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 paper demonstrates load and resistance factor design (LRFD) calibration for tensile strength and pullout strength limit states for steel strip mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls using a reliability theory-based approach. The analyses adopt load models found in current North American LRFD specifications in combination with a coupled mechanical-corrosion model for the reinforcement tensile strength and pullout models found in design guidelines and in the research literature. Resistance factors for prescribed load factors and different load and resistance model combinations are compiled in tables. The limitations of the LRFD approach to generate resistance factors that are judged to be acceptable based on current practice are demonstrated. The challenges to generate consistent design outcomes with the same margin of safety expressed probabilistically are identified, and the link to reliability-based design is described. Example designs are provided to show the impact on steel reinforcement quantities and length when using different models in combination with proposed and current specified load and resistance factors. The calibration outcomes will be of value to code writers in Canada and the US for MSE wall design sections in the next editions of national geotechnical foundation LRFD 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.)

A rigorous probabilistic-based approach for load and resistance factor design (LRFD) calibration of internal stability tensile rupture and pullout limit states for geogrid reinforced mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls is presented. Load and resistance factors are provided for different combinations of the load model with pullout model and the tensile strength model used in current practice. The load models are the AASHTO Simplified Method and the Simplified Stiffness Method. Resistance factors are tabulated for use in LRFD foundation practice in Canada which rewards designers with larger resistance factors for greater project level of understanding. Resistance factors are also provided that are amenable to US practice where the notion of level of understanding is not explicitly considered in LRFD practice. The paper demonstrates the application of the load and resistance factors for tensile rupture and pullout internal stability limit states using a design example and shows the reduction in required reinforcement strength using the Simplified Stiffness Method. The paper is of value to practitioners and LRFD code writers in the United States and Canada for future revisions of design specifications in their jurisdictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]