I remember reading this quite a few years ago and was interested in both the difficulty in determining who did/thought what in the hoary past and how little the techniques have changed. By the last comment, how much observations & actually thinking through the individual problems are still a very big part of Geotechnical Engineering. Plug & Crank, whether formulae or programs, does not usually lead to a good understandingof the problems.
I also like the last bullet point :'Terzaghi (1936) reports that "less than 10 years ago the Foundations Committee of a well-known engineering society decided that the word "settlement" should be avoided in public discussions, because it might disturb the peace of mind of those who are to be served by engineering profession."'
My experience in Colorado is that to mention Expansive Soils definately ''disturbs the peace ....
I never made the connection between Coulomb the earth pressure guy and Coulomb the electrical guy. It is Amazing (the fact that they are the same person).
emmgjld - I thought about the "settlement" point too. I know a well-known Canadian geotechnical engineer who doesn't like (but sometimes has) to use the word "failure" - it is "severe distress" . . .
Mccoy - it is amazing what some of those guys back when were into . . . sort of like Mingus who played the bass, piano and who knows what other instruments!
That is so interesting... I'm anything but a Geotech, but I took three geo courses (Geotech I, Geotech II, and Foundation Design), and do find your end of the business fascinating.
It is so very interesting to see this history clarified and spelled out... It is also neat to think that such brilliant technical people can get the details wrong.
