You are on page 1of 2

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Concepcion on 08/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

flow pore pressure relief wells were used. However, pore pressure data
are available for such cells and are shown in Fig. 20 for Cell 10. At that
cell six, 2-in. (51-mm) diam slotted pipes were used. The data are for
piezometric elevations measured by pneumatic piezometers installed near
the dredge level within the cell fill for the time at which the vibratory
probe had penetrated to the bottom of the fill. Excess pore pressures are
evident, keeping in mind that the piezometric level that would normally
be encountered at mean tide is elevation 6.4 ft (1.9 m). Since interlock
tensions are related to pore pressures within the fill, these data strongly
suggest a pretesting of the interlocks for this condition of compaction
pore pressure relief.
In closing, the writers thank Brown and Forrest for their thoughtful comments. Special thanks are also due for their kind support during
construction.
Errata.The following corrections should be made to the original paper:
Page 1657, line 7: Should read, "constructed in the United States, which"
instead of, "constructed in the United States, and"
Page 1672, Table 1, footnote c should read t = (pL/2) (sec a) instead of
t = pL/2 (sec a)

UNDISTURBED SAMPLING OF SATURATED


SANDS BY FREEZING 3

Discussion by T. J. Pilecki4
The "empirical in situ measurements" of soil characteristics in connection with the evaluation of liquefaction potentials is considered by
the authors on the first page of their article. The statement "empirical"
indicates that all of the remaining methods used in Soil Mechanics are
"theoretical" and therefore fool-proof. This is far from the truth. As a
matter of fact, Soil Mechanics is based on the Rupture phenomenon,
described by Coulomb as a shear strength function, and thus it is empirical in principle. Soil Mechanics is, therefore, not based on any one
theory, but on an amalgamation of experimental datas, gathered over
the years. This amalgamation of data is set together in different formulas
according to the standard, non-scientific process, called "a posteriori."
The article further indicates that only a special method of sampling
will give undisturbed samples of a sandy or gravelly material. This is
"February, 1982, by Sukhmander Singh, H. Bolton Seed and Clarence K. Chan
(Proc. Paper 16874).
"Consulting Soil Engr., 1040 Keith Ave., Berkeley, Calif. 94708.
653

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1983.109:653-654.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Concepcion on 08/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

also far from the truth. First of all, soil is remolded due to drilling and
vibration. The insertion of the freezing units also remolds the soil mass
and then, during the final sampling, additional remolding occurs. After
that, the soil is still further disturbed by the transport and extraction of
smaller diameter samples from the larger units. During the time of freezing and thawing, whether we like it or not, some disturbances will be
introduced into the soil structure, although it is obviously true that the
magnitude may be quite small, if we are lucky.
Finally, the article introduces additional illusions as to the correct results of testing in a "Shear Box" or "Triaxial Compression" apparatus.
It is absolutely false to think that these tests give correct results with
respect to Coulomb's parameters, 4> and c. The fact is that these and
similar laboratory tests do not give "true" values of these parameters,
as compared to the "real" ones of the natural soil mass in situ. These
laboratory tests give results pertaining to the structural characteristics of
the "testing apparatus" itself and of the process applied in the actual
testing, as well as the properties of the tested samples. As a matter of
fact, there is a colossal difference between parameters obtained in a "laboratory" and the "real" parameters.
The article proved that disturbances to soil sampling can be reduced
to a small fraction by the freezing process. However, this applies to a
small portion of the overall process of evaluation of the basic parameters. The benefit of freezing is rather small when compared to the overall
engineering aspect of Soil Mechanics, which is the maximum economy
of the testing combined with the maximum precision. These two entities
are, de facto, all that there is, or should be, in all engineering considerations. They are the prime engineering principles of consultations.
This writer wants to emphasize that the expenses on sampling should
be kept in proportion to the overall scope of the undertaken project. Of
course, other facets of the testings together with their costs as well as
errors incurred, should be observed and considered.
It is obvious that high advantages may be drawn from the utilization
of other methods of testings, such as the "empirical in situ measurements" of soil characteristics. These "empirical" procedures are generally much more economical and at the same time, they give much more
precise evaluation of soil parameters, simply by eliminating the "testing
apparatus errors." Such tests as Standard Penetration Tests or Standard
Cone Penetration Tests are most suitable for sandy and gravelly soils,
as long as they are performed by experienced personnel. These tests are
the only ones that can give in situ results of liquefaction potentials,
whereas any other tests performed in the laboratory, will give the liquefaction tests potentials not of the real soils but of the soil samples and
of testing equipment combined.

654

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1983.109:653-654.