Abstract
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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 17-34 |
| Number of pages | 18 |
| Journal | Geomechanics and Engineering |
| Volume | 1 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2009 Mar |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Civil and Structural Engineering
- Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology
Cite this
}
Reliability analysis and evaluation of LRFD resistance factors for CPT-based design of driven piles. / Lee, Junhwan; Kim, Minki; Lee, Seung Hwan.
In: Geomechanics and Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 1, 03.2009, p. 17-34.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
TY - JOUR
T1 - Reliability analysis and evaluation of LRFD resistance factors for CPT-based design of driven piles
AU - Lee, Junhwan
AU - Kim, Minki
AU - Lee, Seung Hwan
PY - 2009/3
Y1 - 2009/3
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79954989250&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79954989250&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.12989/gae.2009.1.1.017
DO - 10.12989/gae.2009.1.1.017
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:79954989250
VL - 1
SP - 17
EP - 34
JO - Geomechanics and Engineering
JF - Geomechanics and Engineering
SN - 2005-307X
IS - 1
ER -