Kok-Kwang Phoon , Suneelkumar Laveti , Yit-Jin Chen , Mary Abigail Jos
{"title":"Evaluation of side and tip resistances for barrette piles using CYCU/Barrette/Side&Tip/64","authors":"Kok-Kwang Phoon , Suneelkumar Laveti , Yit-Jin Chen , Mary Abigail Jos","doi":"10.1016/j.sandf.2024.101477","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study focuses on evaluating the side and tip resistances for barrette piles under compression loading. An extensive dataset from field load tests, designated as CYCU/Barrette/Side&Tip/64, was utilized for analysis. These data were categorized into drained and undrained soils, based on the predominant soil conditions along the pile shaft. In contrast, tip resistance depended on the soil (drained or undrained) or rock condition at the pile tip. Eight interpretation methods were employed to evaluate the measured side and tip resistances of each load test. The predicted side resistance was calculated using the classical α and β methods developed for more common piles such as drilled shafts. For the prediction of tip resistance, end-bearing capacity models for a drilled shaft resting on soil or socketed in rock are considered. Subsequently, a comparison was made between the measured and predicted capacities. Based on these analyses, it was observed that the measured side resistance is the main contributor to the overall capacity of barrette piles. The percentage of measured side resistance ranges from around 80% to 90%. In addition, the predicted side resistance calculated using the α and β methods is smaller than the measured side resistance interpreted using the L<sub>2</sub> criterion. To reduce this prediction bias, the adhesion factor (α) and stress factors (K/K<sub>o</sub>) for barrette piles were adjusted. For the tip resistance, the trend is opposite – predicted values are larger than the measured values for barrette piles resting on soil or socketed in rock. Another approach to correct for prediction bias called the generalized model factor is presented.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":21857,"journal":{"name":"Soils and Foundations","volume":"64 3","pages":"Article 101477"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038080624000556/pdfft?md5=796d2d21b7539fb836d48ca2d9e82a38&pid=1-s2.0-S0038080624000556-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Soils and Foundations","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038080624000556","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study focuses on evaluating the side and tip resistances for barrette piles under compression loading. An extensive dataset from field load tests, designated as CYCU/Barrette/Side&Tip/64, was utilized for analysis. These data were categorized into drained and undrained soils, based on the predominant soil conditions along the pile shaft. In contrast, tip resistance depended on the soil (drained or undrained) or rock condition at the pile tip. Eight interpretation methods were employed to evaluate the measured side and tip resistances of each load test. The predicted side resistance was calculated using the classical α and β methods developed for more common piles such as drilled shafts. For the prediction of tip resistance, end-bearing capacity models for a drilled shaft resting on soil or socketed in rock are considered. Subsequently, a comparison was made between the measured and predicted capacities. Based on these analyses, it was observed that the measured side resistance is the main contributor to the overall capacity of barrette piles. The percentage of measured side resistance ranges from around 80% to 90%. In addition, the predicted side resistance calculated using the α and β methods is smaller than the measured side resistance interpreted using the L2 criterion. To reduce this prediction bias, the adhesion factor (α) and stress factors (K/Ko) for barrette piles were adjusted. For the tip resistance, the trend is opposite – predicted values are larger than the measured values for barrette piles resting on soil or socketed in rock. Another approach to correct for prediction bias called the generalized model factor is presented.
期刊介绍:
Soils and Foundations is one of the leading journals in the field of soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering. It is the official journal of the Japanese Geotechnical Society (JGS)., The journal publishes a variety of original research paper, technical reports, technical notes, as well as the state-of-the-art reports upon invitation by the Editor, in the fields of soil and rock mechanics, geotechnical engineering, and environmental geotechnics. Since the publication of Volume 1, No.1 issue in June 1960, Soils and Foundations will celebrate the 60th anniversary in the year of 2020.
Soils and Foundations welcomes theoretical as well as practical work associated with the aforementioned field(s). Case studies that describe the original and interdisciplinary work applicable to geotechnical engineering are particularly encouraged. Discussions to each of the published articles are also welcomed in order to provide an avenue in which opinions of peers may be fed back or exchanged. In providing latest expertise on a specific topic, one issue out of six per year on average was allocated to include selected papers from the International Symposia which were held in Japan as well as overseas.