, in [Table 6], that, except for Cases 2 and 3, where the coincidence in the results has been already noted, the thrusts by the two methods differ very widely, hence the second method must be rejected, as in some cases undervaluing the thrust, and in other cases overvaluing it. In Case 5, where the surcharge slopes at the angle of repose, the large excess is due principally to the ordinary theory for computing
, involving an infinite plane of rupture, as hitherto noted.
In Case 6, where the top of the wall leaned toward the earth,
was first assumed equal to 100, but it was found to give no thrust against the wall; which means that the earth would stand unsupported at the slope
or with the face making an angle of 18°26' with the vertical, when this face was 10 ft. high. Hence, a second trial was made, with
