A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Calibration of Resistance Factors Needed in the LRFD Design of Driven Piles, Technical Summary Report
This research project presents the calibration of resistance factors for the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) method of driven piles driven into Louisiana soils based on reliability theory. Fifty-three square Precast-Prestressed-Concrete (PPC) piles that were tested to failure were included in this investigation. The predictions of pile resistances were based on static analysis (alpha-method for clay and Nordlund method for sand), three direct CPT methods (Schmertmann method, De Ruiter and Beringen method, and Bustamante and Gianeselli (LCPC) method), and the average of the three CPT methods. Also, dynamic measurements with signal matching analysis of pile resistances using the Case Pile Wave Analysis Program (CAPWAP), which is based on the measured force and velocity signals obtained near the pile top during driving, were calibrated. The Davisson and modified Davisson interpretation methods were used to determine measured ultimate load carrying resistances from pile load tests. The predicted ultimate pile resistances obtained using the different prediction methods were compared with measured resistances determined from pile load tests. Statistical analyses were carried out to evaluate the capability of the prediction design methods to estimate measured ultimate pile resistance of driven piles. The results showed that the static method over-predicts pile resistance, while the dynamic measurement with signal matching analysis (CAPWAP-EOD (end of drive) and 14 days BOR (beginning of restrike)) under-predicts pile resistance. Among the three direct CPT methods, the De Ruiter and Beringen method was the most consistent prediction method with the lowest COV. Reliability based analyses using the First Order Second Moment (FOSM) method, the First Order Reliability Method (FORM), and the Monte Carlo (MC) simulation method were also conducted to calibrate the resistance factors (Phi) for the investigated pile design methods. The resistance factors with the target reliability (Beta(sub T)) of 2.33 for the different design methods were determined and compared with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) recommendation values. In addition, the evaluation of different design methods was performed.
Calibration of Resistance Factors Needed in the LRFD Design of Driven Piles, Technical Summary Report
This research project presents the calibration of resistance factors for the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) method of driven piles driven into Louisiana soils based on reliability theory. Fifty-three square Precast-Prestressed-Concrete (PPC) piles that were tested to failure were included in this investigation. The predictions of pile resistances were based on static analysis (alpha-method for clay and Nordlund method for sand), three direct CPT methods (Schmertmann method, De Ruiter and Beringen method, and Bustamante and Gianeselli (LCPC) method), and the average of the three CPT methods. Also, dynamic measurements with signal matching analysis of pile resistances using the Case Pile Wave Analysis Program (CAPWAP), which is based on the measured force and velocity signals obtained near the pile top during driving, were calibrated. The Davisson and modified Davisson interpretation methods were used to determine measured ultimate load carrying resistances from pile load tests. The predicted ultimate pile resistances obtained using the different prediction methods were compared with measured resistances determined from pile load tests. Statistical analyses were carried out to evaluate the capability of the prediction design methods to estimate measured ultimate pile resistance of driven piles. The results showed that the static method over-predicts pile resistance, while the dynamic measurement with signal matching analysis (CAPWAP-EOD (end of drive) and 14 days BOR (beginning of restrike)) under-predicts pile resistance. Among the three direct CPT methods, the De Ruiter and Beringen method was the most consistent prediction method with the lowest COV. Reliability based analyses using the First Order Second Moment (FOSM) method, the First Order Reliability Method (FORM), and the Monte Carlo (MC) simulation method were also conducted to calibrate the resistance factors (Phi) for the investigated pile design methods. The resistance factors with the target reliability (Beta(sub T)) of 2.33 for the different design methods were determined and compared with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) recommendation values. In addition, the evaluation of different design methods was performed.
Calibration of Resistance Factors Needed in the LRFD Design of Driven Piles, Technical Summary Report
M. Y. Abu-Farsakh (author) / S. Yoon (author)
2010
2 pages
Report
No indication
English
LRFD Resistance Factors for Driven Piles in Providence, Rhode Island
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 2014
LRFD Resistance Factors for Design of Driven H-Piles in Layered Soils
| Online Contents | 2011