CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL.

12, 1975

Brazilian Tensile Test for Soils:' Reply

A. V. G. KRISHNAYYA
EBA Engineering Cot~srrltcrt~fs
Lid., Edmotztot~,Albertcr T5L 2M7
AND

Z . EISENSTEIN
Depctrttnent of'Cild Et~gineeritlg,The University ofAlhertn, Edmorzton, Alberta T6G 2G7
Received June 2, 1975
Accepted June 9, 1975

The writers wish to thank Uriel for his

discussion on the interpretation of the Brazilian test. They agree with his main comment
that the proposed numerical solution for tensile
test interpretation, as implied in its derivation,
is applicable strictly to bilinear materials which
possess different linear stress-strain relationships in tension and compression. The amount
of error introduced into the interpretation of
results depends on the degree of nonlinearity
of the tensile stress-strain relationship. In
general soils with high liquid limit and plasticity index tested at water contents below
'Discussion by Uriel, A. 0. 1975. Can Geotech. J.
12 (4), p p 540-541.

their optimum, and the stabilized soils tend to

exhibit more or less linear tensile stress-strain
relationships. The soil referred to in the paper
was almost nonplastic and moreover was
tested at a relatively high water content about
1.5% greater than the optimum. These were
the main reasons for the noticeable nonlinearity
in the tensile stress-strain relationship and extremely low tensile strength reported. However,
the indicated procedure is valid in cases where
the tensile stress-strain relationship can be
approximated to a linear relationship.
In reply to the question of the initiation of
crack, the writers wish to state that no visual
cracking before the attainment of the peak
stress could be observed in their experiments.

Can. Geotech. J., 12,542(1975)

Brazilian Tensile Test for Soils: Discussion

ARIFAJAZ
Birlnie m d Pnrtncrs, Artillery H o m e , Artillery Row, London, S . W.1, England
AND

RICHARD
H . G. PARRY
Engineering Depurttnent, Cambridge University, Cambridge, England CB2 IPZ
Received July 3, 1975
Accepted July 11, 1975

The strong support given by the authors to

the use of the Brazilian test to determine total
stress tensile strength in soils must be questioned. In order to get an answer at all from
the test a number of assumptions must be made,
including the assumption of preferred stress'Note by Krishnayya, A. V. G., and Eisenstein, 2.
1974. Can. Geotech. J. 11(4), pp. 632-642.
Can. Geotech. J., 12,542 (1975)

strain laws. Once stress-strain laws are assumed then the methods proposed in the paper
to determine the stress-strain characteristics
and strengths become, to some extent, inbred.
If there were no other reasonably straightforward methods for determining tensile stressstrain characteristics for soils, then perhaps
the use of the Brazilian test as proposed by the
authors would be understandable. But, in fact,