• Journal of the Korean GEO-environmental Society
• /
• v.18 no.9
• /
• pp.19-31
• /
• 2017

In case of USA, the drilled shaft and the driven pile in the field showed a good correlation in the analysis of the bearing capacity between the dynamic load test and the static load test. However, in Korea, we mainly install the bored pile, which is not widely used overseas and we tried to confirm the reliability of the dynamic load test on the bored pile, because many people questioned the reliability of it. In this study, load tests were carried out on PHC bored piles in LH field (Cheonan, Incheon, Uijeongbu), and the bearing capacity of the dynamic load test (EOID 7times, Restrike 7times) and the static load test (7times) were compared and analyzed. As a result, the average of the bearing capacity of the static load test was 27% higher than that of the dynamic load test (reliability : 0.73, coefficient of variation : 0.3). And the average of the bearing capacity of the static load test (Davisson) was 27% higher than that of the bearing capacity of the dynamic load test (Davisson) (reliability : 0.73, coefficient of variation : 0.2). To reduce the difference between the bearing capacity of the dynamic load test and the static load test, we proposed modified bearing capacity of dynamic load test (base bearing capacity of EOID + skin frictional force of restrike) and difference between the bearing capacities was reduced to 9% (reliability : 0.91, coefficient of variation : 0.2). And the coefficient of variation was reduced to 0.2 and the consistency of analysis increased.

• Land and Housing Review
• /
• v.9 no.3
• /
• pp.1-8
• /
• 2018

In Europe and the United States, the use of limit states design has almost been established for pile foundation design. According to the global trend, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs has established the basic design criteria of the bridge under the limit state design method. However, it is difficult to reflect on the design right now because of lack of research on resistance coefficient of the pile method and ground condition. In this study, to obtain the resistance coefficient of PHC bored pile which is widely used in Korea, the bearing capacity calculated by the LH design standard and the bridge design standard method, the static load test(21 times) and the dynamic load test(EOID 21 times, Restrike 21) The reliability analysis was performed on the results. The analysis of the resistance coefficient of PHC bored pile by loading test was analyzed by adding more than two times data. As a result, the resistance coefficient obtained from the static load test(ultimate bearing capacity) was 0.64 ~ 0.83 according to the design formula and the target reliability index, and the resistance coefficient obtained from the dynamic load test(ultimate bearing capacity) was 0.42~0.55. Respectively. The resistance coefficient obtained from the modified bearing capacity of dynamic load test(EOID's ultimate end bearing capacity + restrike's ultimate skin bearing capacity) was 0.55~0.71, which was reduced to about 14% when compared with the resistance coefficient obtained by the static load test(ultimate bearing capacity). As a result of the addition of the data, the resistivity coefficient was not changed significantly, even if the data were increased more than 2 times by the same value or 0.04 as the previous resistance coefficient. In conclusion, the overall resistance coefficient calculated by the static load test and dynamic load tests in this study is larger than the resistance coefficient of 0.3 suggested by the bridge design standard(2015).

• Land and Housing Review
• /
• v.8 no.4
• /
• pp.233-247
• /
• 2017

In Europe and the USA, the use of limit state design method has been established, and the Korea Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs has implemented the bridge substructure design standard based on the critical state. But Korean piling methods and ground conditions are different from Europe and USA, the limit state design method can not be used immediately. In this study, the resistance coefficient was proposed by comparing and analyzing the results of the static load test(9 times) and dynamic load tests(9 times of EOID and 9 times of Restrike) with the bearing capacity calculated by Meyerhof(LH design standard, Road bridge design standard) method and surcharge load method(using Terzaghi's bearing capacity coefficient and Hansen & Vesic's bearing capacity coefficient). The previous LHI study showed the resistance coefficient of the LH design standard was 0.36 ~ 0.44, and this research result showed the resistance coefficient was 0.39 ~ 0.48 which is about 8% higher than the previous study. In this study, we tried to obtain the resistance coefficient mainly from the static load test and the resistance coefficient was 0.57 ~ 0.69(Meyhof method : LH design standard) based on the ultimate bearing capacity and the resistance coefficient was 0.49 ~ 0.60(Meyhof method : LH design standard) based on the Davissons bearing capacity. The difference of the resistance coefficient between the static and dynamic load test was greater than that we expected, we proposed the resistance coefficient(0.52 ~ 0.62 : Meyerhof method: LH design standard) using the modified bearing capacity of the dynamic load test. Summarizing the result, the coefficient of resistance obtained from the static and dynamic load tests was 0.35 ~ 0.76, which is greater than 0.3 suggested by the Road bridge design standard, so the economical design might be possible using the coefficient of resistance proposed by this study.