4.7 Article

Robust geotechnical design of braced excavations in clays

期刊

STRUCTURAL SAFETY
卷 49, 期 -, 页码 37-44

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2013.05.003

关键词

Uncertainty; Probability; Robust design; Optimization; Wall deflection; Braced excavation; Clay

资金

  1. National Science Foundation through (Transforming Robust Design Concept into a Novel Geotechnical Design Tool) [CMMI-1200117]
  2. Glenn Department of Civil Engineering, Clemson University
  3. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn
  4. Directorate For Engineering [1200117] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, the authors present a methodology for the robust geotechnical design (RGD) of braced excavations in clayey soils. The maximum wall deflection induced by the excavation was chosen as the response of concern in the design and was computed using a finite element analysis model based upon the beam-on-elastic-foundation theory. The variation of the maximum wall deflection of a given design of a braced excavation due to uncertainty in the soil parameters and the surcharges was used as a measure of the design robustness. The robust design of the braced excavation system (including soil, wall, and support) was then formulated as a multi-objective optimization problem, in which the variation of the maximum wall deflection (a signal of the design robustness) and the cost were optimized with the strict safety constraints. Using a multi-objective genetic algorithm, the optimal designs were then determined, the results of which were presented as a Pareto Front that exhibited a trade-off relationship useful for design decision-making. Furthermore, the knee point concept, based upon the gain-sacrifice trade-off is used in the selection of the most-preferred design from the Pareto Front. Finally, a design example of a braced excavation system was used to illustrate the significance of this proposed methodology. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据