See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/244476680

Geotechnical-Structural Integration in US Foundation

Engineering Curricula

Conference Paper · June 2012

DOI: 10.1201/b15096-11

CITATIONS READS

0 340

2 authors, including:

William A Kitch
Angelo State University
19 PUBLICATIONS   504 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Engineering writing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by William A Kitch on 02 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Shaking the Foundations of Geo-engineering Education – McCabe, Pantazidou & Phillips (eds)
© 2012 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-62127-4

Geotechnical-structural integration in US foundation

engineering curricula

W.A. Kitch & D.P. Coduto

California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, US

ABSTRACT: The degree of integration between the structural and geotechnical aspects of foundation engi-
neering, as taught in US undergraduate civil engineering programs, is explored. Faculty surveys, reviews of
textbooks, and reviews of curricula indicate little integration. Structural design of spread footings is frequently
taught in reinforced concrete design courses, but almost completely independent of any geotechnical consider-
ations. About half of introductory geotechnical engineering courses do not include any coverage of foundation
analysis or design. Coverage of structural topics in foundation engineering texts has significantly decreased over
the past 30 years. Surveys of practitioners indicate a greater emphasis on integration of geotechnical and structural
aspects of foundation engineering than that perceived by faculty. The increased emphasis on Load and Resistance
Factor Design in geotechnical engineering further underlines the importance of an integrated approach. Greater
emphasis on this integration would produces future geotechnical engineers and structural engineers who are
better equipped to optimise their foundation designs.

1 BACKGROUND stronger design skills among civil engineering stu-

dents. However, there was little or no information on
Foundation engineering is a cross-disciplinary topic how other academics and practitioners viewed this
that transcends geotechnical engineering, struc- matter.
tural engineering, and construction engineering, so Therefore, the goal of the research presented in this
practising professionals should have competency paper was to determine the current state of founda-
in all three aspects. Nevertheless, the authors tion engineering education in the US as it relates to
have observed an artificial separation between the integration of geotechnical and structural aspects
geotechnical/construction engineering and structural of analysis and design. To accomplish this, the authors
engineering, and this separation appears to be present conducted a survey of geotechnical and structural fac-
both among foundation engineering practitioners and ulty to determine the degree to which these topics
in academia. This lack of sufficient integration are integrated in foundation engineering courses. A
between geotechnical and structural engineering often survey of foundation engineering practitioners was
leads to poor foundation design decisions. also conducted with two objectives: to determine their
For example, the interaction between geotechni- perceptions of the importance of various aspects of
cal and structural design of spread footings is too foundation design and to determine their satisfac-
often reduced to little more than communicating an tion with recent civil engineering graduates. Finally,
allowable bearing pressure, as if this single param- a review of the available library of foundation engi-
eter was sufficient. Foundation types are sometimes neering and structural engineering textbooks was con-
selected without sufficient attention to the various soil- ducted to determine how geotechnical and structural
structure interaction considerations, which sometimes design topics are presented.
results in a foundation system that is unnecessarily
expensive.
As a result of these observations, the authors cre-
2 SURVEY INSTRUMENTS
ated an undergraduate foundation engineering course
which integrates both the geotechnical and structural
2.1 General characteristics
aspects of design. This course focuses on spread foot-
ings, and the expected outcomes include the ability to Two surveys were conducted online using a com-
start with structural loads and subsurface exploration mercial survey provider. The surveys were conducted
and characterisation data, and produce a complete from July to August, 2011. Respondents were solicited
foundation design including all structural details. In via online professional networks such as the United
the authors’ opinion, this type of integrative course, States Universities Council on Geotechnical Educa-
particularly at the undergraduate level, helps develop tion and Research, professional organizations such as

61
Table 1. Demographics of practitioners completing the Table 2. Demographics of institutions represented in the
survey. academic survey.

Number Percent All ABET Schools* Survey sample

Characteristic responding responding
Characteristic number percent number percent
Engineering discipline
Geotechnical 39 57% Status
Structural 22 32% Private 64 26% 23 24%
Construction 4 6% Public 185 74% 70 76%
Other 3 6% Carnegie classification 2010†
Affiliation Bachelors 23 9% 9 10%
Private firm 60 87% Masters 16 24% 22 23%
Public agency 9 13% Doctorate 17 7% 4 4%
Geographic scope of firm/agency Research 149 60% 59 63%
Local 12 17%
Regional 22 32% *Data from ABET (2011).
National (US) 15 22% †Data from Carnegie Foundation (2010).
International 20 29%
Service provided by firm/agency
Engineering design 51 74% Table 3. Demographics of faculty completing the survey.
Consulting 50 72%
Design/build 31 45% Number Percent
Construction services 21 30% Characteristic responding responding
Construction management 23 33%
Engineering discipline
Geotechnical 62 41%
Structural 74 49%
ADSC: The International Association of Foundation Multidisciplinary 16 11%
Drilling and US civil engineering department chairs Academic area
email list. There were no individual invitations for Geotechnical 75 49%
Structural 77 51%
survey participants so it is not possible to determine
the return rate of the surveys.

geotechnical engineers versus structural engineers, but

2.2 Characteristics of practitioner respondents these biases in the data do not appear to significantly
A total of 69 practitioners responded to the survey. affect the conclusions reached in this paper.
The demographics of the practitioners responding are
shown in Table 1. One of the goals of the survey
2.3 Characteristics of faculty respondents
was to get data from those describing themselves as
both geotechnical and structural engineers. As seen A total of 152 faculty members responded to the sur-
in Table 1, geotechnical engineers are slightly over veys. These respondents represented 99 institutions
represented compared to structural engineers (57% of which 94 were US institutions with 4-year ABET
geotechnical, 32% structural) but there is significant accredited civil engineering or civil engineering tech-
representation among both groups. nology programs. The remaining 5 institutions were
The respondents are heavily weighted to private either outside the US or were 2-year community col-
firms (87%) compared to public agencies (12%) as lege programs and were excluded from the analysis
shown in Table 1. Among the private firms there is a presented in this paper. Including only US basedABET
good diversity of geographic size of the firms as seen in accredited 4-year programs reduced the total sample
Table 1. The data also show that firms/agencies repre- size to 147.
sented by respondents most commonly provide design The demographics of the institutions included in the
or consulting services (over 70%), but significant per- analysis compared to demographics of all US based
centages of respondents report providing design/build ABET accredited 4-year civil engineering or civil engi-
or construction services (45% design/build, 30% con- neering technology programs are shown in Table 2. In
struction). One third of respondents report providing terms of public-private status, and Carnegie classifica-
construction management services. tion (Carnegie Foundation, 2010), the survey sample
The authors believe the sample group is sufficiently is representative of the total population.
diverse and representative of the practicing founda- The demographics of individuals responding are
tion design community in the US, but no attempt was shown in Table 3. The balance between geotechni-
made to compare the demographics of the respondents cal and structural engineers in this survey was better
to demographics of US engineering firms and agen- than in the practitioner survey (41% geotechnical,
cies. The sample is significantly biased toward private 49% structural, 11% multidisciplinary) and the bal-
firms versus public agencies and slightly biased toward ance of academic areas in which the respondents

62
reported teaching was nearly equal (51% structures,
49% geotechnics). No attempt was made to compare
this data to the total population of all civil engineer-
ing faculty. The goal was to achieve a balance between
faculty teaching structural courses versus geotechni-
cal courses and this was achieved. The authors believe
the survey sample is a satisfactory representation of
the population.

3 UNDERGRADUATE FOUNDATION
ENGINEERING CURRICULA

A brief review of the data from the faculty survey and a

web-based review of BSCE curricula indicated nearly Figure 1. Footing design topics covered in introductory
all institutions included design of spread footings in geo-technical engineering courses.
various places within their undergraduate curriculum,
albeit often within elective courses. Deep foundations
were always included in the graduate curricula and in
some cases also in the undergraduate curricula. Since
the design of spread footings is generally one of the
first foundation systems covered in a design course
and since it includes both geotechnical and structural
engineering design aspects, the authors chose to focus
on the design of spread footings to assess the coverage
of geotechnical and structural aspects of foundation
engineering in undergraduate curricula.

3.1 Preparatory coursework for foundation

engineering
Important preparatory courses for foundation engi- Figure 2. Footing design topics covered in reinforced
neering include introductory geotechnical engineering concrete design courses.
(or soil mechanics), reinforced concrete design, and, to
a lesser extent, structural steel design. Welker (2012)
reports that 93% of US BSCE programs require an
introductory geotechnical engineering course. A web-
based review indicates all BSCE programs require at
least one structural design course, but the students
often have the option of selecting courses on certain
materials (steel, concrete, etc). Informal discussions
with civil engineering faculty at a number of US insti-
tutions indicate that all BSCE students who choose to
focus on structural engineering and the vast majority of
those who choose to focus on geotechnical engineer-
ing take both reinforced concrete design, and structural
steel design courses.
Since introductory geotechnical engineering, rein-
forced concrete design, and structural steel design are Figure 3. Footing design topics covered in structural steel
taken by the vast major of students who are likely courses.
to become practicing foundation engineers, the fac-
ulty survey was used to determine what spread footing
design topics were covered in these courses. Figure 1
shows those topics covered in introductory geotech- Coverage of footing design topics in the structural
nical engineering courses. Approximately half of the engineering courses is shown in Figures 2 and 3.
respondents report covering bearing capacity and/or As shown in Figure 2, 82% of respondents report
settlement in this course. Equally important, nearly covering structural design of square footings. Sig-
half of the respondents reported no coverage of foot- nificantly lower percentages report covering contin-
ing design topics. A number of respondents reported uous footings, combined footings and column-footing
in their comments that their introductory geotechni- connections. The data in Figure 3 indicate 74% cover
cal engineering course covered geotechnical behaviour steel column-footing connections, while only 3%
and analysis to the exclusion of design. cover the design of steel piles.

63
 Figure 6. Importance of foundation engineering subjects
Figure 4. Footing foundation systems covered geotechnical
as reported by geotechnical faculty, structural faculty, and
engineering design courses.
practitioners.

at the same universities, the survey data indicate that

29% of programs which do not cover structural design
of footings in their reinforced concrete class do cover
it in their geotechnical design class.
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) is
reportedly covered in 33% of programs (Fig. 5), but
the survey did not distinguish between geotechnical
and structural aspects of LRFD in this question. It
is unlikely that the coverage of geotechnical LRFD
design goes beyond a qualitative overview in those
few courses which cover it, given the lack of textbook
coverage of this subject as discussed later in this paper.
Two conclusions are apparent: First, most students
are taught structural footing design either in their rein-
Figure 5. Topics covered in geotechnical engineering design forced concrete or geotechnical design course. Second,
courses. the most common curriculum structure is to cover
structural design of footings in the reinforced concrete
3.2 Foundation engineering design courses course but not in the geotechnical design course.
It is not surprising to find that a significant number of
introductory geotechnical engineering courses focus
exclusively on behaviour and analysis since this is the 4 FACULTY AND PRACTITIONERS’ OPINIONS
students’ first course in geotechnics. In contrast the OF FOUNDATION ENGINEERING TOPICS
concrete and steel design courses follow one or two
courses in structural analysis and are therefore able to One objective of this study was to determine what,
focus directly on design. if any, differences existed between faculty and practi-
Welker (2012) reports that 75% of programs offer tioners’ opinions concerning the importance of certain
a geotechnical engineering elective after the intro- subjects in foundation engineering. To accomplish
ductory course but only 37% of programs require a this, respondents to both surveys were asked to rate
second geotechnical course. Data from this survey the importance of several subjects potentially related to
indicate that 6% of programs offer only an introductory foundation engineering. The respondents were asked
geotechnical engineering course, 77% offer a second to rate the importance on a four point Likert scale (not
course, and 17% offer both a second and third geotech- very important, somewhat important, important, very
nical engineering course. Welker (2012) reports that in important). In the following analyses the importance
the majority of undergraduate programs, foundation is reported as the percentage of respondents indicating
engineering is the second geotechnical course offered. a given topic was important or very important.
This survey indicates in 99% of the programs, the sec-
ond course covers shallow foundation design. Figure 4
4.1 Importance of component subjects
shows the shallow foundation systems covered in the
second geotechnical engineering course and Figure 5 Figure 6 compares the importance reported by geo-
shows the topics covered in this course. Of particu- technical faculty, structural faculty and practitioners
lar note, Figure 5 shows that only 24% of programs related to geotechnical and structural subjects. With
cover structural design of shallow foundations in the the exception of geology, the opinions of structural fac-
geotechnical engineering elective course. By compar- ulty are more congruent with practitioners’ opinions
ing responses of geotechnical and structural faculty than are the opinions of geotechnical faculty. Another

64
 were reviewed to evaluate their coverage of structural
design of foundations. A similar review also was con-
ducted on English language foundation engineering
reference books and out-of-print textbooks.

5.1 Reinforced concrete design textbooks

Major US publishers currently offer nine reinforced
concrete design books suitable for use as text-
books in civil engineering courses (Brzev and Pao,
2010; Fanella, 2011: Hassoun and Al-Manaseer, 2008;
Limbrunner and Aghayere, 2010; McCormac and
Brown, 2008; Nawy, 2009; Nilson, et al., 2009; Wang,
Figure 7. Importance of geotechnical and structural LRFD et al., 2007; and Wight and MacGregor, 2012). All
in foundation design as reported by geotechnical faculty, nine include an entire chapter on the structural design
structural faculty, and practitioners. of foundations. In all cases the structural design of
spread footings is covered in some detail. The struc-
possible interpretation of these data is that both aca- tural design of deep foundations, mat foundations,
demic disciplines undervalue the importance of the pile caps, and other structural members is either not
other disciplines, whereas practitioners place value on covered or only briefly mentioned. None discuss the
both. geotechnical aspects in any detail, other than using an
allowable bearing pressure to size the footings.
4.2 Importance of load and resistance factor design
The importance LRFD in foundation design is increas- 5.2 Foundation engineering textbooks
ing due to newer regulatory guidance such as Eurocode Major US publishers currently offer nine foundation
7 and US Federal Highway Administration design cri- engineering books suitable for use as textbooks in
teria for transportation structures. One objective of this civil engineering courses (Bowles, 1996; Budhu, 2008;
study was to compare how faculty and practitioners Cernica, 1995; Coduto, 2001; Das, 2011; Murthy,
perceive the importance of LRFD given its increasing 2003; Rao, 2011; Reese, et al., 2006; and Salgado,
importance. 2008), and one additional book is self-published by the
Figure 7 compares the importance of LRFD to author (Candogan, 2009). All focus primarily on the
foundation design reported by geotechnical faculty, geotechnical aspects, and cover them in detail. Only
structural faculty and practitioners. As shown in this three of these books (Bowles, 1996; Coduto, 2001;
figure, all three agree that LRFD in structural design is Cernica, 1995) cover the structural design of spread
significantly more important than LRFD in geotech- footings, and each does in some detail. These three
nical design. The structural engineering faculty attach and Candogan, 2009 also include some coverage of
significantly less importance to LRFD in geotechni- the structural design of deep foundations, although
cal design compared to both geotechnical faculty and to a lesser degree than for shallow foundations. The
practitioners. Practitioners were asked the additional remaining books have no substantive discussion of the
questions “For your firm or agency, how do you see the structural design aspects of foundation engineering.
importance of LRFD methods, as applied to geotech- Three other books (Teng, 1962: Leonards, 1962;
nical foundation design, changing in the future?” Over and Peck, et al., 1974) were commonly used in the
70% of practitioners responded that expected LRFD US as textbooks, but are now out of print. All three
importance to significantly increase over the next ten focused primarily on the geotechnical aspects, but two
years. included significant coverage of the structural design
Practitioners’ identification of the increasing of spread footings, one included a detailed discussion
importance of geotechnical LRFD methods and the of the structural design of deep foundations, and one
faculty’s underestimation of their importance are sig- included a brief discussion of the structural design of
nificant findings of the surveys. LRFD methods deep foundations.
clearly separate strength limits from serviceability Bowles’ textbook was originally published in 1968
limits. This increases the importance of understand- and in use at the same time as the three out-of-print
ing soil-structure interaction which will, in turn, texts. Thus, during the 1970s and 1980s three of
increase the need for interaction between structural the four available foundation engineering texts (75%)
and geotechnical disciplines. included significant structural design content. Cur-
rently, only three of the nine available texts from
5 EVALUATION OF TEXTBOOKS AND publishers (33%) include significant structural design
REFERENCE BOOKS content and one of these three is the 1996 edition
of Bowles’ text. One could make the case that the
Foundation engineering and reinforced concrete coverage of structural foundation design foundation
design textbooks currently used in the United States engineering texts has dramatically decreased in the

65
past three decades. This increased specialisation at
the sacrifice of topical breadth is not unusual in
engineering education, but is nevertheless a troubling
trend.

5.3 Foundation engineering professional

reference books
All of the foundation engineering textbooks also are
useful references for practicing engineers. In addition,
eight other English language professional reference
books, both in print and out of print (Brown, 2001;
Curtin, et al, 2006; Das, 2009; Day, 2006; Fang, 1991;
Gunaratne, 2006; Ng, et al, 2004; and Wyllie, 1999) Figure 8. Gap analysis comparing practitioners’ impor-
were reviewed. Of these, only two included substantive tance and satisfaction with footing design abilities of BSCE
coverage of the structural design of spread footings graduates hired within the past 5 years.
and only three included substantive coverage of the
structural design of deep foundations.
the gap between reported importance and reported sat-
isfaction. The gap was computed by subtracting the
5.4 LRFD coverage in textbooks satisfaction rating from the importance rating, since
the importance rating always exceeded the satisfaction
All of the reinforced concrete foundation design text- rating.
books cover LRFD design extensively as that is the Figure 8 presents the gap analysis comparing prac-
current design standard in the US. Only one of the titioners’ rated importance and satisfaction with recent
textbooks reviewed (Coduto, 2001) has any cover of BSCE graduates employed in the last five years. The
geotechnical LRFD design and the coverage in the data indicate practitioners are most satisfied with
text is limited to an overview of the approach. No graduates’ abilities in structural design of footings
geotechnical guidance suitable for design is provided. and significantly less satisfied with their abilities in
There are four important observations from this bearing capacity and settlement computations.
review. Structural design of spread footings is a major The overall satisfaction with BSCE graduates’ abil-
topic in all of the major American reinforced concrete ities in foundation engineering is quite low. However,
design textbooks, but the coverage is completely inde- this should be tempered by most practitioners’ belief
pendent of any geotechnical considerations, other than that an advanced degree is important for founda-
the allowable bearing pressure. Only 33% of currently tion engineers. When asked about the required level
published American foundation engineering textbooks of academic training for foundations engineers, 83%
cover structural design of spread footings. Substan- replied that a master’s degree was either advisable
tive coverage of structural design of deep foundations or essential. Still it is clear that there is plenty of
is available only in one foundation engineering text- room for improvement in the academic preparation of
book. Finally, only one foundation engineering text foundations engineers.
covers geotechnical LRFD, and even that coverage is
in broad conceptual terms.
7 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
6 PRACTITIONERS’ SATISFACTION WITH
7.1 Undergraduate curricula
GRADUATES
Significant foundation engineering instruction is
In order to reach some understanding of how well available to students interested in the subject. However,
academic curriculums are meeting the expectations of it is most commonly delivered in a stovepipe fash-
practitioners, the survey included questions related to ion with structural topics relegated to structural design
practitioners’ satisfaction with BSCE graduates hired courses and geotechnical topics relegated to geotech-
within the last five years. Only firms or agencies nical courses. Over 80% of the reinforced concrete
reporting having hired a recent BSCE graduate during design courses have significant coverage of the design
the past five years were asked to respond. The survey of footings. Nearly half of the commonly required
asked the practitioner both about the importance of introductory geotechnical engineering courses cover
certain foundation engineering topics (using the same some foundation engineering topics. Essentially all
four point scale described above) and their satisfaction geotechnical design courses cover shallow foundation
with the performance of recent graduates. Satisfac- design, but less than 25% of these courses include
tion was rated on a four point Likert-like scale (very structural foundation design. Both reinforced concrete
dissatisfied, dissatisfied, satisfied, very satisfied). The design and geotechnical engineering design are most
practitioners’ ratings of importance and satisfaction commonly elective courses, but are likely taken by
were combined into a single measure by computing students interested in foundation engineering.

66
 This stovepipe mentality is also apparent in the widely used in practice. These methods force a clearer
importance geotechnical and structural faculty attach separation between strength requirements and service-
to the foundation design aspects of one another’s ability requirements, which necessitates better interac-
disciplines. Geotechnical engineering faculty, in par- tion between the disciplines. The transfer of a single
ticular, attribute less importance to structural aspects allowable bearing stress between the geotechnical and
of foundation design than do practitioners. structural engineer has always represented an insuffi-
Structural aspects of LRFD are clearly covered in cient interaction. The adoption of geotechnical LRFD
structural engineering courses. However, geotechnical methods will make this blatantly apparent.
LRFD subject are covered in less than one third of the The authors believe the impending adoption of
geotechnical design courses and then most likely only geotechnical LRFD methods in the US presents an
as an overview without significant design content. opportunity to improve the quality of foundation engi-
neering practice by forcing more effective interaction
7.2 Textbooks between geotechnical and structural engineering. The
authors recommend implementing a greater integra-
All current reinforced concrete textbooks thoroughly tion between the structural and geotechnical aspects of
cover structural LRFD and devote an entire chapter to foundation design, especially in undergraduate foun-
the structural design of foundations, but this is done dation engineering courses. This stronger emphasis
in nearly complete isolation to geotechnical aspects of should lead to better qualified graduates, who will
design. The coverage of structural design in founda- then go on to implement stronger interactions among
tion engineering textbooks has significantly decreased practitioners.
in the past two decades as older texts which frequently
covered these topics are replaced by new texts which
most often do not. None of the foundation engineer- REFERENCES
ing texts contain sufficient coverage of geotechnical
LRFD topics. ABET 2011, Accredited program search, updated Oct 1, 2011
<http://main.abet.org/aps/Accreditedprogramsearch.aspx>
(Dec 17, 2011)
7.3 Practitioners satisfaction with graduates Bowles, J.E. 1996, Foundation Analysis and Design, 5 Ed.,
Foundation engineering practitioners are moderately McGraw Hill
satisfied with BSCE graduates hired in the past 5 Brown, R.W., Ed. 2001, Practical Foundation Engineering
Handbook, McGraw Hill
years. They are significantly more satisfied with the Brzev, S. and Pao, J. 2010, Reinforced Concrete Design: A
graduates’ abilities in structural design of foundations Practical Approach, Prentice Hall
compared to their abilities in geotechnical design of Budhu, M. 2008, Foundations and Earth Retaining Struc-
foundations. The area with the least satisfaction is in tures, Wiley
settlement of footings. These finding are tempered by Candogan, A. 2009, The Art and Practice of Foundation
the fact that the vast majority of practitioners believe a Engineering, 2 Ed., Self Published
master’s degree is advisable or essential to foundation Carnegie Foundation 2010, The Carnegie Classifica-
engineers. tion of Institutions of Higher Education™, <http://
classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/> (Dec 17, 2011)
Cernica, J.N. 1995, Geotechnical Engineering: Foundation
Design, Wiley
8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Coduto, D.P. 2001, Foundation Design: Principles and
Practices, 2 Ed., Prentice Hall
The geotechnical, structural, and construction aspects Curtin, W.G.; Shaw, G.; Parkinson, G.I.; and Golding, J.M.
of foundation engineering practice are clearly inter- 2006, Structural Foundation Designer’s Manual, 2 Ed,
twined, and the best foundation designs are achieved Blackwell
when all three aspects are fully considered. Most Das, B.M. 2011, Principles of Foundation Engineering, 7
foundation engineering textbooks used in the United Ed., Cengage
States 30 years ago included both the geotechnical and Das, B.M. 2009, Shallow Foundations, Bearing Capacity and
Settlement, 2 Ed., CRC
structural aspects, and presumably the corresponding Day, R.W. 2006, Foundation Engineering Handbook,
courses also did so. However, most of today’s textbooks McGraw Hill
focus almost exclusively on the geotechnical aspects, Fanella, D.F. 2011, Reinforced Concrete Structures: Analysis
with only some attention to construction, and virtually and Design, McGraw Hill
none to structural aspects. The vast majority of under- Fang, H.Y. 1991, Foundation Engineering Handbook, Van
graduate foundation engineering courses taught in the Nostrand Reinold
US today reflect this topical coverage. Gunaratne, M. 2006, Foundation Engineering Handbook,
The authors have observed that this artificial sepa- Taylor and Francis
ration also carries over into practice, with insufficient Hassoun, M.N. and Al-Manaseer, A. 2008, Structural
Concrete: Theory and Design, Wiley
communication and interaction between structural and Leonards, G.A. 1962, Foundation Engineering, McGraw Hill
geotechnical engineers. This often leads to less-than- Limbrunner, G.F.; Aghayere, A.O. 2010, Reinforced Concrete
optimal foundation designs. Design, 7 Ed., Prentice Hall
This lack of integration will become more prob- McCormac, J.C. and Brown, R.H. 2008, Design of Reinforced
lematic as geotechnical LRFD methods become more Concrete, 8 ed., Wiley

67
Murthy, V. N. J. 2003, Geotechnical Engineering: Princi- Reese, L.C; Isenhower, W.H.; and Wang, S.T. 2006, Analysis
ples and Practices of Soil Mechanics and Foundation and Design of Shallow and Deep Foundations, Wiley
Engineering, CRC Salgado, R. 2008, The Engineering of Foundations, McGraw
Nawy, E.G. 2009, Reinforced Concrete: A Fundamental Hill
Approach, 6 Ed., Prentice Hall Teng, W.C. 1962, Foundation Design, Prentice Hall
Ng, C. W. W.; Simons, N.; and Menzies, B. 2004, Short Course Wang, C.K., Salmon, C.G., and Pincheira, J.A. 2007,
in Soil Structure Engineering of Deep Foundations, Reinforced Concrete Design, 7 Ed., Wiley
Excavations, and Tunnels, Telford Welker, A.L. 2012, Geotechnical Engineering Education: The
Nilson, A.; Darwin, D.; and Dolan, C. 2009, Design of State of the Practice in 2011, Geo-Congress 2012, state of
Concrete Structures, 14 Ed., McGraw Hill the art and practice in geotechnical engineering, Oakland,
Peck, R.B.; Hanson, W.B; and Thornburn, T.H. 1974, March 25–28, ASCE
Foundation Engineering, 2 Ed., Wiley Wight, J.K. and MacGregor, J.G. 2012, Reinforced Concrete:
Rao, N.S.V. 2011, Foundation Design: Theory and Practice, Mechanics and Design, 6 Ed., Prentice Hall
Wiley Wyllie, D.C. 1999, Foundations on Rock, 2 Ed., Spon

68

View publication stats