Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Analysis/design of Piles Axial Capacity PDF Download
Are you looking for read ebook online? Search for your book and save it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Download Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Analysis/design of Piles Axial Capacity PDF full book. Access full book title Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Analysis/design of Piles Axial Capacity by . Download full books in PDF and EPUB format.
Author:
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Concrete bridges
Languages : en
Pages : 160
Get Book Here
Book Description
Author:
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Concrete bridges
Languages : en
Pages : 160
Get Book Here
Book Description
Author:
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :
Get Book Here
Book Description
Resistance factors were developed in the framework of reliability theory for the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) of driven pile's axial capacity in North Carolina utilizing pile load test data available from the North Carolina Department of Transportation. A total of 140 Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) data and 35 static load test data were compiled and grouped into different design categories based on four pile types and two geologic regions. Resistance statistics were evaluated for each design category in terms of bias factors. Bayesian updating was employed to improve the statistics of the resistance bias factors, which were derived from a limited number of pile load test data. Load statistics presented in the current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications were used in the reliability analysis and the calibration of the resistance factors. Reliability analysis of the current NCDOT practice of pile foundation design was performed to evaluate the level of safety and to select the target reliability indices. Resistance factor calibration was performed for the three methods of static pile capacity analysis commonly used in the NCDOT: the Vesic, the Nordlund, and the Meyerhof methods. Two types of First Order Reliability Methods (Mean Value First Order Second Moment method and Advanced First Order Second Moment method) were employed for the reliability analysis and the calibration of the resistance factors. Recommended resistance factors are presented for the three methods of static pile capacity analysis and for seven different design categories of pile types and geologic regions. The resistance factors developed and recommended from this research are specific for the pile foundation design by the three static capacity analysis methods and for the distinct soil type of the geologic regions of North Carolina. The methodology of the resistance factor calibration developed from this research can be applied to the resistance factor calibration for other foundation.
Author: Samuel G. Paikowsky
Publisher: Transportation Research Board
ISBN: 0309087961
Category : Bridges
Languages : en
Pages : 87
Get Book Here
Book Description
Introduction and research approach -- Findings -- Interpretation, appraisal, and applications -- Conclusions and suggested research -- Bibliography -- Appendixes.
Author: MC. McVay
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Foundation soils
Languages : en
Pages : 12
Get Book Here
Book Description
The parameters for load and resistance factor design (LRFD) of driven piles using dynamic methods are presented based on a database of 218 pile cases in Florida. Eight dynamic methods were studied: ENR, modified ENR, FDOT, and Gates driving formulas, Case Analysis with Wave Analysis Program (CAPWAP), Case Method for Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA), Paikowsky's energy method, and Sakai's energy method. It was demonstrated that the modern methods based on wave mechanics, such as CAPWAP, PDA, and Paikowsky's energy methods, are roughly twice as cost effective to reach the target reliability indices of 2.0 to 2.5 (failure probability = 0.62 to 2.5%) as the ENR and modified ENR driving formulas. The Gates formula, when used separately on piles with Davisson capacities smaller or larger than 1779 kN, has an accuracy comparable to the modern methods. The utilizable measured Davisson capacity, defined as ?/? (ratio of resistance/mean capacity) obtained from testing at beginning of redrive (BOR), is only slightly larger than the end of drive (EOD) values. Furthermore, past practice with driving formulas reveals the existence of a large redundancy in pile groups against failure. The latter suggests the use of a lower relatively reliability target index, ?T = 2.0 (pf = 2.5%) for single pile design. Also, the utilizable measured Davisson capacity, ?/?, for all the dynamic methods studied, is quite similar to published values (Lai et al. 1995; Sidi 1985) for static estimates from in situ tests.
Author: Kyung Jun Kim
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 276
Get Book Here
Book Description
Keywords: pile bearing capacity, load and resistance factor design, Vesic, Nordlund, Meyerhof, reliability analysis, FORM, MVFOSM, AFOSM, resistance factor calibration, pile driving analyzer, static load test, bias factor.
Author: Pramila Adhikari
Publisher:
ISBN: 9781085629942
Category : Foundations
Languages : en
Pages : 188
Get Book Here
Book Description
Static Analysis methods originally developed for soils are currently used for estimating pile resistances in Intermediate Geomaterials (IGMs), and structural capacity has been considered as the limiting pile capacity on hard rocks. The application of current Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for piles in IGMs has resulted in relatively high uncertainties in pile resistance estimation during design and the length to which the piles are driven into IGMs during construction. Moreover, the absence of standard criteria to differentiate the geomaterials creates challenges in the design and construction of driven piles in IGMs. The application of a dynamic analysis method using Wave Equation Analysis Program is constrained by geomaterial input for IGMs and rocks. These current challenges have led to conservative pile resistance estimations. Thus, the overall objectives of this study were to determine efficient static analysis methods, dynamic procedures for construction control, pile setup/relaxation, and resistance factors for the estimation of the axial pile resistances in IGMs, ensuring a prescribed level of reliability to meet LRFD philosophy. To accomplish these objectives, classification criteria of geomaterials were first created to establish a standard quantitative delineation between the soils, IGMs, and hard rocks for the design of driven piles. In addition, a catalog of IGM properties was prepared to facilitate the preliminary design of piles in IGMs. Secondly, a new set of design equations were developed and validated for IGMs by utilizing the developed geomaterial classification criteria. Thirdly, wave equation analysis procedures for IGMs were recommended for pile construction control. Fourthly, changes in pile resistances in IGMs with respect to time at an End of Driving and Beginning of Restrike were assessed. Finally, probability based resistance factors were calibrated and recommended based on the efficiency factors for the existing and calibrated static analysis methods. Calibrated static analysis methods were concluded to have higher efficiency factors of 0.61, 0.30, and 0.41 against efficiency factors of 0.28, 0.09, and 0.14 corresponding to existing static analysis methods for shaft resistance estimation in IGMs. Similarly, calibrated static analysis methods were concluded to have higher efficiency factors of 0.24 and 0.48 against efficiency factors of 0.13 and 0.29 corresponding to existing static analysis methods for end bearing estimation in IGMs.
Author: George G. Goble
Publisher: Transportation Research Board
ISBN: 9780309068543
Category : Bridges
Languages : en
Pages : 80
Get Book Here
Book Description
This synthesis report will be of interest to geotechnical, structural, and bridge engineers, especially those involved in the development and implementation of the geotechnical aspects of the AASHTO Bridge Code. The synthesis documents a review of geotechnical related LRFD specifications and their development worldwide to compare them with the current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Code. Design procedures for foundations, earth retaining structures, and culverts are summarized and compared with the methods specified by the AASHTO code. This TRB report provides information designed to assist engineers in implementing the geotechnical features of LRFD methods. Information for the synthesis was collected by surveying U.S. and Canadian transportation agencies and by conducting a literature search using domestic and international sources. Interviews were also conducted with selected international experts. The limited available experience in the United States and information from international practice are discussed to understand the problems that have arisen in order that solutions may be found. Based on the studies reported here, suggestions for improving the code are identified.
Author:
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :
Get Book Here
Book Description
Author: Kirk L. Stenersen
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Dynamic testing
Languages : en
Pages : 832
Get Book Here
Book Description
Author: Mulugeta Abay Kebede
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Bridges
Languages : en
Pages : 270
Get Book Here
Book Description
"Over the past two decades the load resistance factor design (LRFD) has been accepted by the American Association for Transportation and Highway Officials (AASHTO) for the design of bridges. This approach is now gaining widespread popularity in the United States for substructure bridge design, including the design of driven pile foundations, as the states calibrate the geotechnical resistance factors for local geological conditions and practices. This study presents the geotechnical resistance factors calibrated for axially driven pile using the first-order reliability method (FORM) for the target reliability index of 2.33 and 3.0 based on 64 end-of-drives (EOD) and 22 beginning-of restrike (BOR) pile driving analyzer (PDA) test data from nine bridge sites in Missouri. Three static pile capacity prediction methods were used, i.e. the Nordlund, Meyerhof and Beta methods. The work investigated the efficiency of each method based on the bias factor, the ratio of the measured to the predicted capacity of the pile, ([lambda] = R[subscript m]/R[subscript p]), the coefficient of variation (COV), and efficiency factor or the ratio of the resistance factor to the bias factor, ([phi]/[lambda]). It verified that the Beta and Nordlund methods provide better predictions than the Meyerhof method. In addition, a comparison of the resistance factor in current AASHTO LRFD with the calibrated resistance factor shows that validating the resistance factors in the AASHTO may result in less reliable design. Finally, the recommended resistance factors for LRFD design are provided for use in Missouri. In addition, further refinement of the developed resistance factors is recommended to improve the resistance factors using large quantity and high quality of data that cover wide areas the glaciated plain and southeast lowland geological regions"--Abstract, leaf iii.
