Safety factors and limit states analysis in geotechnical engineering: Discussion

1985 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. D. Baikie
1984 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. G. Meyerhof

This paper outlines the ultimate and serviceability limit states in geotechnical engineering analyses. The magnitude of customary total and suggested partial safety factors in earthworks, earth retaining structures, excavations, and foundations is discussed. On the basis of comparisons between these safety factors and using recommended load factors on various types of loading, including water pressures, common resistance factors on cohesion and friction of soils and performance factors can be established together with some additional modification factors for particular stability conditions. The serviceability limit states of foundations and structures are briefly discussed.


Author(s):  
Riski H. Adianto ◽  
Maher A. Nessim

Reliability-based design rules have been developed for the key serviceability limit states applicable to onshore pipeline including local buckling due to thermal expansion and excessive plastic deformation under hydrostatic test pressure. The design rules are characterized by three elements: the formulas used to calculate the characteristic demand and capacity; the criteria used to define the characteristic values of the key input parameters to these formulas (such as diameter and material strength); and the safety factors defining the required excess capacity over the demand. The overall methodology used in developing the design rules and the practical implications of applying them are described in a companion paper. This paper describes the process used to calibrate safety factors and characteristic input parameter values that meet the desired reliability levels. The results show that local buckling under restrained thermal expansion is only potentially relevant for a small sub-set of cases and based on this, an explicit design rule was not developed. For excessive deformation under hydrostatic test pressure, two alternate design rules are provided; one stress based and the other strain based. The final design rules are described and an assessment of their accuracy and consistency in meeting the reliability targets is included. Guidance is also provided on the conditions in which each check is used.


Author(s):  
Markus Braun ◽  
Bernd Schuppener ◽  
Thomas Richter ◽  
Franz Ruppert ◽  
Martin Ziegler

After implementing the Eurocodes, concerns were raised that the set of rules and regulations is not suitable for the designer’s day-to-day use. The first generation of Eurocodes consists of 58 codes with more than 5,200 pages. Moreover, practitioners have to cope with national supplementary codes. As a result, an “Initiative on Improving the Practicability of Technical Rules for Building Constructions” (PRB) was established by the German construction industry and associations of structural engineers in 2011. As part of the initiative, a Project Group for Geotechnical Design was established alongside groups for the other Eurocodes, with the aim of streamlining Eurocode 7 and reducing the number of design approaches and partial safety factors. The paper will analyse the shortcomings of the two parts of Eurocode 7 and present a concept for a more concise and user-friendly code. Furthermore, comparative calculations have been performed for standard geotechnical design applications to investigate the potential for European harmonization in geotechnical design. The results are described and it is shown how they can be incorporated in the revision of EC 7. Moreover, a new formula for verifying geotechnical ultimate limit states is presented which formally covers all design approaches and also enables other parameters such as consequence classes, human error etc. to be incorporated by applying different multiplicative partial safety factors.


1993 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 515-525 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Been ◽  
J.I. Clark ◽  
W.R. Livingstone

In June 1992, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) published a code for the design, construction, and installation of fixed offshore structures. This code is relatively advanced in its application of limit states design to offshore structures. The part dealing with foundations is written as a performance standard. It does not specify resistance factors (or safety factors) to achieve the target reliability of the structure. Although limit states design is common practice among geotechnical engineers, the application of resistance factors is a problem. This paper describes some of the studies and conclusions reached by the Technical Committee in the development of the CSA foundations standard. As a first step, resistance factors were developed by calibration to conventional total factors of safety for the failure mechanisms considered. This approach has severe limitations. In particular, the applicability of safety factors developed for onshore practice or other offshore areas to the ice-dominated environment of Canadian offshore regions is questionable. In addition, many offshore structure designs include consideration of dynamic loading and scour or erosion problems that cannot be satisfactorily dealt with using factors of safety. An example of the problem of applying separate load and resistance factors for a bearing-capacity problem is given to show that load and resistance are not independent of each other. Because of the problems with development of resistance factors, the CSA foundations standard dictates that offshore structure designs include a risk analysis of the foundation system. A simple form of such an analysis for a caisson-retained sand structure is included in the paper. Key words : offshore structures, foundations, standard, safety, limit states design.


Author(s):  
Riski Adianto ◽  
Maher Nessim ◽  
Dongliang Lu

Reliability-based corrosion assessment criteria were developed for onshore natural gas and low vapor pressure (LVP) pipelines as part of a joint industry project. The criteria are based on the limit states design (LSD) approach and are designed to achieve consistent safety levels for a broad range of pipeline designs and corrosion conditions. The assessment criteria were developed for two corrosion limit states categories: ultimate limit state, representing large leaks and ruptures; and leakage limit state, representing small leaks. For the ultimate limit state, a safety class system is used to characterize pipelines based on the anticipated severity of failure consequences as determined by pressure, diameter, product, population density and environmental sensitivity. Since the leakage limit state does not result in significant safety or environmental consequences, a single reliability target, applicable for all pipelines at all locations is used. The assessment criteria formulations are characterized by three elements: the equations used to calculate the characteristic demand (i.e. operating pressure) and capacity (i.e. burst pressure resistance at a corrosion feature); the characteristic values of the key input parameters for these formulas (such as diameter, pressure and feature depth); and the safety factors defining the characteristic demand as a ratio of characteristic capacity. The process used to calibrate safety factors and characteristic input parameter values that meet the desired reliability levels is described, and an assessment of the accuracy and consistency of the resulting checks in meeting the reliability targets is included. The assessment criteria include two methods of application: feature-based and section-based. The feature-based method divides the allowable failure probability equally between all features. It is simple to use, but conservative in nature. It is suitable for pipelines with a small number of corrosion features. The section-based method considers the failure probability of the corrosion features in a pipeline section as a group, and ensures that the total group failure probability is below the allowable threshold for the section. This method produces less conservative results than the feature-based method, but it requires more detailed calculations. It is suitable for all pipelines, and is particularly useful for those with a large number of features. The practical implications of the application of these criteria are described in the companion paper IPC2018-78608 Implementation of Reliability-based Criteria for Corrosion Assessment.


Author(s):  
Sirous F. Yasseri ◽  
R. B. Mahani

In designing jack-ups to resist environmental loading, decisions are made under a great deal of uncertainty that may lead to a finite risk of exceeding limit states of the structures. In order to minimize the risks, conventional safety factors based on deterministic analyses, are commonly used. This paper present a simple spreadsheet based reliability analysis for assessing the safety of independent leg jack up platforms subjected to the overturning effect of environmental loads. The intention is to develop and illustrate procedures that can be used by structural engineers to assign conditional probabilities of failure to jack ups as a function of environmental loads.


2020 ◽  
pp. 125-135
Author(s):  
O. F Chernyavsky ◽  
A. O Chernyavsky

Verification of the structures operating possibility using numerical modeling beyond the elastic limit requires standardization of safety factors and calculation methods used to get them. In the framework of the discussion on the improvement of the strength standards of the aviation and nuclear industries for structures operating under low-cycle mechanical and reversible dilatation (temperature, hydrogen) external influences, the article discusses the limiting states; the deformation properties of materials necessary for their calculation; safety factors for loads and durability; calculation methods. The article divides limit states of structures under low-cycle actions into two groups: typical, corresponding to a qualitative change in the deformation type, and individual, determined by allowable displacements and cracks for a particular structure. The following types of deformation are considered: inelastic deformation only at the running-in stage (that changes to elastic after the auspicious residual stresses develop and cyclic hardening of the material); alternating flow (that continues with the number of cycles); progressive accumulation of strains and displacements; combined deformation (when both strain span and strain increment are non-zero in a stable cycle). The types of deformation differ in possible consequences for the structure and the initial data for the calculation: mechanical properties of the material required for modeling different types of deformation should be determined by fundamentally different tests. An analysis of individual limit states without taking into account differences in the types of deformation - and thus typical limit states - may be incorrect. The main focus of the article is on typical limit states. The limit states vary depending on the stage of operation at which inelastic cyclic deformation is allowed. Inelastic deformation expands allowable load range, the expansion due to the inelastic deformation at the running-in stage only is usually more significant than additional expansion due to the continuous inelastic deformation; besides, the inelastic deformation only at the running-in stage does not demand analysis of low-cycle fatigue and accumulated strains. Further expansion of the permissible load range, as well as solution of safety problems based on risk assessments, requires a more complete study of the deformation properties of materials at the pre-fracture stage, where cyclic softening predominates.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document