Free access
Corrections
Jan 20, 2020

Erratum for “Implementing the Extended Multivariate Approach in Design with Partial Factors for a Retaining Wall in Clay” by Anders Prästings, Johan Spross, Rasmus Müller, Stefan Larsson, William Bjureland, and Fredrik Johansson

You are viewing the correction.
VIEW THE CORRECTED ARTICLE
Publication: ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering
Volume 6, Issue 2
Several corrections should be made to the original paper. The errors include corrections to Eqs. (8) and (9). Furthermore, a mistake in the calculation of the uncertainty related to random measurement error, COVe,Di, requires corrections to Table 4 and to Figs. 7, 9, and 10. The corrections of the calculation results are inconsequential and do not alter the conclusions of the published paper. The corrections are given subsequently.
Table 4. Uncertainty factors in the evaluation of the total uncertainty
DiniCOVsp,D¯iaCOVst,D¯ibCOVe,Di/COVe,D¯icCOVtr,D¯idCOVs¯u|Di
CPT960.0720.0110.03e/0.0030.13Fig. 7
CRS530.0660.0170.043f/0.0060.11Fig. 7
DSS410.0660.0170.043f/0.004Fig. 7
Prior0.20
a
See Müller et al. (2014), Eqs. (3a) and (6b).
b
See Müller et al. (2014), Eqs. (3b) and (6a). The COVst,D¯i is dependent on z, and the given value is the average value from 5 to 35 m of depth.
c
Evaluated according to COVe,D¯i2=COVe,Di2/ni.
d
Evaluated with guidance from Phoon and Kulhawy (1999).
e
Evaluated from the ACF as 15% of the variability in performed measurements (COVsp,Di2+COVe,Di2 where COVe,Di2=0.15COVDi2) (Fig. 6) according to Baecher (1983).
f
Assumed as 30% of the variability in performed measurements (COVsp,Di2+COVe,Di2 where COVe,Di2=0.3COVDi2).
Fig. 7. Results from the EMA: (a) COVs¯u|Di and posterior COVs¯u evaluated using the EMA; and (b) s¯u|Di and posterior s¯u evaluated using the EMA.
Fig. 9. Results from calibration of η and calculation of characteristic values: (a) COV in relation to η and α according to Eq. (5); and (b) xc{SNA} calculated via η based on values of α ranging from 0.6 to 1.0, in comparison to xc,5%{EC7} and x¯c,95%{EC7}.
Fig. 10. Results from calibration of γM/η and calculation of design values: (a) COV in relation to γM/η and α according to Eq. (5); and (b) xd{mod} calculated via γM/η based on values of α ranging from 0.6 to 1.0, in comparison to xd{EC7} calculated from xc,5%{EC7} and x¯c,95%{EC7}.

Corrections to Section “Project Description and Site Characterization” [Eqs. (8a), (8b), and (9)]

In Eqs. (8) and (9), the braces defining the measured or evaluated property, δi, and transformation factor, Ci, are incorrectly stated. The correct equations are provided as follows:
su|CRS=σp×OCR0.2δCRS×aDCCRS
(8a)
su|CPT=qnet×(OCR1.3)0.2δCPT×1NkCCPT
(8b)
su|DP=σv×OCR0.8δP×0.22CP
(9)

Corrections to Section “Evaluation of Uncertainty in the Mean Undrained Shear Strength” (Table 4)

An incorrect version of Table 4 was published. A mistake in the calculation of COVe,Di was found for which corrections are provided in the revised Table 4. The correct equation is COVe,Di2=0.15COVDi2 (in footnote e) and COVe,Di2=0.3COVDi2 (in footnote f). This causes subsequent errors in the estimation of the inherent (spatial) variability, COVsp,Di, and the statistical uncertainty, COVst,D¯i, which were calculated according to Müller et al. (2014). In the corrected version of Table 4 both COVe,Di and COVe,D¯i are incorporated for clarification. Corrected values in the table are in bold.

Subsequent Corrections to Section “Uncertainty in the Mean Undrained Shear Strength Evaluated from the EMA” (Fig. 7)

The correction to the coefficients of variation (COVs) in Table 4 requires a small subsequent modification of the total uncertainty COVs¯u|Di and of the posterior uncertainty COVs¯u in Fig. 7. The effect on Fig. 8 is negligible.

Subsequent Corrections to Section “Characteristic Values” (Fig. 9)

The correction of COVs¯u requires a small subsequent modification of the mean value of the posterior uncertainty, COV¯s¯u into 0.054, and the evaluated conversion factor, η, in Fig. 9. Thus, when α varies between 1.0 and 0.6, η ranges from 1.16 to 1.29.

Subsequent Corrections to Section “Design Values” (Fig. 10)

The correction of COV¯s¯u requires a subsequent modification of the evaluated flexible partial factor, γM/η, in Fig. 10. Thus, when α varies between 1.0 and 0.6, γM/η ranges from 1.16 to 1.29.

References

Baecher, G. B. 1983. “Simplified geotechnical data analysis.” In Reliability theory and its application in structural and soil mechanics, edited by P. Thoft-Christensen, 257–277. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Müller, R., S. Larsson, and J. Spross. 2014. “Extended multivariate approach for uncertainty reduction in the assessment of undrained shear strength in clays.” Can. Geotech. J. 51 (3): 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2012-0176.
Phoon, K. K., and F. H. Kulhawy. 1999. “Evaluation of geotechnical property variability.” Can. Geotech. J. 36 (4): 625–639. https://doi.org/10.1139/t99-039.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering
ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering
Volume 6Issue 2June 2020

History

Received: Aug 26, 2019
Accepted: Sep 24, 2019
Published online: Jan 20, 2020
Published in print: Jun 1, 2020
Discussion open until: Jun 20, 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Anders Prästings [email protected]
Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Civil and Architectural Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Brinellvägen 23, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden (corresponding author). Email: [email protected]
Johan Spross, Ph.D. [email protected]
Postdoctoral Researcher, Dept. of Civil and Architectural Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Brinellvägen 23, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden. Email: [email protected]
Rasmus Müller, Ph.D. [email protected]
Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Tyréns AB, Sturegatan 4, SE-784 31 Borlänge, Sweden. Email: [email protected]
Stefan Larsson, Ph.D. [email protected]
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Architectural Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Brinellvägen 23, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden. Email: [email protected]
William Bjureland [email protected]
Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Civil and Architectural Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Brinellvägen 23, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden. Email: [email protected]
Fredrik Johansson, Ph.D. [email protected]
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Architectural Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Brinellvägen 23, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden. Email: [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Download citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

View Options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share