Hott, RD. and Kovacs, W. D. (1981) An inroduction to geotechnical ‘engineering, Prentice Hall, Baglewood Chis, NI Kennedy, MiP, and Tan, S. 8. (1977). "Geology of National City imperial Beach and Otay Mesa quadranges southern San Diego met= ropolitin aes, California" Map Shee 29, Calfonia Division of Mines tnd Geology, Sacramento Calif Kraus, J. F, Benson, CH, Erickson, A. B, and Chambedkain, EJ (G95, “Preeze-thaw cycling and hydraulic conduct of bemtniic barriers”. Geotech and Geoenvir Engrs. ASCE, 128(3), 229-238. Laboratory sil esting manuel (1970). U. 8. Army Engineers Expesment ‘Station, Department ofthe Army, Washingion, D.C. Fig. 2, VIS. APPENDIX Il. NOTATION The following symbols are used in this paper: area of permeameter; area of standpipe; initial water level in standpipe; hy = final water level in standpipes 1 = hydraulic conductivity: ‘kas = hydraulic conductivity for saturated conditions; TL = length of soil specimen: and Closure by M. C. McBrayer,* M. Mauldon,’ E. C. Drumm, and G. V. Wilson’ ‘The writers would like to thank the discuss for reminding readers that flow through clay depends upon mineralogy. The writers acknowledge that Kaolinite has less shrink-swell po- tential than montmorillonite. One reason that kaolin was se- lected for the writers’ work, however, was that its low shrink swell characteristics have fostered its use for hydraulic barriers in landfill covers. The writers agree that studies with mont- morillonite have found that cracks appear to heal completely. Even for cases where cracks appear to heal completely, the writers’ study has shown that (1) cracks can readily reopen, ‘often to wider apertures than previously; and (2) cracks can ‘conduct significant flow during the transient stage of infiltra- tion before the cracks close from swelling. It is this phenom- ‘enon that the writers fel is important to consider in evaluating clay barriers. The saturated hydraulic conductivity cannot cap- ture the transient phase of preferential flow, even for a mont- ‘morillonite, EARTH PRESSURES WITH SLopING BACKFILL” Discussion by Robert W. Day,‘ Fellow, ASCE ‘The authors present important experimental data on the ac- tive earth pressure for sloping backfill. The authors conclude "es, Ass, Dept of Gv Bagip. Univ of Texas at Aus, Austin, TX qs 7. asst Pro, Dept, of Civ. and Envic. Engrg, Univ, of Tennesse, Knoxville, TN'37996-2010, "Prat, Dep af CW and Evi Engi, Uni of Temes, Kaoeile, TN "Arase. Pro, Desert Res Ins, Waer Resouces Cir, Las Vegas, NV 891320000, "arch 1997, Vol. 123, No.3, by Yung Show Fang, Jung Ming Chen, ang Cheng-Yo Chen (Paper 11385) “Cnt Engr, Ameccan Geotechnical, 5768 Pacific Cx. Blvd, St. 112, ‘Sen Diego, CA 92121 that they obtained good agreement with the values calculated by Coulomb's theory. Fig. 21 presents Coulomb's equation for the active thrust (P) on a retaining wall having sloping back- fill (“Foundations™” 1982). WALL COMPACTION FOR SLOPING BACKFILL ‘The process of compaction of wall backfill can generate wall pressures well in excess of active pressures (Duncan et al, 1991; Day 1993). To reduce compaction induced pressures, hhand tampers or lightweight equipment is commonly used as shown in Figs, 22 and 23. Bult sloping backfill usually involves f larger volume of backfill and there is a tendency for the contractor to use heavier compaction equipment, especially ‘when placing the sloping backfill (Fig. 24) The discusser be- lieves that for walls with sloping backfill, there will usually be higher compaction induced earth pressures than with a level backfill. Since the value of P, from Fig. 21 does not include ‘compaction induced pressures, it may be appropriate to mul- tiply P, by a factor of safety to prevent the wall from being damaged or deformed during fill compaction, ‘SLOPING GROUND IN FRONT OF WALL. In Fig. 1, the authors illustrate an example of sloping ground {in front of the retaining wall. This isa common situation where the retaining wal is built at the top of slopes. As the authors show in Fig. 1, the descending slope in front of the wall must provide the passive resistance to the retaining wall, In many tases, especially for clayey slopes, the sloping ground infront ‘of the wall will ereep and a gap will open up between the wall and slope (Fig. 25). When designing retaining walls atthe top ‘of clayey slopes, the discusser believes that the wall should textend below the ereep prone zone and passive pressure should bbe neglected in the creep zone. FIG. 21. Coulomb's Earth Pressure Equation (“Foundations” 1952/ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 1908FIG, 24. Compaction of Sloping Backfill Using Heavy Com- action Equipment Pointte Gap) APPENDIX. REFERENCES Day, R, W. (1993), “Discuslon of “Esmation cath pressures due to compaction, by J. M. Duncan, G. W. Willams, A. 1. Seb, snd RB Seeds" J. Geotech Engrg, ASCE, 119(7), 1162-1177 “Foundations and ean ructares, design manual 72. (1982). NAVEAC ‘DM-72, Deparment ofthe Navy, Navy Facies Engineering Com mand, Alexandra, Va JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 1998 /11 Closure by Yung-Show Fang,’ Associate ‘Member, ASCE, Jiung-Ming Chen,‘ and ‘Cheng-Yu Chen’ ‘The writers wish to thank the discusser for his interes in their paper. The writers fully agree withthe discusser’s com ‘ment that the process of compaction of backfill can generate wall pressures well in excess of active pressures. However, it is clearly mentioned in the paper that, to limit the scope of this study, only loose cohesionless soil was used as backfil ‘material throughout all experiments. Therefore, the test data obtained do not include any pressure variation due to com paction. The writers agree tha, from a practical point of view, ‘when designing a retaining structure it is important to estimate the pressure increment induced by soil densification. The prac- tical and constructive discussions by the discusser significantly enhanced the value ofthe paper. However, instead of applying fan empirical factor of safety to the Coulomb's solution, itis suggested that more analytical, numerical, and experimental studies should be carried out to feveal the mechanism of lateral stress variation as a result of soil compaction. CUMULATIVE PLasTiC DEFORMATION FOR FINE-GRAINED SUBGRADE SOILS* Discussion by J. T. Shahu,’ Yudhbir,* and N. S. V. Kameswara Rao* “The authors have addressed a very important issue of pre~ diction of cumulative plastic deformation of soils under re- peated loading. The authors studied the variation of parameters A and b of model (1) with the soil parameters and soil types. Finally, the comparison between predicted and experimental results was made for the railroad-track subgrade. However, it may be noted that Shahu (1993) has developed ‘a mote generalized model for predicting the cumulative plastic strain in soil under repeated loading of the form lost.) = Ce + Dr lost) + Er logtNsiNe) 14) ‘where Ny =N and NyINs = 1 for N= Ny; and N, = Ny and N; N for N > Ny. In the equation, C, = value of log (€) at N = 1; Dp = fist gradient of the bilinear log-log plot between €, and N; Ey = second gradient of the bilinear log-log plot be- tween € and N (for N> Ns); and Ny = value of N where the change in gradient from Dp to E> occurs (Fig. 9). “The discussers have developed model (14) as an improve- "Prof, Inns of Gi. Engrg, Nat Chan Tung Univ, Honcho, Talwan, 20030. "Grad. Student, Inst. of Civ. Engrg. Nat. Cho Tung Uni, Hsnchu, ‘Taiwan, 30080 "Ges. Student, lst of Civ. Engrg. Nat. Chi Tung Univ, Hsinchu, ‘Taiwan, 30050. ‘December 1996, Vol. 122, No. 12, by Dingging Li and Ernest T. Selig ceaper 11780), "Res, Ins. of Lowland Technol, Saga Uni, Saga 840, Joan. “Prof, Dep of Civ. Engr IT Kanpur, India, 208016, and AT, Bang. sok, Taian. "Prof, Dept. of Civ. Engg. ITT Kanpur, Indi, 208016