Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Comparison of geotechnical uncertainties linked to different soil characterization methods
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Civil and Architectural Engineering, Soil and Rock Mechanics.
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Civil and Architectural Engineering, Soil and Rock Mechanics.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5243-4650
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Civil and Architectural Engineering, Soil and Rock Mechanics.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9615-4861
2016 (English)In: Geomechanics and Geoengineering, ISSN 1748-6025, E-ISSN 1748-6033, 1-15 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Epub ahead of print
Abstract [en]

One of the essential inputs in settlement prediction models is the soil modulus, which may be obtained from laboratory tests or estimated from in situ measurements. The total uncertainty in predicting the confined modulus of a sandy soil is quantified with data from side-by-side in situ testing using the standard penetration test, the static cone penetration test, the light dynamic probing and the laboratory oedometer test. To estimate transformation errors, correlations are proposed between in situ and laboratory data. The results indicate that similar magnitudes of total uncertainties are associated with the in situ methods, which are approximately twice as high as those from the direct oedometer method. The quantified uncertainties are an important input for reliability-based designs of foundations under similar soil conditions.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis, 2016. 1-15 p.
National Category
Geotechnical Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-161340DOI: 10.1080/17486025.2016.1184761Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84969753258OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-161340DiVA: diva2:794419
Note

QC 20160608

Available from: 2015-03-11 Created: 2015-03-11 Last updated: 2017-12-04Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. In-situ Penetration as Alternative to Extensive Boreholes and Lab Testing for Exploration in Sandy Soils
Open this publication in new window or tab >>In-situ Penetration as Alternative to Extensive Boreholes and Lab Testing for Exploration in Sandy Soils
2015 (English)Licentiate thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 2015. x, 29 p.
Series
TRITA-JOB. LIC, ISSN 1650-951X ; 2026
National Category
Geotechnical Engineering
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-161217 (URN)
Presentation
2015-03-11, Projekthallen, Brinellvägen 23, Stockholm, 13:00 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Funder
Sida - Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
Note

QC 20150311

Available from: 2015-03-11 Created: 2015-03-10 Last updated: 2015-03-11Bibliographically approved
2. Aspects on probabilistic approach to design: From uncertainties in pre-investigation to final design
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Aspects on probabilistic approach to design: From uncertainties in pre-investigation to final design
2016 (English)Licentiate thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Geotechnical engineering is strongly associated with large uncertainties. Exploring a medium (soil) that is almost entirely and completely hidden from us is no easy task. Investigations can be made only at discrete points, and the majority of a specific soil volume is never tested. All soils experience inherent spatial variability, which contributes to some uncertainty in the design process of a geotechnical structure. Furthermore, uncertainties also arise during testing and when design properties are inferred from these tests. To master the art of making decisions in the presence of uncertainties, probabilistic description of soil properties and reliability-based design play vital roles. Historically, the observational method (sometimes referred to as the “learn-as-you-go-approach”), sprung from ideas by Karl Terzaghi and later formulated by Ralph Peck, has been used in projects where the uncertainties are large and difficult to assess. The design approach is still highly suitable for numerous situations and is defined in Eurocode 7 for geotechnical design. In paper I, the Eurocode definition of the observational method is discussed. This paper concluded that further work in the probabilistic description of soil properties is highly needed, and, by extension, reliability-based design should be used in conjunction with the observational method. Although great progress has been made in the field of reliability-based design during the past decade, few geotechnical engineers are familiar with probabilistic approaches to design. In papers II and III, aspects of probabilistic descriptions of soil properties and reliability-based design are discussed. The connection between performing qualitative investigations and potential design savings is discussed in paper III. In the paper, uncertainties are assessed for two sets of investigations, one consisting of more qualitative investigations and hence with less uncertainty. A simplified Bayesian updating technique, referred to as “the multivariate approach”, is used to cross-validate data to reduce the evaluated total uncertainty. Furthermore, reliability-based design was used to compare the two sets of investigations with the calculated penetration depth for a sheet-pile wall. The study is a great example of how a small amount of both time and money (in the pre-investigation phase) can potentially lead to greater savings in the final design.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 2016. xiv, 38 p.
Series
TRITA-JOB. LIC, ISSN 1650-951X ; 2029
Keyword
Reliability-based design, Geotechnical design, Geotechnical structures, Sheet-pile wall, Characterization of uncertainties, Geotechnical investigations
National Category
Geotechnical Engineering
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-178088 (URN)
Presentation
2016-02-26, V33, Teknikringen 72 (floor 5), KTH, Stockholm, 13:00 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Projects
TRUST, Transparent Underground Structures
Funder
Swedish Research Council Formas
Note

QC 20160201

Available from: 2016-02-01 Created: 2015-12-07 Last updated: 2016-02-01Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopushttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17486025.2016.1184761

Authority records BETA

Prästings, AndersLarsson, Stefan

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Lingwanda, MwajumaPrästings, AndersLarsson, Stefan
By organisation
Soil and Rock Mechanics
In the same journal
Geomechanics and Geoengineering
Geotechnical Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 172 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf