• Proceedings of the Korean Geotechical Society Conference
• /
• 2006.03a
• /
• pp.466-475
• /
• 2006

Reliability analysis between safety factor and reliability index for driven and bored pile load capacity was analyzed in this study. 0.1B, Chin, De Beer, and Davisson's methods were used for determining pile load capacity by using load-settlement curve from pile load test. Each method define ultimate, yield and allowable pile load capacities. LCPC method using CPT results was performed for comparing with results of pile load test. Based on FOSM analysis using load factors, it is obtained that reliability indices for ultimate pile load capacity were higher than those of yield and allowable condition. Present safety factor 2 for yield and allowable load capacities are not enough to satisfy target reliability index $2.0\sim2.5$. However, it is sufficient for ultimate pile load capacity using safety factor 3.

• KSCE Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering Research
• /
• v.29 no.4C
• /
• pp.145-151
• /
• 2009

In general, a drilled shaft embedded in weathered rock has a large load bearing capacity. Therefore, most of the load tests are performed only up to the load level that confirms the pile design load capacity, and stopped much before the ultimate load of the pile is attained. If a reliable ultimate load value can be extracted from the premature load test data, it will be possible to greatly improve economic efficiency as well as pile design quality. The main purpose of this study is to propose a method for judging the reliability of the ultimate load of piles that is obtained from extrapolated load test data. To this aim, ten static load test data of load-displacement curves were obtained from testing of piles to their failures from 3 different field sites. For each load-displacement curve, loading was assumed as 25%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90% of the actual pile bearing capacity. The limited known data were then extrapolated using the hyperbolic function, and the ultimate capacity was re-determined for each extrapolated data by the Davisson method (1972). Statistical analysis was performed on the reliability of the re-evaluated ultimate loads. The results showed that if the ratio of the maximum-available displacement to the predicted displacement exceeds 0.6, the extrapolated ultimate load may be regarded as reliable, having less than a conservative 20% error on average. The applicability of the proposed method of judgment was also verified with static load test data of driven piles.

• Journal of the Korean GEO-environmental Society
• /
• v.13 no.10
• /
• pp.33-42
• /
• 2012

The efficiency of the current design methods for computing pile resistances is analyzed using field load-settlement tests results. Twelve load-settlement test data for drilled shafts and bored piles were obtained from the literature. These load-test data were fitted using the t-z method. Subsequently, the ultimate resistances were evaluated based upon the failure criteria from following methods: (1) the Davisson's approach and (2) settlement corresponding to 5% or 10% shaft diameter approach. The ultimate resistances for these drilled shafts and bored piles were also predicted using methods based on the design code from North America (United States, Canada), Europe, and Asia (Japan). The pile resistances determined from field load-settlement tests were compared with those calculated using the design codes. The comparisons show that most design codes predict a conservative resistance for drilled shafts and bored piles. However, in the case of drilled shafts, we find that some of the design codes can over-predict the resistance and, therefore, should be applied cautiously. This research also shows that the t-z method can be successfully used to predict the ultimate resistance and the load transfer mechanism for a single pile.

• Land and Housing Review
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.75-86
• /
• 2020

As the urban regeneration project and the old housing maintenance project are actively progressing in Korea, small-scale building construction is being carried out in downtown areas. Small buildings in the downtown area are constructed on about 4 to 10 floors, and since they are carried out in small units in residential areas, it is difficult to enter large equipment to construct existing piles, and it is more vulnerable to complaints about noise and vibration. in this study, helical piles suitable for urban areas or small sites where it is difficult to enter large equipment, such as noise and vibration. Reliability analysis was performed on the results of the static load tests and dynamic load tests conducted at the LH site and the bearing capacity calculated by the hydrostatic method and the empirical formula (N value). As a result of comparing and analyzing the design formula and the results of static load test and dynamic load tests, the correlation between the design formula of the bored pile (Road bridge design standard) formula using N value and the design formula by the modified Davisson method frequently used by method commonly European helical file practitioners.

• Proceedings of the Korean Geotechical Society Conference
• /
• 2008.03a
• /
• pp.1117-1124
• /
• 2008

In This paper, load-settlement curves that obtained from 11 sites were analyzed. At all tests, the load is applied until apparent failure is observed. The validity of the ultimate and yield load estimation method and load calculated from the settlement criterion was investigated through comparison with the measured data. The result indicated that B. Hansen 80% criterion and Stability Plot in ultimate loading decision law almost have been regared as same by comparing measured date and ultimate bearing capacity decided in depending yield loading decision law from 13% to 46% difference have taeyaeen came out when measured data and Davisson was compared, and S-log t from 5% to 41% log P-log S from 14% to 50% difference have been came out. When Settlement standard and measured data was compared difference had been came out about 3% in total settlement 0.1D criterion and from 12% to 35% difference had been came out in net settlement.

• Geomechanics and Engineering
• /
• v.1 no.1
• /
• pp.17-34
• /
• 2009

There has been growing agreement that geotechnical reliability-based design (RBD) is necessary for establishing more advanced and integrated design system. In this study, resistance factors for LRFD pile design using CPT results were investigated for axially loaded driven piles. In order to address variability in design methodology, different CPT-based methods and load-settlement criteria, popular in practice, were selected and used for evaluation of resistance factors. A total of 32 data sets from 13 test sites were collected from the literature. In order to maintain the statistical consistency of the data sets, the characteristic pile load capacity was introduced in reliability analysis and evaluation of resistance factors. It was found that values of resistance factors considerably differ for different design methods, load-settlement criteria, and load capacity components. For the total resistance, resistance factors for LCPC method were higher than others, while those for Aoki-Velloso's and Philipponnat's methods were in similar ranges. In respect to load-settlement criteria, 0.1B and Chin's criteria produced higher resistance factors than DeBeer's and Davisson's criteria. Resistance factors for the base and shaft resistances were also presented and analyzed.

• Geotechnical Engineering
• /
• v.11 no.4
• /
• pp.5-12
• /
• 1995

Although the pile Load test provides various informations to predict the bearing capacity of a pile, it has a considerable difficulty of requiring a large amount of weight to enable the test pile to be loaded sufficiently until the yielding or ultimate load is obtained. Many graphical and mathematical methods have been attempted to estimate the bearing capacity from the result of a vertical load test without loading to failure. In the previous work an analytical method to estimate the failure load using the maxi mum curvature which was based on the Southwell's theory was presented by the author. The failure load, as proposed by Crowther, should be defined as the load at which the predefined that criteria are exceeded. The allowable loads by Davisson's method and DIN 4014 were compared with the loads of piles using the maximum curvature, and this paper proposed the allowable load in which the safety factor of the maximum curvature was 2.5. As a result of study, it was reasonable to conclude that the allowable load determined by the maximum curvature method could estimate the vertical bearing capacity from the pile load test without loading to failure.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.106-111
• /
• 2002

The estimation of pile bearing capacity is important since the design details are determined from the result. There are numerous ways of determining the pile design load, but only few of them are chosen in the actual design. According to the recent investigation in Korea, the formulas proposed by Meyerhof based on the SPT N values are most frequently chosen in the design stage. In the study, various static and dynamic formulas have been used in predicting the allowable bearing capacity of a pile. Further, the reliability of these formulas has been verified by comparing the perdicted values with the static and dynamic load test measurements. Also, in most cases, these methods of pile bearing capacity determination do not take the time effect consideration, the actual allowable load as determined from pile load test indicates severe deviation from the design value. The principle results of this study are summarized as follows : As a result of estimate the reliability in criterion of the Davisson method, t was showed that Terzaghi & Peck >Chin>Meyerhof > Modified Meyerhof method was the most reliable method for the prediction of bearing capacity. Comparisons of the various pile-driving formulas showed that Modified Engineering News was the most reliable method. However, a significant error happened between dynamic bearing capacity equation was judged that uncertainty of hammer efficiency, characteristics of variable, time effect etc... was not considered. As a result of considering time effect increased skin friction capacity higher than end bearing capacity. It was found out that it would be possible to increase the skin friction capacity 1.99 times higher than a driving. As a result of considering 7 day's time effect, it was obtained that Engineering news, Modified Engineering News, Hiley, Danish, Gates, CAPWAP(CAse Pile Wave Analysis Program) analysis for relation, repectively, $Q_{u(Restrike)} / Q_{u(EOID)} = 0.98t_{0.1}$ , $0.98t_{0.1}$, $1.17t_{0.1}$, $0.88t_{0.1}$, $0.89t_{0.1}$, $0.97t_{0.1}$.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• 2002.03a
• /
• pp.197-203
• /
• 2002

The estimation of pile bearing capacity is important since the design details are determined from the result. There are numerous ways of determining the pile design load, but only few of them are chosen in the actual design. According to the recent investigation in Korea, the formulas proposed by Meyerhof based on the SPT N values are most frequently chosen in the design stage. In the study, various static and dynamic formulas have been used in predicting the allowable bearing capacity of a pile. Further, the reliability of these formulas has been verified by comparing the perdicted values with the static and dynamic load test measurements. Also in cases, these methods of pile bearing capacity determination do not take the time effect consideration, the actual allowable load as determined from pile load test indicates severe deviation from the design value. The principle results of this study are summarized as follows : A a result of estimate the reliability in criterion of the Davisson method, in was showed that Terzaghi & Peck > Chin > Meyerhof > Modified Meyerhof method was the most reliable method for the prediction of bearing capacity. Comparisons of the various pile-driving formulas showed that Modified Engineering News was the most reliable method. However, a significant error happened between dynamic bearing capacity equation was judged that uncertainty of hammer efficiency, characteristics of variable , time effect etc... was not considered. As a result of considering time effect increased skin friction capacity higher than end bearing capacity. It was found out that it would be possible to increase the skin friction capacity 1.99 times higher than a driving. As a result of considering 7 day's time effect, it was obtained that Engineering News. Modified Engineering News. Hiley, Danish, Gates, CAPWAP(CAse Pile Wave Analysis Program ) analysis for relation, respectively, $Q_{u(Restrike)}$ $Q_{u(EOID)}$ = 0.971 $t_{0.1}$, 0.968 $t_{0.1}$, 1.192 $t_{0.1}$, 0.88 $t_{0.1}$, 0.889 $t_{0.1}$, 0.966 $t_{0.1}$, 0.889 $t_{0.1}$, 0.966 $t_{0.1}$

• 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.