Anchored wall design: Comparing the global and partial factors of safety incorporating the australian standards

Khabbaz, H; Aung, Y

Anchored wall design: Comparing the global and partial factors of safety incorporating the australian standards

Khabbaz, H

Aung, Y

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: International Journal of GEOMATE, 2015, 9 (1), pp. 1395 - 1402
Issue Date:: 2015-01-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	1395-1402-4291-Hadi-Sept-2015.pdf	Published Version	559.29 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Khabbaz, H https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6637-4601	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Aung, Y	en_US
dc.date.issued	2015-01-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	International Journal of GEOMATE, 2015, 9 (1), pp. 1395 - 1402	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	2186-2982	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/51342
dc.description.abstract	© 2015, International Journal of GEOMATE. A versatile and user-friendly model has been developed for evaluating the factor of safety of anchored sheet-pile structures, using both global factors of safety (GFS) and partial factors of safety (PFS) methods, abiding AS 4678 standard, an Australian standard for retaining wall design. The developed model is aimed to determine the following features: (i) depth of embedment, (ii) total wall height for determining the amount of material required, (iii) the length of anchor, (iv) the anchor force and (v) the maximum moment acting on the sheet-pile wall. Key findings are highlighted based on the design calculations. This study incorporates different design scenarios including layered soil, line loads and uniformly distributed surcharge loads to draw comparisons between the GFS and PFS methods. Many examples are used to validate the outputs of the program. The results indicate that the PFS method is preferred for design strength and safety aspects, whereas the GFS method is adopted for cost effectiveness and simplicity of design calculations. The limitations of the Australian standard AS 4678-2002 are discussed in order to identify the superiority of one method over another.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	International Journal of GEOMATE	en_US
dc.title	Anchored wall design: Comparing the global and partial factors of safety incorporating the australian standards	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	1	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	9	en_US
utslib.for	0905 Civil Engineering	en_US
utslib.for	0502 Environmental Science and Management	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology/School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CBI - Centre for Built Infrastructure
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Students
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	1	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	9	en_US

Abstract:

© 2015, International Journal of GEOMATE. A versatile and user-friendly model has been developed for evaluating the factor of safety of anchored sheet-pile structures, using both global factors of safety (GFS) and partial factors of safety (PFS) methods, abiding AS 4678 standard, an Australian standard for retaining wall design. The developed model is aimed to determine the following features: (i) depth of embedment, (ii) total wall height for determining the amount of material required, (iii) the length of anchor, (iv) the anchor force and (v) the maximum moment acting on the sheet-pile wall. Key findings are highlighted based on the design calculations. This study incorporates different design scenarios including layered soil, line loads and uniformly distributed surcharge loads to draw comparisons between the GFS and PFS methods. Many examples are used to validate the outputs of the program. The results indicate that the PFS method is preferred for design strength and safety aspects, whereas the GFS method is adopted for cost effectiveness and simplicity of design calculations. The limitations of the Australian standard AS 4678-2002 are discussed in order to identify the superiority of one method over another.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/51342