Search

The design of shallow foundations typically proceeds by using the load and resistance factor design (LRFD) methodology to avoid various limit states with some probability. This paper looks at the sliding limit state of shallow foundations, and the sliding resistance factors required for the LRFD approach are estimated using reliability analyses of surface strip foundations. Cohesive and frictional soils are separately studied under wind loading conditions. Monte Carlo simulations are used to estimate the sliding failure probability of foundation designs on cohesive soils, and an analytical method is developed for frictional soils. The results indicate the existence of a "worst case" correlation length for cohesive soils, and the sliding resistance factor required to achieve target maximum lifetime failure probabilities is around 0.4–0.65 for moderate soil variability. For frictional soils, the required sliding resistance factor is about 0.5–0.85 for νϕ′ = 0.15. Overall, the sliding resistance factors recommended here agree well with the resistance factors of ϕgu = 0.6 for cohesive soils and ϕgu = 0.8 for frictional soils stipulated by geotechnical LRFD code provisions in Canada. The analyses can be used to estimate the reliability of current designs and can also aid the calibration of geotechnical design codes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents a gradient-based robustness measure for robust geotechnical design (RGD) that considers safety, design robustness, and cost efficiency simultaneously. In the context of robust design, a design is deemed robust if the system response of concern is insensitive, to a certain degree, to the variation of noise factors (i.e., uncertain geotechnical parameters, loading parameters, construction variation, and model biases or errors). The key to a robust design is a quantifiable robustness measure with which the robust design optimization can be effectively and efficiently implemented. Based on the developed gradient-based robustness measure, a robust design optimization framework is proposed. In this framework, the design (safety) constraint is analyzed using advanced first-order second-moment (AFOSM) method, considering the variation in the noise factors. The design robustness, in terms of sensitivity index (SI), is evaluated using the normalized gradient of the system response to the noise factors, which can be efficiently computed from the by-product of AFOSM analysis. Within the proposed framework, robust design optimization is performed with two objectives, design robustness and cost efficiency, while the design (safety) constraint is satisfied by meeting a target reliability index. Generally, cost efficiency and design robustness are conflicting objectives and the robust design optimization yields a Pareto front, which reveals a tradeoff between the two objectives. Through an illustrative example of a shallow foundation design, the effectiveness and significance of this new robust design approach is demonstrated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The failure of a pile is always defined by a certain failure criterion. Several different failure criteria are commonly used, and the pile capacity values associated with each of these failure criteria can be considerably different. For the sake of international harmonization, it is necessary to calibrate the reliability levels associated with various failure criteria and factors for loads and resistances. This paper aims to evaluate the effects of failure criteria and factors for loads and resistances on the reliability of single bored piles. The bias arising from failure criteria is described by a bias factor, which can easily be accommodated in a reliability analysis. A comprehensive database of static load tests of bored piles is utilized to evaluate the bias associated with several failure criteria. Five limit-state design codes for piles are investigated to illustrate the effect of the bias from failure criteria, the effect of factors for loads and resistances, and their combined effect. The results indicate that the bias from failure criteria has a significant influence on the reliability of piles. Similarly, the use of different factors for loads and resistances in various design codes can also cause considerable differences in the calculated reliability. As a result of these effects, the actual reliability levels of any two design codes, assuming the same nominal target reliability index, can differ considerably. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]