DISCUSSIONS AND CLOSURES

a2 = p cos ␤ cos共␾⬘ − ␪兲 + q 共5a兲

Discussion of “Active Earth Pressure on
Retaining Wall for c-␾ Soil Backfill under
a1 = p sin共␤ + ␾⬘ − ␪兲 共5b兲
Seismic Loading Condition” by S. K.
Shukla, S. K. Gupta, and N. Sivakugan
a0 = p sin ␤ sin共␾⬘ − ␪兲 + q 共5c兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by British Columbia Institute of Technology on 01/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

May 2009, Vol. 135, No. 5, pp. 690–696.

DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲GT.1943-5606.0000003
d2 = cos共␤ + ␦ + ␾⬘兲cos ␧ 共6a兲
1
Venanzio R. Greco
1
Dept. of Structural Engineering, Univ. of Calabria, 87036 Rende 共Cs兲, d1 = sin共␤ + ␦ + ␾⬘ + ␧兲 共6b兲
Italy. E-mail: venanziogreco@strutture.unical.it

d0 = sin共␤ + ␦ + ␾⬘兲sin ␧ 共6c兲

The authors’ paper is welcome because it makes up for a lack in with
the original method of Coulomb and renders it applicable to c⬘-␾⬘
soil backfills. Such a backfill type could be studied with the 1 ⫾ kv sin共␤ − ␧兲
method of Rankine but this does not have the versatility of Cou- p= 共7a兲
cos ␪ sin2 ␤
lomb’s method for analyzing thrust wedges with various geo-
metrical shapes and subject to surcharges. Therefore, the paper is
very important for geotechnical engineering practice. 2c⬘ sin共␤ − ␧兲
q= cos ␾⬘ 共7b兲
However, the formulation is limited to backfills with a hori- ␥h sin ␤
zontal profile 共␧ = 0兲, walls with a vertical backface 共␤ = ␲ / 2兲, and
no friction between backfill and wall backface 共␦ = 0兲. Moreover, and, using Eq. 共22兲 of the original paper, we can write
it does not take the presence of tension cracks, which are prob-
q c⬘ cos ␪
ably present in a cohesive soil subjected to a reduction in the =2 cos ␾⬘ sin ␤ = 2m cos ␾⬘ sin ␤ 共7c兲
lateral stress, into account. This discussion aims to contribute to p ␥h 1 ⫾ kv
the approach followed by the authors by extending the field of Because Eq. 共9兲 of the original paper is equivalent to the condi-
applicability of the method to: tion
1. Backfills with an inclined profile 共␧ ⫽ 0兲, walls with an in-
clined backface 共␤ ⫽ ␲ / 2兲, and a friction angle ␦ between dPae
wall and backfill soil; and =0 共8兲
d tan ␣
2. Backfills with tension cracks up to a depth of zc.
the thrust Pae is maximized for that value of ␣ solving the qua-
dratic equation
Formulation for Inclined Backfill and Wall Backface
共a1d2 − a2d1兲tan2 ␣ − 2共a0d2 − a2d0兲tan ␣ + 共a0d1 − a1d0兲 = 0
With reference to Fig. 1, where the geometry of the thrust wedge 共9兲
ABC and the forces acting on it are shown, the equilibrium con-
ditions of forces lead to the following relation for the thrust Pae which gives the critical value of the inclination angle ␣ maximiz-
ing the thrust Pae in general geometrical conditions.
1 ⫾ kv sin共␣ − ␾ + ␪兲 C cos ␾⬘
Pae = W − 共1兲
cos ␪ sin共␤ + ␦ + ␾⬘ − ␣兲 sin共␤ + ␦ + ␾⬘ − ␣兲 A ε
where W = weight of the thrust wedge ABC B

1 sin共␤ − ␧兲sin共␤ − ␣兲 k vW
W = ␥h2 共2兲 k hW
2 sin2 ␤ sin共␣ − ␧兲
C
and C = force on AC due to cohesion W
h
h sin共␤ − ␧兲 β−π/2 π/2−α
C = c⬘ 共3兲 φ'
sin ␤ sin共␣ − ␧兲 δ Pa
Introducing Eqs. 共2兲 and 共3兲 in Eq. 共1兲, we have α R
β
1 a2 tan2 ␣ − a1 tan ␣ + a0 C
Pae = ␥h2 共4兲
2 d2 tan2 ␣ − d1 tan ␣ + d0 Fig. 1. Cross section of a wall and the thrust wedge ABC without
where tension cracks

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010 / 1583

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1583-1584.

 A' sin ␤ cos ␧
ε 共12兲
B' B" hc = h − zc .
cracke
d soil zc sin共␤ − ␧兲
sin β cos ε
zc zc k W
sin(β − ε) v A
B In the second member of Eq. 共11兲, the first term represents the
k hW C weight of the triangle B⬘BB⬙, the second that of the parallelogram
h W B⬙BAA⬘ 共B⬙ is on the vertical crossing point B兲, and the third that
hc of the triangle BCA.
β−π/2 π/2−α The force C acting on CA is given by
δ Pa φ'
α R
β hc sin共␤ − ␧兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by British Columbia Institute of Technology on 01/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

C
C = c⬘ 共13兲
sin ␤ sin共␣ − ␧兲
Fig. 2. Cross section of a wall and the thrust wedge B⬘CAA⬘ with
tension cracks Introducing Eqs. 共11兲–共13兲 in Eq. 共1兲, we have

1 b2 tan2 ␣ − b1 tan ␣ + b0
Pae = ␥h2c 共14兲
Obviously, if ␤ = ␲ / 2, ␧ = 0, and ␦ = 0 as in the original paper, 2 d2 tan2 ␣ − d1 tan ␣ + d0
the value of ␣c given by Eq. 共9兲 is equal to that given by Eq. 共11兲
of the original paper. In this case, in fact, the coefficients of Eq. where
共9兲 becomes
b2 = 共p0 cos ␧ + p1 cos ␤兲cos共␾⬘ − ␪兲 + q 共15a兲
a1d2 − a2d1 = − p关sin ␾⬘ cos共␾⬘ − ␪兲 + 2m cos2 ␾⬘兴 共10a兲

b1 = p0 sin共␧ + ␾⬘ − ␪兲 + p1 sin共␤ + ␾⬘ − ␪兲 共15b兲

a0d2 − a2d0 = − p关cos ␾⬘ sin共␾⬘ − ␪兲 + m sin 2␾⬘兴 共10b兲

b0 = 共p0 sin ␧ + p1 sin ␤兲sin共␾⬘ − ␪兲 + q 共15c兲

a0d1 − a1d0 = p关cos ␾⬘ sin共␾⬘ − ␪兲 + 2m cos2 ␾⬘兴 共10c兲
with

冉冊
and the solution of Eq. 共9兲 is given by Eq. 共11兲 of the original
paper. 1 ⫾ kv zc 2
cos ␤ cos ␧
p0 = 共16a兲
The influence of the angles ␤, ␧, and ␦ on the values of ␣c and cos ␪ hc sin共␤ − ␧兲
Pae is relevant. For example, in the specific case of ␾⬘ = 24°, c⬘
= 5 kPa, H = 5 m, ␥ = 20 kN/ m3, ␤ = 80°, ␧ = 15°, ␦ = 12°, kh = 0.2
and kv = 0.1, Eq. 共9兲 gives ␣c = 32.5° and Pae = 137.4 kN/ m 关Eq.
共4兲兴, while the inappropriate use of Eqs. 共11兲 and 共14兲 of the
original paper leads to ␣c = 48.0° and Pae = 121.6 kN/ m.
p1 =
cos ␪
冋
1 ⫾ kv zc cos ␧ sin共␤ − ␧兲
2
hc sin ␤
+
sin2 ␤
册 共16b兲

2c⬘ cos ␾⬘
Soils with Tension Cracks q= sin共␤ − ␧兲 共17兲
␥hc sin ␤
If we suppose that tension cracks are vertical 共as shown by the
application of Rankine’s method to materials not resistant to trac- Eq. 共8兲 leads to the quadratic equation
tion兲 and extended up to depth zc, the thrust wedge is limited by
the slip surface CA 共inclined at ␣兲 and by the tension crack AA⬘. 共b1d2 − b2d1兲tan2 ␣ − 2共b0d2 − b2d0兲tan ␣ + 共b0d1 − b1d0兲 = 0
Therefore the thrust wedge is the quadrilateral B⬘CAA⬘ and its
weight is given by 共18兲

which gives the critical value of the inclination angle ␣c in the

1 cos ␤ cos ␧ cos ␧ sin共␤ − ␣兲 presence of tension cracks up to depth zc. In absence of tension
W = − ␥z2c + ␥zchc
2 sin共␤ − ␧兲 sin ␤ sin共␣ − ␧兲 cracks, p0 = 0, p1 = p and Eq. 共18兲 reduces to Eq. 共9兲.
With the previous numerical data, if we calculate the depth zc
1 sin共␤ − ␧兲sin共␤ − ␣兲 of the tension cracks with the equation zc = 共2c⬘ / ␥兲cos ␾⬘ /
+ ␥h2c 共11兲
2 sin2 ␤ sin共␣ − ␧兲 共1-sin␾⬘兲, we have zc = 0.77, hc = 4.19 m, ␣c = 30.8°, and Pae
= 143.4 kN/ m. In this case, the tension crack presence leads to an
increase of 4% in the value of Pae, but if c⬘ = 10 kPa, this increase
where 共Fig. 2兲 becomes 17%.

1584 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1583-1584.


Closure to “Active Earth Pressure on
Retaining Wall for c-␾ Soil Backfill under
Seismic Loading Condition” by S. K. Shukla,
S. K. Gupta, and N. Sivakugan
May 2009, Vol. 135, No. 5, pp. 690–696.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲GT.1943-5606.0000003
Sanjay Kumar Shukla1
1
Assoc. Prof. and Program Leader, Discipline of Civil Engineering,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by British Columbia Institute of Technology on 01/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
School of Engineering, Edith Cowan Univ., 270 Joondalup Dr., Joon-
dalup, WA 6027, Australia. E-mail: s.shukla@ecu.edu.au
The writer thanks the discusser for finding our paper very impor-
tant for geotechnical engineering practice. The discusser has ex-
tended our expression for the total active earth pressure for its
applicability to backfills with inclined profile, walls with inclined
backface, friction angle between wall and backfill soil, and back-
fills with tension crack. The discusser is greatly appreciated for
this highly valuable contribution. Derivation of Eqs. 共1兲 to 共18兲
presented by the discusser has been checked carefully, and they
have been found to be correct. However, readers should note the
corrections as mentioned below:
1. Eq. 共1兲 contains ␾ and ␾⬘, which refer to the effective angle
of shearing resistance; it should contain only ␾⬘.
2. In Eq. 共10b兲, cos ␾⬘ should be replaced by sin ␾⬘.
3. In Eqs. 共15a-c兲, q should be replaced by another symbol, say
q0, because q refers to a different expression in Eq. 共7b兲.
It should be noted that we have explained through Eq. 共24兲 in
the original paper how one can use our analytical expression for
estimating active earth pressure on a retaining wall from the c-␾
soil backfill under seismic loading condition, considering tension
crack. It appears that the discusser has not noticed this fact; how-
ever, the approach adopted in the discussion is appreciated.
One of the interesting observations is that Eq. 共9兲 and Eq. 共18兲
can be expressed in the determinant form, respectively, as follows
冨 冨
tan2 ␣ 2 tan ␣ 1
a0 a1 a2 = 0
d0 d1 d2
and
冨 冨
tan2 ␣ 2 tan ␣ 1
b0 b1 b2 = 0
d0 d1 d2
The above determinant form of equations can easily be re-
membered by the readers for their use while making the calcula-
tion for the total active force. The readers should also note the
following:
1. The symbol ␪ used in the equations of the discussion is given
by Eq. 共21兲 of our paper.
2. The discusser has suggested to use the expression for the
depth of tension crack
zc = 冉 冊冉
2c⬘
␥
cos ␾⬘
1 − sin ␾⬘
冊 共3兲
without any reference. This value is based on Rankine’s
analysis of active earth pressure from the c-␾ soil backfill
under static condition 共Lambe and Whitman 1979; Das
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010 / 1585
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1583-1584.
2008兲. Alternatively, one can use its value obtained from the
field observations.
References
Das, B. M. 共2008兲. Fundamentals of geotechnical engineering, 3rd Ed.,
Thomson, Mason, Ohio.
Lambe, T. W., and Whitman, R. V. 共1979兲. Soil mechanics, SI Version,
Wiley, New York.
Discussion of “Use of SPT Blow Counts to
Estimate Shear Strength Properties of
Soils: Energy Balance Approach” by
H. Hettiarachchi and T. Brown
June 2009, Vol. 135, No. 6, pp. 830–834.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲GT.1943-5606.0000016
Fernando Schnaid1; Edgar Odebrecht2; and
Bianca O. Lobo3
1
Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Civil Engineering, Federal Univ. of Rio Grande do
Sul, Av. Osvaldo Aranha, 99–3° andar-90035-190 Porto Alegre, Rio
Grande do Sul, Brazil. E-mail: farnando@ufrgs.br
2
Asst. Prof., Dept. of Civil Engineering, State Univ. of Santa Catarina,
Rua Machado de Assis, 277-Ap. 602-89204-390-Joinville, Santa
3
Catarina, Brazil. E-mail: edgar@geoforma.com.br
Asst. Prof., Dept. of Civil Engineering, Federal Univ. of Santa Catarina,
Servidão Corintians, 97-Ap. 704-88040-100-Florianópolis, Santa
Catarina, Brazil. E-mail: lobo_bianca@yahoo.com.br
The authors proposed approach for interpretation of SPT test re-
sults appears to have the right framework given the fact that en-
ergy concepts have been incorporated to the prediction of soil
properties. However, the approach relies on a number of assump-
tions that the writers find difficult to accept. In particular it has
been argued that possible loss of wave energy in a long rod could
共1兲 be partially compensated by the extra weight added by the long
rods, leading to the assumption that energy losses are negligible.
This hypothesis emerges from a recent ASCE paper published
by Odebrecht et al. 共2005兲 that states that “the sampler energy can
be conveniently expressed as a function of nominal potential en-
ergy E*, sampler final penetration, and weight of both hammer
共2兲 and rods. The influence of rod length produces two opposite ef-
fects: wave energy losses increase with increasing rod length and
in a long composition of rods the gain in potential energy from
rod weight is significant and may partially compensate measured
energy losses.” This conclusion is directly derived from the sys-
tem energy delivered to the sampler Esampler by considering the
combined effects of the hammer potential energy 共Eh兲 and rod
potential energy 共Er兲
ESampler = ␩3关␩1Eh + ␩2Er兴 = ␩3关␩1共H + ⌬␳兲M hg + ␩2⌬␳M rg兴
共1兲
where M h = hammer weight; M r = rod weight; g = gravity accelera-
tion; ⌬␳ = sampler penetration; H = height of fall; and ␩1, ␩2, and
␩3 = efficiency coefficients. In this proposed equation, both ham-
mer and rod potential energies are a function of ⌬␳ and the length
of the rod in addition to the M h and H, whereas efficiency ␩ is not
affected by ⌬␳. These principles have been extensively evaluated
 &''(' *+, &''(' *+,
" # $ % ! " # $ % !

! !
"# "#

"$
"$
" " %& "
" %&
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by British Columbia Institute of Technology on 01/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

" '&
" '&

"! "!
-./01 *2,

-./01 *2,
# #

#! #!

$ $

$! $!

Fig. 1. 共a兲 Rod energy losses error 共American standard兲; 共b兲 rod energy losses error 共Brazilian standard兲

by numerical analysis to demonstrate that energy losses from yields an error of about 40% 共i.e., the contribution of the rod
wave propagation cannot be entirely compensated by the rod po- energy is larger than losses produced by wave propagation兲. Only
tential energy 共Odebrecht et al. 2005兲, which is illustrated in Fig. in dense sand 共Nspt = 40兲 the error is negligible.
18 of the original paper. The authors could argue that despite simplified considerations,
This effect is demonstrated in Fig. 1, in which errors intro- the angle of internal friction ␾⬘ is derived with reasonable accu-
duced by the misinterpretation of energy balance are related to racy. The database adopted to validate the method might partially
rod length. The error is defined as explain this apparently successful application. Friction angles
from Tables 1 and 3 共of the original paper兲 fall in a very narrow
共Esampler
rod
− 0.6E*兲 band 共from 28° to 35°兲, despite the wide range of associated SPT
Error = 100 共2兲
0.6E* blow counts 共7 ⬍ N60 ⬍ 97兲. These adopted values are signifi-
cantly lower than reported data published by the U.S. Bureau of
rod
where Esampler = ␩3关␩2⌬␳M rg兴 is the contribution of the rod energy
ⴱ Reclamation 共De Mello 1971兲 and by Hatanaka and Uschida
and E the nominal potential energy corrected to the reference
共1996兲, as illustrated in Fig. 2 共after Schnaid et al. 2009兲. To
value of 60%. Note that Fig. 1共a兲 relates to American standards
enable a direct comparison to published data, the blow count N60
whereas Fig. 1共b兲 refers to Brazilian standards. From these figures
used by the authors had to be corrected to 共N1兲60 adopting the
it is observed that a 30-m-long rod in loose sand 共Nspt = 3兲
value of CN 共 = 共100/ ␴⬘v兲0.5兲 proposed by Liao and Whitmann
""
共1986兲.
C02: CD 02: CD.CE Since the database shows some discrepancy with preceding
"! C02: F9GG *CD 1= CE,
experience, there appears to be enough evidence to question the
CE D9<:H=21
$" proposed approach and to suggest caution in using the method for
/0102030 4 56789:0 *%))&,

;<7=>?1 *%)(),
engineering works until proven by practical experience.
$!
φB /<1190?078789 4 @?=A2 * !!),

#"
References
#!

" De Mello, V. F. B. 共1971兲 “The standard penetration test.” Proc., 4th Pan
!
American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineer-
! %! ! #! $! "! &! '! (! )! %!! %%! % ! %#! ing, Vol. 1, Puerto rico, 1–87.
*+%,&! . /0102030 4 56789:0 *%))&, Hatanaka, M., and Uchida, A. 共1996兲. “Empirical correlation between
*+%,&! . ;<7=>?1 *%)(), penetration resistance and effective friction of sand soil.” Soil Found.,
*+%,&! . /<1190?078789 4 @?=A2 * !!),
36共4兲, 1–9.
Liao, S. S. C., and Whitman, R. V. 共1986兲. “Overburden correction fac-
Fig. 2. Peak friction angle of sands from SPT resistance tors for SPT in sand.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 112共3兲, 373–377.

1586 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1583-1584.

 Odebrecht, E., Schnaid, F., Rocha, M. M., and Bernardes, G. P. 共2005兲.
“Energy efficiency for standard penetration test.” J. Geotech. Geoen-
viron. Eng., 131共10兲, 1252–1263.
Schnaid, F., Odebrecht, E., Rocha, M. M., and Bernardes, G. P. 共2009兲.
“Prediction of soil proprieties from the concepts of energy transfer in
dynamic penetration tests.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 135共8兲,
1092–1100.
Closure to “Use of SPT Blow Counts to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by British Columbia Institute of Technology on 01/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the discussers compare the results produced by the proposed
model with data from published literature and two other models.
For blow counts in the range of 20–40 the proposed model pro-
duces friction angles from 28°–32°. For the same range of blow
counts, other data/methods provide friction angles as high as 46°.
The authors are in agreement with the discussers about using
caution in using the proposed equations until they are proven by
experience. In addition the writers also believe that the proposed
model parameters may have to be fine-tuned for different types of
material.

Estimate Shear Strength Properties of

Soils: Energy Balance Approach” by
H. Hettiarachchi and T. Brown Discussion of “Reliability-Based
June 2009, Vol. 135, No. 6, pp. 830–834. Economic Design Optimization of Spread
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲GT.1943-5606.0000016 Foundations” by Y. Wang
Vol. 135, No. 7, July 1, 2009, pp. 954–959.
Hiroshan Hettiarachchi1 DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲GT.1943-5606.0000013
1
Asst. Prof., Dept. of Civil Engineering, Lawrence Technological Univ.,
21000 West Ten Mile Rd., Southfield, MI 48075. E-mail:
hiroshan@ltu.edu
Sarat Kumar Das1 and Manas Ranjan Das2
1
Assoc. Prof., Civil Engineering Dept., National Institute of Technology
Rourkela, Orissa-769008, India. E-mail: saratdas@rediffmail.com;
sarat@nitrkl.ac.in
The writers wish to thank discussers for their interest in this paper 2
Asst. Prof., Dept. of Civil Engineering, ITER, SOA Univ., Orissa-
and also for the constructive criticism. The discussers’ comments 769008, India. E-mail: manasdas.iter@gmail.com
opened up a discussion on the importance of incorporating SPT
rod weight into the formulation of energy balance equations.
It may be true that the proposed equations could have been The author has proposed reliability-based economic design opti-
improved by incorporating SPT rod weight. However, the writers mization framework of spread foundation comprising of reliabil-
are skeptical about the degree of improvement it can make. The ity based design methodology, construction cost estimate and cost
discussers suggest that the proposed equations may cause 40% optimization. The author has discussed the economically opti-
error for 30-m-long rod in loose sand 共with N = 3兲, but agree that mized design in the line proposed in available literature 共Wang
for the same depth, the error may be negligible in dense sand. If and Kulhawy 2008兲. Both in this paper and in Wang and Kulhawy
a 30-m-long rod is used during an SPT, obviously the test must 共2008兲, the approach is expressed as a constrained optimization
have been conducted at least at a depth greater than 25 m. At process, in which the objective is to minimize the total construc-
deeper depths 共such as 25 m兲, it is rare to find sand that can give tion cost. Design parameters, such as the dimensions of the foun-
blow counts as low as 3. According to the error analysis presented dations have been treated as variables, which vary in the ranges
by the discussers 共Fig. 1兲, shallower depths produce relatively low constrained by design requirement including ultimate limit state
error for a wide range of N values. Fig. 1 also suggests that at 共ULS兲 and serviceability limit state 共SLS兲 requirements. The op-
deeper depths the proposed equations produce considerable error timization model has been set up in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet
only for very low N values. Therefore, Fig. 1 indirectly supports and has been solved using the Excel function solver. As the above
the practical level of accuracy produced of the proposed equations problems are nonlinear it is solved using generalized reduced gra-
even in their current forms. dient 共GRG兲 algorithm in solver. The GRG method is a direct
The writers also have a concern about the way the discussers method of solving a constrained optimization problem, unlike the
define error. If they are attempting to quantify the error due to the Lagrange multiplier method that is solved as a sequential uncon-
omission of rod weight, it is more meaningful to define the error strained optimization problem. The GRG method is based on the
as the energy difference between the two methods 共with rod en- principles of elimination of variables using equality constraint
ergy and without rod energy兲 compared to the energy given by the 共Deb 2005兲. The optimization method is a numerical method and
more detailed method 共with rod energy兲. It is not clear why the
discussers would define the error as the difference between the Table 1. Comparison of Spread Footing Designs
rod energy and hammer energy. Optimized
The discussers’ argument on predicting a narrow 28°–35° fric- Design variable value Constraints
tion angles from 7 to 97 wide range of SPT blow counts is also
misleading. It is true that the writers used a 7–92 wide range of Factor of
SPT blow counts to estimate the model parameters. However, the Width Length Depth safety
Design 共B兲 共L兲 共D兲 Cost against Settlement
blow count data used in the verification was only limited to 11–69
option 共m兲 共m兲 共m兲 共USD兲 bearing 共mm兲
and it produced a reasonable range of 28°–35° friction angles. As
discussed in the paper, one of the attractive features of the pro- Optimized 1.86 2.30 1.38 1086.00 2.97 25.01
posed model is its ability to slightly underpredict. While few 共Wang and
other widely used models are overpredicting friction angles, the Kulhawy
2008兲
proposed model provided more conservative answers. This is also
Present study 2.06 2.12 0.50 959.10 3.00 25.00
clearly indicated in Fig. 2 provided by the discussers. In Fig, 2,

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010 / 1587

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1583-1584.

 depends upon the initial value 共guess兲 of the design variable.
As it is very much difficult to predict global optimum of such
points it is required that the problems should be checked with
different initial point. Another important aspect of the constrained
optimization problem is constraint violation, which needs to be
checked for the optimized value. However, such a study is neither
discussed in Wang and Kulhawy 共2008兲 nor in this paper. The
discussers have made such a study based on the results of Wang
and Kulhawy 共2008兲 and observed different trends in the obtained
results in terms of optimized values and the design parameters.
The results are shown in Table 1 and it can be seen that the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by British Columbia Institute of Technology on 01/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
value. The discussers have also faced similar difficulties while
optimizing the problems using MS Excel solver.
As discussed above both the constraints are the inequality type
and the GRG method is based on the principle of elimination of
variable using equality constraint. Hence the discusser would re-
quests the author to verify the constraint violation of the results
for their problem and also should be checked with different initial
point before drawing their conclusions.
References

obtained optimized value is less than that given in Wang and

Kulhawy 共2008兲. The constraint violations are also better and the Deb, K. 共2005兲. Optimization for engineering design algorithms and ex-
depth of the foundation is more practical considering it as a rein- amples, PHI Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India.
forced concrete foundation. This also shows that it is very much Wang, Y., and Kulhawy, F. H. 共2008兲. “Economic design optimization of
important to consider different initial point to arrive at optimized foundations.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 134共8兲, 1097–1105.

1588 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1583-1584.