Lime Cement Reliability Analysis

Reliability Based Design
of Lime-Cement Columns
based on Total Settlement
Criterion
by
Victor Ehnbom and Filip Kumlin
Master of Science Thesis 11/06

Division of Soil and Rock Mechanics
Department of Civil Architecture and the Built Environment
Stockholm 2011
Ehnbom and Kumlin
Reliability Based Design

of Lime-Cement Columns based on Total Settlement Criterion
Victor Ehnbom and Filip Kumlin 2011

Master of Science Thesis 11/06
Division of Soil and Rock Mechanics
Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)
ISSN 1652-599
2
Ehnbom and Kumlin
Foreword
This thesis has been carried out at the department of soil- and rock mechanics, institution of
building science, at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. The thesis is part of a
larger development project concerning lime-cement columns led by Stefan Larsson.
First and foremost we want to thank those who have assisted us with help during the thesis
completion. These people are our supervisor at KTH, Stefan Larsson, professor of
geotechnical engineering, PhD Niclas Bergman and PhD Mohammed Bahjat. They have
played an important role in developing this thesis.
Stockholm, September 2011
3
Ehnbom and Kumlin
Abstract
The geotechnical community has since decades been acquainted with the use of statistical
approach for design optimizations. This has been approved as an operational method by
many practitioners in the field but is yet to see a major full-scale breakthrough and
acceptance in practice. The advantage of quantifying the many different sources of
uncertainties in a design is already a fairly acknowledged method and is in this report
expanded for the use in the case of road embankments founded on soft soil improved by
lime-cement columns. Statistical approach was adopted with practice of reliability base
design ( ) to consider the importance of ingoing variables’ variability with the target of
streamlining the result by decreasing uncertainties (by means of increased measurements,
careful installation, etc.). By constructing a working model that gives the corresponding area
ratio between columns and soil needed to fulfill the different criterion set as input values,
weight is put on investigating the effects of different coefficients of variation ( ). The
analyses show that the property variabilities have a significant influence on the requisite area
ratio that an active use of RBD is a useful tool for optimizing designs in geotechnical
engineering. The methodology favors the contractors own development of the mixing
process since higher design values can be utilized when the variability with respect to
strength- and deformation properties are reduced.
Key words: Reliability based design, coefficient of variation, geotechnical variability, safety
factor, settlement calculation, lime-cement column, sensitivity parameter.
4
Ehnbom and Kumlin
Sammanfattning
Det geotekniska samfundet har sedan årtionden varit bekant med användning av
statistiska metoder för optimering av konstruktioner. Det har godkänts som
en användbar metod av många utövare inom området men ännu inte sett ett
genombrott eller godkännande i praktiken. Fördelen med att kvantifiera många olika källor
till osäkerheter i en konstruktion är redan en erkänd metod och har i denna
rapport utvecklats för användning i fallet av vägbankar på jord stabiliserade med
kalkcementpelare. Med hjälp av ett statistiskt tillvägagångssätt användes ”Reliabilty Based
Design” ( ) för att överväga betydelsen av de ingående variablernas fluktuation med
målet att effektivisera resultatet genom att minska osäkerheterna (vilket görs genom ökade
mätningar, noggrannare installation, osv.). Genom att bygga en fungerande modell som visar
det motsvarande areaförhållandet mellan pelare och jord som krävs för att uppfylla de
olika kriterier som använts som ingångsvärden, läggs vikt på att undersöka effekterna av de
olika variationskoefficienterna ( ). Analysen visar att variablernas fluktuation
har ett betydande inflytande på areaförhållandet och att en aktiv användning av är ett
användbart verktyg för optimering av konstruktioner inom geoteknik. Metoden gynnar
entreprenörernas egen utveckling av blandningsprocessen, då högre dimensionerande
värden kan utnyttjas när variabilitet med avseende på hållfasthet- och
deformationsegenskaper minskar.
5
Ehnbom and Kumlin
Contents
Foreword ............................................................................................................................... 3
Abstract ................................................................................................................................. 4
Sammanfattning .................................................................................................................... 5
List of symbols....................................................................................................................... 8
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................11
1.1 Background.................................................................................................................11
1.2 Aim .............................................................................................................................13
1.3 Outline of thesis ..........................................................................................................13
2 Literature study..................................................................................................................15
2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................15
2.2 Settlement calculations ...............................................................................................15
2.3 Limit state design and statistical approach ..................................................................16
2.4 Use of RBD .................................................................................................................18
2.5 Errors ..........................................................................................................................20
2.5.1 Inherent soil variability ..........................................................................................22
2.5.2 Measurement error ...............................................................................................23
2.5.3 Transformation error / Model uncertainty ..............................................................23
2.6 Error evaluation...........................................................................................................25
2.7 Concluding remarks ....................................................................................................26
3 Probabilistic settlement analysis methodology ...................................................................27
3.1 Outline of the methodology .........................................................................................27
3.2 Limit state design ........................................................................................................28
3.3 Model theory ...............................................................................................................29

6
Ehnbom and Kumlin
3.4 Simplifications and assumptions .................................................................................32
3.5 Input............................................................................................................................33
4 Results ..............................................................................................................................35
4.1 Result analysis-sensitivity parameters ........................................................................35
4.2 Result analysis-histograms .........................................................................................38
4.3 Alternative Results ......................................................................................................40
5 Discussion .........................................................................................................................42
5.1 Simplifications and assumptions .................................................................................42
5.2 The model ...................................................................................................................43
5.3 Input criticism ..............................................................................................................44
5.4 Consequences of the result ........................................................................................46
5.5 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................48
6 Suggestions for further studies ..........................................................................................50
7 References ........................................................................................................................51
7
Ehnbom and Kumlin
List of symbols
The following symbols and abbreviations are used in this thesis:
Roman letters
a Area ratio
cu Undrained shear strength
Cc Compression index
e Measurement error
Ecol Elastic modulus for the column
G ( x) Limit state function
h Embankment height
L Layer depth
Oedometer modulus
Nk Cone factor
qc Cone tip resistance
Sv Vane shear test undrained strength
w Inherent soil variability
Vector containing random variables
Greek
Sensitivity parameter
Sensitivity parameter for the columns’ elasticity modulus
Sensitivity parameter for the embankment material unit weight (load)
8
Ehnbom and Kumlin
Sensitivity parameter for the soils elasticity modulus (oedometer modulus)
 Safety index
 Maximum allowable settlement
v Scale of fluctuation
e Transformation error
 Unit weight
 Mean
Mean for the columns’ elasticity modulus
Standard deviation
Standard deviatino for the columns’ elasticity modulus
Variance
Variance for the columns’ elasticity modulus
Creep stress
v Overburden stress
d Design property
m Measured property
Abbreviations
Coefficient of variation
Coefficient of variation for the columns’ elasticity modulus
Coefficient of variation for the embankment material unit weight
Coefficient of variation for the soils elasticity oedometer modulus
9
Ehnbom and Kumlin
Cone penetration test
First-order reliability method
Factor of safety
Limit state design
Reliability based design
Reliability based design optimization
Serviceability limit sate
stat Statistical uncertainty
Ultimate limit state
10
Ehnbom and Kumlin
1 Introduction
The main purposes of engineering designs are to satisfy safety, serviceability and economy.
While the two first are generally improved by enlarging margins or levels of safety to reduce
the probability of failure, the latter aspect -economy- might suffer, as this raise the cost of the
structure. The factor of safety is usually a global phenomenon, i.e. it does not distinguish
between the uncertainty of the whole model and the ingoing parameters explicitly (Becker,
1997; Oliphant, 1992). With a more thorough design process that takes account to all
sources of uncertainty, economy could be improved by satisfying the criteria of safety and
serviceability with more relevant measures.
1.1 Background
Ground improvement made by installing lime-cement columns is one of the most used
techniques in Sweden. The technique was developed in the 70’s and is used mainly for
strengthening loose soils when constructing roads, railways or other large geostructures
(Åhnberg, 2006; Nilsson, 2008). Columns are installed by retrieving a mixing device through
the ground whilst adding a binder, usually a combination of lime and cement with varying
content. After curing, the binder and clay creates a residual column, raising the overall
strength and deformation properties of the ground. Although being a popular choice in
Sweden, this fairly new technique works well on an earth-composition consisting of mainly
clays. Due to the optimal use in soft soils, the method is logically of considerable use in
countries with post-glacial geology, a natural attribute that holds these conditions. For the
aforementioned reason, the amount of research and data is therefore usually conducted in
countries in the northern hemisphere dominated by the characteristic material such as
Japan, Sweden and Finland (Kazemian et al., 2011).
There are implemented standards for calculations concerning settlements in lime-cement

column strengthened embankments, but they are considered as conservative. Newer
standards have indeed improved the designs, but are still neglecting the use of statistics. For
example in Alén et al. (2006) the authors do acknowledge the variations in lime-cement
columns but no detailed study is done. There are in fact very few guidelines for geotechnical
calculations leading to the use of a wide range of design methods. Even at the same site,
different engineers will have different design approaches leading to a vast variety of safety
levels (Becker, 1997). Solid evidence for this is highlighted in a study conducted by Kulhawy
(1984), where five competent designers were asked to calculate the capacity of a design
11
Ehnbom and Kumlin
using the “normal” design practices with a factor of safety equal to 3. The task resulted in five
different design assumptions and capacities where the true factors of safety ranged from 2.4
to 23.5. Despite this, the mentality “if it’s not broke, why fix it?” (Green and Becker, 2001) still
lives strong within the geotechnical community.
There is nonetheless room for improvement and research to be done when it comes to the
geotechnical design phase. As already acknowledged a decade ago by Kulhawy and Phoon
(2002), the adoption of reliability based design ( ) codes is a crucial tool for developing
the design stage, but is something that must occur gradually. The term “ ” implies that a
methodology is solely founded on a strict reliability basis; “It must be emphasized at this point
that the authors are not critical of existing practice, which has undoubtedly served the
profession well for many years, but are critical of the reluctance to evaluate
methodologies that are capable of mitigating numerous logical inconsistencies inherent in
current geotechnical design. No one is advocating total abandonment of existing practice for
something entirely new. In fact, the reverse is probably closer to the truth - many aspects of
current design practice would still appear in new codes, albeit in a modified form”
(Phoon and Kulhawy, 1996). This statement has been supported by a considerable amount
of authors who are recommending a prompt use of in practice (Navin, 2005; Honjo et
al., 2009; Kulhawy and Phoon, 2002). Honjo et al. (2009) even concluded that will be
used as a tool to develop design codes at least for the next several decades. The need for
related to deep mixing has been highlighted by Navin (2005). However, the is
discussed mainly related to limit state design and has not yet been adopted in connection to
serviceability limit state. In the international literature regarding , focus has been set on
various deep mixing methods. One of many is the method of lime-cement columns, the main
concern of this thesis.
Using prior to construction is not groundbreaking science, but has been used for routine
structural design since the 1970’s (Phoon and Kulhawy, 1996). The geotechnical design
community has despite this been lagging behind in putting a similar code into practice mainly
due to the complexity of the soil and its inherent variability compared to that of manufactured
materials which are easy to quantify and simple to apply for future constructions. With every
passing day and the many technology advances being made, we are better able to
understand the soils complexity and it is in deer time we design accordingly.
12
Ehnbom and Kumlin
1.2 Aim
There is undoubtedly a need to develop today’s conservative deterministic design approach
according to Alén et al. (2006) mainly because of its limitations and the intention is to
highlight this by stressing the importance of certain variables. By applying a approach to
a few simple cases and investigating the effect and influence of certain variables the aim is to
demonstrate its necessity when calculating allowable deformation (i.e. serviceability limit
state, when a structure is no longer functional for its intended use) in a lime-cement column
improved soil under an embankment. In a long-term perspective the implementation of
of ground improvement by lime-cement columns is considered to be an advantageous
accessory in the Eurocode 7 (ENV 1997-1, 1997), a guideline that according to some
practitioners is hard to interpret and burdensome to utilize.
1.3 Outline of thesis

This thesis is structured as follows:
Chapter 1, Introduction, announces the problem at hand through a quick résumé of the
literature study and the intended purpose.
Chapter 2, Literature study, presents conclusions of past studies on the subject.
Chapter 3, Probabilistic settlement analysis methodology, displays the approach of the

model, based on a limit state function. Use of and derivations of mathematical statements
are hereby described. The chapter also illuminates assumptions and limitations that have
been made.
Chapter 4, Results, exhibits the product of the model with numerous graphs given variable
conditions.
Chapter 5, Discussion, is a forum for thoughts of the whole thesis including conclusions of
the result.
Chapter 6, Suggestions for further studies, recommends emerged issues for later
investigation.
Chapter 7, References, lists the sources of information alphabetically.
The thesis has been part of research at the Royal Institute of Technology on the use of
in geotechnical design, and lime-cement columns in particular. The fundamental concept is
that current design practice is lagging behind and has limitations and that there is a necessity
for the use of statistical methods. By developing a design using the coefficient of variation for
13
Ehnbom and Kumlin
stochastic variables, this could result in a significant improvement of current constructions.

Therefore, a model has been created, based on the settlement limit state function, to justify
the application of .
14
Ehnbom and Kumlin
2 Literature study
2.1 Introduction
The literature study is based on scientific articles from different geotechnical databases and
journals. Articles have been found through the library of the Royal Institute of Technology,
the LIBRIS search function and other internet based search engines such as Google scholar.
The main focus has been on finding relevant articles containing approaches when
designing for one of the two types of limit states; ultimate limit state ( ), rather than the
other; serviceability limit state ( ). The is reached when the differential settlements
are equal to the acceptable limits for the construction (Akbas and Kulhawy, 2009), while
is associated with structural collapse. The remainders of articles concerning lime-cement
columns have in general been acquired from Swedish literature and databases.
Since the late 90’s, copious number of articles have been dedicated to investigate and refine
the true safety of the design. A common theme for a majority of the articles has been that
today's methods are insufficient and that the need for in the geotechnical design phase
is eminent.
2.2 Settlement calculations

The main calculation practice used in Sweden for calculating settlements on soil
strengthened by lime-cement columns is based on a model originally presented in the early
eighties by Broms (1984) and later developed by Åhnberg and Holm (1986). The model was
finally built into the calculating program Limeset (Carlsten, 1989). In recent works Baker
(2000) and later Alén et al. (2006) developed the calculation model further. The authors of
the latter report concluded that decades of experience have led to a need for their
development of the model, due to its unnecessarily conservative results. The old model was
lacking on fields such as load distribution (using the 2:1 method), settlement pace and
deformation of the uppermost meters of the strengthened soil.
In the original model (Broms, 1984) the settlement is basically described, just as in this
thesis, as the soil layer thickness multiplied by the overburden stress divided by the elasticity
modulus of the column and soil, both relative their area ratio. In the report by Alén et al.
(2006), several design examples are given and the procedure is still lacking of, for this thesis
study, relevant statistical measures. After withdrawing material parameters from field and
15
Ehnbom and Kumlin
laboratory investigations, the geotechnical characteristics are determined. This is usually

made by polynomial approximation, not taking the variations into account. Using the rest of
the input and other extensive calculations to acquire the data, a calculation model is run
based on Boussinesq’s solution for stress calculation, also using influence factors, et cetera.
The model makes allowances for additional layers and settlement over time. New calculation
methods with alternative assumptions on the columns attribute and load distributions have
been proposed and are under development, but they are so far under limited validation
(Larsson, 2006).
2.3 Limit state design and statistical approach

The limit state can be described as “conditions under which a structure or its component
members no longer perform their intended functions” (Becker, 1997). If a structure or any of
its components no longer satisfies the intended functions, it is said to have reached the limit
state. This state is interesting because it is the criterion to design after to maintain a required
performance. The limit state design ( ) needs to satisfy the criterions for both and
. In order to accurately use to estimate the probability of failure, one needs to
distinguish between and determine the following uncertainties, according to Becker (1997).
1) uncertainties in estimating the loads,
2) uncertainties associated with variability of the ground conditions at the site,
3) uncertainties in evaluation of geotechnical material properties,
4) uncertainties associated regarding whether the analytical model represent the actual
behavior of the foundation or not.
In modern designs, it is common to deal with uncertainties by putting a safety margin in the
form of a global factor of safety ( ). That is to say it is applied on the design, but “outside” of
the input variables. Becker (1997) states that a used in foundation design cannot
separate nor distinguish between the various sources of uncertainty in a design. All
uncertainty in the design is accumulated under one single factor and no attempt is made to
differentiate between model uncertainty and parameter uncertainty. A better approach would
be to use input for the parameters, not only dependent on the mean values, but also their
scatter (Low and Tang, 1997). The importance on weighing individual parameters’
uncertainties cannot be stressed enough. By applying simple statistics to the design phase it
is possible to account for these individual uncertainties.
Initially there were expectations that well conducted would directly result in a positive
economical increase of the total project. Foundations and retaining walls were expected to
16
Ehnbom and Kumlin
become smaller and thinner; in practice however, they became larger and thicker (Becker,
1997). A reason for this could be that it was not initially used at its full potential, and launched
in an incomplete state. This added to the reluctance of practitioners to adopt the method
significantly delayed its progression. As stated earlier, the three primary objectives of
engineering design are safety, serviceability and economy. Safety and serviceability can be
improved by increasing the design margins. However, this will lead to an increase of the cost
of the structure. Advancement can also be made by increasing levels of safety by e.g.
introducing partial material factors to reduce the probability of failure also leading to an
increase of the total construction cost. The desired goal and natural progress should
however be to lower the costs whilst maintaining the safety.
In the approach of material factoring in , a partial material factor is applied to the

characteristic value of a material parameter, resulting in a design parameter (Lo and Li,
2007). There are many justifications for defining a design value by applying a partial material
factor to the characteristic value. An argument in defense of using the material factor is that
the characteristic value may often be evaluated as a matter of engineering judgment. The
material factor is therefore needed as a matter of caution. To link up to common practice and
its guidelines, the definition of a characteristic value in Eurocode 7: part 1 (ENV 1997-1,
1997) states “a cautious estimate of the value affecting the occurrence of the limit state”. It
also mentions “if statistical methods are used, the characteristic value should be derived
such that the calculated probability of a worse value governing the occurrence of the limit
state under consideration is not greater than 5%”. This reflects the as its criterions
always fails before the . There is clearly a statistical meaning in this definition, but it is not
mandatory to use statistical methods. The engineer is allowed to apply judgment on what this
“governing worse value” complies with (Lo and Li, 2007). In general, when performing ,
the engineer in charge needs to have thorough understanding and knowledge of the material
and the behavior of the structure. Furthermore, to achieve reliable result which reflects reality
the engineer should also possess competence within statistics. For the aforementioned
reasons, many geotechnical engineers feel a threat by the use of new methods. As stated by
Mortensen (1983), the aim of the philosophy is not to replace engineering judgment and
experience, nor to quantify them. Engineers usually introduce safety, but by other indirect
means such as applying conservative design parameters or by interpreting their design
results conservatively. This will consequence in an increase in reliability but it is hard to
quantify, as it is based in individual judgment and experience (Akbas and Kulhawy, 2009).
However, in surveys concerning the usefulness and meaning of statistics in determining the
characteristic value of a soil parameter conducted by Orr et al. (2002), as well as Shirato et
17
Ehnbom and Kumlin
al. (2002), 50% of the respondents admitted the advantage of statistics in determining soil
parameters. Another conclusion in the same surveys was that many geotechnical engineers
are unfamiliar with the use of a statistical approach.
Some characteristics cannot be sampled directly but can be expressed as mathematical

functions of the sample properties, i.e. the input values. The Monte Carlo simulation is a tool
which enables us to model such attributes (Hammond et al., 1991). It allows input variables
to assume stochastical values. By repeated random sampling of these values, the Monte
Carlo simulation produces a great number of possible output values. These values in return
correspond to the theoretical distribution of the sought for attribute, in our case the
embankments settlement. The Monte Carlo methology can conveniently be used in
spreadsheet software, where input values are identified and preinstalled formulas are used to
solve the model given certain limitations including number of repetitions, etc. A great
advantage of this methology is that it only requires fundamental knowledge of statistics of
probability theory, as most engineers are already familiar with the software (El-Ramly et al.,
2002). A disadvantage of the Monte Carlo method is that site- and case-specific features and
sources of uncertainty of the database cannot be addressed.
2.4 Use of RBD

Proposed guidelines on using reliability based design ( ) for geotechnical problems can
be found in a published paper by Phoon et al. (1995) and consist of five steps:
1. Select realistic performance functions for ultimate and serviceability limit states.
2. Assign probability models for each basic design parameter that commensurate with
available statistical support.
3. Conduct a parametric study on the variation of the reliability level with respect to each
parameter in the design problem using the First-Order Reliability Method ( ) to identify
appropriate calibration domains.
4. Determine the range of reliability levels implicit in existing designs.
5. Adjust the resistance factors in the equations until a consistent target reliability level
is achieved within each calibration domain.
Reliability based design optimization ( ) with input of normal random variables is

proposed to counteract the unreliable estimation of the input statistical model by using the
adjusted standard deviation and correlation coefficient. They should already include the
effect of inaccurate estimation of mean, standard deviation and correlation coefficient (Noh et
18
Ehnbom and Kumlin
al., 2011). That is to say, important geotechnical considerations such as soil variabilities are
already accounted for with this method. The geotechnical profession would benefit from the
approach of because the engineer could dedicate more attention to ground and
construction evaluation, not having to agonize over the use of the correct design equation or
how to select and defend the factor of safety. The factors of safety used in geotechinical
engineering are based on experience, which is logical. The logic ends when the same factors
of safety because of regulations and established practice are applied to conditions that
involve varying degrees of uncertainty (Duncan, 2000). Unlike what criticism for the
implementation suggests, judgment is not undermined; instead, focus is put on more suitable
aspects (Kulhawy and Phoon, 2002). In addition, not adopting in full results in designs
with an unknown degree of conservatism and unrealistic specifications for deep mixed
materials (Navin, 2005).
In a study by Akbas (2007), where 426 case histories were examined, the verdict is that
there is a relationship between accuracy and conservatism of a method. In general, the
conservative methods were the ones with low accuracy. Another conclusion is that the “best”
method is subjective, depending on sought reliability or the importance of accuracy. Even
though has been available for decades, there has clearly been a slow process adopting
it. One of the reasons is the difficulty in estimating the variability of the design properties of
the geotechnical materials, an essential factor for any procedure (Phoon et al., 1995).
An important recommendation is that engineers should use reliability analyses together with
numerical analyses of the stability of embankments supported on deep-mixing-method
columns (Navin, 2005). Numerical analyses are important to approach failure modes, like
column bending, that are not addressed by limit equilibrium analyses.
Reliability analyses are necessary of the highly variable nature of deep-mixed materials and
because allows for rational development of statistically based specifications for
constructing deep-mixed materials. This can reduce construction contract administration
problems, as it permits low strength values and still satisfies the design intent.
There is clearly a great potential for this approach, even economically. In a performance
comparison between several methods such as and deterministic design, authors Wang
et al. (1997) conclude that is the most robust and economical design when the statistics
of the input random variables are well defined. The term coefficient of variation ( ) is used
frequently when describing variability in geotechnical data which refers to a dimensionless
number representing the standard deviation of the data divided by its mean. This is
commonly used in geotechnical engineering to express the standard deviation. In a study of
19
Ehnbom and Kumlin
economic design optimization by Wang (2009), the author states a simple design example of
spread foundation under drained uplift loading, where the of a parameter is reduced
from 70-90% to 30-50%. The benefit of the reduction would be the difference between
construction costs of the two designs, $1625-$1243=$384, which is a saving of almost 20%.
If the cost for additional site investigation effort in order to reduce falls below the
construction saving, such an approach would be cost effective to carry out.
Numerical results of an input model with corrected parameters grant desirable input
confidence levels. The obtained results are significantly reliable, which leads to
desirable confidence levels of the output performances. To acquire reliable results,
focus need to be taken to obtain an accurate input model from the given sample data.
Nonetheless, the number of sample data is often insufficient in practical applications. Thus, it
is difficult to acquire an accurate input model. As mentioned, one of the main problems in the
current methods is that the quantity of required sample data is yet to be established. We
need to determine the satisfactory amount of random variables; if they are aleatory or
epistemic (Noh et al., 2011).
In a study made by Akbas and Kulhawy (2010), the of inherent soil variabilites for
Ankara Clay was compared to the “generic” guidelines and the authors found that the values
were smaller and their ranges significantly narrower. The result shows an advantage of
developing and using statistics for a specific soil type in . Depending on resources, there
are always ways to improve a design. The most optimal results in can be achieved by
using local data, as the sources of uncertainty are related to particular material and specific
regional geology. Another aspect to take into account is that the various parameters may
influence other variabilities at different scales. Therefore, it is important to determine the
structure of the correlation for every parameter (Larsson et al., 2005).
2.5 Errors
Geotechnical engineers are well aware of the existence of many sources of uncertainties
within the design process. To accurately conduct a these need to be assessed and
quantified. The three main sources for uncertainties in geotechnical engineering are (1)
inherent soil variability, (2) measurement error, and (3) transformation uncertainty (Kulhawy
et al., 1992). Another fourth uncertainty which can contribute is the statistical uncertainty.
This error arises when estimating the populations material parameters from the samples
taken and can consequently be eliminated by taking an adequate number of unbiased tests.
20
Ehnbom and Kumlin
In previous studies (Kulhawy and Phoon, 2002; Vanmarcke, 1977) this uncertainty is
commonly included within the measurement error. Figure 2-1 is a schematic overview to
show where the above mentioned uncertainties arise.
Figure 2-1.Flowchart of the sources of uncertainty (Kulhawy, 1992)
Since every site is unique and unlike any other, the task of evaluating a general method to
account for the above mentioned uncertainties is rather complex. First off, it is imperative to
evaluate the uncertainties separately. Only after doing this can one systematically combine
these uncertainties consistently by using a reliability based design approach. (Phoon and
Kulhawy, 1999b).To add variability of different data sets together a normalization is needed.
This is done by determining the which is useful because it enables us to compare data
sets with different units and different means. Several studies in the past have been devoted
to analyzing ranges of for geotechnical design properties and a handful have been
compiled in table 2-1. As can be seen, values are given in ranges and using them will
merely result in fair approximations of the case at hand. If possible, local for each
specific site should be estimated (Akbas and Kulhawy, 2010).
Design property COV (%) Source

Unit weight (  ) 3-7 Harr (1987), Kulhawy (1992)
Undrained shear strength ( cu ) 13-40 Lacasse and Nadim (1997), Duncan (2000)
Compression index ( Cc ) 10-37 Harr (1987), Kulhawy (1992), Duncan (2000)
Tip resistance from electric cone penetration test ( qc ) 5-15 Kulhawy (1992)
Tip resistance from mechanical cone penetration test ( qc ) 15-37 Harr (1987), Kulhawy (1992)
22-67 Al-Naqshabandy et al. (2011)
Undrained strength from vane test ( S v ) 10-20 Kulhawy (1992)
Oedometer modulus ( ) 25-40 Kulhawy et al. (2000)
Table 2-1. Ranges of from literature.
21
Ehnbom and Kumlin
2.5.1 Inherent soil variability
Soil is composed of particles of broken rock and has been formed by a combination of
natural geological processes which are continually modifying its properties (Kulhawy, 1992).
It is a strictly heterogeneous material and its properties will vary both vertically and
horizontally, which can be seen in figure 2-2. For the remainder of this thesis there has not
been any focus on variations in the horizontal direction. By analyzing collected data, the
desired parameters can be attained to describe the soil and its variation in the vertical
direction.
Figure 2-2. Inherent soil variability (Phoon and Kulhawy, 1999a)
22
Ehnbom and Kumlin
First off, one must transform the non-stationary data into stationary data by determining and
removing the trend t ( z ) . Thereafter the scale of fluctuation (  v ) and deviation from the trend
w( z ) can be detected by fitting a variogram to the correlation function. The scale of

fluctuation (  v ) is defined as the distance within which the soil properties reveal a strong
correlation. Extensive studies have been performed on the topic (e.g. Fenton, 1999; Phoon
et al., 2003; Deutsch, 2002) but the process itself is beyond the scope of this thesis.
Inherent soil variability is a uncertainty which will always be present, meaning that for the
idealized condition of perfect testing, the variability of a parameter obtained from the testing
of different specimens is due entirely to inherent variability (Lo and Li, 2007).
2.5.2 Measurement error
The measurement error or model uncertainty enters the determination of soil properties
through equipment, procedural-operator, and random testing effects (Phoon and Kulhawy,
1999a) and determining its exact magnitude is practically impossible. To attain a decent
value for this error comparative testing programs have been performed in the past (Hammitt,
1966; Sherwood, 1970). By allowing different soil testing companies to conduct “identical”
tests at the same site, the scatter of results mirror the for the measurement error. As
stated earlier, the uncertainties in estimating the population mean will introduce further
variability. An adequate number of reliable and representative tests is needed to minimize
the uncertainty of the parameter governing the occurrence of a limit state (Lo and Li., 2007).
The value = 15% is typically used in previous studies (Phoon et al., 1995; Srivastava
and Babu, 2009) as the measurement error for cone penetration test ( ). The
representative used for dead loads vary depending on the extent of measurements
conducted but values around 10% have been adopted in previous papers (Ellingwood and
Tekie, 1999; Akbas and Kulhawy, 2009; Bengtsson et al., 1991).
2.5.3 Transformation error / Model uncertainty
It is rarely the case that the measurements collected in the field are directly applicable to the
design. To obtain the desired design values a transformation model is used to convert the
collected raw data. A certain degree of uncertainty will arise due to the fact that
transformation models are created by empirical data fitting (Phoon and Kulhawy, 1999b). The
deviation of “true” data scatter from the transformation model is quantified to represent this
error, see figure 2-3.
23
Ehnbom and Kumlin
Figure 2-3. Data scatter for transformation error (Phoon and Kulhawy, 1999b)
Since there is no published work on the direct relation between measured cone resistance
( qc ) from cone penetration tests ( ) or column penetration tests ( ) and the elastic
modulus in lime-cement columns ( Ecol ) the data must undergo two transformations leading
to two transformation errors to account for. When transforming measured ( qc ) to undrained
shear strength ( cu ,col ) the following equation is used (Jaksa et al., 1997):
qc   v 0
cu ,col 
(2-1)
Nk
where  v 0 is the total over burden stress and N k is a cone factor. The value of N k is difficult
to determine for improved soil and typical values in the range of 15-25 are recommended
when dealing with low strength columns whilst values as high as 30 may be used for stiffer
columns (Larsson, 2006).This transformation may also be used for unimproved soils and a
value of = 29% for this transformation was suggested by Srivastava and Babu (2009).
There are various transformations to be done, depending on the strength of the column.
Starting with the transformation applicable for low strength columns with a maximum cu =150
kPa, where the undrained shear strength is transformed into a corresponding by the
following equation given in TK Geo (2009):
24
Ehnbom and Kumlin
Ecol  20  cu ,col1.6
(2-2)
where cu ,col is to be given in kPa. In equation 2-2, the constant 20 is in the later report TK
Geo 11 (2011) changed to 13. For stiffer columns ( cu >150 kPa) there is as of today no direct
transformation model to apply. How to determine the in these cases can be found in
SGF (2000). The elastic modulus is here given in a span of:
(2-3) to
where it is depending on ground conditions. In Larsson (2006) the characteristic value when
columns are charged under 75% of the creep load of relative the creep stress ( ) is:
(2-4) to
for medium hard columns with from 150 kPa up to 300 kPa. This span is acknowledged by
the author as rough estimates. The correlation is derived according to the same report and
determined to be to , which would lead to the following span of :
(2-5) to
As a mean of equation 2-3 and a value that is consistent with equation 2-5, the following
relation is derived:
(2-6)
The many sources of information on this transformation have made it complicated

determining the magnitude of the transformation error.
2.6 Error evaluation
Calculating and combining the three errors mentioned above can be done using a second
moment probabilistic approach. To determine the mean ( ) and variance ( ) of the
desired value , a first order Taylor expansion can be used as suggested by Benjamin
and Cornell (1970). The evaluation and calculation itself is beyond the scope of this thesis.
Instead, focus has been put on a simpler way of portraying the total variance of the design
property by adding each error in normalized form:
25
Ehnbom and Kumlin
(2-7)
The equations shows us each individual contribution of uncertainty of the of the total
value of the , in which the indexes , and represent inherent soil variability,
statistical error and measurement error respectively. and are the transformation error
steps.
2.7 Concluding remarks
As mentioned above, engineers are aware of the many uncertainties and complexities
involved in the geotechnical field. Since every new construction site is unique and will reveal
different uncertainties in different magnitudes it seems obvious that the design should to
some extent account for these. The need for updating the conventional global safety factor
approach is eminent and can be achieved by .
26
Ehnbom and Kumlin
3 Probabilistic settlement analysis

methodology
This chapter focuses on the model that is represented by the limit state performance function
on the total settlement criterion of embankments on soil improved by lime-cement columns.
The intention is to explain and motivate the approach. The chapter includes mathematical
justifications and derivations, theory of the model, motivation of assumptions and details of
the input that are later used for the final result in chapter 4.
3.1 Outline of the methodology

The following steps were implemented in order to get to the final result based on guidelines
suggested by Phoon et al. (1995).
1. Selection of the limit state performance function that is best suited the problem.
2. Determine what design parameters to consider as stochastic and which ones will be
set to one value.
3. Conduct a study of the variations of the stochastic variables.
4. Determine the reliability level (safety index) that the performance function needs to
fulfill.
5. Run the model with input based on all determined values and follow the iterative
process (see figure 3-1).
6. Adjust the resistance factors until the reliability level is achieved.
27
Ehnbom and Kumlin
Figure 3-1. Flowchart of the models’ iterative process
3.2 Limit state design

In order to analyze the structural reliability, the limit state function G( x) needs to be
determined. The function consists of the vector x, which contains basic random variables
defining loads, material properties, etc. The function is defined by the limits:
G ( x)  0 Failiure domain
G ( x)  0 Safe domain
In the case of settlement analysis, the function G( x) is represented by:
G( x)   max   ( x1 , x2 ,.., xn )
(3-1)
where  max is the maximum allowable settlement and  is the settlement at a given point
affected by random parameters x1 , x2 ,.., xn (Bauer and Pula, 2000). In this particular model,
the random parameters are the unit weight of the embankment as well as the modulus of the
lime-cement columns and the surrounding soil.
28
Ehnbom and Kumlin
3.3 Model theory
The core of the model is the limit state performance function, based on the simple linear
elastic model of the composite soil (Larsson, 2006). The Young´s modulus of the columns
( ) and the oedometer modulus of the soil ( ) is averaged with respect to the area ratio
( ). This model assumes a uniform distribution of strain between the soil and the columns
(the Voigt model). The limit state function ( ) is given by:
h 
G( , M soil , Ecol )   max  L
(3-2) Ecol  a  M soil  (1  a)
where  max is the allowed maximum settlement, L is the length of the columns/ layer
thickness, h is the embankment height,  is the embankment unit weight. The variables are
visualized in figure 3-2 below.
embankment
soft soil
soil
col column
Figure 3-2. Illustration of model embankment and symbols
29
Ehnbom and Kumlin
The determination of the design value was made with respect to sensitivity factor according
to the partial coefficient method (Thoft-Christensen and Baker, 1982). The design value for
the variables  , and are corrected values with a limit state criterion as follows:
(3-3) xi  i  i     i
in which is the variable index, xi is any of the variables  , or , i is the variable
mean,  i is the variable sensitivity factor,  is the required safety index and  i is the variable
standard deviation which can be expanded as:
(3-4)
 i  COVi  i
where COVi is the variable coefficient of variation (e.g. ).
The limit state function is satisfactory if the following criterion is met:
(3-5)
By combining equations (3-2) to (3-5), the limit state function is expanded to:
(3-6)
( ) ( )
The sensitivity parameter is expressed as (Phoon, 2008):
G
 i
(3-7) i   i
 G
2

  i 
 i 
G
where is the derivative of G with respect to the variable i .
i
Equation (3-6) is actively used to solve the corresponding area ratio needed to satisfy the
required  . This is made by an iterative process (see figure 3-1) where the new design
values in the step are attained by:
(3-8)
in which n is the present iteration.

The new design value administer to G (eq. 3-2) used in  (eq. 3-7) of the next iteration. The
30
Ehnbom and Kumlin
equation (3-6) is used in each iteration with the initial  (from input) but with a new  (as just
mentioned) until it converges. The model is constructed to find the required a for the
demanded  . A short segment of the program can be seen below in figure 3-3 illustrating an
iteration. The program was created in MathCad 13 as a consequence of the programs
advantages of overseeable worksheets and failure tracking.
Figure 3-3. An illustration of an iteration excerpt from Mathcad 13
31
Ehnbom and Kumlin
3.4 Simplifications and assumptions

In general when dealing with geotechnical strength- and deformation properties, the
probability distribution is chosen as lognormal because: (1) most soil properties can be
modeled adequately as lognormal random variables and (2) negative values are inadmissible
(Akbas and Kulhawy, 2009). For the case of lime-cement columns, few studies have been
conducted on determining their strength distribution. According to experiments performed by
Honjo (1982) and Hedman (2003), the data tends to follow a normal distribution. However
Omine and Ochiai (2001) concluded that the results pointed more towards a Weibull-
distribution whilst Al-Naqshabandy et al. (2011) believed the data to follow a log-normal
distribution. For the many mathematical advantages, it was assumed in this thesis that all
data was normally distributed, enabling to focus more time on analyzing the results rather
than working on the model.
When installing columns, the distribution and incorporation of binder is normally stopped 0.5
to 1.0 m below the surface to reduce eventual spray up along the installation device. The
upper part of a soil profile also consists of a dry crust. The upper meter of columns may
therefore attain varying material properties (SGF, 2000). The guideline actually accepts a
lower value on the upper 2 meters (TK Geo, 2009). The case might even be that the new
shear strength is lower than the original in the upper meters. Since the material properties
may differ considerably, these effects have been neglected. The column length has been set
to 10 meters.
Another simplification in the model is that the columns are assumed to be installed down to
firm soil (figure 3-4) and the only layer containing columns and clay acts perfectly together as
a composite block with a weighted elastic modulus with respect to the area ratio. The
soil/column block is assumed to be linear elastic and the strength increase with time is
neglected. Since the columns are installed down to firm soil there is no stress distribution to
the surrounding soft soil (c.f. Alén et al., 2006). The maximum allowable stress level in the
columns is not considered.
32
Ehnbom and Kumlin
embankment
load
soft soil
column
Figure 3-4. Visualization of how the load is distributed along the columns
3.5 Input
The following study was focused on the performance function for settlements in the soil
under a road embankment. The requisite demanded criteria from the client were the
settlement and the level of safety. The model was used and iterated till a satisfying
(converged) area ratio was met. The values of the material mean parameters were derived
from reports and articles as well as the coefficients of variation ( ), also taken from
dissertations, etc. Below is a résumé of the input values (table 3-1). Clear conclusions cannot
always be drawn from input data collected from the literature study, since they assume a
wide span of values; therefore estimations of encounters in the literature study are
necessary. For instance is a subject of this, where it is mentioned (Kulhawy et al.,
2000) that the mean for soil and rock elasticity modulus is ranging from 30 to 40%, while
rock porosity and soil undrained shear strength have a mean of 25 to 35%. In the case
of the elasticity modulus, which has to go through transformations, the chosen method is
determined as a mean from equation 2-3 and is balanced with equation 2-5 in mind.
33
Ehnbom and Kumlin
Demanded values (by client)

Design variable Value Reference
Safety index (b) 1 Set value
Maximum settlement (δ) 0.15 m Set value
Determined input values

Shear strength ( ) 150 kPa SGF (2000)
Youngs modulus ( ) 100  cu ,col SGF (2000), equation 2-6
Oedometer modulus ( ) 500 kPa Set value
3
Unit weight embankment (γ) 20 kN/m TK Geo (2009)
Column length ( ) 10 m Set value
30% Kulhawy et al. (2000), table 2-1
7% Kulhawy (1992), table 2-1
Varying input values
Embankment height ( ) 2, 4, 6 m Set value
15, 30, 45% Set value
Table 3-1. Input values
34
Ehnbom and Kumlin
4 Results
This chapter presents the results of the model. The results are divided into three parts. Part
4.1 focuses on the comparison of the results with the same , while part 4.2 highlights
the contrast by comparing results of the same embankment height. Part 4.3 illustrates an
alternative result, where cu is varied.
4.1 Result analysis-sensitivity parameters
A relationship between area ratio ( a ) and the sensitivity parameters (  ) is graphed for each
and a Monte Carlo simulation has been conducted for each case. The histograms
below (figure 4-1 to 4-3) show the frequency distribution of 100000 runs of the performance
function with the safety index set to =1. The a needed to maintain the required safety for
the respective was also calculated. The top table in the following graphs show the
required a and  to fulfill the criterion =1 for given and embankment heights.
The study is presented in the cases of a road embankment of three varying heights and three
varying . The cases are stated as in the table 4-1 below.
Embankment height 15% 30% 45%

2m A D G
4m B E H
6m C F I
Table 4-1. The cases for given conditions
35
Ehnbom and Kumlin
Case Height a b  E ,col 

A 2 15% 0.184 1 0.817 0.241 0.525
B 4 15% 0.407 1 0.861 0.084 0.502
C 6 15% 0.629 1 0.870 0.034 0.492
COV 15%
A
Figure 4-1. Table and graphs for 15%
B C
D 2 30% 0.221 1 0.960 0.113 0.258
E 4 30% 0.490 1 0.971 0.034 0.235
F 6 30% 0.759 1 0.974 0.010 0.228
COV 30%
D
E F
36
Ehnbom and Kumlin

G 2 45% 0.282 1 0.989 0.056 0.138
H 4 45% 0.628 1 0.992 0.013 0.125
I 6 45% 0.974 1 0.993 0.005 0.121
COV 45%
G H I
The top graph in all of the figures illustrates the size of  for the stochastic variables (y-axis)
against the given a (x-axis). As can be seen in all these graphs is as a increases,  E ,col also
increases, whilst flatens out towards 0. The rate of which this occurred was however
directly related to the magnitude of the . The unit weight (  ) of the embankment has
a minor influence in all three situations but like that of the soils, it decreased in size as the
area ratio increased and the is enlargened.
The bottom three graphs in all of the figures illustrates histograms, where the x-axis
represents outcomes of the performance function, where values greater than zero are within
the safe range and values below zero are within the failure range.
37
Ehnbom and Kumlin
4.2 Result analysis-histograms
It could clearly be seen that an increase in resulted in a wider spread of the

outcomes of the performance function. To better illustrate the effect of varying degrees of
uncertainties, the histograms are hereby assembled for each different embankment height
and varying , for example cases A, D and G (figure 4-4). Keep in mind that  =1 for all
calculations.
Figure 4-4. Histogram for the 2 m high embankment, cases A,D and G
Figure 4-5. Histogram for the 4 m high embankment, cases B,E and H
38
Ehnbom and Kumlin
Figure 4-6. Histogram for the 6 m high embankment, cases C,F and I
These graphs (figure 4-4 to 4-6) show a clear spread, comparing the lines resembling the
different . The x-axis represents outcomes of the performance function, where values
greater than zero are within the safe range and values below zero are within the failure
range. All graphs illustrate for  =1 varying circumstances, which can be seen in the
similarities between them. The area ratio ( a ) for each respective line is noted on the right
hand side. The a attains higher values for larger and embankment heights. Analyzing
the graphs, the observer can see that there is a greater spread in between the lines in the 6
meter embankment (figure 4-6) due to the larger designs sensibility to changes in . The
lower embankment height (figure 4-4) shows less spread of values and is thus less sensitive
to .
39
Ehnbom and Kumlin
4.3 Alternative Results
All previous figures were results under the assumption that the measured undrained shear
strength value ( cu ) of the columns was set to the typical recommended value 150 kPa. This
section is therefore interesting because it is the measured property (  m ) which, according to

figure 2-3, will often attain varying values depending site conditions and installation
techniques. In other words, the column strength will in practice differ from 150 kPa. Although
cu may differ because of uncertainty, the measurement result might just attain other values
because of the type of soil the columns are installed in and the binder mixing. They will
assume values both lower (considered as low strength columns) and higher (stiff columns)
than the initial assumption in the result analysis. The result can therefore be observed at the
interest of various strengths. The choice has therefore been to model cu , as seen below
(figures 4-7 to 4-9), as a variable ranging from 100-250 kPa on the X-axis and area ratio
needed to maintain  =1 on the Y-axis for different embankment heights and .
Embankment 2m
𝒂
𝒄𝒖
Figure 4-7. Area ratio as a function of the undrained shear strength for the embankment
height of 2 meters
40
Ehnbom and Kumlin
Embankment 4m
𝒄𝒖
height of 4 meters
Embankment 6m
𝒂
𝒄𝒖
height of 6 meters
Studying the graphs in figures 4-7 to 4-9, it can be seen how a decreases when
increases. For the lower embankment (figure 4-7), a is relatively low compared to the higher
embankment (figure 4-9). When increases a decreases relatively rapidly, showing that
should be carefully determined in order to optimize the design. The tendency is clear
that a higher embankment would result in a magnification of the compared to the area
ratio, i.e. a high in a 2 meter high embankment would not have as large of an effect as
in a 6 meter embankment.
41
Ehnbom and Kumlin
5 Discussion
In the following chapter we wish to highlight concerns and conclusions that arose during the
formation of this thesis. Issues concerning simplifications and assumptions made, criticism
towards current practice and possible suggestions on improvement based on the results.
This section is devoted for the authors of the thesis to express conclusions regarding the use
of the statistical approach as well as the result of the computational methods.
5.1 Simplifications and assumptions

Although there already is a prior chapter about the necessary simplifications and assumption
made in this thesis, there are still measures that are not justified by the literature study.
These are good for the reader to know about and may be a guide to further investigations. In
a more appropriate manner, we want to argue for and display our concern for them.
Initially, having only a few months to accurately analyze and apply to settlement
calculation for embankments on ground improved by lime-cement columns, it has been
difficult to limit the scope and mathematical complexity of the work. The topic in question has
for the past decade been a “current” issue, to which many researchers have devoted heaps
of time and resources. In order to produce a thesis with any relevant content, a lot of
simplifications and assumptions have been made partly due to not using a finite element
methodical program. Ironically, the aim was to minimize or even abolish the amount of
assumptions and rely solely on mathematical and statistical theory. A goal we later realized
was unreachable within the proposed time schedule leading us to question the quality of the
results.
A bold, but necessary simplification made was to set the whole column height as one layer
which overlays firm soil when calculating the settlement. This can be justified by clarifying
that the aim of this thesis is to demonstrate the differences in the results of varying not
to get the optimal results of a settlement by defining various layers. The columns and the soil
are also assumed to work perfectly together as an ideal composite material.
Another assumption was made when deciding which sizes of were to be used for the
respective parameters. The values were decided based upon approximate ranges and
relationships from previous studies. The tended to be greater than that for
and the for the embankment materials unit weight, , was typically within or under
42
Ehnbom and Kumlin
10-15%. The low uncertainties of  have also been acknowledged by Foye et al. (2006). We
wish to highlight a conclusion made in the same report; that the difference of found s
from examined reports most likely is a result of the difference of their approaches. Many
authors lump statistics from various sources together, thus resulting in a greater scatter of
uncertainty. The initial values in this thesis were chosen within the proposed ranges and for
each other cases only one variable was varied, namely . Naturally, unlimited
combinations of all the can occur, of course within logical boundaries. The utilized
values for and are estimations of what was found in the literature study
process. Both of these have variations and other choices can be motivated based on
measurement and experiences.
Because of limited time, the input of the model was focused on varying one , specifically
the material parameter this thesis main subject circuits around, . Furthermore, an
expectation which questions the quality of the model concerns the distribution of the
properties. Normally distributed geotechnical properties will lead to negative settlements
when the , in this case , attain high values exceeding 45%. A lognormal
distribution would doubtlessly represent reality better but due to restricted time this was not
investigated further. However, the results are presented for low and a well conducted
investigation using lognormally distributed variables would most likely display similar results
and content, as long as the values does not get too high. Another issue of concern is
that a geotechnical problem has its complexities and is troublesome in practice and reality
due to the limitations of not being able to control the quality of the materials in use. Soil
complexity and constructions made in-situ are significantly more difficult to control, than
constructions in a structural engineering, such as for example beams that can be quality
tested after production. Or a lab, where for example spatial variations and measurement (due
to ergonomics and human factors) do not correspond to field practice. This aspect is one of
the motives for conducting this research.
5.2 The model

We have constructed a working model that gives an representative result. There are however
several methods of making a theoretical model interpretation to a problem. The procedure of
the model is hereby discussed.
In the aspect of the limit state function, the Hasofer-Lind approach was used to the first order
reliability method, similar to the one proposed by Baecher et al. (2003). However, we have
43
Ehnbom and Kumlin
chosen to set a fixed and iterate until a satisfactory is met rather than the contrary. The
steps for each iteration consist of a performance function with respect to material parameters
(means), and to solve for a set of given input values. The calculated is inserted to
achieve new values which is needed to solve the limit state function and return . If the
has yet not reached the target value, it is used to give new design values, namely Ecol ,
and  . This procedure is iterated, till converged to the target value, also with help by raising
. We believe that this procedure is an appropriate way of solving the model.
In the study by Wang (2009), the foundations’ construction costs were clearly shown to
increase as the geotechnical property uncertainties increased. If investments were made for
further investigations to reduce uncertainties, the cost for the design would be less, although
this needs to be weighed against the cost for the investigation. If it is indeed cost effective,
additional efforts should be made. It is undoubtedly a circular procedure to optimize a
geotechnical design as the necessary information has to be obtained from the site and from
an already produced design. What incentive is there to do this all again just to refine the
construction when an optimization takes time and several attempts for reconstructions?
According to Fenton and Griffiths (2005), the ideal working procedure would be to start out
the design on the safe side, i.e. with large variances, and then refine it as sufficient
information is collected. In practice this is unfortunately a difficult and industrious task. An
alternative is to conduct the design with slimmer margins followed by careful monitoring and
correction of potential failure modes. The so called observational method is most effective
where there is a wide range of uncertainty and its objective is to achieve greater overall
economy without compromising safety (Patel et al., 2007).
5.3 Input criticism

The model relies on the values and parameters that it is derived from and consists of. It is as
strong as its weakest link. That’s why we carefully conducted a literature study to collect and
assemble all the necessary data. Usually, several values were motivated, which made the
process troublesome and time consuming. Occasionally, reports were too general to
determine the relevance of the data. The study was although important to get as close to the
scope as possible and to raise reliability of the input. The fact that the range of reports
concerning the specific problem discussed in this thesis are limited enables one to, for better
or worse, try to evaluate the significance and weight of the subject at hand.
44
Ehnbom and Kumlin
The choice of the strength and deformation properties of the lime-cement columns, the soil
modulus and the unit weight of the embankment are recommended estimates from
guidelines or stated examples, and represent common behavior of the material in-situ. There
are sources of error in these as there obviously exist spatial variability, measurement errors,
et cetera. The uncertainty is reflected in the coefficient of variation for the above mentioned
parameters. We took provided spatial variability, transformation error, statistical error and
measurement error into account to estimate relevant to use, they were summarized
into the total of the parameters used in the model (see section 2.6). All of this data was
extracted from articles mentioned in chapter 2. There are however local variations on these
coefficients on for example spatial variability because of ground conditions and measurement
errors because of ergonomic reasons. Naturally, the geographical position here in Sweden
provides different values due to the characteristic postglacial soil in comparison to other
places in the world. This could be interesting to study, aimed at gathering information on the
geographical connection of geotechnical properties for Eurocode 7. But as this is beyond the
scope of our work and the limits of research, the most reasonable and well-justified data for
strength characteristics (preferably from Swedish guidelines) were chosen for the model. A
reasonable method could also be to move away as much as possible from guidelines as to
reduce the influence of conservatism and empirism. However, what indeed was in the scope
of the thesis was to run the model with different to study the sensitivity of the results.
This is a necessary measure to see the sensitivity parameters’ ( ) impact on the
performance function, i.e. the settlement. This can been seen by observing how different
are affecting the area ratio in figure 4-1 to 4-3. The choice of varying the for given
parameters was in an early stage of the work stated as a method to conduct the research
and to vary is assumed to be warranted. As well as in reality there are various
on different sites and by measurements made by different practitioners. The combination of
the in the respective cases of embankment heights includes conflicts, mainly because
of temporal limits. The mixture of those could be infinite to plot in a result analysis. The
choice of only varying was a chosen limitation to limit the workload. We do not know
the relationships between the for the parameters , and . Further
investigations are recommended on this subject for further studies.
Due to the choice of working with a model based on normally distributed variables we were
putting weight on relatively low , as higher values are uncertain to use in a model where
the variables are normally distributed. This is explained in previous chapters. However, we
still wanted the different values of to have enough span to show a contrast in the
results. The transformation (equation 2-6), a mean of equation 2-3 and
45
Ehnbom and Kumlin
within the range of equation 2-5 was used in the calculations instead of Ecol  20  cu ,col
1.6
(equation 2-2). Initial calculation with the latter value lead to unreasonably high and
inconsequent results in which Ecol became the sole contributor to the models result, i.e. the
remaining parameters influence was negligible. The chosen transformation gave logical
values of Ecol and also satisfied transformation for stiffer columns than kPa,
values that appear in the alternative result (section 4.3). Concerning , there is the
question regarding how accurate the measuring is, as the column strength is dependent
of time and the measurement cannot for practical and administrative reasons be too delayed.
Therefore, the measurement is most likely made before final strength is reached.
The objective and method of the thesis has changed significantly under the time spent.
Different method ideas and reasonable input data have been accumulated during the
progress of the thesis. However, there is opposition to adjust all these actions, because of
the inconvenience to waste the work of initial phases. For future studies, we recommend a
well done and well documented process from beginning to end, and the patience to review all
work objectively.
5.4 Consequences of the result

This section is meant to discuss the outcomes of the model and what might have led to
those.
With the result in hand, can we feel that we have accomplished something? The answer is
both yes and no. The complications of creating a working model for the case at hand were
more than expected and the question is if the result is of any use with all the assumptions
made. However, we can clearly conclude that, as far as we can see, there are benefits with
in the way we have used it. If the graphs and tables are dissected, there are apparent
differences depending on input parameters, et cetera. This shows that using and
keeping in mind gives a positive result in order to optimize the design.
In the thesis, several conclusions can be drawn. One is that there is an economic incentive to
perform a more thorough analysis on the site. Suppose an example of two different
contractors with different standards/methods concerning the working procedure on the same
site. They have the same assignment; to install lime-cement columns for a 1 km long road
embankment. The client has left the same requirements for both with respect to allowable
settlements and factor of safety. The only difference is that they have different experience of
46
Ehnbom and Kumlin
measuring methods. This could result in various errors due to for example the measuring
experience (measurement error), quantity of measured material (statistical error) and
investigation in correction of the inherent variability (detrending). After conducting necessary
measurements the result could be a difference of the total between the two contractors.
This can be seen in the our results (figures 4-4 to 4-6), referring to for example the 6 meter
high embankments in cases C and I (figure 4-6) that consist of the same design parameters
with the only exception that case C could represent a practitioner that “conducted more
thorough measurements” and thus lowered the with as much as 30% compared to the
other. In this case the calculated requisite area ratio decreased from 0.974% to 0.629%. If
we just make a simplified calculation of the cost earned by this improvement resulting in a
lowered area ratio, a decrease of 35%, it would lower the price tag equally. For a project
where the cost for Case I was 50.000.000 SEK, the new cost for Case C would amount to
32.000.000 SEK, assumed that initial costs such as those for establishing would be
neglected. This effect will be slightly magnified if the columns attain lower strength properties
as can be seen in figures 4-7 to 4-9. However, we do not know how much more it costs for
the contractor to make this careful measurement, nevertheless there could be an economic
incentive to perform this effort especially when dealing with larger projects. This would
naturally lead to a winning design by the more thorough engineer. If optimizing is the
ruling cause for an entry to win a design contest or not is just speculations although we
believe an improved design method including would benefit the geotechnical
community considerably. This might be an idea for further studies.
As can be seen in figures 4-1 to 4-3, the is the imminent factor in the design, and
needs to minimized. We believe that there is a high price not to have a tool for measuring the
Young’s Modulus for columns directly from field tests that could eradicate the transformation
error of otherwise necessary conversions. This could lower the total for columns
significantly. A direct field measurement apparatus to determine the Ecol with greater
precision in-situ would reduce the total values resulting in an economical gain while
maintaining acceptable safety. An alternative would be to extract a sample from the column,
bring it back to the laboratory and conduct an oedometer test, corresponding to the method
used for determining the oedometer modulus, . A problem though is that there is a high
variability connected to tests on small samples (Larsson, 2005). Furthermore, undisturbed
sampling in lime-cement columns is relatively difficult (Axelsson, 2001). However, better
measuring equipment is in general a good alternative solution to diminish the uncertainties in
calculations. Something that the designer always should strive for in order to minimize the
47
Ehnbom and Kumlin
total is a low inherent variability, i. e. invest in a good production. This factor is always
going to exist, as measurement error etc. improves. It is therefore a crucial goal to improve
the overall design.
As stated earlier, the contribution of the three uncertainties to the total uncertainty in the
design depends mainly on the site conditions, mixing process, control method, and precision
of the correlation model. The site condition is a factor that we have no control over and will
always remain as an uncertainty that needs to be taken into account. The uncertainties
concerning measurement and transformation will on the other hand still remain as large
contributing factors to the total uncertainty and minimizing these should be the main focus.
This is especially true when determining the Young’s modulus of lime-cement columns
because of the two transformations needed to get the desired design value. As mentioned by
Al-Naqshabandy et al. (2011), we also wish to speculate that high total may very well
be the result of small volume tested and further investigation should be put on testing larger
volumes of the material, as variability is volume dependent. The importance of soils inherent
variation is also a concern that needs to be weighted and how great its detrendation needs to
be. Yet another aspect not discussed is the mixing materials’ inherent variability that is
dependent on the carefulness of the mixing process with the soil.
Another topic that should be discussed but has not been given much emphasis in this report
is that concerning the statistical error which arises when estimating the populations’ material
parameter from the measurements. The number of tests taken varies depending on the
projects vastness but general guidelines suggest that a half to one percent of the columns
should be tested (Larsson, 2006). More often than not however, because of practical
reasons, these tests are taken within a close proximity of each other, instead of an even
distribution around the whole affected area. They may thus not mirror the total population’s
values with great certainty.
5.5 Conclusion
We ask ourselves if the point of conducting this research is still significant as the
assumptions gather up one after another. In a way, the aim of this thesis is to reduce use of
assumptions (empirism and conventional methods) and to observe those that are necessary
to obtain a fully tested trustworthy impression. Yet we depend on many assumptions, without
paying regard to them, which is the idea of . This is mainly a result of the temporal limit.
The thesis has however come to the conclusion that there are many positive aspects of using
in this field, as the literature study proposed. Using it efficiently will indeed fulfill the
48
Ehnbom and Kumlin
three main drives of engineering design. Hopefully, further research is refined and finally a
complete model can be built on science and accuracy.
49
Ehnbom and Kumlin
6 Suggestions for further studies

The following is a summary of what has been mentioned earlier in the thesis as suggestions
for further studies:
 Economic consequences of and costs for additional investigation in order to

lower the and give attention to the parameter that affects the design and explore
it economically.
 Use the model with less/different assumptions, for example with more combinations
of varying layer thicknesses.
 Analyzing the statistical error more thoroughly to determine a cost versus accuracy
graph to model the optimal amount of tests needed for projects of varying sizes.
 Assume lognormal distribution of properties and adapt the model after this.
 Correlation of parameters in the model.
 Increase of column strength with time.
50
Ehnbom and Kumlin
7 References
Al-Naqshabandy, M. S., Bergman, N., Larsson, S., 2011. Strength Variability in Lime-Cement
Columns Based on CPT data. Proceeding of the ICE - Ground Improvement, Vol. 164.
Alén, C., Sällfors, G., Bengtsson, P., Baker, S., 2006. Test Embankments Highway
45/Nordlänken. Embankments on Ground Supported by Lime-Cement Columns –
Calculation Model for Settlements (Provbankar Riksväg 45/Nordlänken. Bankar på
Kalcementpelarförstärkt jord – Beräkningsmodell för Sättningar), Swedish Deep Stabilization
Research Centre, Linköping (In Swedish).
Akbas, S. O., 2007. Deterministic and Probabilistic Assessment of

Settlements of Shallow Foundations in Cohesionless Soils. Ph.D. Thesis,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Akbas, S. O., Kulhawy, F. H., 2009. Reliability-Based Design Approach for Differential
Settlement of Footings on Cohesionless Soils. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 135: 1779-1788.
Akbas, S. O., Kulhawy, F. H., 2010. Characterization and Estimation of Geotechnical

Variability in Ankara Clay: A Case History. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Vol.
28: 619-631.
Axelsson, M., 2001. Deep Stabilization With Lime Cement Columns - Methods for Quality
Control in the Field (Djupstabilisering med Kalkcementpelare – Metoder för
Produktionsmässig Kvalitetskontroll i Fält), Report No. 8. Swedish Deep Stabilization
Research Centre, Linköping (In Swedish).
Baecher, G. B., Christian, J. T., 2003. Reliability and Statistics in Geotechnical Engineering.
John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Baker, S. Deformation Behavior of Lime/cement Column Stabilized Clay. Doctoral thesis

(1634), Chalmers University of Technology. Department of Geotechnical Engineering,
Gothenburg.
Bauer, J., Pula, W., 2000. Reliability with Respect to Settlement Limit-States of Shallow
Foundations on Linearly-Deformable Subsoil. Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 26: 281–
308.
Becker, D. E., 1997. Eighteenth Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium: Limit State Design for
Foundations. Part I. An Overview of the Foundation Design Process. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 33: 956-983.
Bengtsson, P., Berggren, B., Ohlsson, L., Stille, H., 1991. Geotechics and Statistics: Partial
Coefficients (Geoteknik och Statistik: Partialkoefficienter), Report R25:1991.
Byggforskningsrådet, Stockholm (In Swedish).
51
Ehnbom and Kumlin
Benjamin, J. R., Cornell, C. A., 1970. Probability, Statistics and Decision for Civil Engineers.
McGraw Hill, New York.
Broms, B., 1984. Stabilization of Soil with Lime Columns: Design Handbook (3rd edition),
Lime Column AB, Lindome.
Carlsten, P., 1989. Manual to Limeset (Manual till Limeset), (SGI Varia 248), Swedish
Geotechnical Institute, Linköping (In Swedish).
Deutsch, C.V., 2002. Geostatistical Resevoir Modeling. Oxford University Press, New York.
Duncan, J. M., 2000. Factors of Safety and Reliability in Geotechnical Engineering. ASCE
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol 126: 307–316.
El-Ramly, H., Morgenstern, N. R., Cruden, D. M., 2002. Probabilistic Slope Stability Analysis
for Practice. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 39: 665-683.
Ellingwood, B. R., Tekie, P. B., 1999. Wind Load Statistics for

Probability-Based Structural Design. Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 125: 453–463.
ENV 1997-1, Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design – Part 1: General Rules. European

Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, 1997.
Fenton, G. A. 1999. Estimation of Stochastic Soil Models. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Fenton, G. A., Griffiths, D. V., 2005. Three-Dimensional Foundation Settlement. ASCE

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 131: 232-239.
Foye, K. C., Salgado, M., Scott, B., 2006a. Assessment of Variable Uncertainties for
Reliability-Based Design of Foundations. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Green, R., Becker, D., 2001. National Report on Limit State Design in Geotechnical
Engineering: Canada. Geotechnical News, Vol. 19: 47-55.
Hammitt, G. M., 1966. Statistical Analysis of Data from a Comparative Laboratory Test
Program Sponsored by ACIL. U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Hammond, C. J., Prellwitz, R. W., Miller, S. M., 1991. Landslide Hazard Assessment using
Monte Carlo Simulation. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium, 1992,
Christchurch, New Zealand. Vol. 2: 959-964. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Harr, M. E., 1987. Reliability-Based Design in Civil Engineering. Mc-Graw-Hill, New York.
52
Ehnbom and Kumlin
Hedman, P., Kuokkanen, M., 2003. Strength Disstribution in Lime-Cement Columns

(Hållfasthetsfördelning I Kalkcementpelare). Master Thesis, Dept. Soil and Rock Mechanics,
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm (In Swedish).
Honjo, Y., 1982. A Probabilistic Approach to Evaluate Shear Stregth of Heterogenerous

Stabilized Ground by Deep Mixing Method. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 22: 23-38.
Honjo, Y., Hara, T., Suzuki, M., Shirato, M., Kieu Le, T. C., Kikuchi, Y., 2009. Code
Calibration in Reliability Based Design Level I Verification Format for Geotechnical
Structures. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Geotechnical Safety and
Risk (IS-Gifu 2009), Gifu: 435-452. Taylor and Francis Group, London.
Jaksa, M.B., Brooker, P.I., Kaggwa, W.S., 1997. Modelling the spatial variability of the
undrained shear strength of clays soils using geostatistics. In Proceedings of the Fifth
International Geostatistics Congress, Dordrecht: 1284-1295.
Kazemian, S., Ghiasi, V., Huat, B., 2011. Effect of Cement on Peat Stabilization. In The
Proceeding of the First Iranian Students Scientific Conference in Malaysia, Malaysia.
Kulhawy, F. H., 1984, Limiting Tip and Side Resistance: Fact or Fallacy?. In Proceedings
of the Symposium on the Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, American Society of
Civil Engineers, San Francisco, California: 80-98.
Kulhawy, F. H., 1992. On Evaluation of Static Soil Properties. Geotechnical Special

Publication 31: 95-115.
Kulhawy, F. H., Birgisson, B., Grigoriu, M. D., 1992. Reliability Based Foundation Design for
Transmission Line Structures: Transformations Models for In Situ Tests. In Report EL-
5507(4). Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California.
Kulhawy, F. H., Phoon, K. K., Prakoso, W. A., 2000. Uncertainty in the Basic Properties of
Natural Geomaterials. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Geotechnical
Engineering Education & Training, Sinaia, Romania: 297-302.
Kulhawy, F. H., Phoon, K. K., 2002. Observations on Geotechnical Reliability-Based Design

Development in North America, Foundation. In Design Codes & Soil Investigation in View of
International Harmonization & Performance Based Design: 31-48. Edited by Honjo. Y.et al.
Balkema, Lisse-Netherlands.
Lacasse, S., Nadim, F., 1997. Uncertainties in Characterizing Soil Properties. (Publication
No. 201), Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, Norway, 49–75.
Larsson, R., 2006. Deep Stabilization with Binder Stabilized Columns and Mass Stabilization
– A Guide (Djupstabilisering med Bindemedelsstabiliserade Pelare och Masstabilisering – En
Vägledning), (Report 17). Swedish Deep Stabilization Research Centre, Linköping (In
Swedish).
Larsson, S., 2005. State of Practice Report: Execution, Monitoring and Quality Control. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Deep Mixing, Best Practice and Recent
Advances, Stockholm, Vol. 2: 732-785.
53
Ehnbom and Kumlin
Larsson, S., Stille, H., Olsson, L., 2005. On Horizontal Variability in Lime-Cement Columns in
Deep Mixing, Géotechnique, Vol. 55: 33-44.
Lo, S. R., Li, K. S., 2007. Characteristic and Design Soil Parameters: Use of Statistics,
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 160: 141-146.
Low, B. K., Tang, W. T., 1997. Reliability Anasysis of Reinforced Enbankments on Soft
Ground. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 34: 672-685.
Mortensen, K., 1983. Is Limit State Design a Judgment Killer?, Bulletin 35, Danish
Geotechnical Institute, Copenhagen.
Navin, M. P., 2005. Stability of Embankments Founded on Soft Soil Improved with Deep-
Mixing-Method Column. Center for Geotechnical Practice and Research, Blacksburg, VA.
Nilsson, A., 2008. Spatial Correlation Concerning the Strength of a Reinforced Column.
(Master thesis). Royal Institute of Technology, Institution for Soil and Rock Mechanics,
Stockholm.
Noh, Y., Choi, K. K., Lee, I., Gorsich, D., Lamb, D., 2011. Reliability-Based Design
Optimization with Confidence Level under Input Model Uncertainty due to Limited Test Data.
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Vol. 42: 443-458.
Oliphant, J., 1992. Controlling the Safety of Geotechnical Structures: A Proposed Approach.
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Vol. 10: 273-289.
Omine, K., Ochiai, H., 2001. Prediction of Strength of Cement-Treated Soil Column
Based on Size Effect. In Proc. 15th ICSMGE, Istanbul, Vol. 2: 1537-1540.
Orr T., Matsui L., Day, P., 2002. Survey of Geotechnical Investigation Methods and
Determination of Parameter Values. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on
Foundation Design Codes and Soil Investigation in View of International Harmonization and
Performance Based Design, Tokyu: 227-235.
Patel, D., Nicholson, D., Huybrechts, N., Maertens, J., 2007. The Observational Method in
Geotechnics.
Phoon, K. K., Kulhawy, F. H., Grigoriu, M. D., 1995. Reliability-Based Design of Foundations
for Transmission Line Structures. In Report TR-105000. Electric Power Research Institute,
Palo Alto, California.
Phoon, K. K., Kulhawy, F. H.,1996. Practical Reliability-Based Design Approach for

Foundation Engineering. Transportation Research Record 1546: 94-99.
Phoon, K. K., Kulhawy, F. H., 1999a. Characterization of Geotechnical

Variability. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 36: 612-
624.
54
Ehnbom and Kumlin
Phoon, K. K., Kulhawy, F. H.,1999b. Evaluation of Geotechnical

Property Variability. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 36:
625-639.
Phoon, K. K., Quek, S., An, P., 2003. Identification of Statistically Homogenous Soil Layer
Using Modified Bartlett Statistics. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol.129: 649-659.
Phoon, K, K., 2008. Reliability-based Design in Geotechnical Engineering: Computations and

Applications. Taylor & Francis Ltd, London, Great Britain.
SGF Report 2:2000, Lime- and Lime-cement Columns: Guidance for the Planning, Execution
and Control (Kalk- och Kalkcementpelare: Vägledning för Projektering, Utförande och
Kontroll). Swedish Geotechnical Society, Linköping, 2000 (In Swedish).
Sherwood, P. T., 1970. The Reproducibility of the Results of Soil Classification and
Compaction Tests. In Road Research Laboratory Report No. LR 339. Road Research
Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berks.
Shirato, M., Fukui J., Matsui, K., 2002. Present Situation Regarding Ground Investigation and
the Determination of Geotechnical Parameters in Japan. In Proceedings of the International
Workshop on Foundation Design Codes and Soil Investigation in View of International
Harmonization and Performance Based Design: 237-243.
Srivastava, A., Babu, S., 2009. Effect of Soil Variability on the Bearing Capacity of Clay and
in Slope Stability Problems. Journal of Engineering Geology, Vol. 108: 142-152.
Thoft-Christensen, P., Baker, M. J., 1982. Structural Reliability Theory and its Applications.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York.
TK Geo, Technical Requirements Document Geo (Tekniska Kravdokument Geo),

(Publication 2009:46). Vägverket, Borlänge, 2009 (In Swedish).
TK Geo 11, The Traffic Boards Technical Requirements for Geostructures (Trafikverkets
Tekniska Krav för Geokonstruktioner), (Publication 2011:047). Trafikverket, Borlänge, 2011
(In Swedish).
Vanmarcke, E. H., 1977. Probabilistic Modeling of Soil Profiles. ASCE Journal of

Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 103: 1227-1246.
Wang, W., Wu, J., Lust, R. V., 1997. Deterministic Design, Reliability-Based Design and
Robust Design. In Proceedings of the MSC 1997 Aerospace Users' Conference, #2597.
Wang, W., 2009. Reliability-Based Economic Design Optimization of Spread Foundations.

ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 135: 954-959.
55
Ehnbom and Kumlin
Åhnberg, H., Holm, G., 1986. The Lime Column Method (Kalkpelarmetoden), (SGI Rapport
31), Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Linköping (In Swedish).
Åhnberg, H., 2006. Strength of Stabilized Soils – A Laboratory Study on Clays and Organic
Soils Stabilized with Different Types of Binder. Doctoral Thesis (LUTVDG/TVSM-06/1020),
Lund University, Lund.
56

Lime Cement Reliability Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lime Cement Reliability Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lime Cement Reliability Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reliability Based Design

Victor Ehnbom and Filip Kumlin

Master of Science Thesis 11/06

Reliability Based Design

Victor Ehnbom and Filip Kumlin

Victor Ehnbom and Filip Kumlin 2011

Stockholm, September 2011

Victor Ehnbom and Filip Kumlin

1.2 Aim .............................................................................................................................13

1.3 Outline of thesis ..........................................................................................................13

2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................15

2.2 Settlement calculations ...............................................................................................15

2.3 Limit state design and statistical approach ..................................................................16

2.4 Use of RBD .................................................................................................................18

2.5 Errors ..........................................................................................................................20

2.5.1 Inherent soil variability ..........................................................................................22

2.5.2 Measurement error ...............................................................................................23

2.5.3 Transformation error / Model uncertainty ..............................................................23

2.6 Error evaluation...........................................................................................................25

2.7 Concluding remarks ....................................................................................................26

3 Probabilistic settlement analysis methodology ...................................................................27

3.1 Outline of the methodology .........................................................................................27

3.2 Limit state design ........................................................................................................28

3.3 Model theory ...............................................................................................................29

3.4 Simplifications and assumptions .................................................................................32

4.1 Result analysis-sensitivity parameters ........................................................................35

4.2 Result analysis-histograms .........................................................................................38

4.3 Alternative Results ......................................................................................................40

5.1 Simplifications and assumptions .................................................................................42

5.2 The model ...................................................................................................................43

5.3 Input criticism ..............................................................................................................44

5.4 Consequences of the result ........................................................................................46

5.5 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................48

6 Suggestions for further studies ..........................................................................................50

cu Undrained shear strength

Ecol Elastic modulus for the column

G ( x) Limit state function

qc Cone tip resistance

Sv Vane shear test undrained strength

w Inherent soil variability

Vector containing random variables

Sensitivity parameter for the columns’ elasticity modulus

Sensitivity parameter for the embankment material unit weight (load)

Sensitivity parameter for the soils elasticity modulus (oedometer modulus)

 Maximum allowable settlement

Mean for the columns’ elasticity modulus

Standard deviatino for the columns’ elasticity modulus

Variance for the columns’ elasticity modulus

Coefficient of variation for the columns’ elasticity modulus

Coefficient of variation for the embankment material unit weight

Coefficient of variation for the soils elasticity oedometer modulus

Cone penetration test

First-order reliability method

Limit state design

Reliability based design

Reliability based design optimization

Serviceability limit sate

stat Statistical uncertainty

Ultimate limit state