×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

LRFD Philosopy of Sheet Piles

LRFD Philosopy of Sheet Piles

LRFD Philosopy of Sheet Piles

(OP)
This is a continuation of thread255-142962: Sheet Pile Retaining Walls - LRFD.

It appears the implemention of LRFD for these types of structures is very premature.

see pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/rp/rppdf/t96-107.pdf

The whole point of this type of change is to reflect the increase in knowledge in our field.  The limit state philosophy here leads to more conservative designs.  The authors suggest a new approach is required to make it more in line with WSD.

Comments?

RE: LRFD Philosopy of Sheet Piles

VOD,

At IFCEE09 in Orlando, Jerry DiMaggio, late of FHWA, agreed that better calibration of the LRFD factors for many geotechnical problems related to earth retention and slope stability (could be argued they both belong to a meta-set of general slope stability) needs to be undertaken.

Being currently involved with the design of cantilevered and anchored earth retention systems, I do note that the LRFD approach can be very conservative with respect to traditional ASD or WSD practice in terms of an equivalent factor of safety.

However, it has to be recognized that there is no direct  correlation between a traditional factor of safety and (the LRFD concept of) reliability.

For example, how reliable is a system with a global FS of 1.25? What is the likelihood that the system will fail this limit state (probability of failure in 100 years)? The answer cannot be directly computed from the "lumped" FS.

Jeff

RE: LRFD Philosopy of Sheet Piles

Does anyone else here see the irony that the LRFD methods need to be "better calibrated" so that they give us the same results that we've been getting for years from ASD designs?

RE: LRFD Philosopy of Sheet Piles

Irony, good word.  I have to laugh when I listen to all the talk about a "more rational approach" that is then fudged to give the same design as the less rational approach.  You either have confidence in your approach, or you don't.

RE: LRFD Philosopy of Sheet Piles

Aw - but it gives the professors and all something to "research" . . .

RE: LRFD Philosopy of Sheet Piles

I guess I never got it.  So what problem was LRFD meant to solve exactly?

a.)  Low safety of structures being designed.
b.)  High cost of structures being designed.
c.)  Irrational approach of structures being designed.
d.)  other???

RE: LRFD Philosopy of Sheet Piles

With the major leap in converting structural steel design from ASD to LRFD (a long journey), I guess everything is geared to be LRFDed, we may one day see Rock Mechanics been under its cover as well. Well, as an engineer, just more factors to play with, with less understanding on the origins. No big deal.

RE: LRFD Philosopy of Sheet Piles

My biggest problem with designing sheet pile walls with ASD is that the concrete structures they are frequently attached to are designed with LRFD load combinations.  Therefore, structures designed using both materials need to be modelled using two different sets of load combinations just to get the actual results.  Furthermore, geotechnical data input into LRFD models does not directly compute because an ultimate stress value should be used instead.  Geotechnical engineers still work solely on ASD however so there leaves a big gap that needs to be closed between the structural and geotechnical fields.

RE: LRFD Philosopy of Sheet Piles

Several recent papers have proposed that the LRFD factors - especially those dealing with strength - should depend on the variability of the input parameters (sample size, standard deviation, coefficient of variation) or the throughness of the investigation.

The lack of transparency into how resistance or load factors are arrived at is also an issue to be dealt with. However, I expect that the situation is improving and will continue to improve. For example, I am currently working on the design of several retaining structures that will support traffic. The AASHTO LRFD provision dealing with lateral surcharge due to traffic loading does, in the accompanying commentary, cite the published research and briefly describe the methodology used to develop the guidance.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, folks.

Jeff
 

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources