See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233013578

Determination of geotechnical characteristic values of marine clay

Article  in  Georisk Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards · March 2010
DOI: 10.1080/17499510902896612

CITATIONS READS

3 2,334

3 authors, including:

Gil-Lim Yoon Hong Yeon Kim

Korean Institute of Ocean Science and Technology SAMBU CONSTRUCTION Co, SOUTH KOREA, SEOUL
68 PUBLICATIONS   839 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   20 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Reliability based design of offshore wind turbine foundation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gil-Lim Yoon on 17 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Yoon, Gil Lim]
On: 2 March 2010
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 919571681]
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and

Geohazards
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t744347545

Determination of geotechnical characteristic values of marine clay

Gil Lim Yoon a; Yeo Won Yoon b; Hong Yeon Kim c
a
Coastal Harbor Engineering Lab, Korea Ocean Research & Development Institute, Ansan, Korea b
Department of Civil Engineering, Inha University, Incheon, Korea c Coastal Harbor Engineering Lab,
Korea Ocean Research & Development Institute (Ph.D candidate at Inha Univ.), Ansan, Korea

Online publication date: 01 March 2010

To cite this Article Yoon, Gil Lim, Yoon, Yeo Won and Kim, Hong Yeon(2010) 'Determination of geotechnical
characteristic values of marine clay', Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and
Geohazards, 4: 1, 51 — 61
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/17499510902896612
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17499510902896612

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Georisk
Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2010, 51
61

Determination of geotechnical characteristic values of marine clay

Gil Lim Yoona*, Yeo Won Yoonb and Hong Yeon Kimc

a
Coastal Harbor Engineering Lab., Korea Ocean Research & Development Institute, Ansan, Korea; bDepartment of Civil
Engineering, Inha University, Incheon, Korea; cCoastal Harbor Engineering Lab., Korea Ocean Research & Development
Institute (Ph.D candidate at Inha Univ.), Ansan, Korea
(Received 19 May 2008; final version received 14 March 2009)

In this paper, methods of determining characteristic values for geotechnical reliability-based design were analysed
for Korean marine clays. The characteristic values using the Student approach were closest to the mean value of
parameters followed by the characteristic values using Ovesen, Schneider and EN 1990’s approaches. Four
different approaches showed a trend of evaluating characteristic values conservatively with increasing soil
variability. Geotechnical stability and settlement of a breakwater, subjected to nominal stress on unimproved soft
ground, were studied to investigate the effects of the estimated different characteristic values. Using Schneider’s
approach, the ratio of allowable bearing capacity to acting loads was 65% of that based on the arithmetic mean
values, and the settlement was underestimated by 13.6%. It was also found that determining a representative
value using an arithmetic mean value significantly overestimated the ratio comparing the values using the
proposed approaches, which may induce an uneconomic design of structure if not considering serious soil
Downloaded By: [Yoon, Gil Lim] At: 13:53 2 March 2010

variability owing to insufficient test data.

Keywords: reliability-based design; characteristic value; marine clay; soil variability; Eurocode 7; stability

Introduction dispute, affects not only the determination of design

Limit state design has been developed from centring
around load and resistance factor design (LRFD) and
Eurocode. Also, new design codes based on limit state
and performance-based design methods are being
developed in North-east Asian countries such as
China, Japan and Korea. It may be an international
trend to establish and standardise more reasonable
and optimised codes by considering uncertainties of
random variables, that is, statistical variability.
However, allowable stress design, which has been
used in the past decades, has as its design value a
deterministically chosen representative value based
on a designer’s intention or arithmetic mean.
LRFD of North America, developed as a lead in
structural engineering, is an approach that estimates
resistance using a design model and that multiplies
resistance factor by calculated resistance to reflect the
uncertainty of materials and design models. Euro-
code, however, employs the partial resistance factor,
which is directly applied to each variable in limit state
function consisting of soil parameters such as cohe-
sion and angle of internal friction. This study deals
with the framework of characteristic value, which has
been globally argued about from the beginning of the
development of Eurocode 7 for geotechnical design
even to the present (Orr 2006). This is because the
estimation of the characteristic value, an issue of this
values applied directly to the design of geotechnical
structures, but also economic feasibility and stability
following from the results of the design. In this paper,
geotechnical characteristic values were estimated
using four kinds of approaches and their applicability
based on case history were also reviewed. To estimate
characteristic values, data which had been collected
to develop reliability-based design of ports and
harbours in Korea were employed (Yoon 2005).
Design values were measured from the character-
istic values, and then the stability and settlement of a
breakwater, on unimproved soft ground and sub-
jected to nominal stress, were analysed. In addition,
results in the case of designing with both the
characteristic values and representative values which
were used in the past were compared and analysed.
Evaluation of geotechnical design variables
Representative values for application to geotechnical
design calculation have always been selected by
designers. But the questions of how to choose them
and how to apply them, considering their conserva-
tiveness, have not been addressed in most current
design codes. This presents not only problemes in
determining partial factor and characteristic value
to calculate design values in Eurocode, but also

*Corresponding author. Email: glyoon@kordi.re.kr

ISSN 1749-9518 print/ISSN 1749-9526 online

# 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/17499510902896612
http://www.informaworld.com
 52 G.L. Yoon et al.
difficulty in defining the methods to estimate char-
acteristic value. Eurocode 7 offers four levels of
values as a procedure to gain design value of
geotechnical parameters, which are measured value,
derived value, characteristic value and design values.
Figure 1 shows basic concepts of these values.
Measured value
‘Measured value’ is defined as a value measured from
many kinds of laboratory and in-situ tests. For
example, ground water level, N-value from standard
penetration test (SPT), stress and strain from triaxial
compressive test and so on.
Derived value
‘Derived value’ is defined as a value presenting a
property of geomaterials which is estimated from the
measured values using theoretical, empirical or sta-
Downloaded By: [Yoon, Gil Lim] At: 13:53 2 March 2010
tistical correlation. It offers a basis to choose
characteristic value. For examples, they are c? and
8? from triaxial compressive test using Mohr
Cou-
lomb theory, Cu from field vane test using torque
theory, 8?, E and Dr for sand from SPT blow counts
using empirical correlations and so on. The symbols
c?, 8?, Cu, E and Dr represent effective cohesion, angle
of internal friction, undrained shear strength, elastic
modulus and relative density respectively.
Characteristic value
‘Characteristic value’ is a representative value eval-
uated as the most adequate value to estimate
occurrence of limit states in the problem based on a
soil
foundation
structure system when designing. In
principle, the characteristic value is a value carefully
evaluated for a mean value of the derived value. In
Figure 1. Procedure to determine design value (Orr and
Farrell 1999).
this study, the mean value should not represent
directly the arithmetic mean, but should be consid-
ered using statistical estimation error to obtain a
mean value. Also, this careful evaluation of the mean
value should be considered by not only geotechnical
theory and experience of similar sites, but also
consistent cross-validation of some other results
based on ground investigation.
Design value
Design value is a parameter which is used by design
calculation. It is determined either from the char-
acteristic value by applying partial factor or by direct
assessment from the derived value.
Determination of geotechnical characteristic values
A characteristic value of geotechnical parameter is
defined using a bias factor, kr, that is, mean value of
probability density function (PDF) for the parameter
over characteristic value used to perform design.
Figure 2 defines the characteristic value schemati-
cally. In the case of kr 1.0, the characteristic
value may be equal to mean value of PDF. Also,
the characteristic value of geotechnical parameter
means a careful estimation of the value which affects
occurrence of limit state. Using the statistical method,
it is defined as a value that probability of the most
unfavourable value which governs occurrence of
limit state that is not more than 5%. Therefore,
the characteristic value should be determined with
caution by considering a certain limit state and
condition of soil uncertainty, when practical design
is performed.
Statistical definition of the characteristic value is
involved with the mean value of soil parameters in the
Figure 2. Characteristic values of parameters for safety
side (Becker 2006).
 Georisk 53

field and is not 5% fractile of derived value obtained
from test results, but the value affects the occurrence
of the limit state. Therefore, the characteristic value
corresponds to a 95% confidence level so that the
mean value, m(X), becomes greater than the deter-
mined characteristic value which is represented as
follows using statistical theory
Xk m(X)[1kn ×V(X)] (1)
where kn is a factor which depends on statistical
probability distribution and the number of test
results, and V(X) is coefficient of variation (COV).
The term [1kn ×V(X)] is used as a correction
factor.
According to EN 1990, when a value of either
material or material property has a prescribed prob-
ability which is not obtained from hypothetical
unlimited tests, it is defined as a characteristic value
with any prescribed confidence level in the statistical
distribution assumed as a specific property. Also, it
Downloaded By: [Yoon, Gil Lim] At: 13:53 2 March 2010
the result of Equation (3) where the t-parameter is
applied in case of an infinite number of N.
1:645
Xk m(X) pffiffiffiffi s(X) (4)
N
On the other hand, Schneider (1997) presented a
more simple equation.
Xk m(X)0:5s(X) (5)
when kr equals 0.5 in Equation (1), that is, when N
becomes 11 in Equation (4), Schneider showed a good
approximate value for Xk, through comparative
studies. Equation (5) represents the case of determin-
ing the lower 50% of the SD for the mean value.
In the Japanese design code for port facilities, the
correction factors are slightly different depending on
the amount of data. They are denoted as b1 and b2
respectively and are represented as the following
b1  10:5COV (6)

has been mentioned that the characteristic value b2 10:5=n (7)

should be defined using the concept of 5% fractile. Also, values of b1 are presented in Table 1,
The characteristic value is presented as the following according to the level of COV (Watabe et al. 2006).
by assuming this condition is its normal distribution
Xk m(X)1:645s(X) Determination of characteristic values for
m(X)[11:645V(X)] (2) marine clay
where m(X), s(X) and V(X) are the mean value, Characteristic values of marine clay in Korea were
standard deviation (SD), and COV of unlimited tests, estimated using four different methods suggested by
respectively. X and 1.645 are a factor and present 5% EN 1990, Student (1908), Ovesen (1995) and Schneider
confidence level. (1997). Those are compared and analysed in this
The definition and equation of the characteristic paper. Soil parameters such as physical strength and
value in EN 1990, mentioned above, are appropriate consolidation characteristics were illustrated. Table 2
for design involving structural materials, whereas shows the maximum numbers of test data with each
those are inappropriate for geomaterials. This is characteristic group.
attributable to the properties of variables governing
geotechnical parameters. For example, ground failure
may not be simply controlled by the strength of any Physical characteristics
particular element in the test, but the mean value of Characteristic values of parameters for physical
strength for the failure plane. Thus, it is not the 5% characteristics were estimated using soil data col-
fractile of test results, but the 5% fractile of mean lected from Gwangyang (G.W) Port and Busan (B.S)
strength which takes place along required failure Port, representative ports and harbours in Korea,
plane corresponding to 95% confidence value of the
mean strength. Another reason is that generally only
a limited number of test results are available in Table 1. Correction factors with different levels of COV
geotechnical design. Student (1908) suggested a (Watabe et al. 2006c).
95% fractile of the mean value as the following COV Correction factor (/b1 )
t
Xk m(X) pffiffiffiffi s(X) (3) COV B0.1 1.00
N 0.1 5COV B0.15 0.95
where, t is a parameter depending on the number of 0.15 5COV B0.25 0.90
0.25 5COV B0.4 0.85
test results, N.
0.4 5COV B0.6 0.75
In order to obtain a characteristic value with a 0.6 5COV Reexamination of the data
great number of results of shear strength, Ovesen Reexecution of the soil test
(1995) employed a simpler equation. Equation (4) is
 54 G.L. Yoon et al.
Table 2. Maximum number of test data with geographical locations of the site in Korea.
Soil characteristics Gwangyang
Physical characteristics 2,089
Strength characteristics 1,341
Consolidation characteristics 1,259
and were analysed statistically. Figure 3 shows the
results for the comparison of the mean value obtained
Downloaded By: [Yoon, Gil Lim] At: 13:53 2 March 2010
by using each approach. For the estimation results
for characteristic values of soil parameters in physical
characteristics, Of the four approaches, Student’s
method presented results closest to the mean value.
However, when sufficient test data were available,
Student’s and Ovesen’s approaches showed similar
results. This is because the t-value is convergent to
1.645 within a 95% confidence level when the data
exceed a certain number of data, even though the t-
value is affected by the number of test data. Thus,
Ovesen’s equation is equal to Student’s. However,
EN 1990’s approach gives very small values in
comparison with the mean values, even though this
approach depends on the dispersion of a population.
Strength characteristics
Comparison of the mean values with characteristic
values for certain parameters of strength character-
istic is presented in Figure 4. In the case of strength
characteristic parameters, Student’s and Ovesen’s
approaches gave a result closest to the mean value
followed by Schneider’s and EN 1990’s approaches.
Especially, EN 1990’s approach estimated the values
less than zero with large COV.
Consolidation characteristics
For parameters related to consolidation characteris-
tics, the soil variability in Gwangyang Port was larger
than in Busan Port. As shown in Figure 5, Student’s
approach came the closest to the mean value in
estimating characteristic values followed by Schnei-
der’s and EN 1990’s approaches.
Busan
2,116
2,007
1,897
Effects of characteristic values on practical design
The effects of characteristic values on geotechnical
stability and settlement were investigated using
arithmetic mean and the characteristic values esti-
mated using four different approaches. In order to
find out their effects, the design values were deter-
mined using partial material factors proposed by
Eurocode 7, and then geotechnical stability and
settlement problems were analysed for the marine
clays of Gwangyang Port and Busan Port subjected
to breakwater loading. Also, the results were com-
pared with representative values, which were recently
used for practical designs with the design values
determined by the characteristic values considering
soil uncertainties.
Determination of design values
In the material factor approach (MFA), the design
value (Xd) of a geotechnical parameter is soil
property which is substituted for design calculation.
This value is taken as a characteristic value (Xk)
divided by a partial factor (gm) as the following
Xd Xk =gm (6)
where the partial factor is determined at a confidence
level considering reliability of evaluation method to
determine the characteristic value and variation of the
derived value. In choosing the partial factor value for
the design, it should be determined which side
between the resistance and load sides is most affected
by. Table 3 only shows partial material factors for the
ultimate limit state adopted in Eurocode 7 (Orr and
Farrell 1999).
Case A shows the uncertainties with permanent
loading and variable loading when the strength of
structure and ground is insufficient. The aims of Case
 Georisk
Downloaded By: [Yoon, Gil Lim] At: 13:53 2 March 2010
Figure 3. Comparison of characteristic values for physical
characteristics: (a) water content (v); (b) specific gravity
(Gs); (c) Total unit weight (gt).
A are to determine geotechnical structure size and
safety calculation in problems related to large settle-
ment such as buoyancy, hydrological failure and
overturning of structures. Case B shows the uncer-
tainties of loading and is significant for structural
design such as foundations and retaining walls. Case
C shows the properties and uncertainties of material
and is significant for determining the size of founda-
tions and embedded depths of retaining walls in the
55
Figure 4. Comparison of characteristic values for strength
characteristic: (a) unconfined compressive strength (qu); (b)
undrained shear strength from UU test (Cuu); (c) undrained
shear strength from FVT (Cuu,FVT).
ground, as an MFA that partial factors of soil
properties are greater than unity.
The design values were estimated using the partial
material factors for Case A of partial factors of the
ultimate limit state in Table 3, and the characteristic
values. The partial factors of parameters, which were
not suggested, were regarded as unity. In addition,
the characteristic values using Ovesen’s and EN
 56 G.L. Yoon et al.
Downloaded By: [Yoon, Gil Lim] At: 13:53 2 March 2010

Figure 5. Comparison of characteristic values for consolidation characteristic: (a) compression index from oedometer test
(Cc); (b) coefficient of consolidation for vertical direction (Cv); (c) coefficient of consolidation for horizontal direction (Ch); (d)
permeability for vertical direction (Kv).

1990’s approaches were excluded, because the former
is similar to Student’s approach owing to a relatively
large number of samples, and the latter are inap-
propriate for geotechnical design as they are less than
zero. Representative design values to calculate geo-
technical stability and ground settlement are shown in
Table 4.
Case study 1: comparison of results using characteristic
values with arithmetic means
A loading of rubble mound breakwater on the
unimproved soft ground was considered to review
the geotechnical stability and foundation settlement.
In general, marine structures are mostly constructed
after treating the ground using sand compaction piles

Table 3. Partial material factors for ultimate limit state (Orr and Farrell 1999).

Soil parameter Factor Case A Case B Case C Case C2 Case C3

tan 8? gtan8? 1.10 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.20

Effective cohesion, c? gc? 1.30 1.00 1.60 (1.25) 1.00 1.20
Undrained shear strength, cu gcu 1.20 1.00 1.40 1.00 1.40
Compressive strength, qu gqu 1.20 1.00 1.40 1.00 1.40
Pressuremeter limit pressure, plim gplim 1.40 1.00 1.40 1.00 1.40
CPT resistance gCPT 1.40 1.00 1.40 1.00 1.40
Unit weight of ground, g gg 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Values in bold are partial factors either given or implied in the ENV version of EC7.
Values in italics are proposed partial factors not in the ENV that may be in the EN version.
 Georisk 57
Table 4. Summary of main design values. To calculate geotechnical stability and settlement,
Soil the modified Terzaghi method and the compression
parameter Port Mean Student Schneider index method were employed. The safety factor for
calculating geotechnical stability, 1.5, is used (Min-
/ e Gwangyang 2.27 2.25 2.01 istry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 2005). Figure
Busan 1.63 1.61 1.46
3 7 shows the results of allowable bearing capacity
/g (kN/m ) Gwangyang 15.23 15.18 14.69
t
using qa/Q, i.e. allowable bearing capacity divided by
Busan 16.45 16.38 15.56
/G Gwangyang 2.71 2.71 2.70 acting load per unit area. The results (qa/Q) using
s
Busan 2.70 2.69 2.68 Student’s approach were slightly smaller than the
qu (kPa) Gwangyang 18.81 18.13 11.25 mean values, 9798% of the mean values. However,
Busan 32.48 31.59 20.68 the results using Schneider’s approach gave very
/C
UU (kPa) Gwangyang 12.54 12.15 8.27 underestimated values, 6466% of the mean value.
Busan 20.40 19.86 13.06 Considering the results, the safety factor of
/C Gwangyang 1.13 1.11 0.92
c Busan clay is 1.6 times that of Gwangyang clay.
Busan 0.70 0.69 0.57
2 Figure 8 shows the changes of total settlements and
/C
v (cm /sec) Gwangyang 0.00260 0.00246 0.00140
residual settlements with time in Gwangyang Port.
Busan 0.00559 0.00535 0.00349
Total settlements depending on the compression
index and initial void ratio were 1.821 m (Mean),
1.803 m (Student), and 1.617 m (Schneider), respec-
Downloaded By: [Yoon, Gil Lim] At: 13:53 2 March 2010

or other soil improvement methods. To investigate
strength and compression characteristics of unim-
proved marine clay with each mean value and
characteristic value of parameters, the effects on
stability and settlement were only estimated and
compared. The cross-sectional diagram is presented
in Figure 6.
tively. Thus, there were no great differences between
Student’s approach and the mean value. But
Schneider’s approach underestimated the settlement
about 0.2 m (12.6%) in comparison with the mean
value.
Figure 9 shows the total settlement and residual
settlement with time in Busan Port. The total

Figure 6. Ground and loading condition to design.

 58 G.L. Yoon et al.
Downloaded By: [Yoon, Gil Lim] At: 13:53 2 March 2010

Figure 7. Comparison of qa/Qs with design values.

settlements are 1.40 m (Mean), 1.396 (Student) and
1.222 m (Schneider), respectively. Using Student’s
approach, there was no great difference, whereas
Schneider’s approach underestimated the settlement
by 0.18 m (14.6%) in comparison with the mean value.
Case study 2: Comparison of results using
characteristic value, arithmetic mean and intuitive
representative value
Case study 2 shows comparison with stability and
settlement results using three kinds of values. First,
representative values which were applied to recent
design cases of harbour and port construction in the
each area are obtained by intuitive judgement of
designers, by ignoring statistical variability and by
insufficiently or locally tested data; secondly, design
values were estimated through characteristic values
considering uncertainties; finally, arithmetic mean
values were obtained. Those are the cases when
designs have been already finished or construction
is being performed. Comparing the results of design
with sufficient variable data is meaningful in aspects
of economic feasibility or safety margin. Table 5
shows the main design values which have been

Figure 8. Distribution of ultimate and residual settlement with time (Gwangyang).

 Georisk
Figure 9. Distribution of ultimate and residual settlement with time (Busan).
recently applied to the designs of port and harbour
constructions in Gwangyang and Busan areas. Acting
Downloaded By: [Yoon, Gil Lim] At: 13:53 2 March 2010
load was applied with the same cross-sectional break-
water structure as shown above.
Figure 10 shows the value of qa/Qs ratios
calculated by the representative values applied to
each case and the calculated values. In the case of
Gwangyang (Case A), comparing the design value
with the values considering uncertainties, the results
obtained by using the representative values over-
estimated qa/Q by 39.9% when qa/Q was calculated
by using the mean value, 44.3% by using Student’s
approach and 111.5% by using Schneider’s approach.
In the case of Busan (Case B), the results obtained by
using the representative values overestimated qa/Q by
47.2% when qa/Q was calculated by using the mean
value, 60.0% by using Student’s approach and
130.0% by using Schneider’s approach. Thus, in
estimation of the stability, the representative values
applied to each design approach typically overesti-
mated up to twice the actual values because of not
considering uncertainties. Also, the stability charac-
teristics of Busan clay were better than those of
Gwangyang clay up to of 1.61.7 times. This is
similar to the results of case study 1.
Figure 11 shows comparison with settlements of
unimproved ground under the same loading and soil
conditions. In the case of Gwangyang (Case A),
Table 5. Representative values applied to case study.
Thickness of soft clay(m) / gt (kN/m3)
Case A (Gwangyang port)
25.50 15.180
Case B (Busan port)
50.325 17.325
59
comparing them with the values considering uncer-
tainties, the results obtained by using the representa-
tive values overestimated qa/Q by 2.4% when qa/Q
was calculated with the mean value, 3.7% using
Student’s approach and 20.4% using Schneider’s
approach. Thus, there were no great differences
except with Schneider’s approach. In the case of
Busan (Case B), the results obtained by using the
representative values overestimated qa/Q by 24.4%
when qa/Q was calculated using the mean value,
25.1% using Student’s approach and 48.3% using
Schneider’s approach. These are more excessive
results than the cases of considering uncertainties.
Conclusions
Geotechnical characteristic values of main marine
clay in Korea were estimated using four statistical
methods. Characteristic values for the marine clays
using Student’s approach are closest to the mean
value followed by Ovesen’s, Schneider’s and EN
1990’s approaches. EN 1990’s approach gives the
smallest characteristic values and resulted in less than
zero value with statistical variability, which is in-
appropriate for estimating geotechnical design value.
Comparing Student’s with Ovesen’s approach, the
latter gives slightly larger values with a small number
of samples, but the values become similar with a large
/ Gs / v(%) / e / Cc
2.714 81.96 2.314 1.161
2.710 67.90 1.890 0.960
 60 G.L. Yoon et al.
Downloaded By: [Yoon, Gil Lim] At: 13:53 2 March 2010

Figure 10. Comparison from the calculated for qa/Q: (a) Gwangyang; (b) Busan.

number of samples. A larger number of samples
induces a smaller degree of decreasing, even though
the t-value in Student’s approach decreases with an
increasing number of samples. In that case, t-value is
convergent to any specific value. When N equals 11,
Ovesen’s equation becomes equal to Schneider’s and
both estimate the same value. Schneider asserted that
an approximate value was well predicted for the
characteristic value.
All approaches are used to estimate characteristic
values by deducting a constant rate of variability
from a mean value. The soil variability is a value
(Kn), which is multiplied by SD and a factor varying
with probability distribution and the number of
samples. The characteristic value is always estimated
at less than the mean value and has trends to be
estimated more conservatively with increasing soil
variability.
When using the design values determined by using
each approach, qa/Qs ratios with Student’s approach
did differ greatly from those by the mean values. But,
qa/Qs ratios using Schneider’s approach underesti-
mated the mean values by 6466%. In the case of
total settlements for both areas, there were differences
between Student’s approach and the mean value.
However, settlements using Schneider’s approach
were less than those using the mean value by 12.6
14.6%. In comparison with them, the stability
 Georisk
Downloaded By: [Yoon, Gil Lim] At: 13:53 2 March 2010
Figure 11. Comparison from the calculated for settlement:
(a) Gwangyang; (b) Busan.
characteristics of Busan clay were stronger than those
of Gwangyang clay by about 1.6 times.
In conclusion, geotechnical stability and settle-
ment were estimated using both representative values
from recent designs of ports and harbours construc-
tions and design values through the characteristic
values. Consequently, the designs using the existing
representative values are typically overestimated.
And geotechnical stability of Busan clay were stron-
ger than those of Gwangyang clay by 1.61.7 times.
And uneconomic design of structure may occur
without considering serious soil variability owing to
insufficient test data. Therefore, it is necessary to
obtain as much sufficient data as possible. A mean
value with a better confidence level should also be
chosen from all of the data through the filtering
View publication stats
61
process. And the confidential value should be sup-
posed through other approaches such as simulation,
when collection of sufficient data is impossible.
Eurocode 7 suggests it should be used carefully by
considering comparable experience and practical de-
sign condition to estimate characteristic values using
a statistical approach. Thus it may be necessary to
determine appropriate characteristic value using
other statistical approaches such as a Bayesian
approach.
Acknowledgements
This paper was made possible with a financial support from
the Ministry of Land and Marine Affairs in Korea
(Research code; PM54100).
References
Becker, D.E., 2006. Limit state design based codes for
geotechnical aspects of foundation in Canada. Pro-
ceedings of TAIPEI 2006 International Symposium on
New Generation Design Codes for Geotechnical Engi-
neering Practice, Taipei, 1.
Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, 2005. Design
code for port and harbor structures (I/II) (In Korean).
Orr, T.L.L. and Farrell, E.R., 1999. Geotechnical design to
Eurocode 7. London: Springer.
Orr, T.L.L., 2006. Development and implementation of
Eurocode 7. Proceedings of TAIPEI 2006 International
Symposium on New Generation Design Codes for
Geotechnical Engineering Practice, Taipei, 1.
Ovesen, N.K., 1995. Eurocode 7 for geotechnical design.
Proceedings of Bengt B. Broms Symposium on Geo-
technical Engineering, Singapore, 1.
Schneider, H.R., 1997. Definition and determination of
characteristic soil properties. Proceedings of XII Inter-
national Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechni-
cal Engineering, Hamburg, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1.
Student, 1908. The probable error of a mean. Biometrika, 6.
Wadsworth, H.M., 1990. HANDBOOK of Statistical meth-
ods for engineers and scientists. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Watabe, Y., Tanaka, M. and Kikuchi, Y., 2006. Soil
parameters used in the new design code of port
facilities in Japan. Proceedings of TAIPEI 2006 Inter-
national Symposium on New Generation Design Codes
for Geotechnical Engineering Practice, Taipei, 1.
Yoon, G.L., 2005. Development of next generation port &
harbor design (V). Seoul: Ministry of Maritime Affairs
and Fisheries (In Korean).