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

224procedure has been described in Chapter 5, and the LRFD framework considering that thepile setup has been revised to Eq. (6.5) by multiplying different resistance factors φ EOD andφ setup to R EOD and R setup , respectively.∑ (6.5)The φ EOD value was determined using the FOSM Eq. (6.4), and the φ setup value wasdetermined using the proposed Eq. (6.6) derived in Chapter 5. To ensure consistency, thesame probabilistic characteristics (γ, λ, COV) of the loads recommended by Nowak (1999) asrecapitulated in Eq. (6.4), the Q D /Q L ratio of 2.0, and both β T values of 2.33 and 3.00 wereselected. The calculated probabilistic characteristics (λ, COV) and the φ EOD value were usedin Eq. (6.6). A conservative α value, a ratio of initial pile resistance at EOD, and a totalapplied load of 1.60 were chosen for this study.[( )( )].( )( )/√ [( ). /](6.6). /√( )6.4.4. Resistance factorsFigure 6.1 shows five lognormally distributed cumulative density function (CDF)plots of various resistance ratios (RRs), based on the five soil input procedures (ST, SA, IowaBlue Book, Iowa DOT and DRIVEN) used in WEAP for the sand profile. Figure 6.2 andFigure 6.3 show similar plots of RRs for WEAP in clay and mixed soil profiles, respectively,and Figure 6.4 shows the plots of RRs for CAPWAP. The resistance ratio (RR) is generallydefined as a ratio of the measured pile resistance obtained from SLT and the estimated pileresistance as tabulated in Table 6.1, Table 6.2, Table 6.3, or Table 6.4. The detaileddescriptions of various RRs for the three soil profiles are provided as follows: