Search

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]

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]

Reliability-based design concepts and their application to load and resistance factor design (LRFD or limit states design (LSD) in Canada) are well known, and their adoption in geotechnical engineering design is now recommended for many soil–structure interaction problems. Two important challenges for acceptance of LRFD for the design of reinforced soil walls are (i) a proper understanding of the calibration methods used to arrive at load and resistance factors, and (ii) the proper interpretation of the data required to carry out this process. This paper presents LRFD calibration principles and traces the steps required to arrive at load and resistance factors using closed-form solutions for one typical limit state, namely pullout of steel reinforcement elements in the anchorage zone of a reinforced soil wall. A unique feature of this paper is that measured load and resistance values from a database of case histories are used to develop the statistical parameters in the examples. The paper also addresses issues related to the influence of outliers in the datasets and possible dependencies between variables that can have an important influence on the results of calibration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Canada has two national civil codes of practice that include geotechnical design provisions: the National Building Code of Canada and the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. For structural designs, both of these codes have been employing a load and resistance factor format embedded within a limit states design framework since the mid-1970s. Unfortunately, limit states design in geotechnical engineering has been lagging well behind that in structural engineering for the simple fact that the ground is by far the most variable (and hence uncertain) of engineering materials. Although the first implementation of a geotechnical limit states design code appeared in Denmark in 1956, it was not until 1979 that the concept began to appear in Canadian design codes, i.e., in the Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code, which later became the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC). The geotechnical design provisions in the CHBDC have evolved significantly since their inception in 1979. This paper describes the latest advances appearing in the CHBDC along with the steps taken to calibrate its recent geotechnical resistance and consequence factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]