Search

Landslides are common across Canada and they pose hazards to human safety, economic activities, and the environment. Robust risk management strategies are necessary for sustainable development. A slope risk management framework has been adopted by the geotechnical community for approximately four decades allowing a systematic, consistent and transparent framework for managing risks. Implementing this framework is associated with uncertainties embedded in our estimates of risk. This paper presents a brief summary of the sources and categories of uncertainty in geotechnical slope engineering and focuses on two topics: (1) estimates of uncertainty in risk calculations and (2) temporal changes in landslide likelihood as a function of weather and steps towards estimating landslide risk changes with climate change. The paper argues that a quantitative risk assessment should not focus on the final risk calculation, but the overall knowledge gained. This allows comprehensive documentation of sources of uncertainty and how they impact geotechnical and risk assessments. Furthermore, the paper outlines approaches to define quantitative correlations between rock fall occurrences and weather, which can be leveraged to estimate changes in rock fall risk with climate change. The paper corresponds to, and expands on, the 2021 Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Geotechnical Journal is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Geotechnical Journal is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The paper describes load and resistance factor design (LRFD) calibration for the resistance factor used in the Stiffness Method internal stability soil failure limit state for geogrid mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls. The Stiffness Method was recently adopted in the current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials LRFD Bridge Design Specifications in the US, and will appear in the next edition of the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. The paper describes the details of the calibration of the soil failure limit state which is unique to the Stiffness Method. Calibration outcomes include consideration of the concept of level of understanding in the selection of nominal load and resistance values which is unique to LRFD foundation engineering practice in Canada. A practical conclusion from these calculations is that if product line-specific creep test data are available to estimate the reinforcement secant creep stiffness used for design, then a resistance factor of 1.0 is reasonable for US practice. If only minimum average roll value tensile strength data are available, then a value of 0.95 is recommended for US practice. For Canadian practice, the corresponding values for typical level of understanding are 0.90 and 0.85, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Geotechnical Journal is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

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]

Copyright of Canadian Geotechnical Journal is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Geotechnical Journal is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Geotechnical Journal is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Geotechnical Journal is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)