Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.    2019, Vol. 13 Issue (1) : 66-80     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-018-0461-y
RESEARCH ARTICLE |
Application of random set method in a deep excavation: based on a case study in Tehran cemented alluvium
Arash SEKHAVATIAN, Asskar Janalizadeh CHOOBBASTI()
Department of Civil Engineering, Babol Noshirvani University of Technology, Babol, Iran
Download: PDF(1270 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

The design of high-rise buildings often necessitates ground excavation, where buildings are in close proximity to the construction, thus there is a potential for damage to these structures. This paper studies an efficient user-friendly framework for dealing with uncertainties in a deep excavation in layers of cemented coarse grained soil located in Tehran, Iran by non-deterministic Random Set (RS) method. In order to enhance the acceptability of the method among engineers, a pertinent code was written in FISH language of FLAC2D software which enables the designers to run all simulations simultaneously, without cumbersome procedure of changing input variables in every individual analysis. This could drastically decrease the computational effort and cost imposed to the project, which is of great importance especially to the owners. The results are presented in terms of probability of occurrence and most likely values of the horizontal displacement at top of the wall at every stage of construction. Moreover, a methodology for assessing the credibility of the uncertainty model is presented using a quality indicator. It was concluded that performing RS analysis before the beginning of every stage could cause great economical savings, while improving the safety of the project.

Keywords uncertainty      reliability analysis      deep excavations      random set method      finite difference method     
Corresponding Authors: Asskar Janalizadeh CHOOBBASTI   
Online First Date: 26 February 2018    Issue Date: 04 January 2019
 Cite this article:   
Arash SEKHAVATIAN,Asskar Janalizadeh CHOOBBASTI. Application of random set method in a deep excavation: based on a case study in Tehran cemented alluvium[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(1): 66-80.
 URL:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-018-0461-y
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2019/V13/I1/66
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Arash SEKHAVATIAN
Asskar Janalizadeh CHOOBBASTI
Fig.1  Upper bound (Pl) and lower bound (Bel) on ‘precise’ probability (Pro) [18]
Fig.2  Random set. (a) Construction of random set, (b) upper and lower discrete cumulative distribution functions [18]
Fig.3  Upper and lower discrete cumulative distribution function considering spatial correlation [18]
Fig.4  Soil model at Soheil commercial complex project
No. elevation nail/strand inclination wrt horizontal (°) bonded length (m) unbonded length (m) No. of strands prestressing force (Ton)
1 ?2.00 Nail 15 12 ? ? ?
2 ?5.00 Strands 15 8 16 4 60
3 ?8.00 Strands 15 8 14 4 60
4 ?11.0 Strands 15 8 12 4 60
5 ?14.00 Strands 15 8 10 4 60
6 ?17.00 Strands 15 8 9 4 60
7 ?20.00 Strands 15 8 7 4 60
Tab.1  Geometric configuration of Soheil commercial complex excavated wall
parameter value
vertical height of the wall (m) 21.0
face batter (°) 0.0
backslope angle (°) 0.0
yield strength of reinforcement fy (MPa) 400
elasticity modulus of reinforcement En (GPa) 200
elasticity modulus of grout (concrete) Eg (GPa) 21
diameter of steel bar d (mm) 28
diameter of strands (mm) 15
drill hole diameter DDH (mm) 110
spacing Sh× Sv (m × m) for nails 1.5 × 3.0
spacing Sh× Sv (m × m) for strands 3.0 × 3.0
facing thickness (mm) 15
Tab.2  Some detailed information on Soheil complex excavated wall
Fig.5  Definition of We, Be, and Db [36]
Fig.6  An illustration of target functions with different sensitivities with respect to input variable x (after [18])
Fig.7  Relative sensitivity for the deep excavation problem
Soil Information source c, kN/m2 F', o K
Fill materials Geotechnical report 0?4 24?27 10?70
Expert knowledge 2?5 26?29 30?100
Clayey sand with gravel (SC) Geotechnical report 30?45 32?36 50?150
Expert knowledge 40?55 34?37 100?250
Clayey gravel with sand (GC) Geotechnical report 35?50 36?40 150?250
Expert knowledge 40?60 37?42 200?300
Tab.3  Basic variables for material parameters (input values)
Fig.8  Random sets of input parameter: (a) friction angle of the first layer; (b) modulus factor of the middle layer; (c) cohesion of the middle layer and d) friction of the third layer
Run number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Run Mass prob. Var. Set No. LLLa LLU LUL LUU UUU ULU ULL UUL
1?8 0.5 C2b 1 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.4 48.4 48.4 48.4 48.4
0.5 K2 2 67 67 184 184 184 67 67 184
0.5 K3 1 182 282 182 282 282 282 182 182
Tab.4  Inputs relating to (C21, K22, K31) variables used in deterministic finite difference calculations
Row No. First part Second part
1 1 1 2 1 2 1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
64 1 2 1 1 1 1
Tab.5  Permutation matrix of RS-FDM analysis
Fig.9  Range of horizontal displacement of point A (in Fig. 5) in different construction stages. (a) Stage 3 (H=9 m); (b) Stage 4 (H=12 m); (c) Stage 5 (H=15 m); (d) Stage 6 (H=18 m); (e) Stage 7 (H=21 m)
Construction stage Depth of excavation (m) Allowable Ux,A (cm) Pf(min) Pf(max)
3 9 1.8 0 0
4 12 2.4 0 0
5 15 3.0 0 0
6 18 3.6 0 0
7 21 4.2 0 0.21
Tab.6  Pf(min) and Pf(max) for different phases of construction
Expected performance level Probability of unsatisfactory performance
Hazardous 0.16
Unsatisfactory 0.07
Poor 0.023
Below average 0.006
Above average 0.001
Good 0.00003
High 0.0000003
Tab.7  Expected performance level (US Army Corps of Engineers 1997)
Fig.10  Range of most likely values and spread of distribution
Results Horizontal displacement at top of the excavated wall, Ux-A (mm)
Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 6 Stage 7
Interval of true mean values (Eq. (24)) ?8.4 ↔ 2.0 ?7.0 ↔ 10.6 ?3.1 ↔ 20.2 2.5 ↔ 25.1 9.6 ↔ 33.0
Interval of most likely values ?8.4 ↔ 1.65 ?6.9 ↔ 10.15 ?3.2 ↔ 19.9 2.1 ↔ 23.8 9.6 ↔ 32.7
Tab.8  Lower and upper mean values of true system response
Fig.11  Horizontal displacements of the top of the wall (most likely values and spread of distributions)
Fig.12  Normalized maximum lateral wall movement vs. excavation depth (after [48])
1 SLacasse, F Nadim. Uncertainties in characterizing soil properties. In: Shackelford C D, Nelson P P, Roth M J S, eds. Proceedings of Conference on Uncertainty in the Geologic Environment: From Theory to Practice (Uncertainty ‘96). American Society of Civil Engineers, 1996, 49–75
2 D VGriffiths, G AFenton. Influence of soil strength spatial variability on the stability of an undrained clay slope by finite elements. Geo-Denver Conf. on Soil Stability, Denver, Colorado, United States, 2000, 184–193
3 G AFenton, D V Griffiths. Bearing capacity of spatially random c–ϕ soils. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, Rotterdam, Balkema, 2001, 1411–1415
4 A H SAng, W HTang. Probability Concepts in Engineering Planning and Design: Volume I-Basic Principles. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1975
5 M EHarr. Reliability Based Design in Civil Engineering. New York: Dover publications, 1996
6 AHaldar, S Mahadevan. Probability, Reliability, and Statistical Methods in Engineering Design. New York: Wiley & Sons, 2000
7 NVu-Bac, T Lahmer, HKeitel, JZhao, X Zhuang, TRabczuk. Stochastic predictions of bulk properties of amorphous polyethylene based on molecular dynamics simulations. Mechanics of Materials, 2014a, 68: 70–84
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2013.07.021
8 NVu-Bac, T Lahmer, YZhang, XZhuang, TRabczuk. Stochastic predictions of interfacial characteristic of polymeric nanocomposites (PNCs). Composites. Part B, Engineering, 2014b, 59: 80–95
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.11.014
9 NVu-Bac, M Silani, TLahmer, XZhuang, TRabczuk. A unified framework for stochastic predictions of mechanical properties of polymeric nanocomposites. Computational Materials Science, 2015, 96: 520–535
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2014.04.066
10 RRackwitz. Reviewing probabilistic soils modeling. Computers and Geotechnics, 2000, 26(3–4): 199–223
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-352X(99)00039-7
11 KPhoon, F H Kulhawy. Characterization of geotechnical variability. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1999, 36(4): 612–624
https://doi.org/10.1139/t99-038
12 J MDuncan. Factors of safety and reliability in geotechnical engineering. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2000, 126(4): 307–316
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:4(307)
13 I KLee, W White, O GIngles. Geotechnical Engineering. Boston: Pitman, 1983
14 F HKulhway. On the evaluation of static soil properties. In: Proceedings of a Specialty ASCE Conference on Stability and Performance of Slopes and Embankments-II, Volume 1. Berkley, California, 1992, 95–115
15 G MPeschl, H F Schweiger. Reliability analysis in geotechnics with finite elements – comparison of probabilistic, stochastic and fuzzy set methods. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Imprecise Probabilities and Their Applications (ISIPTA_03). Canada: Carleton Scientific, 2003, 437–451
16 YBen-Haim, I Elishakoff. Convex Models of Uncertainty in Applied Mechanics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1990
17 MOberguggenberger, WFellin. From probability to fuzzy sets: the struggle for meaning in geotechnical risk assessment. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Probabilistics in Geotechnics – Technical and Economical Risk Estimation, Essen: VGE, 2002, 29–38
18 G MPeschl. Reliability Analyses in Geotechnics with the Random Set Finite Element Method. Dissertation for PhD degree. Graz University of Technology, 2004
19 DDubois, H Prade. Consonant approximation of belief functions. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 1990, 4(5–6): 419–449
https://doi.org/10.1016/0888-613X(90)90015-T
20 DDubois, H Prade. Random sets and fuzzy interval analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1991, 42(1): 87–101
https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(91)90091-4
21 PWalley. Statistical Reasoning with Imprecise Probabilities. London: Chapman and Hall, 1991
22 A PDempster. Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multi-valued mapping. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1967, 38(2): 325–339
https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177698950
23 GShafer. A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976
24 FTonon, A Bernardini, AMammino. Determination of parameters range in rock engineering by means of Random Ret Theory. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2000, 70(3): 241–261
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(00)00058-2
25 WDong, H C Shah. Vertex method for computing functions of fuzzy variables. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1987, 24(1): 65–78
https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(87)90114-X
26 C ACornell. First-order uncertainty analysis of soils deformation and stability. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability (ICASP1), 1971, 129–144
27 E EAlonso, R J Krizek. Stochastic formulation of soil profiles. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability (ICASP2). Aachen, Germany, 1975, 9–32
28 PLumb. Spatial variability of soil properties. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Application of Statistics and Probability to Soil and Structural Engineering (ICASP). Aachen, Germany, 1975, 397–421
29 E HVanmarcke. Probabilistic modeling of soil profiles. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 1977, 103: 1227–1246
30 E HVanmarcke. Random Fields – Analysis and Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: MIT-Press, 1983
31 Itasca. FLAC2D (Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua) version 7.0 user’s manual. Minneapolis, MN, USA: Itasca Consulting Group, 2011
32 J TChristian, C CLadd, G BBaecher. Reliability applied to slope stability analysis. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 1994, 120(12): 2180–2207
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:12(2180)
33 E H.Rieben Geological observation on alluvial deposits in northern Iran. Geological Organization of Iran, Report 9, 1966 (in French)
34 J MDuncan, P M Byrne, K S Wong, P Marby. Strength, stress-strain and bulk modulus parameters for finite element analysis of stresses and movements in soil mass. Rep. No. UCB/GT/80-01, University of California, Berkeley, California, 1980
35 R BSeed, J M Duncan. SSCOMP: a finite element analysis program for evaluation of soil structure interaction and compaction effects. Report No. UCB/GT/84-02, University of California, Berkeley, California, 1984
36 J LBriaud, Y Lim. Tieback walls in sand: numerical simulations and design implications. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 1999, 125(2): 101–110
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1999)125:2(101)
37 YLim, J L Briaud. Three dimensional nonlinear finite element analysis of tieback walls and of soil nailed walls under piled bridge abutment. Report to the Federal Highway Administration and the Texas Department of Transportation, Department of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, 1996
38 PDunlop, J M Duncan. Development of failure around excavated slopes. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 1970, 96: 471–493
39 R JFinno, J T Blackburn, J F Roboski. Three dimensional effects for supported excavations in clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2007, 133(1): 30–36
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:1(30)
40 U.S. EPA. TRIM FaTE Technical Support Document Volume I: Description of Module. EPA/43/D-99/002A, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 1999
41 NVu-Bac, R Rafiee, XZhuang, TLahmer, TRabczuk. Uncertainty quantification for multiscale modeling of polymer nanocomposites with correlated parameters. Composites. Part B, Engineering, 2015, 68: 446–464
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2014.09.008
42 NVu-Bac, T Lahmer, XZhuang, TNguyen-Thoi, TRabczuk. A software framework for probabilistic sensitivity analysis for computationally expensive models. Advances in Engineering Software, 2016, 100: 19–31
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2016.06.005
43 G BBaecher. Geotechnical Error Analysis. Special Summer Course 1.60s. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1985
44 F HKulhawy, B Birgisson, M DGrigoriu. Reliability based foundation design for transmission line structures: transformation models for in situ tests. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California: Report EL-5507(4), 1992
45 K SLi, W White. Reliability index of slopes. In: Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Application of Statistics and Probability in Soil and Structural Engineering, 1987, (2): 755–762
46 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Soil nail walls reference manual. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 2015
47 US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Introduction to probability and reliability methods for use in geotechnical engineering. Engineering Technical Letter No. 1110-2-547, 1997
48 MLong. Database for retaining wall and ground movements due to deep excavations. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2001, 127(3): 203–224
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:3(203)
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] Ahmad IDRIS, Indra Sati Hamonangan HARAHAP, Montasir Osman Ahmed ALI. Jack up reliability analysis: An overview[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2018, 12(4): 504-514.
[2] Chu MAI, Katerina KONAKLI, Bruno SUDRET. Seismic fragility curves for structures using non-parametric representations[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2017, 11(2): 169-186.
[3] Abdelmadjid SI SALEM,Souad AIT TALEB,Kamal AIT TAHAR. Experimental and statistical investigation of a new concrete-composite beam with encased polymer tube wrapped by FRP[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2015, 9(2): 154-162.
[4] Prishati RAYCHOWDHURY,Sumit JINDAL. Shallow foundation response variability due to soil and model parameter uncertainty[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2014, 8(3): 237-251.
[5] Yuepeng DONG, Harvey BURD, Guy HOULSBY, Yongmao HOU. Advanced finite element analysis of a complex deep excavation case history in Shanghai[J]. Front Struc Civil Eng, 2014, 8(1): 93-100.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed