五种轴向桩承载力设计方法的方法不确定性

Zhong-qiang Liu, F. Nadim, S. Lacasse, B. Lehane, Y. Choi
{"title":"五种轴向桩承载力设计方法的方法不确定性","authors":"Zhong-qiang Liu, F. Nadim, S. Lacasse, B. Lehane, Y. Choi","doi":"10.4043/29514-MS","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The paper describes two approaches for deriving the mean, standard deviation and probability density function of the method uncertainty for five axial capacity pile design methods, namely the API, Fugro, ICP, NGI and UWA methods. A new unified database of pile load tests recently developed in a joint industry research project (Lehane et al., 2017) is used for the quantification of method uncertainty. The focus of this paper is on the statistical description of the method uncertainty parameters for each of the pile design methods for predicting the axial capacity of piles in sand and in clay. Probabilistic calculations of the axial pile capacity for typical offshore piles using the above five design methods (API, Fugro, ICP, NGI and UWA methods) showed that method uncertainty is a major contributor to the uncertainty in pile foundation capacity. The method uncertainty has therefore a strong influence on the calculated annual probability of failure, and thus on the associated safety level. Establishing the statistics of the error in a capacity prediction model from the measured values (Qm) in pile load tests and the calculated values (Qc) of pile capacity requires careful consideration of several factors. Issues of importance to the derivation of method uncertainty statistics include the effect of different sized databases for the different pile design methods, the effect of case histories with particularly low Qm/Qc values and the possible dependence of method uncertainty on pile length and/or pile diameter. The paper presents two different interpretations for the characterization of method uncertainty and demonstrates their application through a case study for an offshore piled jacket. The effect of method uncertainty on the calculated annual probability of failure is illustrated.","PeriodicalId":11149,"journal":{"name":"Day 1 Mon, May 06, 2019","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Method Uncertainty for Five Axial Pile Capacity Design Methods\",\"authors\":\"Zhong-qiang Liu, F. Nadim, S. Lacasse, B. Lehane, Y. Choi\",\"doi\":\"10.4043/29514-MS\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The paper describes two approaches for deriving the mean, standard deviation and probability density function of the method uncertainty for five axial capacity pile design methods, namely the API, Fugro, ICP, NGI and UWA methods. A new unified database of pile load tests recently developed in a joint industry research project (Lehane et al., 2017) is used for the quantification of method uncertainty. The focus of this paper is on the statistical description of the method uncertainty parameters for each of the pile design methods for predicting the axial capacity of piles in sand and in clay. Probabilistic calculations of the axial pile capacity for typical offshore piles using the above five design methods (API, Fugro, ICP, NGI and UWA methods) showed that method uncertainty is a major contributor to the uncertainty in pile foundation capacity. The method uncertainty has therefore a strong influence on the calculated annual probability of failure, and thus on the associated safety level. Establishing the statistics of the error in a capacity prediction model from the measured values (Qm) in pile load tests and the calculated values (Qc) of pile capacity requires careful consideration of several factors. Issues of importance to the derivation of method uncertainty statistics include the effect of different sized databases for the different pile design methods, the effect of case histories with particularly low Qm/Qc values and the possible dependence of method uncertainty on pile length and/or pile diameter. The paper presents two different interpretations for the characterization of method uncertainty and demonstrates their application through a case study for an offshore piled jacket. The effect of method uncertainty on the calculated annual probability of failure is illustrated.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11149,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Day 1 Mon, May 06, 2019\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Day 1 Mon, May 06, 2019\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4043/29514-MS\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 1 Mon, May 06, 2019","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4043/29514-MS","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文介绍了API、Fugro、ICP、NGI和UWA五种轴向承载力桩设计方法的方法不确定性均值、标准差和概率密度函数的推导方法。最近在一个联合行业研究项目(Lehane et al., 2017)中开发了一个新的桩荷载试验统一数据库,用于方法不确定性的量化。本文的重点是对各种桩设计方法的方法不确定性参数的统计描述,以预测砂中和粘土中桩的轴向承载力。采用上述五种设计方法(API法、Fugro法、ICP法、NGI法和UWA法)对典型近海桩轴向桩承载力进行概率计算,结果表明,方法不确定性是桩基承载力不确定性的主要来源。因此,方法的不确定性对计算的年失效概率有很大的影响,从而对相关的安全水平也有很大的影响。根据桩荷载试验的实测值(Qm)和桩承载力的计算值(Qc)建立承载力预测模型的误差统计,需要仔细考虑几个因素。方法不确定性统计推导的重要问题包括不同桩设计方法的不同规模数据库的影响、Qm/Qc值特别低的历史案例的影响以及方法不确定性对桩长和/或桩径的可能依赖。本文对方法不确定性的表征提出了两种不同的解释,并通过海上堆置套管的实例说明了它们的应用。说明了方法不确定性对计算出的年失效概率的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Method Uncertainty for Five Axial Pile Capacity Design Methods
The paper describes two approaches for deriving the mean, standard deviation and probability density function of the method uncertainty for five axial capacity pile design methods, namely the API, Fugro, ICP, NGI and UWA methods. A new unified database of pile load tests recently developed in a joint industry research project (Lehane et al., 2017) is used for the quantification of method uncertainty. The focus of this paper is on the statistical description of the method uncertainty parameters for each of the pile design methods for predicting the axial capacity of piles in sand and in clay. Probabilistic calculations of the axial pile capacity for typical offshore piles using the above five design methods (API, Fugro, ICP, NGI and UWA methods) showed that method uncertainty is a major contributor to the uncertainty in pile foundation capacity. The method uncertainty has therefore a strong influence on the calculated annual probability of failure, and thus on the associated safety level. Establishing the statistics of the error in a capacity prediction model from the measured values (Qm) in pile load tests and the calculated values (Qc) of pile capacity requires careful consideration of several factors. Issues of importance to the derivation of method uncertainty statistics include the effect of different sized databases for the different pile design methods, the effect of case histories with particularly low Qm/Qc values and the possible dependence of method uncertainty on pile length and/or pile diameter. The paper presents two different interpretations for the characterization of method uncertainty and demonstrates their application through a case study for an offshore piled jacket. The effect of method uncertainty on the calculated annual probability of failure is illustrated.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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