S - Kam Ng PhD Dissertation Final.pdf - Digital Repository of CCEE ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

xivLIST OF TABLESTable 2.1: Summary of Case damping factors (after Hannigan et al. 1998) ...............................28Table 2.2: Recommended Driving Stress Limits (after Pile Dynamic, Inc. 2001) ......................30Table 2.3: Pile damage classification (Rausche and Goble 1979) ...............................................32Table 2.4: Summary 1 of dynamic soil parameters for Smith’s soil model ................................44Table 2.5: Summary 2 of dynamic soil parameters for Smith’s soil model ................................45Table 2.6: Summary of static analysis methods using five soil input procedures .......................63Table 2.7: Soil Parameters for non-cohesive soils .......................................................................64Table 2.8: Soil Parameters for cohesive soils ..............................................................................64Table 2.9: Empirical values for ϕ, D r , and γ of granular soils based on corrected N-value ........65Table 2.10: Empirical values for q u and γ of cohesive soils based on uncorrected N-value .......65Table 2.11: Correlation studies between PDA and static load tests ............................................72Table 2.12: Correlation studies between CAPWAP and static load tests ....................................74Table 2.13: Correlation studies between WEAP and static load tests .........................................80Table 2.14: AASHTO assumed random variables for dead load and live load ...........................87Table 2.15: Recommended probability of failure and target reliability index .............................87Table 2.16: LRFD resistance factors for driven piles (AASHTO, 2010) ....................................91Table 2.17: Other LRFD resistance factors for driven piles ........................................................92Table 2.18: Summary of available methods for pile setup estimations .......................................98Table 2.19: Summary of piling projects implemented by Skov and Denver (1988) ...................100Table 3.1: Summary of soil profiles and results of soil tests for all test sites ..............................141Table 3.2: Weighted average soil properties along pile shaft and near pile toe ..........................142Table 3.3: Summary of the five test piles and their results ..........................................................143Table 3.4: Percent increase in pile resistance based on WEAP, CAPWAP and SLT .................144Table 3.5: Summary of four best-fit trends and their coefficient of determinations for ISU6 ....144Table 4.1: Summary of existing methods of estimating pile setup ..............................................181Table 4.2: Summary of the twelve data records from PILOT .....................................................182Table 4.3: Summary of five external sources from literatures on steel H-piles embedded incohesive soils ...................................................................................................................183Table 4.4: Summary of six external sources from literatures on other pile types embedded incohesive soils ...................................................................................................................184Table 4.5: Soil information along the test pile ISU8 ...................................................................183Table 4.6: Summary of field test results and estimated pile resistance for ISU8 ........................183Table 5.1: Five cases of the pile resistance ratio (RR) ................................................................197
xvTable 5.2: Comparison of Resistance Factors Obtained using the Conventional LRFDframework based on WEAP-SA ......................................................................................199Table 6.1: Summary of data records for three soil profiles from PILOT ....................................237Table 6.2: Summary of pile records from field tests at EOD ......................................................239Table 6.3: Summary of pile records from field tests from last restrike .......................................240Table 6.4: Summary of adjusted measured pile resistances at EOD and setup resistances forclay profile only ...............................................................................................................241Table 6.5: Summary of the empirical scale and concave factors .................................................242Table 6.6: Regionally-calibrated results for WEAP ....................................................................242Table 6.7: Regionally-calibrated results for CAPWAP ...............................................................243Table 6.8: Construction control and resistance factors for the Iowa Blue Book method ............243Table 6.9: Recommended resistance factors for the Iowa Blue Book, WEAP and CAPWAP ...244Table 7.1: Summary of suggested dynamic soil parameters found in the literature ....................272Table 7.2: Statistical summary for dynamic soil parameters (after Liang, 2000) ........................272Table 7.3: Comparison of average damping factors obtained from CAPWAP on test piles andWEAP on SPT (after Liang, 2000) ..................................................................................272Table 7.4: Summary of measured soil properties, estimated soil resistances, and dynamic soilparameters estimated based on the proposed matching procedure at EOD along thepile shaft ...........................................................................................................................273Table 7.5: Summary of measured soil properties, estimated soil resistances, and dynamic soilparameters estimated based on the proposed matching procedure at BOR along thepile shaft ...........................................................................................................................275Table 7.6: Summary of measured soil properties, estimated soil resistances, and dynamic soilparameters estimated based on the proposed matching procedure at EOD near the piletoe .....................................................................................................................................275Table 7.7: Comparison between the default and proposed CAPWAP matching procedures interms of match quality .....................................................................................................276Table 7.8: Summary of soil profile and dynamic soil parameters estimated using proposedequations for ISU8 at EOD ..............................................................................................276
Page 1: Pile Setup, Dynamic Construction Co
Page 5: v2.5.8. Soil profile input procedur
Page 8 and 9: viii6.2. Introduction .............
Page 10 and 11: xLIST OF FIGURESFigure 2.1: Typical
Page 12 and 13: xiiresistances using the proposed p
Page 16 and 17: xviABSTRACTBecause of the mandate i
Page 18 and 19: xviiiFurthermore, using these calib
Page 20 and 21: 2soil strength. The gain in effecti
Page 22 and 23: 4check pile integrity; (5) evaluate
Page 24 and 25: 6confidently accounted for in curre
Page 26 and 27: 8Board (IHRB) sponsored research pr
Page 28 and 29: 10collected undisturbed soil sample
Page 30: 12correction factors to estimated p
Page 33 and 34: 15Chapter 7 - An Improved CAPWAP Ma
Page 35 and 36: 17Procedures and Models Version 200
Page 37 and 38: 19Section 2.8.2.2. Historical Summa
Page 39 and 40: 21A = pile cross sectional area at
Page 41 and 42: 23compressive force pulse expands d
Page 43 and 44: 25When a uniform free end rod is im
Page 45 and 46: 27RTLR sC vJ cv b= total soil resis
Page 47 and 48: 29For a pile with very hard driving
Page 49 and 50: Force∆R∆u31( )(2.12)where,BTA =
Page 51 and 52: 33Hammer efficiency defines the per
Page 53 and 54: 35ForceMinimal Shaft ResistanceMini
Page 55 and 56: 372.4. Case Pile Wave Analysis Prog
Page 57 and 58: 39computation is stable only when t
Page 59 and 60: 41,( ) ( ) - (2.17)( ) ( ) ( ) (2.1
Page 61 and 62: 43been carried by many researchers
Page 63 and 64: Table 2.5: Summary 2 of dynamic soi
Page 65 and 66:
472.4.3.1. Pile modelPile Dynamics,
Page 67 and 68:
49Pile Segment iSoil Segment kJ kR
Page 69 and 70:
̇̇̇̇51= pile bottom velocity at
Page 71 and 72:
534. Constant dynamic soil paramete
Page 73 and 74:
(a) Schematic (b) ModelExternal Com
Page 75 and 76:
572.5.4. Pile modelPile model is di
Page 77 and 78:
59model calculates the dynamic soil
Page 79 and 80:
61where,a ij= acceleration at a pil
Page 81 and 82:
Table 2.6: Summary of static analys
Page 83 and 84:
65Table 2.9: Empirical values for
Page 85 and 86:
Ultimate Capacity (kips)Stroke (ft)
Page 87 and 88:
69blows/ft) or less is required to
Page 89 and 90:
71methods is obscure and it cannot
Page 91 and 92:
73Case Reference Pile type7891011Le
Page 93 and 94:
75Case Reference Pile type910111213
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Days (Ahead)/DelayFigure 2.15: A gr
Page 101 and 102:
83construction procedures used by t
Page 103 and 104:
85f(g)βσ gFailure RegionArea = p
Page 105 and 106:
87Table 2.14: AASHTO assumed random
Page 107 and 108:
89(2.47)( ) ( ) (2.48)( ) ( ) (2.49
Page 109 and 110:
912.7.4 Recommended LRFD resistance
Page 111 and 112:
932.8. Pile Setup2.8.1 Introduction
Page 113 and 114:
Ratio of Final to Initial Pile Resi
Page 115 and 116:
97be determined. The challenges wit
Page 117 and 118:
99Based on about 70 test piles at m
Page 119 and 120:
101Komurka et al. (2003) noted that
Page 121 and 122:
103developed by Wathugala and Desai
Page 123 and 124:
105dynamic analysis methods. They s
Page 125 and 126:
107Factors for LRFD Foundation Stre
Page 127 and 128:
109New Jersey.Coyle, H. M, Bartoske
Page 129 and 130:
111Hannigan, P. J. and Webster, S.
Page 131 and 132:
113Theory to Piles, Petaling Jaya,
Page 133 and 134:
115PDCA Specification 102-07, PDCA
Page 135 and 136:
117Soderberg, L. O. (1962). ―Cons
Page 137 and 138:
119Driven Piles in Clay.‖ Canadia
Page 139 and 140:
1213.2. IntroductionMany researcher
Page 141 and 142:
123with CAPWAP analysis at differen
Page 143 and 144:
125Disturbed soil samples were coll
Page 145 and 146:
1273.4.3. InstrumentationAll test p
Page 147 and 148:
129embedded length before and after
Page 149 and 150:
131(R EOD ) from CAPWAP analyses. T
Page 151 and 152:
133due to restrike and SLT as well
Page 153 and 154:
1353.5.6. Quantitative studies betw
Page 155 and 156:
1373. The experimental investigatio
Page 157 and 158:
139Geotechnical Special Publication
Page 159 and 160:
abcTable 3.1: Summary of soil profi
Page 161 and 162:
TestpileISU2ISU3ISU4ISU5ISU6HammerD
Page 163 and 164:
1453.02.82.6Reported Soil Informati
Page 165 and 166:
Vertical Coefficient of Consolidati
Page 167 and 168:
Depth Below Ground (m)Depth Below G
Page 169 and 170:
Percent Increase in Total Resistanc
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
155CHAPTER 4: PILE SETUP IN COHESIV
Page 175 and 176:
157proposed pile setup method in a
Page 177 and 178:
159consider the immediate gain in p
Page 179 and 180:
161companion paper also show that p
Page 181 and 182:
1632. Accounting for the actual tim
Page 183 and 184:
165were compared using the proposed
Page 185 and 186:
167(17 ft) well-graded sand (SW) an
Page 187 and 188:
169( )√ ( ) √ (4.10)where μ =
Page 189 and 190:
1714.8. Integration of Pile Setup I
Page 191 and 192:
173diameter smaller than 600 mm). F
Page 193 and 194:
Pile Resistance (kN)175geotechnical
Page 195 and 196:
177R m , R t = Measured pile resist
Page 197 and 198:
179Field Testing of Steel Piles in
Page 199 and 200:
181Table 4.1: Summary of existing m
Page 201 and 202:
Table 4.3: Summary of five external
Page 203 and 204:
183Soil LayerTable 4.5: Soil inform
Page 205 and 206:
(R t /R EOD ) × (L EOD /L t )(R t
Page 207 and 208:
Measured Pile Resistance (kN)Measur
Page 209 and 210:
189Measured Pile Resistance at Time
Page 211 and 212:
Ratio of Measured and Predicted Pil
Page 213 and 214:
193surrounding the pile and the con
Page 215 and 216:
195Method (FORM) to calculate resis
Page 217 and 218:
197estimated using Eq. (5.1a), was
Page 219 and 220:
199Table 5.2: Comparison of Resista
Page 221 and 222:
Percent201E(g) = expected value or
Page 223 and 224:
203( ( )) ( ̅) ( ) (5.7)( ) ( ) (5
Page 225 and 226:
205φ setup values. At a fixed dead
Page 227 and 228:
207conditions and design practices,
Page 229 and 230:
209procedure in pile designs. Two c
Page 231 and 232:
211estimation methods (e.g. Skov an
Page 233 and 234:
213End-Of-Drive and Set-up Componen
Page 235 and 236:
215CHAPTER 6: INTEGRATION OF CONSTR
Page 237 and 238:
217Bridge Design Specifications hav
Page 239 and 240:
219Chapter 5. The resistance factor
Page 241 and 242:
2216.4.3. Calibration methodFirst-O
Page 243 and 244:
223The LRFD resistance factors cali
Page 245 and 246:
225a. For sand and mixed soil profi
Page 247 and 248:
227for the Iowa Blue Book. To evalu
Page 249 and 250:
229Book method computed by AbdelSal
Page 251 and 252:
231modified resistance factor (Пξ
Page 253 and 254:
233Furthermore, these LRFD recommen
Page 255 and 256:
235Revisions, Washington, D.C.Abdel
Page 257 and 258:
Table 6.1: Summary of data records
Page 259 and 260:
Testpile IDISU1ISU2ISU3ISU4ISU5ISU6
Page 261 and 262:
Table 6.4: Summary of adjusted meas
Page 263 and 264:
243SourceIowaNCHRPReport 507Soilpro
Page 265 and 266:
PercentPercent2459990501010.10.2STI
Page 267 and 268:
PercentPercent2479990501010.51.0STI
Page 269 and 270:
PercentWEAP over Blue Book with Con
Page 271 and 272:
2517.2. IntroductionAlthough dynami
Page 273 and 274:
253difficulty in pile setup investi
Page 275 and 276:
255Liang (2000) calculated an avera
Page 277 and 278:
257model shown in Figure 7.1. Based
Page 279 and 280:
259which were identified as ISU2, I
Page 281 and 282:
261figure, a power relationship in
Page 283 and 284:
263relationship between the f s val
Page 285 and 286:
2657.5.4. EOD condition for cohesio
Page 287 and 288:
267were plotted against the SPT N-v
Page 289 and 290:
269correlation between dynamic soil
Page 291 and 292:
271Application of Stress-Wave Theor
Page 293 and 294:
273Table 7.4: Summary of measured s
Page 295 and 296:
275Table 7.5: Summary of measured s
Page 297 and 298:
Soil Resistance (R)Soil DampingResi
Page 299 and 300:
Upward Traveling Wave, W u (kN)F(t)
Page 301 and 302:
Shaft Quake Value, qs (mm)Shaft Dam
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Shaft Quake Value, q s (mm)Smith's
Page 307 and 308:
Shaft Dampinf Factor, J s (s/m)Shaf
Page 309 and 310:
289CHAPTER 8: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS
Page 311 and 312:
291increased immediately and rapidl
Page 313 and 314:
293improved. The regionally-calibra
Page 315 and 316:
295relationship was conclusively dr
Page 317:
297ACKNOWLEDGMENTSI was one of the
show all

S - Kam Ng PhD Dissertation Final.pdf - Digital Repository of CCEE ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?