thank the following gentlemen, who have
contributed to the success of the experiments noted herein: Mr. James W.
Nelson, of Richard Dudgeon, New York; Mr. George Noble, of John Simmons
and Company, New York; and Mr. Pendleton, of Hindley and Pendleton,
Brooklyn, N.Y.; all of whom have furnished apparatus for the experiments
and have taken an interest in the results. And lastly, he desires
especially to thank Mr. F.L. Cranford, of the Cranford Company, for men
and material with which to make the experiments and without whose
co-operation it would have been impracticable for the writer to have
made them.

Throughout this paper the writer has endeavored, as far as possible, to
deduce from his observations and from the observations of others, as far
as he has been able to obtain them, practical data and formulas which
may be of use in establishing the relationship between the pressure,
resistance, and stability of earths; and, while he does not wish to
dictate the character of the discussion, he does ask that those who have
made observations of a similar character or who have available data,
will, as far as possible, contribute the same to this discussion. It is
only by such observations and experiments, and deductions therefrom,
that engineers may obtain a better knowledge of the handling of such

The writer believes that too much has been taken for granted in
connection with earth pressures and resistance; and that, far too often,
observations of the results of natural laws have been set down as
phenomena. He believes that, both in experimenting and observing, the
engineer will frequently find what is being looked for or expected and
will fail to see the obvious alternative. He may add that his own
experiments and observations may be criticized for the same reason, and
he asks, therefore, that all possible light be thrown on this subject. A
comparative study of much of our expert testimony or of the plans of
almost any of the structures designed in connection with their bearing
upon earth, or resistance to earth pressure, will show that under the
present methods of interpretation of the underlying principles governing
the calculations and designs relating to such structures, the results
vary far too widely. Too much is left to the judgment of the engineer,
and too frequently no fixed standards can be found for some of the most
essential conditions.

Until the engineer can say with certainty that his calculations are
reasonably based on facts, he is forced to admit that his design must be
lacking, either in the elements of safety, on the one hand, or of
economy, on the other, and, until he can give to his client a full
measure of both these factors in fair proportion, he cannot justly claim
that his profession has reached its full development.

Table 1 gives approximate calculations of pressures on two types of
tunnels and on two heights of sheeted faces or walls, due to four
varying classes of materials.


[Illustration: Key to Table of Pressures, etc.]

_h_ = exterior height, _l_ = exterior width,

    { [delta] = depth of cover, that is,
    { _D_{E}_ = earth, and _D_{W}_ = water depth,

[phi] = angle of repose, and, for tunnels _D_{W}_ > _D_{E}_ a depth

       _l_           [phi]
    = ----- ( 45° + ------- )
        2              2

_W_{E}_ = weight of 1 cu. ft. of earth = 90 lb.; _W_{W}_ = weight of 1
cu. ft. of water = 62½ lb.

Conditions: 1 = normal sand, 2 = dry sand, 3 = supersaturated firm sand
with 40% of voids, 4 = supersaturated semi-aqueous material, 60%
aqueous, that is, 60% water and aqueous material.

              |        |        |        |            |
   Combined   |        |        |        |            |
    assumed   |  _h_   |  _l_   | [phi]  |   _D_{E}_  |
  conditions. |        |        |        |            |
              |        |        |        |            |
     I_{1}    |   20   |   30   |   45°  |     40     |
     I_{2}    |   20   |   30   |   30°  |     40     |
    II_{1}    |   15   |   15   |   45°  |     40     |
    II_{2}    |   15   |   15   |   30°  |     40     |
   III_{1}    |   15   |        |   45°  |     15     |
   III_{2}    |   15   |        |   30°  |     15     |
    IV_{1}    |   30   |        |   45°  |     30     |
    IV_{2}    |   30   |        |   30°  |     30     |

              |        |        |        |            |            |
   Combined   |        |        |        |            |            |
    assumed   |  _h_   |  _l_   | [phi]  |  _D_{E}_   |   _D_{W}_  |
  conditions. |        |        |        |            |            |
              |        |        |        |            |            |
     I_{3}    |   20   |   30   |   50°  |     40     |     60     |
     I_{4}    |   20   |   30   |   40°  |     40     |     60     |
    II_{3}    |   15   |   15   |   50°  |     40     |     60     |
    II_{4}    |   15   |   15   |   40°  |     40     |     60     |
   III_{3}    |   15   |        |   50°  |     15     |     15     |
   III_{4}    |   15   |        |   40°  |     15     |     15     |
    IV_{3}    |   30   |        |   50°  |     30     |     30     |
    IV_{4}    |   30   |        |   40°  |     30     |     30     |


          |      |      |      |         ||      |      |      |
Pressure  | I_{1}| I_{3}| I_{3}| I_{3}   || I_{2}| I_{4}| I_{4}| I_{4}
per square|Earth.|Earth.|Water.|Combined.||Earth.|Earth.|Water.|Combined.
foot, at  |      |      |      |         ||      |      |      |
          |      |      |      |         ||      |      |      |
 A        | 3,240| 3,690| 1,500|   5,190 || 2,325| 2,880| 2,250| 5,130
 B        | 2,745| 3,105| 1,500|   4,605 || 1,845| 2,385| 2,250| 4,635
 C        | 2,160| 2,475| 1,500|   3,975 || 1,350| 1,800| 2,250| 4,050
 D        |   450|   540| 1,500|   2,040 ||   450|   450| 2,250| 2,700
 E        |   360|   360| 1,625|   1,985 ||   450|   450| 2,438| 2,888
 F        |   270|   270| 1,750|   2,025 ||   450|   360| 2,626| 2,986
 G        |   225|   225| 1,875|   2,100 ||   360|   270| 2,814| 3,084
          |      |      |      |         ||      |      |      |
Pressure  |II_{1}|II_{3}|II_{3}|II_{3}   ||II_{2}|II_{4}|II_{4}|II_{4}
per square|Earth.|Earth.|Water.|Combined.||Earth.|Earth.|Water.|Combined.
foot at   |      |      |      |         ||      |      |      |
          |      |      |      |         ||      |      |      |
 A        | 1,485| 1,755| 1,500|   3,255 || 1,035| 1,305| 2,250| 3,555
 B        | 1,305| 1,485| 1,500|   2,985 ||   945| 1,170| 2,250| 3,420
 C        | 1,125| 1,215| 1,500|   2,715 ||   810|   990| 2,250| 3,240
 D        |   405|   405| 1,500|   1,905 ||   540|   450| 2,250| 2,700
 E        |   405|   405| 1,625|   2,030 ||   540|   450| 2,438| 2,888
 F        |   360|   360| 1,750|   2,110 ||   540|   450| 2,626| 3,076
 G        |   315|   315| 1,875|   2,190 ||   360|   360| 2,814| 3,174
 H        |   180|   225| 2,000|   2,225 ||   180|   180| 3,000| 3,180
 I        |    90|   110| 2,175|   2,285 ||   135|   135| 3,188| 3,323


          |       |       |       |       ||       |       |       |
Pressure  |III_{1}|III_{3}|III_{3}|III_{3}||III_{2}|III_{4}|III_{4}|III_{4}
per square|Earth. |Earth. |Water. | Total ||Earth. |Earth. |Water. | Total
foot at   |       |       |       | earth ||       |       |       | earth
          |       |       |       |  and  ||       |       |       |  and
          |       |       |       | water.||       |       |       | water.
          |       |       |       |       ||       |       |       |
 A        |  575  |  510  |  100  |  610  || 1,350 |  810  |  140  |  950
 B        |  400  |  350  |  190  |  540  ||   900 |  540  |  260  |  800
 C        |  200  |  175  |  280  |  455  ||   450 |  270  |  380  |  650
          |      |      |      |      ||      |      |      |
Pressure  |IV_{1}|IV_{3}|IV_{3}|IV_{3}||IV_{2}|IV_{4}|IV_{4}|IV_{4}
per square|Earth.|Earth.|Water.|Total ||Earth.|Earth.|Water.|Total
foot at   |      |      |      |earth ||      |      |      |earth
          |      |      |      | and  ||      |      |      | and
          |      |      |      |water.||      |      |      |water.
          |      |      |      |      ||      |      |      |
 A        | 1,370| 1,210|  100 | 1,310|| 3,175| 1,910|   150| 2,060
 B        | 1,170| 1,030|  200 | 1,230|| 2,700| 1,610|   290| 1,900
 C        |   970|   855|  290 | 1,145|| 2,250| 1,355|   430| 1,785
 D        |   775|   680|  370 | 1,050|| 1,800| 1,100|   570| 1,670
 E        |   590|   515|  460 |   975|| 1,350|   820|   710| 1,530
 F        |   400|   350|  560 |   910||   900|   540|   860| 1,400
 G        |   190|   170|  650 |   820||   450|   275| 1,000| 1,275


[Footnote A: Presented at the meeting of May 18th, 1910.]

[Footnote B: _Transactions_, Am. Soc. C. E., Vol. LX, p. 1.]

[Footnote C: _Engineering News_, July 1st, 1909.]

[Footnote D: From "Gravel for Good Roads."]

[Footnote E: _Transactions_, Am. Soc. C. E., Vol. LXVIII, pp. 58-60.]

[Footnote F: "Discoveries and Inventions of the Nineteenth Century," by
Robert Routledge, Assistant Examiner in Chemistry and in Natural
Philosophy to the University of London.]

[Footnote G: _Engineering News_, January 15th, 1909.]


T. KENNARD THOMSON, M. AM. SOC. C. E.--Although the author
deserves great credit for the careful and thorough manner in which he
has handled this subject, his paper should be labeled "Dangerous for
Beginners," especially as he is an engineer of great practical
experience; if he were not, comparatively little attention would be paid
to his statements. The paper is dangerous because many will read only
portions of it, or will not read it thoroughly. For instance, at the
beginning, the author cites several experiments in which considerable
force is required to start the lifting of a weight or plunger in sand
and water and much less after the start. This reminds the speaker of the
time when, as a schoolboy, he tried to pick up stones from the bottom of
the river and was told that the "suction" was caused by atmospheric

The inference is that tunnels, etc., in sand, etc., are not in any
danger of rising, even though they are lighter than water. Toward the
end of the paper, however, the author states that tunnels should be
weighted, but he rather spoils this by stating that they should be
weighted only enough to overcome the actual water pressure, that is,
between the voids of the sand. It seems to the speaker that the only
really safe way is to make the tunnel at least as heavy as the water
displaced in order to prevent it from coming up, and to take other
measures to prevent it from going down. The City of Toronto, Canada,
formerly pumped its water supply through a 6-ft. iron pipe, buried in
the sand under Toronto Bay and then under Toronto Island, with an intake
in the deep water of the lake. During a storm a mass of seaweed, etc.,
was washed against the intake, completely blocking it, and although the
man at the pumping station knew that something was wrong, he continued
to pump until the water was drawn out of the pipe, with the result that
about half a mile of the conduit started to rise and then broke at
several places, thus allowing it to fill with water. Eventually, the
city went down to bed-rock under the Bay for its water tunnel.

Another reason for calling this paper dangerous for beginners is that it
is improbable that experienced engineers or contractors will omit the
bracing at the bottom, although, since the paper was printed, a glaring
instance has occurred where comparatively little bracing was put in the
bottom of a 40-ft. cut, the result being a bad cave-in from the bottom,
although all the top braces remained in place. Most engineers will agree
that nearly every crib which has failed slipped out from the bottom, and
did not turn over.

The objection to the angle of repose is that it is not possible to
ascertain it for any material deposited by Nature. It could probably be
ascertained for a sand bank deposited by Man, but not for an excavation
to be made in the ground, for it is known that nearly all earth, etc.,
has been deposited under great pressure, and is likely to be cemented
together by clay, loam, roots, trees, boulders, etc., and differs in
character every few feet.

A deep vertical cut can often be made, even in New York quicksand, from
which the water has been drawn, and, if not subjected to jars, water,
etc., this material will stand for considerable time and then come down
like an avalanche, killing any one in its way. In such cases very little
bracing would prevent the slide from starting, provided rain, etc., did
not loosen the material.

The author, of course, treats dry and wet materials differently, but
there are very few places where dry material is not likely to become wet
before the excavation is completed.

In caisson work, if the caisson can be kept absolutely plumb, it can be
sunk without having to overcome much friction, while, on the other hand,
if it is not kept plumb, the material is more or less disturbed and
begins to bind, causing considerable friction. The author claims that
the pressure does not increase with the depth, but all caisson men will
probably remember that the friction to be overcome per square foot of
surface increases with the depth.

In calculating retaining walls, many engineers add the weight of the
soil to the water, and calculate for from 90 to 100 lb. per cu. ft. The
speaker is satisfied that in the so-called New York quicksand it is
sufficient to use the weight of the water only. If the sand increased
the side pressure above the water pressure, engineers would expect to
use more compressed air to hold it back, while, as a matter of fact, the
air pressure used seldom varies much from that called for by the
hydrostatic head.

Although allowance for water pressure is sufficient for designing
retaining walls in New York quicksand, it is far from sufficient in
certain silty materials. For instance, in Maryland, a coffer-dam,
excavated to a depth of 30 ft. in silt and water, had the bottom shoved
in 2 ft., in spite of the fact that the waling pieces were 5 ft. apart
vertically at the top and 3 ft. at the bottom, and were braced with 12
by 12-in. timbers, every 7 ft. horizontally. The walings split, and the
cross-braces cut into the waling pieces from 1 to 2 in.; in other words,
the pressure seemed to be almost irresistible. This is quite a contrast
to certain excavations in Brooklyn, which, without any bracing whatever,
were safely carried down 15 ft.

Any engineer who tries to guess at the angle of repose, and, from the
resulting calculations, economizes on his bottom struts, will find that
sooner or later an accident on one job will cause enough loss of life
and money to pay for conservative timbers for the rest of his life. So
much for side pressures. As to the pressure in the roof of a tunnel,
probably every engineer will agree that almost any material except
unfrozen water will tend to arch more or less, but how much it is
impossible to say. It is doubtful whether any experienced engineer would
ever try to carry all the weight over the roof, except in the case of
back-fill, and even then he would have to make his own assumption (which
sounds more polite than "guess").

The author has stated, however, that when the tunnel roof and sides are
in place, no further trouble need be feared. On the contrary, in 1885,
the Canadian Pacific Railroad built a tunnel through clayey material and
lined it with ordinary 12 by 12-in. timber framing, about 2 or 3 ft.
apart. After the tunnel was completed, it collapsed. It was re-excavated
and lined with 12 by 12-in. timbers side by side, and it collapsed
again; then the tunnel was abandoned, and, for some 20 years, the track,
carried around on a 23° curve, was used until a new tunnel was built
farther in. This trouble could have been caused either by the sliding or
swelling of the material, and the speaker is inclined to believe that it
was caused by swelling, for it is known, of course, that most material
has been deposited by Nature under great pressure, and, by excavating in
certain materials, the air and moisture would cause those materials to
swell and become an irresistible force.

To carry the load, Mr. Meem prefers to rely on the points of the piles
rather than the side friction. In such cases the pile would act as a
post, and would probably fail when ordinarily loaded, unless firmly
supported at the sides. The speaker has seen piles driven from 80 to 90
ft. in 10 min., which offered almost no resistance, and yet, a few days
later, they would sustain 40 tons each. No one would dream of putting 40
tons on a 90-ft. pile resting on rock, if it were not adequately

It is the speaker's opinion that bracing should not be omitted for
either piles or coffer-dams.

CHARLES E. GREGORY, ASSOC. M. AM. SOC. C. E.--In describing his
last experiment with the hydraulic chambers and plunger, Mr. Meem states
that, after letting the pressure stand at 25 lb., etc., the piston came
up. This suggests that the piston might have been raised at a much lower
pressure, if it had been allowed to stand long enough.

The depth and coarseness of the sand were not varied to ascertain
whether any relation exists between them and the pressure required to
lift the piston. If the pressure varied with the depth of sand, it would
indicate that the reduction was due to the resistance of the water when
finely divided by the sand; if it varied with the coarseness of the
sand, as it undoubtedly would, especially if the sand grains were
increased to spheres 1 in. in diameter, it would show that it was
independent of the voids in the sand, but dependent on dividing the
water into thin films.

The speaker believes that the greater part of the reduction of pressure
on the bottom of the piston might be better explained by the viscosity
of the water, than to assume that a considerable part of the plunger is
not in contact with it. The water, being divided by fine sand into very
thin films, has a tensile strength which is capable of resisting the
pressure for at least a limited time.

If the water is capable of exerting its full hydrostatic pressure
through the sand, the total pressure would be the full hydrostatic
pressure on the bottom of the piston where in contact, and, where
separated from it by a grain of sand, the pressure would be decreased
only by the weight of the grain. If a large proportion of the top area
of a grain is in contact, as assumed by the author, this reduction of
pressure would be very small. A correct interpretation can be obtained
only after more complete experiments have been made.

For horizontal pressures exerted by saturated sands on vertical walls,
it has not been demonstrated that anything should be deducted from full
water pressure. No matter how much of the area is in direct contact with
the sand rather than the water, the full water pressure would be
transmitted through each sand grain from its other side and, if
necessary, from and through many other grains which may be in turn in
contact with it. The pressure on such a wall will be water pressure over
its entire surface, and, in addition, the thrust of the sand after
correcting for its loss of weight in the water.

The fact that small cavities may be excavated from the sides of trenches
or tunnels back of the sheeting proves only that there is a local
temporary arching of the material, or that the cohesion of the particles
is sufficient to withstand the stress temporarily, or that there is a
combination of cohesion and arching. The possibility of making such
excavations does not prove that pressure does not exist at such points.
That sand or earth will arch under certain conditions has long been an
accepted fact. The sand arches experimented with developed their
strength only after considerable yielding and, therefore, give no index
of the distribution or intensity of stress before such yielding.
Furthermore, sand and earth in Nature are not constrained by forms and
reinforcing rods.

Mr. Meem's paper is very valuable in that it presents some unusual
phenomena, but many of the conclusions drawn therefrom cannot be
accepted without further demonstration.

FRANCIS W. PERRY, ASSOC. M. AM. SOC. C. E.--Pressure-gauge
observations on a number of pneumatic caissons recently sunk, through
various grades of sand, to rock at depths of from 85 to 105 ft. below
ground-water, invariably showed working-chamber air-pressures equal, as
closely as could be observed, to the hydrostatic pressures computed, for
corresponding depths of cutting-edge, as given in Table 2.

These observations and computations were made by the speaker in
connection with the caisson foundations for the Municipal Building, New
York City.


Pressure, |Equivalent |Equivalent   |Observed      |
in        |feet of    |elevation    |pressure.     |
pounds.   |depth.     |for water    |              |
          |           |at--6.85.    |              |
          |___________|_____________|              |
          |           |             |              |
          |M.H.W.     |Ground-water.|              |
          |           |             |              |
  1       |  2.31     |  9.06       |Practically   |
  2       |  4.63     | 11.48       |the same as   |
  3       |  6.94     | 13.79       |computed      |
  4       |  9.25     | 16.10       |for           |
  5       | 11.57     | 18.42       |ground-water. |
  6       | 13.88     | 20.73       |              |
  7       | 16.19     | 23.04       |              |
  8       | 18.50     | 25.35       |              |
  9       | 20.82     | 27.67       |              |
 10       | 23.13     | 29.98       |              |
 11       | 25.44     | 32.29       |              |
 12       | 27.76     | 34.61       |              |
 13       | 30.07     | 36.92       |              |
 14       | 32.38     | 39.23       |              |
 15       | 34.70     | 41.55       |              |
 16       | 37.01     | 43.86       |              |
 17       | 39.32     | 46.17       |              |
 18       | 41.63     | 48.48       |              |
 19       | 43.95     | 50.80       |              |
 20       | 46.26     | 53.11       |              |
 21       | 48.57     | 55.42       |              |
 22       | 50.89     | 57.74       |              |
 23       | 53.20     | 60.05       |              |
 24       | 55.51     | 62.36       |              |
 25       | 57.82     | 64.67       |              |
 26       | 60.14     | 66.99       |              |
 27       | 62.45     | 69.30       |              |
 28       | 64.76     | 71.61       |              |
 29       | 67.08     | 73.93       |              |
 30       | 69.39     | 76.24       |              |
 31       | 71.70     | 78.55       |              |
 32       | 74.01     | 80.86       |              |
 33       | 76.33     | 83.18       |              |
 34       | 78.64     | 85.49       |              |
 35       | 80.95     | 87.80       |              |
 36       | 83.27     | 90.12       |              |
 37       | 85.58     | 92.43       |              |
 38       | 87.89     | 94.74       |              |
 39       | 90.20     | 97.05       |              |
 40       | 92.52     | 99.37       |              |
 41       | 94.83     |101.68       |              |
 42       | 97.14     |103.99       |              |
 43       | 99.46     |106.31       |              |
 44       |101.77     |108.62       |              |
 45       |104.08     |110.93       |              |
 46       |106.39     |113.24       |              |

NOTE.--Equivalent depth in feet = ------ × pressure.

E.P. GOODRICH, M. AM. SOC. C. E. (by letter).--This paper is to
be characterized by superlatives. Parts of it are believed to be
exceptionally good, while other parts are considered equally dangerous.
The author's experimental work is extremely interesting, and the writer
believes the results obtained to be of great value; but the analytical
work, both mathematical and logical, is emphatically questioned.

The writer believes that, in the design of permanent structures,
consideration of arch action should not be included, at least, not until
much more information has been obtained. He also believes that the
design of temporary structures with this inclusion is actually dangerous
in some instances, and takes the liberty of citing the following
statement by the author, with regard to his first experiment:

     "About an hour after the superimposed load had been removed, the
     writer jostled the box with his foot sufficiently to dislodge some
     of the exposed sand, when the arch at once collapsed and the bottom
     fell to the ground."

The writer emphatically questions the author's ideas as to "the
thickness of key" which "should be allowed" over tunnels, believing that
conditions within an earth mass, except in very rare instances, are
such that true arch action will seldom take place to any definite
extent, through any considerable depths. Furthermore, the author's
reason for bisecting the angle between the vertical and the angle of
repose of the material, when he undertakes to determine the thickness of
key, is not obvious. This assumption is shown to be absurd when carried
to either limit, for when the angle of repose equals zero, as is the
case with water, this, method would give a definite thickness of key,
while there can be absolutely no arch action possible in such a case;
and, when the angle of repose is 90°, as may be assumed in the case of
rock, this method would give an infinite thickness of key, which is
again seen to be absurd. It would seem as if altogether too many
unknowable conditions had been assumed. In any case, no arch action can
be brought into play until a certain amount of settlement has taken
place so as to bring the particles into closer contact, and in such a
way that the internal stresses are practically those only of
compression, and the shearing stresses are within the limits possible
for the material in question.

The author has repeatedly made assumptions which are not borne out by
the application of his mathematical formulas to actual extreme
conditions. This method of application to limiting conditions is
concededly sometimes faulty; but the writer believes that no earth
pressure theory, or one concerning arch action, can be considered as
satisfactory which does not apply equally well to hydraulic pressure
problems when the proper assumptions are made as to the factors for
friction, cohesion, etc. For example, when the angle of repose is
considered as zero, in the author's first formula for _W_{1}_, the value
becomes ½ _W_{1}_, whereas it should depend solely on the depth, which
does not enter the formula, and not at all on the width of opening, _l_,
which is thus included.

The author has given no experiments to prove his statement that "the
arch thrust is greater in dryer sand," and the accuracy of the statement
is questioned. Again, no reason is apparent for assuming the direction
of the "rakers" in Fig. 3 as that of the angle of repose. The writer
cannot see why that particular angle is repeatedly used, when almost any
other would give results of a similar kind. The author has made no
experiments which show any connection between the angle of repose, as he
interprets it, and the lines of arch action which he assumes to exist.

With regard to the illustration of the condition which is thought to
exist when the "material is composed of large bowling balls," supposedly
all of the same size, the writer believes the conclusion to be
erroneous, and that this can be readily seen by inspection of a diagram
in which such balls are represented as forming a pile similar to the
well-known "pile of shells" of the algebras, in the diagram of which a
pile of three shells, resting on the base, has been omitted. It is then
seen that unless the pressures at an angle of 60° with the horizontal
are sufficient to produce frictional resistance of a very large amount,
the balls will roll and instantly break the arch action suggested by the
author. Consequently, an almost infinitesimal settlement of the
"centering" may cause the complete destruction of an arch of earth.

The author's logic is believed to be entirely faulty in many cases
because he repeatedly makes assumptions which are not in accordance with
demonstrated fact, and finally sums up the results by the statement: "It
is conceded" (line 2, p. 357, for example), when the writer, for one,
has not even conceded the accuracy of the assumptions. For instance, the
author's well-known theory that pressures against retaining walls are a
maximum at the top and decrease to zero at the bottom, is in absolute
contradiction to the results of experiments conducted on a large scale
by the writer on the new reinforced concrete retaining wall near the St.
George Ferry, on Staten Island, New York City, which will soon be
published, and in which the usual law of increase of lateral pressure
with depth is believed to be demonstrated beyond question. It must be
conceded that a considerable arch action (so-called) actually exists in
many cases; but it should be equally conceded by the advocates of the
existence of such action that changes in humidity, due to moving water,
vibration, and appreciable viscosity, etc., will invariably destroy this
action in time. In consequence, the author's reasoning in regard to the
pressures against the faces of retaining walls is believed to be open to
grave question as to accuracy of assumption, method, and conclusion.

The author is correct in so far as he assumes that "the character of the
stresses due to the thrust of the material will" not "change if bracing
should be substituted for the material in the area" designated by him,
etc., provided he makes the further assumption that absolutely no
motion, however infinitesimal, has taken place meantime; but, unless
such motion has actually taken place, no arch action can have developed.
An arch thrust can result only with true arch action, that is, with
stable abutments, and the mass stressed wholly in compression, with
corresponding shortening of the arch line. The arch thrust must be
proportional to the elastic deformation (shortening) of the arch line.
If any such arch as is shown in Fig. 5 is assumed to carry the whole of
the weight of material above it, that assumed arch must relieve all the
assumed arches below. Therefore each of the assumed arches can carry
nothing more than its own mass. Otherwise the resulting thrust would
increase with the depth, which is opposed to the author's theory.

Turning again to the condition that each arch can carry only its own
weight: if these arches are assumed of thicknesses proportional to the
distance upward from the bottom of the wall, they will be similar
figures, and it is easily demonstrated that the thrust will then be
uniform in amount throughout the whole height of the wall, except,
perhaps, at the very top. This condition is contrary to the author's
ideas and also to the facts as demonstrated by the writer's experiment
on the 40-ft. retaining wall at St. George. Consequently, the author's
statement: "nor can anyone * * * doubt that the top timbers are stressed
more heavily than those at the bottom," is emphatically doubted and
earnestly denied by the writer. Furthermore, "the assumption" made by
the author as to "the tendency of the material to slide" so as to cause
it "to wedge * * * between the face of the sheeting * * * and some plane
between the sheeting and the plane of repose," is considered as
absolutely unwarranted, and consequently the whole conclusion is
believed to be unjustified. Nor is the author's assumption (line 5, p.
361), that "the thrust * * * is measured by its weight divided by the
tangent of the * * * angle of repose" at all obvious.

The author presents some very interesting photographs showing the
natural surface slopes of various materials; but it is interesting to
note that he describes these slopes as having been produced by the
"continual slipping down of particles." The vast difference between
angles of repose produced in this manner by the rolling friction of
particles and the internal angles of friction, which must be used in all
earth-pressure investigations, has been repeatedly called to the
attention of engineers by the writer.[H]

The writer's experiments are entirely in accord with those of the author
in which the latter claims to demonstrate that "earth and water
pressures act independently of each other," and the writer is much
delighted that his own experiments have been thus confirmed.

In Experiment No. 3, the query is naturally suggested: "What would have
been the result if the nuts and washers had first been tightened and
water then added?" Although the writer has not tried the experiment, he
is rather inclined to the idea that the arch would have collapsed. With
regard to Experiment No. 5, there is to be noted an interesting
possibility of its application to the theoretical discussion of masonry
dams, in which films of water are assumed to exist beneath the structure
or in crevices or cracks of capillary dimensions. The writer has always
considered the assumptions made by many designing engineers as
unnecessarily conservative. In regard to the author's conclusions from
Experiment No. 6, it should be noted that no friction can exist between
particles of sand and surrounding water unless there is a tendency of
the latter to move; and that water in motion does not exert pressures
equal to those produced when in a static condition, the reduction being
proportional to the velocity of flow.

The author's conclusion (p. 371), that "pressure will cause the
quicksand to set up hydraulic action," does not seem to have been
demonstrated by his experiments, but to be only his theory. In this
instance, the results of the writer's experiments are contrary to the
author's theory and conclusion.

The writer will heartily add his protest to that of the author "against
considering semi-aqueous masses, such as soupy sands, soft concrete,
etc., as exerting hydrostatic pressure due to their weight in bulk,
instead of to the specific gravity of the basic liquid." Again,
similarly hearty concurrence is given to the author's statement:

     "If the solid material in any liquid is agitated, so that it is
     virtually in suspension, it cannot add to the pressure, and if
     allowed to subside it acts as a solid, independently of the water
     contained with it, although the water may change somewhat the
     properties of the material, by increasing or changing its cohesion,
     angle of repose, etc."

On the other hand, it is believed that the author's statement, as to
"the tendency of marbles to arch," a few lines above the one last
quoted, should be qualified by the addition of the words, "only when a
certain amount of deflection has taken place so as to bring the arch
into action." Again, on the following page, a somewhat similar
qualification should be added to the sentence referring to the soft clay
arch, that it would "stand if the rods supporting the intrados of the
arch were keyed back to washers covering a sufficiently large area," by
inserting the words, "unless creeping pressures (such as those
encountered by the writer in his experiments) were exceeded."

The writer considers as very doubtful the formula for _D_{x}_, which is
the same as that for _W_{1}_, already discussed. The author's statement
that "additional back-fill will [under certain circumstances] lighten
the load on the structure," is considered subject to modification by
some such clause as the following, "the word 'lighten' here being
understood to mean the reduction to some extent of what would be the
total pressure due to the combined original and added back-fill,
provided no arch action occurred."

The writer is in entire agreement with the author as to the probability
that water is often "cut off absolutely from its source of pressure,"
with the attendant results described by the author (p. 378); and again,
that too little attention has been given to the bearing power of soil,
with the author's accompanying criticism.

The writer cannot see, however, where the author's experiments
demonstrate his statement "that pressure is transmitted laterally
through ground, most probably along or nearly parallel to the angles of
repose," or any of the conclusions drawn by him in the paragraph (p.
381), which contains this questionable statement. Again the writer is at
a loss as to how to interpret the statement that the author has found
that "better resistance" has been offered by "small open caissons sunk
to a depth of a few feet and cleaned out and filled with concrete" than
by "spreading the foundation over four or five times the equivalent
area." The writer agrees with the author in the majority of his
statements as to the "bearing value and friction on piles," but believes
that he is indulging in pure theory in some of his succeeding remarks,
wherein he ascribes to arch action the results which he believes would
be observed if "a long shaft be withdrawn vertically from moulding
sand." These phenomena would be due rather to capillary action and the
resulting cohesion.

Naturally, the writer doubts the author's conclusions as to the pressure
at the top of large square caisson shafts when he states that "the
pressure at the top * * * will * * * increase proportionately to the
depth." Again, the author is apparently not conversant with experiments
made by the Dock Department of New York City, concerning piles driven in
the Hudson River silt, which showed that a single heavily loaded pile
carried downward with it other unloaded piles, driven considerable
distances away, showing that it was not the pile which lacked in
resistance, as much as the surrounding earth.

In conclusion, the writer heartily concurs with the statement that "too
much has been taken for granted in connection with earth pressures and
resistance," and he is sorry to be forced to add that he believes the
author to be open to the criticism which he himself suggests, that "both
in experimenting and observing, the engineer [and in this case the
author] will frequently find what is being looked for or expected and
will fail to see the obvious alternative."

FRANCIS L. PRUYN, M. AM. SOC. C. E. (by letter).--Mr. Meem
should be congratulated, both in regard to the highly interesting
theories which he advances on the subject of sand pressures--the
pressures of subaqueous material--and on his interesting experiments in
connection therewith.

The experiment in which the plunger on the hydraulic ram is immersed in
sand and covered with water does not seem to be conclusive. By this
experiment the author attempts to demonstrate that the pressure of the
water transmitted through the sand is only about 40% as great as when
the sand is not there. The travel of ground-water through the earth is
at times very slow, and occasionally only at the rate of from 2 to 3 ft.
per hour. In the writer's opinion, Mr. Meem's experiment did not cover
sufficient time during which the pressure was maintained at any given
point. It is quite probable that it may take 15 or 20 min. for the full
pressure to be transmitted through the sand to the bottom of the
plunger, and it is hoped, therefore, that he will make further
experiments lasting long enough to demonstrate this point.

In regard to the question of skin friction on caissons and piles, it may
be of interest to mention an experiment which the writer made during the
sinking of the large caissons for the Williamsburg Bridge. These
caissons were about 70 ft. long and 50 ft. wide. The river bottom was
about 50 ft. below mean high water, and the caissons penetrated sand of
good quality to a depth of from 90 to 100 ft. below that level. On two
occasions calculations were made to determine the skin friction while
the caissons were being settled. With the cutting edge from 20 to 30 ft.
below the river bottom, the calculations showed that the skin friction
was between 500 and 600 lb. per sq. ft. The writer agrees with Mr. Meem
that, in the sinking of caissons, the arch action of sand is, in a great
measure, destroyed by the compressed air which escapes under the cutting
edge and percolates up through the material close to the sides of the

With reference to the skin friction on piles, the writer agrees with Mr.
Meem that in certain classes of material this is almost a negligible
quantity. The writer has jacked down 9-in. pipes in various parts of New
York City, and by placing a recording gauge on the hydraulic jack, the
skin friction on the pile could be obtained very accurately. In several
instances the gauge readings did not vary materially from the surface
down to a penetration of 50 ft. In these instances the material inside
the pipe was cleaned out to within 1 ft. of the bottom of the pile, so
that the gauge reading indicated only the friction on the outside of the
pipe plus the bearing value developed by its lower edge. For a 9-in.
pipe, the skin friction on the pile plus the bearing area of the bottom
of the pipe seems to be about 20 tons, irrespective of the depth. After
the pipe had reached sufficient depth, it was concreted, and, after the
concrete had set, the jack was again placed on it and gauge readings
were taken. It was found that in ordinary sands the concreted steel pile
would go down from 3 to 6 in., after which it would bring up to the full
capacity of a 60-ton jack, showing, by gauge reading, a reaction of from
70 to 80 tons.

It is the writer's opinion that, in reasonably compact sands situated at
a depth below the surface which will not allow of much lateral movement,
a reaction of 100 tons per sq. ft. of area can be obtained without any
difficulty whatever.

FRANK H. CARTER, ASSOC. M. AM. SOC. C. E. (by letter).--Mr.
Meem has contributed much that is of value, particularly on water
pressures in sand; just what result would be obtained if coarse crushed
stone or similar material were substituted for sand in Experiment No. 6,
is not obvious.

It has been the practice lately, among some engineers in Boston, as well
as in New York City, to assume that water pressures on the underside of
inverts is exerted on one-half the area only. The writer, however, has
made it a practice first to lay a few inches of cracked stone on the
bottom of wet excavations in order to keep water from concrete which is
to be placed in the invert. In addition to the cracked stone under the
inverts, shallow trenches dug laterally across the excavation to insure
more perfect drainage, have been observed. Both these factors no doubt
assist the free course of water in exerting pressure on the finished
invert after the underdrains have been closed up on completion of the
work. The writer, therefore, awaits with interest the repetition of
Experiment No. 6, with water on the bottom of a piston buried in coarse
gravel or cracked stone.

As for the arching effect of sand, the writer believes that Mr. Meem has
demonstrated an important principle, on a small scale. It must be
regretted, however, that the box was not made larger, for, to the
writer, it appears unsafe to draw such sweeping conclusions from small
experiments. As small models of sailboats fail to develop completely
laws for the design and control of large racing yachts, so experiments
in small sand boxes may fail to demonstrate the laws governing actual
pressures on full-sized structures.

For some time the writer has been using a process of reasoning similar
to that of the author for assumptions of earth pressure on the roofs of
tunnel arches, except that the vertical forces assumed to hold up the
weight of the earth have been ascribed to cohesion and friction, along
what might be termed the sides of the "trench excavation."

The writer fails to find proof in this paper of the author's statement
that earth pressures on the sides of a structure buried in earth are
greater at the top than at the bottom of a trench. That some banks are
"top-heavy," is, no doubt, a fact, the writer having often heard similar
expressions used by experienced trench foremen, but, in every case
called to his attention, local circumstances have caused the
top-heaviness, either undermining at the bottom of the trench, too much
banked earth on top, or the earth excavated from the trench being too
near the edge of the cut.

For some years the writer has been making extended observations on deep
trenches, and, thus far, has failed to find evidence, except in aqueous
material, of earth pressures which might be expected from the known
natural slope of the material after exposure to the elements; and this
latter feature may explain why sheeted trenches stand so much better
than expected. If air had free access to the material, cohesion would be
destroyed, and theoretical pressures would be more easily developed.
With closely-sheeted trenches, weathering is practically excluded, and
the bracing, which seemingly is far too light, holds up the trench with
scarcely a mark of pressure. As an instance, in 1893, the writer was
successfully digging sewer trenches from 10 to 14 ft. deep, through
gravel, in the central part of Connecticut, without bracing; because of
demands of the work in another part of the city, a length of several
hundred feet of trench was left open for three days, resulting in the
caving-in of the sides. The elements had destroyed the cohesion, and the
sides of the trenches no longer stood vertically.

Recently, in the vicinity of Boston, trenches, 32 ft. wide, and from 25
to 35 ft. deep, with heavy buildings on one side, have been braced with
8 by 10-in. stringers, and bracers at 10-ft. centers longitudinally, and
from 3 to 5 ft. apart vertically; this timbering apparently was too
slight for pressures which, theoretically, might be expected from the
natural slope of the material. Just what pressures develop on the sides
of the structures in these deep trenches after pulling the top sheeting
(the bottom sheeting being left in place) is, of course, a matter of
conjecture. There can be no doubt that there is an arching of the
material, as suggested by the author. How much this may be assisted by
the practical non-disturbance of the virgin material is, of course,
indeterminate. That substructures and retaining walls designed according
to the Rankine or similar theories have an additional factor of safety
from too generous an assumption in regard to earth pressure is
practically admitted everywhere. It is almost an engineering axiom that
retaining walls generally fail because of insufficient foundation only.

For the foregoing reasons, and particularly from observations on the
effect of earth pressures on wooden timbers used as bracing, the writer
believes that, ordinarily, the theoretical earth pressures computed by
Rankine and Coulomb are not realized by one-half, and sometimes not even
by one-third or one-quarter in trenches well under-drained, rapidly
excavated, and thoroughly braced.

J.C. MEEM, M. AM. SOC. C. E. (by letter).--The writer has been
much interested in this discussion, and believes that it will be of
general value to the profession. It is unfortunate, however, that
several of the points raised have been due to a careless reading of, or
failure to understand, the paper.

Taking up the discussion in detail, the writer will first answer the
criticisms of Mr. Goodrich. He says:

     "The writer believes that, in the design of permanent structures,
     consideration of arch action should not be included, at least, not
     until more information has been obtained. He also believes that the
     design of temporary structures with this inclusion is actually
     dangerous in some instances."

If the arching action of earth exists, why should it not be recognized
and considered? The design of timbering for a structure to rest, for
instance, at a depth of from 200 to 300 ft. in normal dry earth, without
considering this action, would be virtually prohibitive.

Mr. Goodrich proceeds to show one of the dangers of considering such
action by quoting the writer, as follows:

     "About an hour after the superimposed load had been removed, the
     writer jostled the box with his foot sufficiently to dislodge some
     of the exposed sand, when the arch at once collapsed and the bottom
     fell to the ground."

He fails, as do so many other critics of this theory, to distinguish the
difference between that portion of the sand which acts as so-called
"centering" and that which goes to make up the sustaining arch. The
dislodgment of any large portion of this "centering" naturally causes
collapse, unless it is caught, in which case the void in the "centering"
is filled from the material in the sustaining arch, and this, in turn,
is filled from that above, and so on, until the stability of each arch
is in turn finally established. This, however, does not mean that,
during the process of establishing this equilibrium of the arch
stresses, there is no arching action of any of the material above, but
only that some of the so-called arches are temporarily sustained by
those below. That is, in effect, each area of the material above
becomes, in turn, a dependent, an independent, and finally an
interdependent arch.

If Mr. Goodrich's experience has led him to examine any large number of
tunnel arches or brick sewers, he will have noted in many of them
longitudinal cracks at the soffits of the arches and perhaps elsewhere.
These result from three causes:

_First._--In tunneling, there is more or less loss of material, while,
in back-filling, the material does not at first reach its final
compactness. Therefore, in adjusting itself to normal conditions, this
material causes impact loads to come upon the green arch, and these tend
to crack it.

_Second._--No matter how tightly a brick or other arch is keyed in,
there must always be some slight subsidence when the "centers" are
struck. This, again, results in a shock, or impact loading, to the
detriment of the arch.

_Third._--The most prolific cause, however, is that in tunneling, as
well as in back-filling open cuts, the material backing up the haunches
is more or less loosened and therefore is not at first compact enough to
prevent the spreading of the haunches when the load comes on the arch.
This causes cracking, but, as soon as the haunches have been pressed out
against the solid material, the cracking usually ceases, unless the
pressure has been sufficiently heavy to cause collapse.

An interesting example of this was noted in the Joralemon Street branch
of the Rapid Transit Tunnel, in Brooklyn, in which a great many of the
cast-iron rings were cracked under the crown of the arch, during
construction; but, in spite of this, they sustained, for more than two
years, a loading which, according to Mr. Goodrich, was continually
increasing. In other words, the cracked arch sustained a greater loading
than that which cracked the plates during construction, according to his
theory, as noted in the following quotation:

     "But it should be equally conceded by the advocates of the
     existence of such action that changes in humidity, due to moving
     water, vibration, and appreciable viscosity, etc., will invariably
     destroy this action in time."

As to the correctness of this theory Mr. Goodrich would probably have
great difficulty in convincing naturalists, who are aware that many
animals live in enlarged burrows the stability of which is dependent on
the arching action of the earth; in fact, many of these burrows have
entrances under water. He would also have some difficulty in convincing
those experienced miners who, after a cave-in, always wait until the
ground has settled and compacted itself before tunneling, usually with
apparent safety, over the scene of the cave-in.

The writer quotes as follows from Mr. Goodrich's discussion:

     "In any case, no arch action can be brought into play until a
     certain amount of settlement has taken place so as to bring the
     particles into closer contact, and in such a way that the internal
     stresses are practically those only of compression, and the
     shearing stresses are within the limits possible for the material
     in question."


     "Consequently, an almost infinitesimal settlement of the
     'centering' may cause the complete destruction of an arch of

And further:

     "On the other hand, it is believed that the author's statement, as
     to the 'tendency of marbles to arch,' * * * should be qualified by
     the addition of the words, 'only when a certain amount of
     deflection has taken place so as to bring the arch into action.'"

In a large measure the writer agrees with the first and last quotations,
but sees no reason to endorse the second, as it is impossible to
consider any arch being built which does not settle slightly, at least,
when the "centers" are struck.

Regarding his criticism of the lack of arching action in balls or
marbles, he seems to reason that the movement of the marbles would
destroy the arch action. It is very difficult for the writer to conceive
how it would be possible for balls or marbles to move when confined as
they would be confined if the earth were composed of them instead of its
present ingredients, and under the same conditions otherwise. Mr.
Goodrich can demonstrate the correctness of the writer's theories,
however, if he will repeat the writer's Experiment No. 3, with marbles,
with buckshot, and with dry sand. He is also advised to make the
experiment with sand and water, described by the writer, and is assured
that, if he will see that the washers are absolutely tight before
putting the water into the box, he can do this without bringing about
the collapse of the arch; the only essential condition is that the
bottom shall be keyed up tightly, so as not to allow the escape of any
sand. He is also referred to the two photographs, Plate XXIV,
illustrating the writer's first experiment, showing how increases in the
loading resulted in compacting the material of the arch and in the
consequent lowering of the false bottom. As long as the exposed sand
above this false bottom had cohesion enough to prevent the collapse of
the "centering," this arch could have been loaded with safety up to the
limits of the compressive strength of the sand.

To quote again from Mr. Goodrich:

     "Furthermore, the author's reason for bisecting the angle between
     the vertical and the angle of repose of the material, when he
     undertakes to determine the thickness of key, is not obvious. This
     assumption is shown to be absurd when carried to either limit, for
     when the angle of repose equals zero, as is the case with water,
     this method would give a definite thickness of key, while there can
     be absolutely no arch action possible in such a case; and, when the
     angle of repose is 90°, as may be assumed in the case of rock, this
     method would give an infinite thickness of key, which is again seen
     to be absurd."

Mr. Goodrich assumes that water or liquid has an angle of repose equal
to zero, which is true, but the writer's assumptions applied only to
solid material, and the liquid gives an essentially different condition
of pressure, as shown by a careful reading of the paper. In solid rock
Mr. Goodrich assumes an angle of repose equal to 90°, for which there is
no authority; that is, solid rock has no known angle of repose. In order
to carry these assumptions to a definite conclusion, we must assume for
that material with an angle of repose of 90° some solid material which
has weight but no thrust, such as blocks of ice piled vertically. In
this case Mr. Goodrich can readily see that there will be no arching
action over the structure, and that the required thickness of key would
be infinite. As to the other case, it is somewhat difficult to conceive
of a solid with an angle of repose of zero; aqueous material does not
fulfill this condition, as it is either a liquid or a combination of
water and solid material. The best illustration, perhaps, would be to
assume a material composed of iron filings, into which had been driven a
powerful magnet, so that the iron filings would be drawn horizontally in
one direction. It is easy to conceive, then, that in tunneling through
this material there would be no necessity for holding up the roof; the
definite thickness of key given, as being at the point of intersection
of two 45° angles, would be merely a precautionary measure, and would
not be required in practice.

It is thus seen that both these conditions can be fulfilled with
practical illustrations; that is, for an angle of repose of 90°, that
material which has weight and no thrust, and for an angle of repose of
zero, that solid material which has thrust but no weight.

Mr. Goodrich says the author has given no experiments to prove his
statement that the arch thrust is greater in dryer sand. If Mr. Goodrich
will make the experiment partially described as Experiment No. 3, with
absolutely dry sand, and with moist sand, and on a scale large enough
to eliminate cohesion, he will probably find enough to convince him that
in this assumption the writer is correct. At the same time, the writer
has based his theory in this regard on facts which are not entirely
conclusive, and his mind is open as to what future experiments on a
large scale may develop. It is very probable, however, that an
analytical and practical examination of the English experiments noted on
pages 379 and 380, will be sufficient to develop this fact conclusively.

The writer is forced to conclude that some of the criticisms by Mr.
Goodrich result from a not too careful reading of the paper. For
instance, he states:

     "'It is conceded' (line 2, p. 357, for example) when the writer,
     for one, has not even conceded the accuracy of the assumptions."

A more careful reading would have shown Mr. Goodrich that this
concession was one of the writer's as to certain pressures against or on
tunnels, and, if Mr. Goodrich does not concede this, he is even more
radical than the writer.

And again:

     "'Nor can anyone * * * doubt that the top timbers are stressed more
     heavily than those at the bottom' is emphatically doubted and
     earnestly denied by the writer."

It is unfortunate that Mr. Goodrich failed to make the complete
quotation, which reads:

     "Nor can anyone, looking at Fig. 5, doubt," etc.

A glance at Fig. 5 will demonstrate that, under conditions there set
forth, the writer is probably correct in his assertion as relating to
that particular instance. Further:

     "For instance, the author's well-known theory that the pressures
     against retaining walls are a maximum at the top and decrease to
     zero at the bottom, is in absolute contradiction to the results of
     experiments conducted on a large scale by the writer on the new
     reinforced concrete retaining wall near the St. George Ferry, on
     Staten Island."

The writer's "well-known theory that pressures against retaining walls
are a maximum at the top and decrease to zero at the bottom" applies
only to pressures exerted by absolutely dry and normally dry material,
and it seems to him that this so-called theory is capable of such easy
demonstration, by the simple observation of any bracing in a deep trench
in material of this class, that it ought to be accepted as at least
safer than the old theory which it reverses. As to this "well-known
theory" in material subject to water pressure, a careful reading of the
paper, or an examination of Fig. 12 and its accompanying text, or an
examination of Table 1, will convince Mr. Goodrich that, under the
writer's analysis, this pressure does not decrease to zero at the
bottom, but that in soft materials it may be approximately constant all
the way down, while, in exceptionally soft material, conditions may
arise where it may increase toward the bottom. The determination should
be made by taking the solid material and drying it sufficiently so that
water does not flow or seep from it. When this material is then
compacted to the condition in which it would be in its natural state,
its angle of repose may be measured, and may be found to be as high as
60 degrees. The very fine matter should then be separated from the
coarser material, and the latter weighed, to determine its proportion.
Subtracting this from the total, the remainder could be credited to
"aqueous matter." It is thus seen that with a material when partially
dried in which the natural angle of repose might be 60°, and in which
the percentage of water or aqueous matter when submerged might be 60%,
there would be an increase of pressure toward the bottom.

The writer does not know the exact nature of the experiments made at St.
George's Ferry by Mr. Goodrich, but he supposes they were measurements
of pressures on pistons through holes in the sheeting. He desires to
state again that he cannot regard such experiments as conclusive, and
believes that they are of comparative value only, as such experiments do
not measure in any large degree the pressure of the solid material but
only all or a portion of the so-called aqueous matter, that is, the
liquid and very fine material which flows with it. Thus it is well known
that, during the construction of the recent Hudson and North River
Tunnels, pressures were tested in the silt, some of which showed that
the silt exerted full hydrostatic pressure. At the same time, W.I. Aims,
M. Am. Soc. C. E., stated in a public lecture, and recently also to the
writer, that in 1890 he made some tests of the pressure of this silt in
normal air for the late W.R. Hutton, M. Am. Soc. C. E. A hole, 12 in.
square, was cut through the brickwork and the iron lining, just back of
the lock in the north tube (in normal air), and about 1000 ft. from the
New Jersey shore. It was found that the silt had become so firm that it
did not flow into the opening. Later, a 4-in. collar and piston were
built into the opening, and, during a period covering at least 3 months,
constant observations showed that no pressure came upon it; in fact, it
was stated that the piston was frequently worked back and forth to
induce pressure, but no response was obtained during all this period.
The conclusion must then be drawn that when construction, with its
attendant disturbance, has stopped, the solid material surrounding
structures tends to compact itself more or less, and solidify, according
as it is more or less porous, forming in many instances what may be
virtually a compact arch shutting off a large percentage of the normal,
and some percentage even of the aqueous, pressure.

That the pressure of normally dry material cannot be measured through
small openings can be verified by any one who will examine such material
back of bracing showing evidences of heavy pressure. The investigator
will find that, if this material is free from water pressure, paper
stuffed lightly into small openings will hold back indefinitely material
which in large masses has frequently caused bracing to buckle and
sheeting planks to bend and break; and the writer reiterates that such
experiments should be made in trenches sheeted with horizontal sheeting
bearing against short vertical rangers and braces giving horizontal
sections absolutely detached and independent of each other. In no other
way can such experiments be of real value (and even then only when made
on a large scale) to determine conclusively the pressure of earth on

As to the questions of the relative thrust of materials under various
angles of repose, and of the necessity of dividing by the tangent, etc.;
these, to the writer, seem to be merely the solution of problems in
simple graphics.

The writer believes that if Mr. Goodrich will make, even on a small
scale, some of the experiments noted by the writer, he will be convinced
that many of the assumptions which he cannot at present endorse are
based on fact, and his co-operation will be welcomed with the greatest
interest. Among the experiments which he is asked to make is the one in
dry sand, noted as Experiment No. 3, whereby it can be shown very
conclusively that additional back-fill will result in increased arching
stability, on an arch which would collapse under lighter loading.

The writer is indebted to Mr. Goodrich for pointing out some errors in
omission and in typography (now corrected), and for his hearty
concurrence in some of the assumptions which the writer believed would
meet with greatest disapproval.

In reply to Mr. Pruyn and Mr. Gregory, the writer assumed that the
piston area in Experiment No. 6 should be reduced only by the actual
contact of material with it. If this material in contact should be
composed of theoretical spheres, resulting in a contact with points
only, then the theoretical area reduced should be in proportion to this
amount only. The writer does not believe, however, that this condition
exists in practice, but thinks that the area is reduced very much more
than by the actual theoretical contact of the material. He sees no
reason, as far as he has gone, to doubt the accuracy of the deductions
from this experiment.

Regarding the question of the length of time required to raise the
piston, he does not believe that the position of his critics is entirely
correct in this matter; that is, it must either be conceded that the
piston area is cut off from the source of pressure, or that it is in
contact with it through more or less minute channels of water. If it is
cut off, then the writer's contention is proved without the need of the
experiment, and it is therefore conclusive that a submerged tunnel is
not under aqueous pressure or the buoyant action of water. If, on the
other hand, the water is in contact through channels bearing directly
upon the piston and leading to the clear water chamber, any increase in
pressure in the water chamber must necessarily result in a virtually
instantaneous increase of the pressure against the piston, and therefore
the action on the latter should follow almost immediately. In all cases
during the experiments the piston did not respond until the pressure was
approximately twice as great as required in clear water, therefore the
writer must conclude either that the experiments proved it conclusively
or that his assumption is proved without the necessity of the
experiments. That is, the pressure is virtually not in evidence until
the piston has commenced to move.

Mr. Pruyn has added valuable information in his presentation of data
obtained from specific tests of the bearing value of, and friction on,
hollow steel piles. These data largely corroborate tests and
observations by the writer, and are commended to general attention.

Mr. Carter's information is also of special interest to the writer, as
much of it is in the line of confirming his views. Mr. Carter does not
yet accept the theory of increased pressure toward the top, but if he
will examine or experiment with heavy bracing in deep trenches in clear
sand, or material with well-defined angles of repose, he will probably
find much to help him toward the acceptance of this view.

The writer regrets that he has not now the means or appliances for
further experiments with the piston chamber, but he does not believe
that reliable results could be obtained in broken stone with so small a
piston, as it is possible that the point of one stone only might be in
contact with the piston. This would naturally leave the base exposed
almost wholly to a clear water area. He does not believe, however, that
in practice the laying of broken stone under inverts will materially
change the ultimate pressure unless its cross-section represents a large

Mr. Perry will find the following on page 369:

     "It should be noted also that although the area subject to pressure
     is diminished, the pressure on the area remaining corresponds to
     the full hydrostatic head, as would be shown by the pressure on an
     air gauge."

This, of course, depends on the porosity of the material and the
friction the water meets in passing through it.

As to Mr. Thomson's discussion, the writer notes with regret two points:
(_a_) that specific data are not given in many of the interesting cases
of failures of certain structures or bracing; and (_b_), that he has
not in all cases a clear understanding of the paper. For instance, the
writer has not advocated the omission of bottom bracing or sheeting. He
has seen many instances where it has been, or could have been, safely
omitted, but he desires to make it clear that he does not under any
circumstances advocate its omission in good work; but only that, in
well-designed bracing, its strength may be decreased as it approaches
the bottom.

Reference is again made to the diagram, Fig. 12, which shows that, in
most cases of coffer-dams in combined aqueous and earth pressure, there
may be nearly equal, and in some cases even greater, loading toward the

The writer also specifically states that in air the difference between
aqueous and earth pressure is plainly noted by the fact that bracing is
needed so frequently to hold back the earth while the air is keeping out
the water.

The lack of specific data is especially noticeable in the account of the
rise of the 6-ft. conduit at Toronto. It would be of great interest to
know with certainly the weight of the pipe per foot, and whether it was
properly bedded and properly back-filled. In all probability the
back-filling over certain areas was not properly done, and as the pipe
was exposed to an upward pressure of nearly 1600 lb. per ft., with
probably only 500 or 600 lb. of weight to counterbalance it, it can
readily be seen that it did not conform with the writer's general
suggestion, that structures not compactly, or only partially, buried,
should have a large factor of safety against the upward pressure.
Opposed to Mr. Thomson's experience in this instance is the fact that
oftentimes the tunnels under the East River approached very close to the
surface, with the material above them so soupy (owing to the escape of
compressed air) that their upper surfaces were temporarily in water, yet
there was no instance in which they rose, although some of them were
under excessive buoyant pressure.

It is also of interest to note, from the papers descriptive of the North
River Tunnel, that, with shield doors closed, the shield tended to rise,
while by opening the doors to take in muck the shield could be brought
down or kept down. The writer concurs with those who believe that the
rising of the shield with closed doors was due to the slightly greater
density of the material below, and was not in any way due to buoyancy.

Concerning the collapse of the bracing in the tunnel built under a
side-hill, the writer believes it was due to the fact that it was under
a sliding side-hill, and that, if it had been possible to have
back-filled over and above this tunnel to a very large extent, this
back-fill would have resulted in checking the sliding of material
against the tunnel, and the work would thereafter have been done with
safety. This is corroborated by Mr. Thomson's statement that the tunnel
was subsequently carried through safely by going farther into the hill.

As to the angle of repose, Mr. Thomson seems to feel that its
determination is so often impracticable that it is not to be relied on;
and yet all calculations pertaining to earth pressure must be based on
this factor. The writer believes that the angle of repose is not
difficult to determine, and that observations of, and experiments on,
exposed banks in similar material, and general experience in relation
thereto, will enable one to determine it in nearly all cases within such
reasonably accurate limits that only a small margin of safety need be

Engineers are sent to Europe to study sewage disposal, water
purification, transit problems, etc., but are rarely sent to an
adjoining county or State to look at an exposed bank, which would
perhaps solve a vexed problem in bracing and result in great economy in
the design of permanent structures.

Mr. Thomson's general views seem to indicate that much of the subject
matter noted in the paper relates to unsolvable problems, for it appears
that in many cases he believes the Engineer to be dependent on his
educated guess, backed perhaps by the experienced guess of the foreman
or practical man. The writer, on the contrary, believes that every
problem relating to work of this class is capable of being solved,
within reasonably accurate limits, and that the time is not far distant
when the engineer, with his study of conditions, and samples of material
before him, will be able to solve his earth pressure and earth
resistance problems as accurately as the bridge engineer, with his
knowledge of structural materials, solves bridge problems.

The writer, in the course of his experience, has met with or been
interested in the solution of many problems similar to the following:

What difference in timbering should be made for a tunnel in ordinary,
normally dry ground at a depth of 20 ft. to the roof, as compared with
one at a depth of 90 ft.?

What difference in timbering or in permanent design should be made for a
horizontally-sheeted shaft, 5 ft. square, going to a depth of 45 ft. and
one 25 by 70 ft., for instance, going to the same depth, assuming each
to be braced and sheeted horizontally with independent bracing?

What allowance should be made for the strength of interlock, assuming
that a circular bulkhead of sand, 30 ft. in diameter, is to be carried
by steel sheet-piling exposed around the outside for a depth of 40 ft.?

What average pressure per square foot of area should be required to
drive a section of a 3 by 15-ft. roof shield, as compared with the
pressure needed to drive the whole roof shield with an area four times
as great?

To what depth could a 12 by 12-in. timber be driven, under gradually
added pressure, up to 60 tons, for instance, in normal sand?

What frictional resistance should be assumed on a hollow, steel,
smooth-bore pile which had been driven through sharp sand and had
penetrated soft, marshy material the bearing resistance of which was
practically valueless?

What allowance should be made for the buoyancy of a tunnel 20 ft. in
diameter, the top of which was buried to a depth of 20 ft. in sand above
which there was 40 ft. of water?

It is believed by the writer that most of the authorities are silent as
to the solution of problems similar to the above, and it is because of
this lack of available data that he has directed his studies to them.
The belief that the results of these studies, together with such
observations and experiments as relate thereto, may be of interest, has
caused him to set them forth in this paper.

He desires to state his belief that if problems similar to the above
were given for definite solution, not based on ordinary safe practice,
and without conference, to a number of engineers prominently interested
in such matters, the results would vary so widely as to convince some of
the critics of this paper that the greater danger lies rather in the
non-exploration of such fields than in the setting forth of results of
exploration which may appear to be somewhat radical.

Further, if these views result in stimulating enough interest to lead to
the hope that eventually the "Pressure, Resistance, and Stability" of
ground under varying conditions will be known within reasonably accurate
limits and tabulated, the writer will feel that his efforts have not
been in vain.


[Footnote H: "Lateral Earth Pressures and Related Phenomena,"
_Transactions_, Am. Soc. C. E., Vol. LIII, p. 272.]

*** End of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Pressure, Resistance, and Stability of Earth - American Society of Civil Engineers: Transactions, Paper No. 1174, - Volume LXX, December 1910" ***

Doctrine Publishing Corporation provides digitized public domain materials.
Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians.
This effort is time consuming and expensive, so in order to keep providing
this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties,
including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Doctrine Publishing
Corporation's ISYS search for use by individuals, and we request that you
use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort
to Doctrine Publishing's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a
large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of
public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Keep it legal -  Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for
ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because
we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States,
that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries.
Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we
can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is
allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Doctrine Publishing
ISYS search  means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world.
Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About ISYS® Search Software
Established in 1988, ISYS Search Software is a global supplier of enterprise
search solutions for business and government.  The company's award-winning
software suite offers a broad range of search, navigation and discovery
solutions for desktop search, intranet search, SharePoint search and embedded
search applications.  ISYS has been deployed by thousands of organizations
operating in a variety of industries, including government, legal, law
enforcement, financial services, healthcare and recruitment.