使用 CYCU/Barrette/Side&Tip/64 评估发夹式桩的侧阻力和顶阻力

IF 3.3 2区 工程技术 Q2 ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL
Kok-Kwang Phoon , Suneelkumar Laveti , Yit-Jin Chen , Mary Abigail Jos
{"title":"使用 CYCU/Barrette/Side&Tip/64 评估发夹式桩的侧阻力和顶阻力","authors":"Kok-Kwang Phoon ,&nbsp;Suneelkumar Laveti ,&nbsp;Yit-Jin Chen ,&nbsp;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&amp;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":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of side and tip resistances for barrette piles using CYCU/Barrette/Side&Tip/64\",\"authors\":\"Kok-Kwang Phoon ,&nbsp;Suneelkumar Laveti ,&nbsp;Yit-Jin Chen ,&nbsp;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&amp;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}","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

摘要

本研究的重点是评估压缩荷载作用下发夹桩的侧阻力和桩尖阻力。分析中使用了大量现场荷载试验数据集,这些数据集被命名为 CYCU/Barrette/Side&Tip/64。根据桩轴沿线的主要土壤条件,这些数据被分为排水土壤和不排水土壤。而桩尖阻力则取决于桩尖的土壤(排水或不排水)或岩石状况。我们采用了八种解释方法来评估每次荷载试验测得的侧阻力和桩尖阻力。预测侧阻力采用的是为钻井等更常见的桩而开发的经典 α 和 β 方法。在预测顶端阻力时,考虑了钻孔轴在土壤中或在岩石中的承载力模型。随后,对测量的承载力和预测的承载力进行了比较。根据这些分析,可以看出测量到的侧阻力是影响巴氏桩总承载力的主要因素。测得的侧阻力所占比例约为 80% 至 90%。此外,使用 α 和 β 方法计算的预测侧阻力小于使用 L2 标准解释的实测侧阻力。为了减小这种预测偏差,我们调整了发夹式桩的附着系数 (α)和应力系数 (K/Ko)。至于桩尖阻力,趋势则与此相反--对于静止在土壤上或插入岩石中的发夹式桩,预测值大于测量值。介绍了另一种纠正预测偏差的方法,称为广义模型系数。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of side and tip resistances for barrette piles using CYCU/Barrette/Side&Tip/64

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Soils and Foundations
Soils and Foundations 工程技术-地球科学综合
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
8.10%
发文量
99
审稿时长
5 months
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信