Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • t96 125

    Uploaded by

    Felipe Alvarez Acevedo
    8 views24 pages

    Original Title

    t96-125

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views24 pages

    t96 125

    Uploaded by

    Felipe Alvarez Acevedo

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 24
    984 Eighteenth Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium: Limit States Design For Foundations. Part Il. Development for the National Building Code of Canada Dennis E. Becker Abstract: The geotechnical engineering profession in Canada isin the process of evaluating limi states design (LSD) for its incorporation into codes of practice for foundation engineering to provide a consistent design approach between geotechnical and structural engineers, This paper describes the work cartied out forthe initial development of LSD for foundations in the National Building Code of Canada. A load and resistance factor design approach, based on a factored overall geotechnical resistance, is used. The resistance factors for the ultimate limit states of bearing capacity and sliding of shallow and deep foundations are derived from a direct calibration with working stress design (WSD) and from a reliability analysis. The resistance factors derived from both approsches are consistent with each other and provide a reasonably constant reliability index of about 3.0 t0 3.5. A relationship is presented that relates the reliability index to a global factor of safety and resistance factor, Design examples are provided that show that the proposed LSD produces designs that are comparable with those Produced by traditional WSD. The importance of serviceability limit states is discussed, and the items that Fequire further study and research work to refine code ealibration are identified Key words: limit states design, reliability index, code calibration, resistance factors, foundations, ultimate limit states. Résumé : Les ingénieurs pratiquant le génie géotechnique au Canada évaluent actuellement la conception aux tats limites (CEL) et son insertion dans les codes de pratique pour le génie des fondations afin de fournir une approche de calcul cohérente entre ingénieurs géotechniciens et ingénieurs de structures. Cet article décrit le ‘avail deja accompli dans le Code National du Batiment du Canada ce qui concerne les fondations. Une approche de calcul par coefficient de charge et de résistance, basée sur une résistance géotechnique moyenne Pondérée est utilise. Les coefficients de résistance pour les tats limites ultimes de capacité portante et de slissement des fondations supertcielles et profondes sont dérivés dun étalonnage direct & partir du ealeul par contrainte de travail (CCT) et d’une analyse de fiabilité. Les coefficients de résistance obtenus par ces deux approches concordent et fournissent un indice de fiabilitéraisonnablement constant d’environ 3,0 & 3.5. On présente une relation qui fait le lien entre coefficient de sécurité global et coefficient de résistance. Des ‘exemples de caleuls sont donnés et ils montrent que les CEL produisent des conceptions comparables a celles ue fournissent les CCT traditionnels. On discute également l'importance des états limites de service et on identifie les sujets de recherche futurs ainsi que les travaux nécessaires pour améliorer les codes. ‘Mots clés : calculs aux états limites, indice de Fabiit, étalonnage des codes, coefficients de résistance, fondations, états limites ultimes. Foreword profession in Canada is in the process of evaluating LSD for its incorporation into codes of practice for foundation Limit states design (LSD) has been the general design ae Pn i approach used by structural engineers in Canada since the mid 1970's. However, most geotechnical design continues to be based on traditional working stress design (WSD). Over the last 2 decades or so, LSD has received increasing, attention in the geotechnical engineering literature. There is an ever-increasing demand on the geotechnical engineer- ing community to adopt LSD. The geotechnical engineering Received June 7, 1996. Accepted July 24, 1996, D.E, Becker. Golder Associates L1d., 2180 Meadowvale engineering to provide a consistent design approach between, structural and geotechnical engineers. LSD for foundations is not new. It was first introduced in Burope in the mid 1950's and has been practiced for over 30 years in Denmark. In Canada, LSD for founda- tions was first introduced in the second edition of the Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code (OHBDC; Ministry of Transportation and Communication 1983). The OHBDC ‘was based on factored strength concepts consistent with the development of LSD in Denmark. Nevertheless, there hhas been a general reluctance by geotechnical engineers in Canada to adopt LSD as originally introduced into the (Can. Geotcch. J. 33: 984-1007 (1996). Printed in Canada /Impriné av Canada Becker OHBDC. Lack of familiarity with and incomplete under: standing of LSD concepts, together with the experience Of the OHBDC and apparent deficiencies identified through its use of LSD, were responsible for the general reluctance of geotechnical engineers to embrace LSD. It was antici pated that LSD would result in economy of design. Foun- dations and retaining walls should have become smaller and thinner; however, they became larger and thicker. ‘This initial introduction of LSD in Canada was not well accepted by geotechnical engineers; it has generated a fair amount of confusion and controversy. Based on the Author's review of the literature and his experience and discussions ‘with engineering colleagues, it became apparent that LSD. means different things to different people. It was also apparent that the transfer of the fundamental principles and the keel concepts of LSD to geotechnical (foundation) engineers was not successful and certainly not well under- stood. It is important that the fundamental principles of LSD be conveyed to and understood by geotechnical engi- neers if they are to accept the new LSD design format. Further, the initial transition to LSD should be as gradual and smooth as possible. ‘To add to the confusion, the concept of LSD with the use of partial factors of safety developed differently in the United States and in Europe. A factored strength approach forms the basis of the European practice, while a factored overall resistance approach is the basis of the American approach. In 1991, the third edition of OHBDC (Ministry of Transportation of Ontario 1991) also adopted a factored overall resistance approach. In Ontario, geotechnical engi- neers who were still struggling with the factored strength approach, used in the second edition of OHBDC, suddenly hhad to adopt a new version of LSD. At the same time, it was planned to introduce LSD for foundations into the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) and a Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code was under preparation. It became apparent that consistency needed to exist between the various codes in Canada, The decision was made to adopt a factored overall resistance approach for both the NBCC and the Canadian Bridge Code. The rationale for this decision will be outlined and discussed in this colloquium. ‘An objective of this Colloquium is to review and sum- marize fundamental LSD concepts in order to define a consistent meaning and basis upon which geotechnical engineers can not only readily understand and apply LSD concepts, but also so that they will embrace them and ree ognize the inherent advantages of LSD. Hopefully, it will leave the reader with a basic understanding of the essence of not only LSD, but also of the overall foundation design process and traditional design methods such as WSD_ ‘The Colloquium is presented as a two part paper. Part I examines the overall geotechnical (foundation) design process and presents an overview of WSD, LSD, and reli- ability-based design approaches. The fundamental bases and differences of each of these three design approaches are described and discussed. Further, the differences between SD development in North America and in Europe are compared and discussed. The Colloquium outlines the advantages of the factored overall resistance approach and the reasons for its selection for code development in the NBCC. Part II describes the work carried out, based on 985, art 1, for the initial development of LSD for foundations in the 1995 National Building Code of Canada. Introduction ‘The limit states design (LSD) methodology is the general state of practice by structural engineers in Canada. Since about 1975, Canadian structural codes for buildings and other structures have adopted or incorporated LSD proce- dures (e.g., Canadian Standards Association (CSA) for steel and conerete). Most structural design is required by the National Building Code of Canada (NBC) to be cartied out using LSD. However, geotechnical engineering practice largely continues to use traditional working stress design (WSD) procedures: virtually all foundation design is based ‘on WSD. Therefore, a significant degree of inconsistency exists in the design interaction between structural and geo- technical engineers, which could lead to inconsistent safety and to errors, Both structural and geotechnical engineering design have the common requirement of ensuring safety and minimizing repair and loss of function during the life of a structure. The design should also be efficient from ‘an economic perspective. Economic advantage can be real- ized if all members-components of the structure are designed to a consistent appropriate level of safety (Allen 1975; MacGregor 1976; Meyerhof 1993, 1995; Ovesen 1993). This latter objective is better realized with LSD, which makes use of several partial safety factors, than with WSD, which uses a single global factor of safety. The optimization of the common goals between geo- technical and structural engineers can be jeopardized by inappropriate interaction and interpretation between the above two different design methodologies and by misunder- standings related to terminology. The problem is further exacerbated by the traditional lack of communication between geotechnical and structural engineers. It is imper- ative that effective communication and consistent design interaction be developed and maintained between structural and geotechnical engineers if safe and economic design is to be achieved In the design of foundations and retaining walls, a source of confusion potentially exists in terms of load: ing at the soil-structure interface for assessment of ultimate limit states. The structural engineer using LSD thinks in terms of factored loads to be supported by the founda- tion subsoils. The geotechnical engineer using WSD thinks in terms of nominal loads and allowable soil pressures. The geotechnical report provides the structural engineer with values of allowable soil bearing pressure. The struc tural engineer then needs to interpret the meaning of the recommended soil pressure and factors it in an attempt to compare with factored structural loads. Frequently, the recommended soil bearing pressure may be controlled by settlement considerations or serviceability limit states. The geotechnical report, however, may not state explic- itly that the soil bearing pressure provided is service- ability controlled. A conflict arises when the structural ‘engineer assumes that the recommended soil bearing pres- sure represents an ultimate limit states condition when, in fact, it represents serviceability limit states, A reckon” ing of factored and unfactored loads is difficult to resolve 986 rationally. While the resultant foundation may perform satisfactorily, a sense for the actual level of safety has become lost through the incompatible design process. The foundation may be over-designed with a resultant loss of economy rather than the improved economy that limit states design is supposed to provide. ‘The above problem is even more serious if soil loadings are involved and these loads are modified by the soil-struc- ture interaction, such as in the case of retaining walls. It ‘must be understood that soil can act with respect to a struc- ture either as the load or as the support or both. The mech- ‘anism and sense of loading needs to be considered carefully when partial safety factors are applied in LSD. Further, when a soil acts as a load, the magnitude of the load depends on the deformation of the soil itself and of the structure. Typically for retaining-wall design, geotechnical engineers establish the design earth pressures on the wall and pass them on to structural engineers. Structural engi- neers consider earth pressures as loads and naturally mul- tiply them by load factors prior to designing the wall. The question arises as to whether geotechnical engineers or structural engineers should factor the earth pressure? It is, ‘important that effective communication between structural and geotechnical engineers be established and maintained throughout the design process; one needs to know what the other has done or plans on doing. The above example demonstrates the importance of effective communication between geotechnical and structural engineers. Good communication is important, even if geo- technical engineers are using LSD for foundation design. For example, the Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code (OHBDC) in 1983 introduced LSD using partial factors following the factored strength (European) approach orig- inally developed in Denmark (Meyerhof 1993, 1995). Improved economy in terms of thinner retaining walls was an incentive for introducing LSD. However, after a few years of its implementation and use in practice, it was Found that retaining walls became thicker, not thinner as, expected. Green (1991) acknowledges that the LSD pro- cedures were not well accepted by geotechnical engineers, nor were they completely successful. ‘The reasons for the problems included a new and different terminology, an incomplete understanding of LSD concepts, and concerns about the codification of geotechnical design procedures. Further, a “double counting” effect on earth pressure had evolved. The Danish design practice uses a load factor of 1.0 for all vertical and horizontal earth forces. Partial factors are applied to soil strength parameters to calculate a fac tored earth pressure. The factored earth pressure is about 1.25 times the earth pressure calculated using unfactored (nominal) strength parameters. However, in the OHBDC (Ministry of Transportation and Communication 1983) a load factor of 1.25 was specified for earth loads. This load factor was applied to earth pressures that already had included allowances for uncertainty through the use of partial soil strength factors (ie. it already was increased in numerical value). The uncertainty associated with horizontal forces and moments on the wall due to lateral earth pressure can be handled by using partial factors on soil strength parameters or by load factors on earth pressures calculated using unfac- tored soil strength parameters, but not both. Can, Geotech. J. Vol. 33, 1996 Background and need for LSD format A strong motivation for the use of LSD in foundation engi- neering is the need and the importance of being compatible, with the design process used in structural engineering. As discussed above, the use of different design approaches has led to inconsistent interaction between structural and geotechnical engineers, and to errors. It is apparent that the structural engineering community is not about to aban- don the LSD concept and its load and resistance factor design (LRFD) approach for structural design. Therefore, the geotechnical community needs to examine existing foundation design practices and codes, and revise them to be consistent with the current structural design codes. In addition, as pointed out in Part I of this paper (Becker 1996), LSD has significant merit and advantages over the traditional WSD approach for foundation design. LSD is a logical extension to WSD; it should become the general state of practice by geotechnical engineers for foundation design On the above basis, the geotechnical engineering pro- fession in Canada is in the process of evaluating LSD phi- losophy for its incorporation into codes of practice for foundation engineering, Some existing Canadian codes, such as the Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code (OHBDC; Ministry of Transportation and Communication 1983; Ministry of Transportation of Ontario 1991) and Canadian Standard Association (CSA) $472 Standard for Foundations in the Offshore Code (CSA 1992; Been et al. 1993) have already incorporated LSD concepts and procedures. Recently, technical committees have been set up to incor porate LSD into a Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. Based on the work described in this paper, LSD was intro- duced into Section 4.2—Foundations of the NBCC in 1995, ‘The Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, CFEM (CGS 1992) will also be appropriately revised to consis: {ently incorporate a LSD format and to establish a formal link with the NBCC Section 4.2—Foundations. Following a workshop (Law et al. 1991) to determine what is needed to develop LSD for foundations in the NBCC, a study (Golder Associates Ltd, 1992; Becker et al. 1993) consisting of the following tasks was undertaken: + review of existing information on LSD for foundations; + identification of key limit states for foundation design; * definition of appropriate loads, load combinations, and load factors for each limit state identified; + estimation of allowable movements for serviceability limit states (SLS) as a function of building characteristics; + code calibration for ultimate limit states (UL) design with traditional WSD and with a reliability analysis for both shallow and deep (pile) foundations; + determination of appropriate resistance factors for foun- dation design; + recommendations for changes to Part 4 of the NBCC. and to the Part 4 Commentary on Foundations; and + recommendations for further study. Factored strength versus factored resistance One of the objectives for incorporation of LSD for foun- dations into the NBCC was to achieve the greatest possi- ble degree of consistency with the current code and between structural and geotechnical design. Although structural ‘te Becker engineers use different material factors for concrete and steel the resistance factor, &, in the NBC is defined as “a resistance factor applied to the resistance or specified ‘material property which takes into account variability of material properties and dimensions, workmanship, type of, failure (i.e. brittle verses ductile) and uncertainty in the prediction of resistance. From the above definition, it may be concluded that the factored overall resistance (North American) approach, for geotechnical resistance, as described in Part I of this paper (Becker 1996), is consistent with the approach used by structural engineers for structural resistance. From a structural perspective, natural soil or rock is a single mate- rial type (Allen 1994), The fact that strength consists of the two components tan 6 and c is a level of refinement and matter of detail. As discussed in Part I (Becker 1996), the factored strength approach with its consideration of separate strength factors for tan” and ¢ may be viewed as ‘a more elegant and sophisticated approach. However, ‘order to achieve consistency or equivalency with WSD, it is necessary to introduce resistance modification factors (Meyerhof 1984; Eisenstein 1989; CGS 1992). Collectively, the strength factors and resistance modification factors ‘can be represented by a single factor, similar in concept to the overall resistance factor, © in the factored resistance approach. Tn view of the limitations of the factored strength approach as discussed in Part I of this paper, it was con- sidered that this level of sophistication and refinement of the LSD format in the NBCC was not warranted at this time. ICis much more important that the fundamental prin. ciples of LSD be conveyed to and grasped by geotechnical engineers, The initial transition to LSD should be as gradual ‘and smooth as possible. Refinements can come later as more experience with LSD is gained. ‘The factored resistance approach has the advantage over the factored strength (European) approach in that the derived resistance factors reflect not only uncertainties in soil properties, but also the uncertainties in the methods ‘and extent of site investigation and in the calculation meth- ‘ods (analytical and empirical) for geotechnical resistance. ‘The resistance factor, ®, is similar in concept to the global factor of safety in WSD. Therefore, conceptually it would be familiar to geotechnical engineers, and it should be better received by the geotechnical engineering community, which will allow for a smoother transition from WSD to LSD for foundation desig. Further, it was considered important that a consistent for- mat for LSD in foundation engineering be developed and implemented into various codes in North America. The third edition of OHBDC (Ministry of Transportation of Ontario 1991), Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (under preparation), and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standard Specifications for Bridges (Barker et al. 1991) are all based on the factored resistance approach and LRFD. For the initial development of LSD for foundations in the NBCC (1995), a factored overall geotechnical resistance approach and LRED has also been adopted. A consistent state of practice, therefore, exists between Canada and the United States. 987 LSD based on load and resistance factor design (LRFD) Significant and varying degrees of uncertainty are inherently involved in foundation and other geotechnical design. ‘Therefore in recent years, there has been a trend towards the use of reliability-based design and probabilistic methods in ‘geotechnical engineering design. However, complete prob- abilistic design is difficult to apply reliably and appropri- ately, in particular in most practical geotechnical design situations, generally because of lack of statistically viable information. Complete probabilistic methods are also time- consuming and expensive, which makes them practical or suitable for large, special projects only. Because of these dif ficulties, simpler, yet probabilistically based design pro- cedures have been developed. Further, there has been a shift in design philosophy towards methods involving sev- ‘eral partial safety factors because the use of a single global factor of safety does not provide uniform level of safety or reliability throughout all members of the structure; hence, economy in design is not optimized. LRFD is an example where the partial factors have been based on or calibrated using probability and reliability concepts. The separate consideration of loads, materials, and performance provides the opportunity for the design to be more responsive to the differences between types of loads, material types, fun- damental behaviour of the structure, and consequence of dif ferent modes of unsatisfactorily performance or limit states. The LRFD method has been described in Part I of this paper (Becker 1996). The LRED criterion is given by Ul OR, 23a, where is the resistance factor; R, is the nominal (characteristic) resistance ® R, is the factored resistance; Xa,S, is the sum of factored load effect; «is the load factor; = Sy is the nominal (specified) load = Siks Ris the mean resistanc: i is the ratio of mean value to characteristic value for resistance; is the mean load effect; and isis the ratio of mean value to specified (characteristic) value for load effects. Figure | illustrates the meaning of the above parameters. ‘The values of kp were based on characteristic values co responding to a conservatively assessed mean value as dis- cussed by Becker (1996). Code calibration for ultimate limit states Code calibration is the process of determining and speci- fying numerical values for the partial factors on loads and resistance. Codes may be calibrated using various approaches such as judgement, fitting with traditional design approaches, reliability theory, or a combination of these approaches (Rojiani et al. 1991; Barker et al. 1991), Calibration by judgement was essentially the approach used in selecting or determining appropriate global factors 988 Fig. 1. Load and resistance factor design (LRFD). BN | ) PROBABILITY DENSITY OF R ond S 8 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 33, 1996 LSD FORMAT :@ Rp 2 Sp Rrkg RESISTANCE (3) MAGNITUDE OF RESISTANCE AND LOAD EFFECTS [R, $) of safety, FS, in traditional WSD. The values of global FS were generally accepted as correct, or suitable, when the performance of structures was found to be satisfactory after many years of design experience. The global FS would be adjusted as required to reflect the observed performance. The use of a global FS in traditional WSD arises from the implicit recognition that some allowance must be made for possible variations in loads and materiat strength, inac- ‘curacies in design equations, effects from construction and geometry tolerances, unforeseen loads, unforeseen ground conditions, and other uncertainties inherent in design, To date, only the variations in loads and material strengths have been considered explicitly in reliability-based design and LSD using partial factors. The other sources of uncer- tainties are less amenable to systematic treatment either because the information required to characterize them is lacking of, by their nature, they do not lend themselves readily to statistical analysis. The measure of safety is cal- culated solely from the variations in loads and material strengths. To ensure that the original purpose or role of the global FS is not lost, the other uncertainties also need to be appropriately considered. A method of doing this, involves adjusting the design so that a suitably low prob- ability of failure is obtained. This target probability of failure or reliability index is determined empirically by requiring that it be comparable with that implicit in WSD. Calibration by fitting with traditional design approaches is usually cartied out following a fundamental change in either design philosophy or code format. In this calibration, the parameters of the new code are adjusted so that similar designs are obtained as would be obtained from the previous code. The main objective of the calibration is to transfer the experience with the performance from the old code to the new code. Calibration by fitting is a valuable technique for ensuring that designs obtained with the new code do not deviate significantly from existing conventional designs. While it is a relatively simple procedure, calibration by fitting does not necessarily result in a more uniform level of safety or economy because the new code essentially mimics the old code. Calibration by fitting with WSD does not ensure that, in LSD, the same design will be produced by different engi- neers. However, it does provide some assurance that the same, or at least similar, designs would be produced by any given engineer, regardless of whether a WSD or LSD format is used in the design process. Calibration using reliability theory is a much more for: smal process involving explicit optimization (Ravindra and Lind 1973; Li and Lo 1993). It consists of a sequence of steps as described in subsequent sections of this paper. The reliability index, B, is a relative measure of the degree of safety, The higher the value of 8, the smaller the prob ability of failure and the higher the factor of safety. By adjusting B to be constant forall components of a structure, itis possible to achieve a more uniform level of safety. ‘The definition of B used in this study is shown in Fig. 2 (Allen 1975; MacGregor 1976; CSA 1981) If the actual probability density functions or distribution curves are known, the value of B could be evaluated directly. Inthe absence of such data, acceptable or target values for B are established by a process of calibrating the probability of failure o existing design standards such as WSD. On this basis, values of 3 10 4 have been used for the target By (Allen 1975; MacGregor 1976; Ministry of Transportation and Communication 1983; Ministry of ‘Transportation of Ontario 1991). ‘As discussed by Becker (1996), the load and resistance (material) factors are interrelated to each other. That is, the value of a is dependent on the value of ® and vice versa. They are also dependent on the desired or target level of safety as defined by the target reliability index, By. ‘Allen (1975) uses such a calibration technique to deter- rine the values of partial safety factors required to produce a design essentially equivalent to that produced by WSD. The variation of B for a range or domain of loads and load Becker i Boz PROBABILITY DENSITY OF 2 FAILURE REGION (AREA = PROBABILITY OF FAILURE, P,) 989 2, Definitions of reliability index, 8, and probability of failure, P, B is the number of standard deviations, ¢,, between the mean Z, and failure region; B dey MAGNITUDE OF RESISTANCE AND LOAD EFFECTS (log-normal distioution of R and §) ‘combinations (such as ratios of live load to dead, L/D, and wind load to dead load ratios, Q/D) is determined for the WSD method, which on the basis of past experience rep- resents a measure of acceptable safety. The values of the Toad factors, a, and resistance (material) factors, , are varied until the value of B is reasonably constant over the entire domain and is reasonably comparable with that of the WSD practice over at least part of the domain as shown in Fig. 3. For foundation design in the NBC, separate calibration methodologies were used to derive appropriate resistance factors for ultimate limit states (ULS). The code calibration was carried out based on the following two methods: () calibration by fitting with WSD; and (2) calibration using reliability theory (Level I format). Load factors and load combina’ for ULS ‘To minimize confusion between structural and geotechnical engineers, and to obtain the maximum possible degree of consistency, the same loads, load combinations, and load factors, where appropriate, have been used for both the building structures and the foundation. The loading con- ditions are defined in NBCC (NRC 1990, 1995) Sec- tion 4.1—Structural Loads and Procedures. Section 4.1.4 of the NBCC (NRC 1990) gives the following general expres sion for load factors and load combinations using specified or characteristic loads: For LSD format: (2a) LaSy = ayD + YW lal + agQ + aT) For WSD format [25] -35,;= (D + L + Q + 7) X load combination factor (values of 1.0, 0.75, or 0.66 depending on load combination being considered) 3, Schematic representation of calibration process for limit states design (after Allen 1975), wn gs ea | metry 2" \ g |e i Fe 2 t \_ wosg me wees Doha oF ec (Soest wes ais the load factor to account for variability in respective loads, load patterns, and analysis of their effects; Dis the dead load; Lis the live load (e.g., occupancy use, snow, rain, earth and hydrostatic pressures); @ is the wind or earthquake load; Tis the loads due to cumulative effects of temperature, creep, shrinkage and differential settlement, or com nations thereof; +y is the importance factor to account for consequenk collapse; and of 990 Can, Geotech. J. Vol. 33, 1996 Table 1. Summary of maximum load combinations for code calibration with WSD. Maximum load combinations Loading Windlive Lp case Toad ratio (Q/L) Bas,) 1 0-043, 1.28 + 1.3L 2 043-1 1.25D + 1.05(L + Q) 3 1-233 125D + 1.05(L + Q) 4 32.33 1.25D + 1.50 Wis the load combination factor that takes into account reduced probability of simultaneous occurrence of several factored loads. ‘The values of the load factors given in NBCC (NRC 1990, 1995) are as follows: ap = 1.25 (ap = 0.85 when dead load resists overturning, uplift, or reversal of load effect). 15 1,5 for wind or 1.0 for earthquake. (Note: In 1995, NBCC introduced the symbol W for wind and kept 0 for earthquake. In this paper, however, the symbol 0 is, ‘maintained for wind to be consistent with NBCC (1990), which was used to calibrate the NBCC (1995) for foundations.) 1.25 The importance factor, , is taken to be at least 1.0 for all buildings, except for the storage type of buildings of low human occupancy, where a value of 0.8 can be used. For the calibration study a value of 1,0 was used, ‘The values of the load combination factor, 4, are as follows: wh = 1.0 when only one of L, Q, or T acts. 4) =0.7 when two of L, Q, or T act. Y= 0.6 when all three of L, Q, and T act. ‘The most unfavourable effect of the above loading com. binations is to be determined and used for design purposes. ‘The NBCC states that T does not need to be considered if it can be shown, from engineering principle or experience, that the neglect of T does not affect structural safety and serviceability. From a geotechnical and foundation point of view, the load effects of T are not a necessary or an appropriate consideration. In most cases of foundation designs, the effects of temperature and shrinkage can be neglected. Therefore for this study, the T load effects have not been utilized or considered, wsp Gs, If DIL < 394-1 75D + L + Q) WD/L2 31 ~ 1 y +L on 75(D +L + Q) on D+a If D/L 23 3S, Based on the above, the following factored load com: binations for ULS were considered in the code calibration: 1.25D 1.25D + 1.5L 125D + 1.59 1.25D + 1.05(L+9) 085D + 1.50 The last load combination applies to the case of sliding as a result of horizontal (e.g., wind) loading. For analysis, of sliding, vertical live loads are usually not considered; the dead load is multiplied by the reduced factor of 0.85 because it contributes to resistance. In the calibration process, resistance factors () and reliability indices (B) were computed as functions of live load to dead load (L/D) ratios and wind load to live load ratios (Q/L). From these calibration results and computa- tions, appropriate resistance factors were selected to provide equivalency with current WSD, over a practical range of loading conditions and combinations, and to ensure re sonable levels of safety (reliability index) which are com- patible with that used for design of the building structure. The loading cases with the maximum-critical loading effects, based on eqs. [2a] and [2b], are summarized in Table i Earth loads and earth pressures Earth loads and earth pressures (including water) are clas- sified in the NBCC as live loads and, as such, would be multiplied by a load factor of 1.5. In contrast, the OHBDC and AASHTO Bridge Code classify earth fill and earth pressures as dead loads. The sense of dead load involves constant, sustained loading whose magnitude is reasonably ‘well known, Load factor values of 1.20 to 1.25 are used for carth fill and earth pressures in these codes. A load factor Becker value of 1.5 on earth loads and earth and hydrostatic pres- sures is generally considered by geotechnical engineers to be too high (Law et al. 1991), Hydrostatic water pressure can be determined with pre- cision if the groundwater table is known, Therefore, @ load factor of 1.1 has been specified by OHBDC (Ministry of ‘Transportation of Ontario 1991). It would not be appropriate to assume a groundwater level at the ground surface and then multiply the corresponding calculated hydrostatic pressure by a large load factor such as 1.5. This would produce a completely unrealistic design hydrostatic pressure ‘This sentiment is also expressed in the AASHTO Bridge Code (Barker et al. 1991), which states that if the water pressure is based on a worst possible position of the ground ‘water table, it is reasonable to use a factor of 1.0 in LRFD calculations. Otherwise, a load factor of 1.1 is recom- ‘mended for water pressure. ‘The magnitude of a load factor reflects the degree of ‘uncertainty associated with the calculation for the applied characteristic or specified load. The load factor increases as uncertainty in the calculation of load increases. The variables in earth-pressure and earthefill calculations consist of the following: + unit weight of soil; + values of earth pressure coefficients Ky, Ky. and Ky, which are dependent on effective angle of friction, 6 + groundwater conditions (ie., depth to groundwater table); and + retained height or depth of excavation (j., dimensions). From reliability theory considerations and for an assumed log-normal distribution, an approximate appropriate value of a load factor can be given by the following equation (Lind 1971; Barker et al. 1991; Alen and Jendeby 1993): Bl a= kes where kis the ratio of mean to specified (characteristic) load (Qypically ranges between 0.8 and 1.0 (Allen 1975; Becker 1996) 6 is the separation coefficient or a sensitivity factor (typically varies between about 0.6 and 0.8; taken as 0.75 for this study); B is the reliability index (target reliability of 8 = 3.5 used in this study); and Ve is the coefficient of variation of load effects Although the coefficient of variation for geotechnical mate- Tials is not well documented, it is currently considered that 0.10-0.20 is representative of a reasonable range in Vs for earth loads and earth pressures (Barker et al. 1991; Meyerhof 1993, 1995). The magnitude of earth pressure is @ product (1¢., multiplicative combination) and, thus, the coefficient of variation, Vs ofthe earth pressure effect can be determined by (MacGregor 1976; Tang 1993): UW) Vya(Vp + VE + vy? whore Vs, Vy, and Vy are coefficients of variation for 6”, unit weight, and dimensions, respectively. ‘A review of the literature (Meyerhof 1976, 1993, 1995; Barker et al. 1991; Kulhaway 1992; Manoliv and Marcu 1993; Phoon et al. 1993; Heibaum 1993) indicates the fol- lowing values for these coeificients of variation 991 Vy : 0.10 t0 0.15 V) : 0.04 to 0.10 (typically 0.07) Vip: 0.08 Using eq, [4 the above values produce a range in Vs between 0.12 and 0.19. From eq. [3], the calculated range in @ is 1.10 to 1.65 for the variation in values of Vs (0.12 and 0.19) and ks (0.8 and 1.0), An a value of 1.26 is com- puted forthe more typical values of V; = 0.15 and k, = 0:85. ‘The literature does not contain much information on the values of loads factors on earth fill and earth pressure used in other countries. Japanese practice for tunnels, appears to use factors of 1.2 for horizontal earth loading Gato et al. 1993). European practice (Eurocode 7; CEN 1992) uses a load factor of 1.0, but bases the calculated value of earth pressure on reduced values of characteristic soil strength (i.e., a reduced 6 value), which effectively increases the value for earth pressure. The partial strength factor of 0.8 (ie, tan 6") produces a factored earth pressure that is about 1.2 to 1.25 times that based on unfactored strength, In essence, it corresponds to a load factor of 1.2 to 1.25. Meyerhof (1984) recommends the use of « load factor of 1.25 for earth pressure calculated either from theory or from empirical earth pressure diagrams. Based on the above simplified reliability analysis, it was recommended that a load factor value of 1.25 be adopted for earth fill and pressure for the intial transition of LSD for foundations in the NBCC. With time and as relevant experience is gained, the value for this load factor can be assessed and, if necessary, modified in subsequent editions of the NBC. However, the Code Development Commitee of the NBCC felt thatthe quality contol for buildings, in general, is much Jess than the quality control for specific structures such as, bridges. Where quality control can be assured, the use of a lower load factor such as 1.25 is appropriate. While the Code Development Committee understand the relation between quality control and load factor. they are concerned that, for buildings, a mechanism does not exist with the current per- rifting and inspection process to enforce and ensure that the required degree of quality control is being carried out Further, for most buildings, the component of earth fll and earth pressures are relatively small inthe overall scheme of building design Toads. Consequently, earth fill and earth pres- sures will continue to be classified in the NBCC (NRC 1995) a live loads and will be multiplied by a load factor of 1.5. Calibration by fitting with WSD Bearing resistance for shallow and deep foundations The method of code calibration for bearing resistance (ULS) applies to both shallow and deep foundations. The resistance factors ® for the ULS case were derived from a yee + 8) {As discussed in Part | (Becker 1996), the nominal (cha: acteristic) values for R and S do not necessarily need to be taken as mean values, rather they are related to the mean values as [16] R=R,ky and ky where k refers to the ratio of the mean value to the nominal (characteristic) or specified value as shown in Fig. 1. These A factors are refered to as bas Factors by some researchers, (Barker et al, 1991; Liver al, 19934, 19934), When k= 1.0, the mean value is taken asthe characteristic value Tt has been demonstrated that the agreement between the reliability index and probability of failure is quite con- sistent (Whitman 1984; Barker etal, 1991), Figure 5 shows the relationship between reliability index and probability of failure for log-normally distributed R and S based on the 904 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 33, 1996 . Relationship between reliability index and probability of failure 38] PROBABILITY OF FAILURE, P, wth : rca ace I | eee B FOR STRUCTURAL | Seen ores | I | I 1 2 338 a RELIABILITY INDEX, approximate relationship suggested by Rosenblueth and steva (1972): U7] P4600 for 2B <6 From this figure, it is seen that the typical range in P, for buildings is about 10~* to 10° per year, which corresponds to a range in B from about 3.5 to 4.0. Based on a survey of failures of foundations, earthworks, retaining walls, semi-probabilistic methods, and using con- siderable judgement, Meyerhof (1970, 1993, 1995) has presented a comparison between global FS and reliability index, B, as shown in Fig. 6. The lifetime probabilities of stability failures are about 10°? for offshore foundations, about 10~ for earthworks and retaining walls, and about 10-* for foundations on land. The estimates for foundations are at the upper end of the estimated lifetime failure prob- ability of about 10~* for concrete and steel structures. The corresponding B values range from about 2.5 to about 3.5. For concrete and steel! structures, B ranges from about 3 to about 5. The values are consistent with a range in over- all coefficient of variation of the loads and geotechnical resistance between about 0.15 for earthworks and about 0.25 to 0.3 for both land-based and offshore foundations. Deviation of load and resistance factors ‘The basis used for the derivation of theoretical expressions for load and resistance factors was developed largely by Cornell (19694, 19695) and Lind (1971). Equation [15] ‘can be rewritten as; = alee +) Lind (1971) has shown that 1s) [WF + 2) = 04+ 0% where @ is a separation coefficient. From eq. [18] it follows that um ofS) ue R ‘ 20) > elftva + savy) bo Fee! Rearranging this equation gives: Pty Rel Pe > Fibs “which is similar in format to the LRFD criterion of R, > aS, From eq, [16] it follows that 122] ky Ry eM D ks S, BMS From which (23) @2he 24] @ From ea, [23], B ean be rewritten as: Loan (ke az * (8) “The substitution of eq [51 into eq, [251 results in rate (ee) We Dasa kets ps B Becker ‘The separation coefficient is defined as en 8 ‘The separation coefficient, 8, is a function of the Vq/Vs ratio; however, because of the lack of an appropriate data base in geotechnical engineering, realistic and representative values of V,/V; are not currently well defined. To examine its significance, the magnitude of O has been plotted against Ve/Vq. It was found that @ varies from a minimum of about 07 to a maximum of 1.0. For an expected practical range of V/V; of 0.5 to 5, the value of @ varies within a relatively narrow range of 0.7 to 0.85. In view of the complexity of the analysis and the insufficient geotechnical data base, a 8 value of 0.75 has been assumed in this study. Resistance and load factors can be readily determined using eqs. {23] and [24] if representative values of Vp, Vs. Jigs ks, and B are known, Estimates of statistical parameters Before values of a and & can be calculated, itis necessary to select an appropriate level of safety as defined by 8 and to estimate representative values for ky. Ks. Vqo and Vy Using a calibration technique, the weighted average of corresponding values of B in Canadian structural design specifications, for the most practical or typical combinations of loads, was found to range from about 2.5 to slightly greater than 4.0 (MacGregor 1976; Allen 1975). For this range in B, the corresponding probability of failure ranges, from about 1 X10? to about 1X 10 *. In general, B was in the range of 3 to 4 with an average value of B= 3.5. The NBC for structural design was calibrated using a target B value of 3.5 for ductile behaviour with normal consequence of failure and a B of 4.0 if either the conse uence of failure is severe or the failure is likely to occur ina brite manner. The comesponding probability of failure ranges from about 10~* to 10~° in 30 years, as shown in Fig. 5. The OHBDC and AASHTO Bridge Code were also calibrated for a target reliability index value of B = 3.5, Which corresponds approximately to a probability of failure of about 10-". A target value of B= 3.5 was also used for code calibration for foundation in the NBCC (NRC 1995). Formal analysis and a systematic evaluation of the values of ky and Ve forthe Joad effects on buildings and structural resistance of reinforeed concrete and steel have been carried cout by Allen (1975, 1991) and MacGregor (1976). In gen- eral, the values of the ratio of mean to specified loads, ky, range between 0.7 and 1.0, while the coefficient of variation, V,, generally lies in the range of 0.07 to 0.3. The higher values of V, correspond to loads with greater variability land uncertainty such as live and wind loads. The value of the ratio for mean to nominal structural resistance typically is in the range of about 1.1 to 1.2; the coefficient of vari ation for structural resistance usually ranges from about 0.1 to 0.3. The higher values are for concrete and wood, which display greater variability than steel. Meyerhof (1993, 1995) has summarized coefficients of variation of various load effects for on-and and offshore 995 foundations. The values reported by Meyethof lie in the range of 0,05 to 0.15 for dead loads and soil weight, 0.2 to 046 for live loads, and 0.3 to 0.5 for environmental loads. ‘The higher values tend to be associated with loading con ditions and effects on offshore structures-foundations where a higher degree of uncertainty generally exists. Formal statistical treatment of geotechnical data and corresponding representative values of ky and Vg for geo- technical materials and methods of analysis lags far behind that of structural engineering aspects. Over the last 10-15 years or s0, there has been an increasing trend and interest to apply statistics and probabilistic theory to geo- technical materials and analysis. The number of technical publications on this topic have increased substantially Notable examples include Harr (1987), Meyerhof (1982, 1984, 1995), Phoon et al. (1993), Barker et al. (1991), Li and Lo (1993), Kulhaway (1992), Manoliu and Marcu (1993), Heibaum (1993), Cherubini etal. 1993, Tang 1993, and many others too numerous to mention. Table 3 sum- marizes reported values for Vj for geotechnical properties and parameters, calculation models (theories) for deter- mining geotechnical resistance for foundations (spread footings and piles), and for earth pressures. Values of ky and Ve depend on many factors including site investigation method, quality and quantity of testing (aboratory and in situ ests), construction quality control, type of foundation, and method of analysis. In addition to ‘Table 3, the calibration work made use of the published work by Meyerhof (1970, 1993, 1995), as shown in Fig. 6, ‘ho estimated V, based on incidence of failure (P,) and FS. “The importance for a rational and consistent method of selecting the characteristic value for design has been dis- ‘cussed in Part I of this paper (Becker 1996). However, the concept of ky for characterizing the frequency distribution cure is not commonly applied in a formal manner in stan- dard geotechnical engineering practice. The selection of nominal or characteristic strength or resistance values varies with the training, intuition, background, and expe- rience of the individual geotechnical engineer. Frequent, the mean value or a value slightly less than the mean will bee selected as the characteristic value for design purposes (Viz. ky ® 1.0) The use of a conservatively assessed mean value, as described by Becker (1996), is advocated by some researchers and practitioners (DNV 1977; Green and Sorensen 1993; Meyerhof 1993, 1995). Becker (1996) sug- ests that a range in ky from 1.0 to 1.25 forms a rational basis for defining a conservatively assessed mean value. For this calibration study, values of ky equal to 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2 were used to examine the effect of ky on the over” all analysis. It was found that the effect of ky is smaller than that of Vp. For the results presented and discussed in this paper, a value of ky = 1.1 has been used. This value of zg should provide a reasonable estimate for a conservatively assessed mean value. Equation (26] represents semi-probabilistic and semi- empirical model for B, corresponding to a reliability-based design Level I format. From eq. {26}, the reliability index (G) is related to global FS used in WSD. An appreciation and assessment of the magnitude of B corresponding to the resistance factors obtained by direct calibration to WSD can thus be obtained. Although other more rigorous, 996 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 33, 1998 Table 3. Summary of coefficient of variation (V,) for geotechnical properties and resistances, ee ———————eeeeeaeae*s

    You might also like