Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM on 04/21/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
a2 = p cos cos + q
5a
a1 = p sin +
5b
a0 = p sin sin + q
5c
d2 = cos + + cos
6a
d1 = sin + + +
6b
d0 = sin + + sin
6c
DOI: 10.1061/ASCEGT.1943-5606.0000003
1
Venanzio R. Greco
1
1 kv sin +
C cos
1
with
q=
7a
2c sin
cos
h sin
7b
dPae
=0
d tan
the thrust Pae is maximized for that value of solving the quadratic equation
a1d2 a2d1tan2 2a0d2 a2d0tan + a0d1 a1d0 = 0
9
which gives the critical value of the inclination angle maximizing the thrust Pae in general geometrical conditions.
A
sin sin
1
W = h2
2
sin2 sin
k hW
h sin
sin sin
/2
'
Pa
k vW
C
where
7c
C = c
1 kv sin
cos sin2
p=
/2
Fig. 1. Cross section of a wall and the thrust wedge ABC without
tension cracks
A'
B' B"
zc
sin cos
sin( )
zc k W
v
hc = h zc
/2
Pa
sin cos
.
sin
12
In the second member of Eq. 11, the first term represents the
weight of the triangle BBB, the second that of the parallelogram
BBAA B is on the vertical crossing point B, and the third that
of the triangle BCA.
The force C acting on CA is given by
hc
/2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM on 04/21/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
k hW
h
zc
d soil
cracke
'
R
C = c
Fig. 2. Cross section of a wall and the thrust wedge BCAA with
tension cracks
hc sin
sin sin
13
14
15a
b1 = p0 sin + + p1 sin +
15b
15c
16a
where
10b
10c
with
p0 =
p1 =
where Fig. 2
11
cos cos
sin
1 kv zc cos sin
2
+
cos
hc sin
sin2
q=
sin sin
1
+ h2c
2
sin2 sin
1 kv zc
cos hc
2c cos
sin
hc sin
16b
17
References
Das, B. M. 2008. Fundamentals of geotechnical engineering, 3rd Ed.,
Thomson, Mason, Ohio.
Lambe, T. W., and Whitman, R. V. 1979. Soil mechanics, SI Version,
Wiley, New York.
DOI: 10.1061/ASCEGT.1943-5606.0000003
2008. Alternatively, one can use its value obtained from the
field observations.
The writer thanks the discusser for finding our paper very important for geotechnical engineering practice. The discusser has extended our expression for the total active earth pressure for its
applicability to backfills with inclined profile, walls with inclined
backface, friction angle between wall and backfill soil, and backfills with tension crack. The discusser is greatly appreciated for
this highly valuable contribution. Derivation of Eqs. 1 to 18
presented by the discusser has been checked carefully, and they
have been found to be correct. However, readers should note the
corrections as mentioned below:
1. Eq. 1 contains and , which refer to the effective angle
of shearing resistance; it should contain only .
2. In Eq. 10b, cos should be replaced by sin .
3. In Eqs. 15a-c, q should be replaced by another symbol, say
q0, because q refers to a different expression in Eq. 7b.
It should be noted that we have explained through Eq. 24 in
the original paper how one can use our analytical expression for
estimating active earth pressure on a retaining wall from the c-
soil backfill under seismic loading condition, considering tension
crack. It appears that the discusser has not noticed this fact; however, the approach adopted in the discussion is appreciated.
One of the interesting observations is that Eq. 9 and Eq. 18
can be expressed in the determinant form, respectively, as follows
tan2 2 tan 1
tan2 2 tan 1
a0
d0
a1
d1
a2 = 0
d2
and
b0
d0
b1
d1
b2 = 0
d2
The above determinant form of equations can easily be remembered by the readers for their use while making the calculation for the total active force. The readers should also note the
following:
1. The symbol used in the equations of the discussion is given
by Eq. 21 of our paper.
2. The discusser has suggested to use the expression for the
depth of tension crack
zc =
2c
cos
1 sin
DOI: 10.1061/ASCEGT.1943-5606.0000016
The authors proposed approach for interpretation of SPT test results appears to have the right framework given the fact that energy concepts have been incorporated to the prediction of soil
properties. However, the approach relies on a number of assumptions that the writers find difficult to accept. In particular it has
been argued that possible loss of wave energy in a long rod could
be partially compensated by the extra weight added by the long
rods, leading to the assumption that energy losses are negligible.
This hypothesis emerges from a recent ASCE paper published
by Odebrecht et al. 2005 that states that the sampler energy can
be conveniently expressed as a function of nominal potential energy E*, sampler final penetration, and weight of both hammer
and rods. The influence of rod length produces two opposite effects: wave energy losses increase with increasing rod length and
in a long composition of rods the gain in potential energy from
rod weight is significant and may partially compensate measured
energy losses. This conclusion is directly derived from the system energy delivered to the sampler Esampler by considering the
combined effects of the hammer potential energy Eh and rod
potential energy Er
ESampler = 31Eh + 2Er = 31H + M hg + 2M rg
1
where M h = hammer weight; M r = rod weight; g = gravity acceleration; = sampler penetration; H = height of fall; and 1, 2, and
3 = efficiency coefficients. In this proposed equation, both hammer and rod potential energies are a function of and the length
of the rod in addition to the M h and H, whereas efficiency is not
affected by . These principles have been extensively evaluated
&''(' *+,
"
&''(' *+,
"
"#
"$
"$
"
" %&
" '&
" %&
" '&
"!
-./01 *2,
-./01 *2,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM on 04/21/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
"#
"
"!
#!
#!
$!
$!
Fig. 1. a Rod energy losses error American standard; b rod energy losses error Brazilian standard
rod
Esampler
0.6E*
100
0.6E*
rod
= 32M rg is the contribution of the rod energy
where Esampler
"!
$"
$!
#"
References
#!
"
!
!
%!
#!
$!
"!
&!
'!
(!
)!
%!!
%%!
% !
%#!
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM on 04/21/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
DOI: 10.1061/ASCEGT.1943-5606.0000016
Discussion of Reliability-Based
Economic Design Optimization of Spread
Foundations by Y. Wang
Vol. 135, No. 7, July 1, 2009, pp. 954959.
Hiroshan Hettiarachchi1
1
DOI: 10.1061/ASCEGT.1943-5606.0000013
The writers wish to thank discussers for their interest in this paper
and also for the constructive criticism. The discussers comments
opened up a discussion on the importance of incorporating SPT
rod weight into the formulation of energy balance equations.
It may be true that the proposed equations could have been
improved by incorporating SPT rod weight. However, the writers
are skeptical about the degree of improvement it can make. The
discussers suggest that the proposed equations may cause 40%
error for 30-m-long rod in loose sand with N = 3, but agree that
for the same depth, the error may be negligible in dense sand. If
a 30-m-long rod is used during an SPT, obviously the test must
have been conducted at least at a depth greater than 25 m. At
deeper depths such as 25 m, it is rare to find sand that can give
blow counts as low as 3. According to the error analysis presented
by the discussers Fig. 1, shallower depths produce relatively low
error for a wide range of N values. Fig. 1 also suggests that at
deeper depths the proposed equations produce considerable error
only for very low N values. Therefore, Fig. 1 indirectly supports
the practical level of accuracy produced of the proposed equations
even in their current forms.
The writers also have a concern about the way the discussers
define error. If they are attempting to quantify the error due to the
omission of rod weight, it is more meaningful to define the error
as the energy difference between the two methods with rod energy and without rod energy compared to the energy given by the
more detailed method with rod energy. It is not clear why the
discussers would define the error as the difference between the
rod energy and hammer energy.
The discussers argument on predicting a narrow 2835 friction angles from 7 to 97 wide range of SPT blow counts is also
misleading. It is true that the writers used a 792 wide range of
SPT blow counts to estimate the model parameters. However, the
blow count data used in the verification was only limited to 1169
and it produced a reasonable range of 2835 friction angles. As
discussed in the paper, one of the attractive features of the proposed model is its ability to slightly underpredict. While few
other widely used models are overpredicting friction angles, the
proposed model provided more conservative answers. This is also
clearly indicated in Fig. 2 provided by the discussers. In Fig, 2,
The author has proposed reliability-based economic design optimization framework of spread foundation comprising of reliability based design methodology, construction cost estimate and cost
optimization. The author has discussed the economically optimized design in the line proposed in available literature Wang
and Kulhawy 2008. Both in this paper and in Wang and Kulhawy
2008, the approach is expressed as a constrained optimization
process, in which the objective is to minimize the total construction cost. Design parameters, such as the dimensions of the foundations have been treated as variables, which vary in the ranges
constrained by design requirement including ultimate limit state
ULS and serviceability limit state SLS requirements. The optimization model has been set up in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet
and has been solved using the Excel function solver. As the above
problems are nonlinear it is solved using generalized reduced gradient GRG algorithm in solver. The GRG method is a direct
method of solving a constrained optimization problem, unlike the
Lagrange multiplier method that is solved as a sequential unconstrained optimization problem. The GRG method is based on the
principles of elimination of variables using equality constraint
Deb 2005. The optimization method is a numerical method and
Table 1. Comparison of Spread Footing Designs
Design variable
Design
option
Optimized
Wang and
Kulhawy
2008
Present study
Optimized
value
Constraints
Cost
USD
Factor of
safety
against Settlement
bearing
mm
1.86
2.30
1.38
1086.00
2.97
25.01
2.06
2.12
0.50
959.10
3.00
25.00
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM on 04/21/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
References
Deb, K. 2005. Optimization for engineering design algorithms and examples, PHI Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India.
Wang, Y., and Kulhawy, F. H. 2008. Economic design optimization of
foundations. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1348, 10971105.