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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PercentPercent246ST-BOR0.5WEAP-Clay at BOR1.0 1.5SA-BORIowa BB-BOR99ST-BORLoc -0.08387Scale 0.03892N 5AD 0.2349050SA-BORLoc -0.04012Scale 0.1137N 5AD 0.18499Iowa DOT-BORDRIVEN-BOR0.51.01.5101Iowa BB-BORLoc -0.03910Scale 0.1138N 5AD 0.18990501010.51.01.5Ratio of measured and estimated resistancesCV=0.606Iowa DOT-BORLoc -0.2092Scale 0.1016N 5AD 0.274DRIVEN-BORLoc -0.03465Scale 0.1085N 5AD 0.211(b) Based on resistances considered at BOR conditionWEAP-Clay for Setup0.51.02.099959080706050403020Iowa BB-SetupIowa DOT-SetupIowa BB-SetupLoc -0.1976Scale 0.3259N 17AD 0.477Iowa DOT-SetupLoc -0.5140Scale 0.2454N 17AD 0.330CV=0.71510510.51.02.0Ratio of measured and estimated resistances(c) Based on pile setup resistancesFigure 6.2: Cumulative density functions for WEAP at clay profile
PercentPercent2479990501010.51.0STIowa DOT2.04.00.5WEAP-Mixed Soil1.0SA2.0DRIVENFigure 6.3: Cumulative density functions for WEAP at mixed soil profile4.00.5Iowa BlueBook1.0Ratio of measured and estimated resistances2.0CV=0.6924.0999050101STLoc 0.3346Scale 0.2823N 11AD 0.223SALoc 0.3587Scale 0.2917N 11AD 0.210IowaBlueBookLoc 0.3724Scale 0.3083N 11AD 0.144Iowa DOTLoc 0.3100Scale 0.2736N 11AD 0.268DRIVENLoc 0.3526Scale 0.3065N 11AD 0.2189990501010.5All Soil-BOR1.02.00.5CAPWAP1.0Sand-General2.00.51.0Ratio of measured and estimated resistanceCV (N=10) = 0.685CV (N=5) = 0.606CV (N=2) = 0.388Clay-EODClay-Setup Clay-BOR Mixed-General2.0999050101All Soil-BORLoc 0.007901Scale 0.1614N 10AD 1.173Sand-GeneralLoc -0.008862Scale 0.08098N 2AD 0.250Clay-EODLoc -0.04403Scale 0.06286N 5AD 0.177Clay-SetupLoc -0.006416Scale 0.1759N 5AD 0.196Clay-BORLoc -0.004436Scale 0.02060N 5AD 0.374Mixed-GeneralLoc 0.2413Scale 0.1308N 2AD 0.250Figure 6.4: Cumulative density functions for CAPWAP
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 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: PercentPercent2459990501010.10.2STI
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?