A Possible Future Direction

The origins of geotechnical engineering as they are currently commonly told are related in “A Short (Conventional) History”. Here, that history will be critiqued. Its strengths will be evaluated, and some ways in which it might be improved will be considered. In these ways, the door may be opened to future opportunities for research and improvement in geotechnical academia, study, and practice.

When looking at the strengths and liabilities of a history, it is advisable to consider the intended audience of that history, and the history of geotechnical engineering is no exception. As an introduction to the field of geotechnical engineering, “A Short (Conventional) History” works well. It provides some detail, but not too much, which keeps readers interested. In addition, it covers a lot of ground fairly quickly, which also holds readers’ attention. Lastly, it has a good narrative flow to it; it moves smoothly from one event to the next. So, on an introductory level, “A Short (Conventional) History” gets a decent grade, as do the histories on which it is based.

For those in the geotechnical profession looking for a more detailed history of the field, however, “A Short (Conventional) History” leaves something to be desired. The reason why is straightforward and understandable. The intended audience for “A Short (Conventional) History”, and similar short geotechnical histories in textbooks and papers, is not academics or practitioners but the public or, more often, college students in an introductory geotechnical course. Moreover, while some historical context is related during such a course, most of the history of the field is ordinarily presented at the beginning of the course, when students have a grasp of the basics of mechanics of materials but little understanding of geotechnical principles. At that point, students, rather reasonably, cannot grasp a concept-driven history of the field; how can one understand the history of effective stress if one has yet to learn about it? By contrast, a historical narrative driven by biographies of leading contributors is much more readily comprehensible to students who are at this stage of learning about geotechnical engineering. However, those of us who know the principles of geotechnical engineering can, and perhaps should, desire a more detailed history.

What would a more detailed geotechnical history look like? Some inspiration can be found in the many geotechnical histories which have already been written for academic or professional audiences. For instance, the late Sir Alec Skempton wrote both many sound technical pieces and also many geotechnical historical anthologies, biographical essays, and at least one detailed account of noteworthy historical texts in geotechnical engineering (Skempton 1985). Richard Goodman’s biography of Karl Terzaghi and Judith Niechcial’s biography of Skempton also come to mind. However, many of these historical pieces have been anthologies of literature by select authors, biographies of individuals, or reviews of select historic geotechnical works. This gives them a key commonality with the introductory narrative to geotechnical history – an emphasis on individuals.

The individual most obviously emphasized in the traditional narrative of geotechnical history is Karl Terzaghi. “The story of this engineer’s life and career,” wrote Petroski (1996), “sometimes takes on mythic proportions, something Terzaghi himself seems not to have discouraged.” For example, Terzaghi’s story occupies nearly half of “A Short (Conventional) History”. Yet even a preliminary consideration of Terzaghi’s contributions to geotechnical engineering confirms that he is, likely, the single most significant mover and shaker in the history of the field. He may at times be ascribed more importance than he is due, but if so it is because he contributed so much to the field that, at times, it can be hard to see anything or anyone else.

Terzaghi is just one of many names (Coulomb, Rankine, Darcy, Peck, etc.) in the typical history of geotechnical engineering, which brings to mind a limitation of how geotechnical history has traditionally been related. Often, it has been painted out to be a story of “great men” (in early geotech, they were almost all men) and their respective contributions. The “great man” school of history, while popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, has since given way to other modes of historical thought. Admittedly, not every historical school of thought is applicable to geotechnical history. For instance, a geotechnical history based on social and economic trends among pioneers in the field would be difficult to write. Nonetheless, a geotechnical audience might stand to gain more in terms of understanding and new ideas from a history not of “great men” but of significant discoveries, developments, and concepts.

The other factor driving the traditional telling of geotechnical history is the desire for a single “grand narrative”, or all-encompassing story, in the field. Such a desire is logical; most professionals and academics would probably be interested in reading a definitive account of the history of the field. Unfortunately, the history of geotechnical engineering does not lend itself well to such a narrative. Far from being strictly linear and chronological, this history, like every history, is often messy and complicated. Discoveries occurred in fits and spurts, rivalries often became heated, and developments in different fields overlapped and fueled each other. Such subtleties are often omitted from large, overarching “grand narratives”.

However, the same factors which drive (and limit) traditional narratives of geotechnical history can also be used to guide the future study of the field. For instance, the traditional introductory history to geotechnical engineering in undergraduate courses could be replaced with a piecewise, one-concept-at-a-time presentation of geotechnical history. Presenting concepts like this as they are taught may be a more effective technique for teaching geotechnical history, and learning where, rather than whom, concepts came from could be more useful for professionals as well, opening the field for more discussion and discovery.

Similarly, the stories of the “great men” of geotech need not be disregarded entirely. Instead, they can be used to give would-be researchers valuable insights into where they may find pieces representing significant advances in the field (as this body of work intends to do). These pieces may in turn lead to the rediscovery of other, less widely known but equally significant pioneers and breakthroughs in geotechnical engineering.

Finally, although the writing of a geotechnical “grand narrative” is most likely not feasible, this may actually represent a positive development for the field. Instead of starting from the top with the constraining goal of a “grand narrative”, would-be geotechnical historians can start from the bottom with individual articles and book chapters and work up toward a bigger picture. As this building-block approach to history progresses, it may help these historians see how the different fragments of geotechnical history fit together. This process may give academics and practitioners alike clearer insight into where geotechnical history came from, and might also give everyone a stronger understanding of where the field can go in the future. This approach may result in the slow development of a more accurate, more nuanced version of geotechnical history, one which might well inspire new ideas for professionals and academics alike, and which may be more suitable for integration into an academic curriculum.

We will write a short analysis of each piece or chapter we review in which we will discuss the contents of the piece, its potential connections to other pieces, and potential opportunities for future investigation. Eventually, some smaller narratives will start to emerge from these reviews as trends are noticed and links between pieces and chapters become clear. At some point, these smaller narratives may even be compiled into a few medium narratives. However, the larger the narrative one attempts to write, the more tempting the challenge of writing a “grand narrative” becomes, and the more one’s attention is drawn away from the trends and opportunities that will be observed only in a careful, piece-by-piece analysis of historic geotechnical literature. Therefore, we will stick to piecewise reviews, at least during the early days of our study of geotechnical history.

In a discussion of geotechnical history, as with any history, it is easiest to keep track of all the pieces chronologically. Using one long, continuous timeline to encompass all of the developments in the field would be unwieldy, so some artificial division of the past is useful for considering pieces in the context of the time when they were written. However, using too many of these divisions would be inappropriate for a field such as geotechnical engineering with its relatively brief history. Kerisel (1985), Skempton (1985), and Peck (1985) proposed a six-era set-up for analyzing the history of geotechnical engineering. After we carefully assessed the set-up proposed by Kerisel, Skempton, and Peck and examined it against our own preliminary understanding of the history of the field, as well as our understanding of developments in the field since 1985, we created an eight-era set-up, based on Kerisel, Skempton, and Peck, which we will use in our studies. The dates on these eras are not definitive, and we expect to find overlap between the eras as our work progresses. That said, these dates have been chosen for substantive reasons, which are discussed further on the page for each era. The eight eras are:

Perhaps ironically, it seems fitting to close a discussion on how geotechnical history is told with a quote about Karl Terzaghi. “It is noteworthy that the theory was developed after the experiments,” Ralph Peck said in 1993 about Terzaghi’s study of effective stress. “Only when Terzaghi felt that he understood the phenomenon on the basis of intensive study of the data from tests on real foundation materials did he turn his attention to a mathematical theory embodying the results” (Peck 1993). We shall strive to observe the same spirit in our study of geotechnical history. We will endeavor to let the facts lead to historical conclusions, and to let the chips of history fall where they may from there.

Arnold, J. 2000. History: A Very Short Introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Chandler, R. J., et al. 2001. “Alec Westley Skempton, 1914-2001.” Geotech. 51 (10): 829-834.

Goodman, R. E. 1999. Karl Terzaghi: The Engineer as Artist. Reston, VA: ASCE.

Kerisel, J. 1985. “The History of Geotechnical Engineering Up Until 1700.” In Proc. 11th Intl. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., Golden Jubilee Vol., 3-93. London, UK: ISSMFE.

Monkkonen, E. H. 1986. “The dangers of synthesis.” Am. Hist. Rev. 91 (5): 1146-1157.

Niechcial, J. 2002. A Particle of Clay: The Biography of Alec Skempton, Civil Engineer. Dunbeath, UK: Whittles Publishing.

Peck, R. B. 1985. “The Last Sixty Years.” In Proc. 11th Intl. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., Golden Jubilee Vol., 123-133. London, UK: ISSMFE.

Peck, R. B. 1993. “The Coming of Age of Soil Mechanics: 1920-1970.” First Spencer J. Buchanan Lecture, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

Petroski, H. 1996. “Soil Mechanics.” Am. Sci. 84: 428-432.

Skempton, A. W. 1985. “A History of Soil Properties, 1717-1927.” In Proc. 11th Intl. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., Golden Jubilee Vol., 95-121. London, UK: ISSMFE.

Share this: