Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/223074993
CITATIONS
READS
14
68
2 AUTHORS:
G. L. Sivakumar Babu
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Technical note
Abstract
The concept of response surface method (RSM) is used to generate approximate polynomial functions for ultimate bearing capacity
and settlement of a shallow foundation resting on a cohesive frictional soil for a range of expected variation of input soil parameters. The
response surface models are developed using available conventional equations and numerical analysis. Considering the variations in the
input soil parameters, reliability analysis is performed using these response surface models to obtain an acceptable value of the allowable
bearing pressure. The results of the reliability analysis are compared with the results of Monte Carlo simulation and it is demonstrated
that application of response surface method in the probabilistic analysis can considerably reduce the computational eorts and memory
requirements. It is also concluded that conventional analysis using available equations and numerical analysis when used in conjunction
with reliability analysis enable a rational choice of allowable pressure and help in decision-making process.
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Conventional analysis; Reliability analysis; Response surface method; Monte Carlo simulation; Soil parameters; Correlation
1. Introduction
In the conventional design of shallow foundations resting on a cohesive frictional soil, the allowable pressure is
calculated based on shear failure criterion (ultimate limit
state, ULS) and settlement criterion (serviceability limit
state, SLS). The allowable bearing capacity is obtained
by dividing the ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation
soil with a factor of safety. At the same time, it is also
ensured that the magnitude of settlement of footing should
not exceed a specied permissible limit from serviceability
requirements [1]. Design values of input soil parameters
such as cohesion (c), angle of internal friction (/), unit
weight (c), modulus of elasticity (E), for estimating the
allowable pressure on foundation soil, are obtained either
from eld tests or from laboratory tests. As soil is inherently variable, variations in measured values of those soil
*
188
S q0 B
1 m2
If
E
where B is the width of footing, q0 is an applied pressure on the footing, If is an inuence factor, m is poisons ratio and E is modulus of elasticity of soil.
As per Eurocode 7 [12], total settlements up to 50 mm are
often acceptable for normal structures with isolated foundations. As per Indian codes of practice, 40 mm is considered acceptable and hence in the present study, the
allowable settlement is taken as 40 mm.
3. Reliability analysis
Reliability is dened as probability of safety of a system
in a given environment and loading conditions and is
assessed in terms of reliability index (b) values. Normally,
a reliability index value in the range of 3.04.0 is accepted
for good performance of the system [13,14]. For the estimation of reliability index, methods such as rst order reliability method (FORM), second order reliability method
(SORM), point estimate method (PEM), Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) are available in literature. For a linear performance function dened as g() = C D, where C is the
capacity (either ultimate bearing capacity or allowable
settlement) and D is the demand (either applied pressure
or calculated settlement), g() > 0 denotes safety while
g() < 0 represents unsafe condition. For uncorrelated normally distributed C and D, reliability index (b), representing the shortest distance of the performance function
from the origin of reduced coordinate system of variables,
can be calculated using Eq. (3) [13].
CD
b p
r2C r2D
y a0 a1 x1 a2 x2 e
y a0 a1 x1 a2 x2
a22 x22
a12 x1 x2 e
where a0, a1, a2, . . . are regression coecients and e represents error involved in neglecting other sources of
uncertainties.
In RSM analysis, single replicate 2n factorial design is
used to t rst order linear regression model. For this, total
number of sample points is required as 2n, where n is total
number of input variables. For n = 2 and n = 3, number of
such sample points are 4 and 8, respectively.
In the analysis, natural variables (x1, x2, x3, . . . , xk) are
converted into coded variables ni using a relationship
i minxi =2
ni xi maxx
. The maximum and minimum values
maxxi minxi =2
of xi are taken as xmax = x + hr and xmin = x hr, where
h is an integer and ris are the standard deviations of input
variables (xis). These limits xmax and xmin cover the extent
of variation of input parameters in a given situation with
some level of condence interval discussed later. Finally,
the response surface model is presented in terms of natural
variables.
To examine the adequacy of the tted model and to
ensure that it provides a good approximation of the true
system, a normal probability plot should be approximately
along a straight line. In addition, computed values of coefcients of multiple determinations (R2) and adjusted R2
also give information on the adequacy of the tted model.
The non-dimensional quantity R2 is calculated as (Eq. (7)).
Pn ^ 2
i1 y i y
R2 P
2
n
i1 y i y
where y , yi and y are estimated mean value, actual and predicted values of output response (y) respectively. The value
of R2 lies between 0 and 1 and a value close to 1 indicates
that most of the variability in y is explained by regression
model. It should be noted that it is always possible to increase the value of R2 by adding more regressor variables.
Therefore, adjusted R2 value is calculated using following
Eq. (8):
k 1
1 R2
8
R2adj 1
kp
where k is total number of observations and p is number of
regression coecients. For a good model, values of R2 and
adjusted R2 should be close to each other and also they
should be close to 1. Myers and Montgomery [15] presented more details on the use of response surface
methodology.
5. Methodology
189
Sr. no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Combination
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
qu
6
6
6
6
4
4
4
4
27.5
27.5
22.5
22.5
27.5
27.5
22.5
22.5
18.7
15.3
18.7
15.3
18.7
15.3
18.7
15.3
628.52
547.18
361.82
318.80
568.13
486.80
320.10
277.10
600
500
400
qu
300
500-600
200
400-500
300-400
100
4.5
5
5.5
27.5
26.25
Natural variables
25
Table 2
Single replicate 2n design showing eight combinations of input variables
and corresponding output (qu) obtained from Meyerhof equation
23.75
22.5
190
Fig. 1a. Actual response surface for the ultimate bearing capacity of the
foundation using Meyerhof equation.
Table 1
Input soil properties used in the analysis
Input soil properties (x)
Mean (l)
xmax
xmin
CoV (%)
Distribution
5
25
17
10,000
0.325
0.61 kPa
1.52
1.03 kN/m3
1212 kPa
0.045
6
27.5
18.7
12,000
0.40
4
22.5
15.3
8000
0.25
12
6
6
12
14
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
191
Fig. 1b. Contour plot for ultimate bearing capacity obtained from linear
response surface model and Meyerhof equation.
Following the same procedure, response surface equation for settlement (S) of the footing for an applied pressure of 200 kPa is
S 62:15 0:0028E 20:31m
10
700
600
500
qu
400
300
200
100
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Sample Percentile
Fig. 2. Normal probability plot for the ultimate bearing capacity (qu).
11
192
Fig. 3. Contour plot for settlement of the footing obtained from RSM model and conventional equation.
Table 3
Response surface models obtained from conventional settlement equation
for dierent applied pressure on the footing and corresponding reliability
indices (b) from settlement criterion
Response surface
equation
Mean
(D)
Std.
dev.
(lD)
140
160
180
200
43.500.0019E14.22m
49.720.0022E16.25m
55.930.0025E18.28m
62.150.0025E20.31m
19.88
22.44
24.99
27.55
2.37
2.76
3.14
3.51
b
3
RSM - Meyerhof Equation
Applied
pressure
(kPa)
Allow.
settlement
(40 mm)
8.50
6.35
4.78
2.87
200
300
400
120
140
160
180
200
500
600
0
100
settlement (mm)
0
100
Fig. 5. Results of the reliability analysis using RSM and MCS from shear
failure criterion.
200
300
500
600
Table 4
Correlation coecient between input soil parameters
Correlation coecient (q)
c/
cc
/c
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
0.25
0.50
0.75
+0.25
+0.50
+0.75
+0.25
+0.50
+0.75
193
Table 5
Reliability index values from shear failure consideration (using response
surface model developed from Meyerhof equation)
Table 6
Reliability index values from shear failure consideration using RSM
approach
Applied
pressure
(kPa)
(1)
(2)
(3)
120
140
160
180
200
3.64
3.30
2.97
2.64
2.31
6.94
6.16
5.38
4.60
3.81
6.38
5.64
4.90
4.19
3.38
120
140
160
180
200
Case 2
Case 3
3.94
3.70
3.45
3.20
2.95
4.12
3.86
3.57
3.31
3.05
4.08
3.82
3.57
3.31
3.05
4.03
3.78
3.53
3.27
3.02
12
The work presented in this paper demonstrates the applicability of response surface methodology in the assessment
of allowable bearing pressure on shallow foundation resting
on cohesive frictional soil. The results show that reliability
analysis results from conventional approaches and numerical analysis help in deciding the range of allowable pressures
on the footing. Although the reliability based approach is
not a substitute for the conventional approach, it can be
noted from the present study that the choice of allowable
pressure on the footing can be made rationally. The use of
response surface method in establishing an approximate
functional relationship between input soil properties and
output response, viz. ultimate bearing capacity or settlement
of the foundation, reduces computational eorts to a great
extent for the probabilistic analysis of the foundation.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the reviewers for their critical comments which have been very useful in improving the work
presented in this paper.
References
[1] Bowles JE. Foundation analysis and design. 5th ed. McGraw-Hill
Book Company; 1996.
194
[2] Phoon KK, Kulhawy FH. Characterization of geotechnical variability. Canad Geotech J 1999;36:61224.
[3] Whitman RV. Organizing and evaluating uncertainty in geotechnical
engineering. Geotech Geol Eng 2000;126(7):58393.
[4] Duncan JM. Factors of safety and reliability in geotechnical
engineering. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2000;126(4):30716.
[5] Schweiger HF, Thurner R, Pottler R. Reliability analysis in geotechnics with deterministic nite elements. Int J Geomech ASCE
2001;1(4):389413.
[6] Sivakumar Babu, Amit Srivatsava, Murthy DSN. Reliability analysis
of bearing capacity of a shallow foundation resting on cohesive soil.
Canad Geotech J 2006;43:17.
[7] Griths DV, Fenton GA. Seepage beneath water retaining structures founded on spatially random soil. Geotechnique 1993;43(4):
57787.
[8] Paice GM, Griths DV, Fenton GA. Inuence of spatially random
soil stiness on foundation settlements. In: Yeung AT, Felio GY,
editors. ASCE specialty conference Settlement94. Texas A&M
University; 1994. p. 62839.
[9] Wong FS. Slope stability and response surface method. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng ASCE 1985;111(1):3253.
[10] Humphreys MP, Armstrong LW. Assessing the sensitivity of numerical models using response surface methodology. In: Proc of the conf
of probabilistic methods in geotechnical engineering, Canberra,
Australia, 1993. p. 13544.
[11] Tandjiria VI, Teh CI, Low BK. Reliability analysis of laterally loaded
piles using response surface methods. Struct Safety 2000;22:33555.
[12] Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Design Part 1: General rules, EN 19971:2004(E).
[13] Baecher GB, Christian JT. Reliability and statistics in geotechnical
engineering. Chichester, NJ: John Wiley Publications; 2003.
[14] USACE. Risk-based analysis in Geotechnical Engineering for Support
of Planning Studies, Engineering and Design. US Army Corps of
Engineers, Department of Army, Washington, DC, 1997. p. 20314-100.
[15] Myers RH, Montgomery D. Response surface methodology. John
Wiley & Sons; 2002.
[16] FLAC 4.0. Reference Manual. Itasca Consulting Group Inc.,
Minneapolis, 2000.
[17] Haldar A, Mahadevan S. Probability, reliability and statistical
methods in engineering design. NY: John Wiley & Sons; 2000.
[18] Becker DE. Limit state design for foundations: Part I. An overview of
the foundation design process. Eighteenth Canadian geotechnical
colloquium. Canad Geotech J 1996;33:95683.
[19] Orr TLL. Selection of characteristic values and partial factors in
geotechnical designs to Eurocode 7. Comput Geotech 2000;26:26379.
[20] Chowdhury RN, Xu DW. Reliability index for slope stability assessmenttwo methods compared. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 1992;37:99108.
[21] Rackwitz R, Fiessler B. Note on discrete safety checking when using
non-normal stochastic models for basic variables. Load project
working session. Cambridge, MA: MIT; 1976. June.