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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2002.33 or 0.57 when β T of 3.00 to both R EOD and R setup having different probabilisticcharacteristics violates the LRFD philosophy.5.4. Statistical EvaluationsTo consider the pile setup resistance estimated using Eq. (5.1a) in pile designs thatconform with the reliability theory in accordance with LRFD framework, the principle ofstrength limit state function (g) corresponding to a safety of margin is expanded as in Eq.(5.3), which is valid only if the initial pile resistance at EOD (R EOD ), pile setup resistance(R setup ) and both dead (Q D ) and live (Q L ) loads have lognormal distribution.g = ln(R EOD ) + ln(R setup ) – ln(Q D ) – ln(Q L ) (5.3)To verify the pile resistances given in Table 5.1 follow the lognormal distributions, ahypothesis test based on Anderson-Darling (1952) normality method was used to assess theGoodness of Fitting of the assumed lognormal distributions. The reason for selecting theAnderson-Darling method is because it is one of the best normality tests for a database withrelative small sample size (Romeu, 2010). Figure 5.1 shows that the Anderson-Darling (AD)values of 0.255 and 0.374 are smaller than the critical P-values of 0.620 and 0.392 within the95% confident interval (CI) for EOD and setup conditions, respectively. Hence, thehypothesis test confirms the assumed lognormal distributions for both resistances. Sinceboth resistances and loads (as assumed by Nowak (1999)) follow lognormal distributions,natural logarithm of resistances and loads follow normal distributions and the safety margin(g) follows a normal distribution such that the relationship between probability of failure (P f )and reliability index (β) is validly given by Eq. (5.4)( ) (5.4)where,β = ratio of E(g) and σ g ,Ф () = cumulative distribution function,
Percent201E(g) = expected value or mean of the limit state function g, andσ g = standard deviation of the limit state function g.In order to conform the independent relationship among the random variablesassumed in the FOSM method, the correlation between the RR for EOD (let R m-EOD /R e-EOD tobe E) and for setup (let R m-setup /R e-setup to be S) was assessed through the calculation of acorrelation coefficient (ρ) using Eq. (5.5)( )(5.5)where,cov (E,S) = covariance between the resistance ratio for EOD and setup, andσ E , σ S = standard deviation of the resistance ratio for EOD or setup.999590807060504030201051Resistance Ratio for setup0.51.0Lognormal Distribution - 95% CI0.5 1.02.0Resistance Ratio (RR)Resistance Ratio for EODFigure 5.1: Normality test using Anderson-Darling method for setup and EOD2.0Resistance Ratiofor setupLoc -0.09821Scale 0.3109N 28AD 0.374P-Value 0.392Resistance Ratiofor EODLoc 0.09520Scale 0.1532N 8AD 0.255P-Value 0.620Loc and Scalerepresent the meanand standarddeviation of naturallogarithm of thedatasets
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 14 and 15:
xivLIST OF TABLESTable 2.1: Summary
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: Depth Below Ground (m)Depth Below G
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: 199Table 5.2: Comparison of Resista
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:
Depth Below Ground (m)Depth Below G
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?